Dahl also subverts the conventions by being meticulously detailed about simple, everyday objects, surroundings and actions e.g. instead of mentioning that Mr. Maloney drank the whiskey, Dahl gives particular attention to the fact that he unusually “drained half of the drink in one go”.
This builds tension by making Mr. Maloney look like the “to be” perpetrator; describing his actions an ominous slant prior to revealing the plaintive news to his wife, e.g. “keeping his head down to avoid light hitting the lower part of his face and the slight twitch in the corner of his left eye.” This also builds tension as it makes Mr. Maloney look villainous and creating anticipation within the reader for the crime to take place.
Here onwards Dahl simply writes about Mrs. Maloney’s feelings to the lamenting news revealed by her husband. This was done to ease the tension and for the readers to sympathise and understand her before they find out about the real perpetrator.
However, tensions start rising again in the paragraph that contains a mere four words; “A leg of lamb”. This sentence is left alone as a paragraph to help the reader’s realise the fact that this is the point where the title’s meaning is going to be revealed (this builds up tensions amongst the readers making them anxious to know what takes place next).
Dahl cleverly gets across the message that Mrs. Maloney’s act of violence was unplanned in a few different ways. Firstly, as the narrator he ridicules her choice of weapon (the leg of lamb) saying: “She might just as well have hit him with the steel club”. Secondly he uses dialogue to further the point that it was unplanned; “All right, so I’ve killed him”. Thirdly Dahl points out the fact that she rehearsed what to say to the grocer several times (something that isn’t required if the murder was planned).
Another convention that gets subverted is that the murderer (Mary Maloney) calls the police herself. She also knows most of the policemen that came that night to investigate the crime scene and affectionately calls the Sergeant (Jack Noonan) by his name, instead of calling him Sergeant. Also worth noting is the fact that the investigators (detectives) know the murderer and the victim.
Yet another convention that gets broken is the fact that all the policeman are extremely kind towards Mary Maloney and after arriving on the scene, rule out her involvement in the murder completely, not something a dedicated but emotionless detective would do. They are also later found to be negligent when it came to their work guidelines i.e. consuming alcoholic drinks.
Peculiarly the police officer’s don’t bother asking her to go vacate the house to some other place instead to search the property. They also failed to decline Mary Maloney’s request of eating up the lamb.
Whilst “eating” the lamb as requested my Mary Maloney, the four policemen (within the house) discuss amongst themselves of the different possibilities of the type of weapon used and its possible whereabouts. One of the policemen concedes that it’s on the premises itself and ironically “probably right under our very noses” whilst Mary Maloney starts giggling in the other room.
Like Lamb to the Slaughter, The Adventure of the Speckled Band subverts the conventions of the genre from the very beginning itself, the title. When one hears the “Adventure of the Speckled Band” they’re most likely to be intrigued and quite keen to read the story.
Another way in which Doyle subverts the conventions of the genre is by using a fictional narrator’s (Holmes’ assistant-Watson) point of view. This is evident as Doyle has presented the complete story as a memoir of Dr. Watson. It can also be seen that the first paragraph isn’t directly related to the events that took place and is more of an introduction to a recollection of Dr. Watson. The narrator also states that he made a promise to a lady not to reveal these matters and has only done so due to her untimely death; intriguing the readers and making the story sound more realistic. The fact that the accounts are supposed to be secretive further creates intrigue within the readers as it is human nature to be attracted to secretive information.
Doyle uses Dr. Watson’s point of view to make it sound less fictional and more autobiographic; giving the readers a sense of authenticity and make the entire story more realistic.
Using Watson’s point of view also helps the main character (Holmes) look far more superior and intellectual than he is, as Watson himself is portrayed to be in awe of Holmes, this is shown when Watson admits that “I had no keener pleasure that in following Holmes in his professional investigations”.
Once Holmes and Watson had arrived in the living room to meet Miss Stoner, the dialogue between Holmes and Miss Stoner and Watson’s descriptions were used to help build suspense e.g. when Holmes points out precise details about Miss Stoner’s journey to Waterloo, she is startled. The readers were probably expected by Doyle to have a similar reaction.
After the brief disclosure of her families’ past, she then explains the sudden change in character that took place within Dr. Roylott; regularly holding feuds with the local residents and neighbours.
Despite the extensive statement by Miss Stoner regarding her family, the readers haven’t yet read about the reason behind Miss Stoner’s concerns; building tension in the readers’ mind ever so slightly.
The tension starts to increase when Miss Stoner describes the follow up to her sister Julia’s death. The tension builds from the point where Miss Stoner admits of having “A vague feeling of impending misfortune”, this is also breaking conventions Miss Stoner, a major character in the story is shown to have had an instinctive impression that something bad was going to take place. The tension alleviates slightly once Holmes starts asking a couple of questions regarding the deaths and Miss Stoner hesitates to confirm that she heard the whistle and the metallic clang.
The tension builds up when Miss Stoner concludes that her sister certainly was alone due to the lack of any “marks of violence” upon her sister Julia. Leading the readers to think that an unconventional and mysterious form of crime has took place.
Tensions build up once again when Miss Stoner calls her late sister’s bedroom a “chamber”, suggesting to the readers that Miss Stoner herself felt uncomfortable about being in that room and thought of it as a prison cell. After Miss Stoner had left Holmes’ office, the tension turns down whilst Holmes and Watson discuss the different possibilities, until suddenly, the door was dashed open by Dr. Grimesby Roylott.
A war of words erupts between Holmes and Roylott. However Holmes is hesitant to involve himself in a verbal confrontation thus decides to shrug off any comments made by Dr. Roylott with humour.
After sometime the most anticipated and tense part of the story begins when Holmes and Watson enter Stoke Moran through Late Julia Stoners’ bedroom.
The tension dies down when the readers discover that there were no whistling noises of any sort for at least 3 hours after midnight, until suddenly Watson hears the whistle, which he describes to be a gentle, soothing sound.
Tensions suddenly shoot up as Watson states that Holmes used his cane to lash savagely at the bell pull. A short hiatus in tension occurs amidst all the tensions when suddenly both Holmes and Watson hear an immensely loud shriek. Holmes is quoted to have said “...It’s all over”.
Tension is finally built up when Holmes and Watson make their way to Dr. Roylott’s bedroom with Watson carrying an Eley’s No.2. They are shocked to see the two perpetrators of the murder, one alive, one dead. Here also Doyle breaks the conventions as the murderer dies by his own weapon.
