So why is this? Why do we have such a high opinion and so much faith in a fictional character? I believe the way in which the character is shown, his humour, his charisma, his intelligence, gives us, the readers, someone to idolise (similar to how Watson idolises Holmes). In fact, Watson is characterised to be like us, to idolise Holmes, to think like us; for instance, following and finding the clues without, however, piecing then together. You could almost say that he ‘thinks’ for us.
We see Watson as an ordinary everyday person while Holmes is quite the contrary. We perceive Holmes to be immaculate; being clever, presumptuous, observant, brave, confident and trustworthy. Is this why we revere him so much? Because we wish that we knew someone like him?
The character, Sherlock Holmes, is indeed highly over-exaggerated; with his name being Sherlock (which is very uncommon) and with him being able to deduce the wildest, yet correct assumptions on the case.
Never the less, although he is too good to be true, characters like Holmes will always be our core inspirations in stories like ‘The Speckled Band’.
‘Lamb to the Slaughter’, however, has a completely different approach.
We do not have or feel any compassion towards the main character, Mrs Maloney. I do not believe this is because she is perceived as a typical, everyday person as she is not.
For Mrs Maloney brutally killed her husband and quite easily, gave a very convincing alibi.
So is Dahl trying to emphasise the fact that crimes like these are very common nowadays?
I think this story has a moral. The moral being: just because we see people like those of ‘Lamb to the Slaughter’ everyday, doesn’t mean they are ‘normal’. Then again, who is to say what is normal? I think what Dahl is trying to highlight that if there are so many crimes being committed in the world today, are people like Mrs Maloney in fact normal? I do not think I would be able to commit such a crime and then cover it up so naturally. Never the less, it wouldn’t surprise me if a lot of people could as crimes like the one featured in ‘Lamb to the Slaughter’ aren’t exactly rare.
Perhaps this is why ‘The Speckled Band’ seems more unrealistic, because the murder shown in that story was more calculating and evil. Nothing like that of ‘Lamb to the Slaughter’. I believe ‘The Speckled Band’ characters are made out to be larger than life because the plot is extremely over-exaggerated. Dr Roylott’s character, for instance, is made to seem dangerous and violent right from the very start. When he intrudes upon Holmes and Watson, the way in which he is described…
‘A large face, seared with a thousand wrinkles, burned yellow with the sun, and marked with every evil passion, was turned from one to the other of us, while his deep-set, bile-shot eyes and the high thin fleshless nose, gave him somewhat the resemblance to a fierce old bird of prey.’
…gives us an ultimately hostile and negative judgement towards him.
Dr Roylott then goes on to say “Which of you is Holmes?”. The way in which this question has been phrased gives a very cold and forceful tone to Dr Roylott. Holmes, however, speaks quietly and politely though perhaps with a little sarcasm in his voice. “My name, sir, but you have the advantage of me.”. Dr Roylott then introduces himself but becomes more and more agitated when Sherlock doesn’t answer his question.
‘I will do nothing of the kind. My stepdaughter has been here. I have traced her. What has she been saying to you?’
‘It is a little cold for the time of the year’ said Holmes.
‘What has she been saying to you?’ screamed the old man furiously’
He then goes on to insult Holmes with accusing him of meddling and associating him with the official detective force. Holmes, however, finds these remarks amusing, which undoubtedly winds Dr Roylott up even more so. Dr Roylott concludes with a threat which was undeniably provoked by Holmes saying “Your conversation is most entertaining…When you go out close the door, for there is a decided draught”.
Before making his exit, Dr Roylott tries to frighten them both by bending a steel poker in half. He obviously doesn’t succeed as Holmes then picks up the poker and straightens it out once again, admirably proving his superiority and greatness.
Even before that incident we already believe him to possess a cruel nature when we are told by Miss Stoner that he beat his butler to death and how he recently assaulted a local blacksmith. Holmes also discovers evidence of Dr Roylott laying violence upon his own stepdaughter.
Throughout the story Holmes is depicted as an incredibly ingenious detective. Admired, trusted and highly respected by both his clients and co-workers. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle purposely based his stories on a character like Sherlock Holmes because he knew the general public would be intrigued; seeming as the police force in the 19th century were supposedly corrupt. This gave the public someone to believe in.
So why are the detectives in ‘Lamb to the Slaughter’ made out to be dumb and incompetent? I think Roald Dahl is mocking the present police force. Substantiation of this mockery can be seen in the following quote:
‘Noonan discovered a small patch of congealed blood on the man’s head. He showed it to O’Malley who got up at once and hurried to the phone.’
Dahl can almost be accused of being sarcastic towards the police force. In this quote he uses the word ‘discovered’ as if to say the detectives found this tiny source of evidence remarkable as it probably a big issue for them to have found evidence!
Perhaps why Holmes seems so fictional is due to the scenes in which he works. While ‘The Speckled Band’ scenes are more derelict and mysterious (great for story telling) ‘Lamb to the Slaughter’ scenes are less scary but more homely and familiar.
The very first words we read are:
‘The room was warm and clean; the curtains drawn, the two table lamps alight.’
These first words introduce us to the scene of crime, where most of the story takes place, so it makes sense for Dahl to instantly describe it. He uses words which make you feel comfortable; no sense of doom.
If on first read we are not aware that this story is a murder mystery, our first notions of the genre could quite possibly be of a romance.
‘she loved to luxuriate in the presence of this man, and to feel- almost as a sunbather feels the sun- that male glow that came out of him to her when they were alone together...she loved the intent, far look in his eyes when they rested on her,’
As seen above, it is based around a supposed loving couple (mostly seen at the beginning of the story), so the home is a very important place as this is the foundation of a married couple. Dahl has used a quintessential home in the story so we are able to relate to it. Although it was written in 1954, the simple descriptive language used to illustrate the home is cleverly brief to allow readers to imagine their own scene, presumably possessing similar qualities to that or their own home.
When this is the case we tend to empathise with the situation, leading us to ask ourselves, could this happen to me?
We are not led to this question when reading ‘The Speckled Band’ as it is based in a sinister mansion, belonging to the wealthy. Even though a majority of the 19th century public were not able to relate to the scene as many people were not of considerable wealth, they were, however, intrigued by the darkness and secrets captivated in the scene. It allowed the reader to let their imagination roam and dream of what it was like behind the ‘rich walls’, it also aroused our curiosity to what lay behind the closed doors of a rich home. The description of the crime scene occurs later in the story, unlike ‘Lamb to the Slaughter’, as the author’s main focal point was not of interesting us with a tantalising introduction but to inform the reader that the story is a detective story, so clearly the descriptive account would occur later on, to keep the reader (who evidently likes detective stories) engrossed. To allure the audience into continuing with their read Doyle cleverly mentions how the story is particularly appealing by having Watson say:
‘Of all these varied cases, however, I cannot recall any which presented more singular features than that which was associated with the well-known Surrey family of the Roylotts of Stoke Moran’
An element of evil is dispersed when Miss Stoner tells her case, informing us of her secretive stepfather.
‘Violence of temper approaching to mania has been hereditary in the men of the family, and in my stepfather’s case it had, I believe, been intensified by his long residence in the tropics…he became the terror of the village, and the folks would fly at his approach, for he is a man of immense strength and absolutely uncontrollable in his anger.’
I believe this factor captivates the audience immensely, however, it is the progressive clues that keep us engrossed. With each character that is introduced, we receive more clues, keeping us enticed, pondering on what they all lead to.
‘Lamb to the Slaughter’ does not bear this. We are kept enthralled with the twist that arises, the twist that Mrs Maloney is the killer, that the initial detective is in fact the victim and the prolonging curiosity with whether Mrs Maloney gets away with her crime.
I thought that Mrs Maloney was going to get caught out as the leg of lamb was not mentioned again until the very end, thinking that there would be some sort of twist, for instance, she in actual fact hadn’t turned the oven on and had accidentally left it in there frozen, where the detectives find it and she gets arrested. However, my thoughts were proven wrong when they ate it!
Perhaps this was Dahl’s intention, a red herring almost.
Strangely, I did not feel annoyed when she was let off. I never wanted her to get caught, in all likelihood this was probably due to the fact that it seemed as if she had an acceptable motive for her wrongdoing.
Although this was a completely different approach to your typical murder mystery ending, I thought it was successful. ‘The Speckled Band’, although traditional in the sense that the crime was solved, I think this had a pretty good ending also, though not due to the plot but more to the new attribute to Holmes’ character. We see how it is almost Holmes’ fault for the death of Dr Roylott yet he admits how he doesn’t feel any guilt.
‘I am no doubt indirectly responsible for Dr Grimesby Roylott’s death, and I cannot say that it is likely to weigh heavily upon my conscience.’
This gives Holmes a more human side, allowing us to become that little more closer to him
I think both stories were wonderful reads, however, I think ‘The Speckled Band’ was the better ‘murder mystery’. I have come to this deduction as I enjoyed following the clues which ended with a summary, the historically set, sinister building gave a riveting attraction and finally I loved Sherlock Holmes. His character was so believable and comforting it made you want to read on just to find out more about Holmes, hear his humour, witness his superb expertise.
I don’t think ‘Lamb to the Slaughter’ possessed this type of ‘addiction’. The characters were not as deep or passionate; perhaps this is where improvement could have been made, although the controversy of the story may have been the author’s aim.
I loved the suspense of not knowing what will happen seeming as it wasn’t the stereotypical murder mystery where the crime is unsolved and the detectives are seen as heroes. With this story there was an air of excitement due to the unpredictable plot, which made it highly original and interesting.
The two stories in comparison are obviously exceedingly different. They are as contrasting as one murder mystery can be to another.
‘The Speckled Band’ is long, detailed and elaborate, while ‘Lamb to the Slaughter’ is shorter with a simple style. ‘The Speckled Band’ is told by the detective as a past event while the ‘Lamb to the Slaughter’ narrator is of a third person.
The similarities between them both are that they both provide us with an element of suspense and an atmosphere of mystery, both have killings during the stories, and neither of the stories are boring.
This essay shows how different stories from the same categories, murder mysteries for example, can be, and how ambiguous a straightforward story is.
