Dr Roylott, however, of “The Speckled Band,” was obviously a killer from the very moment he was mentioned. Helen Stoner mentioned his violent past; “In a fit of anger…he beat his native butler to death.” This confirms his violent nature, and already classifies him as a murderer with an angry disposition from the start, even before the reader meets him. He fits the stereotypical villain role much better Mary Maloney. The two murderers are not similar really at all, as Mary is quiet, peaceful and loving, whereas Dr Roylott is unpleasant, bitter, selfish and mean. His powerful mood overpowers everyone else’s, causing them to be wary and frightened of him and his influential personality. Mary Maloney is perhaps the most complex of the two, as she shows a ‘split-personality’ type of character. She begins very peaceful, but the pregnancy has made her unpredictable and protective, so there was no knowing what she was capable of after the murder. Conan Doyle does not at any time let us in on the thoughts of Dr Roylott, which in a way makes him seem dangerous and untouchable. Mary Maloney, on the other hand, has a lot of her thoughts shared, which gives the reader a deeper insight into the way her complex mind works. Also, only Mary and the ready know who killed Patrick Maloney and how, allowing the reader to feel a strange bond with Mary, as though they share a secret.
Sherlock Holmes is not a professional detective; he is more an amateur sleuth, who dabbles outside the realms of the law, much to the annoyance of the local constabulary. He works for the love of his art, not for any payment, and he is very thorough with his searches. He meticulously sifts through every piece of evidence and more, carefully considering all the options of his discoveries.
Jack Noonan, however, is a professionally qualified officer of the law. When Patrick is murdered, he brings with him a whole team of trained doctors, detectives and photographers. Jack himself isn’t a detective, and is not specialised in detective work; he has other people to do that. He is more interested in finding the killer, yet his methods are nowhere near as thorough as Holmes’. As Jack and the rest of the team knew Patrick personally, they also knew his wife Mary, and therefore overlooked her as a suspect for the murder because they knew her so well. This is where Noonan failed – he overlooked obvious possibilities because he considered them impossible. Holmes, however, had almost ‘superhuman’ ways of thinking, and took into account every single minute detail, no matter how obscure or seemingly unimportant. Holmes also dominates “The Speckled Band,” because his intelligence and intense scrutiny make the reader adore and admire his work. Watson also seems very much under Holmes’ spell, and is in awe of his detective associate.
Conan Doyle used Holmes because at the time, the London Police Force were extremely inefficient at their jobs, and the character of Sherlock Holmes, the successful detective was a sort of ‘idol’ for people to look up to, believe in and have respect for. The methods Holmes used were the only ones available at the time, and he did not have luxuries such as autopsies, post mortems and fingerprints. Instead, Holmes used his natural instinct and his powers of observation and deduction.
Roald Dahl, however, shows how even with a full team of specialists to hand, the most simple of unplanned murders can be easily overlooked. Noonan missed the lamb as a weapon because firstly it was no longer in the state it was when it was used as a weapon, i.e. not frozen, therefore not an obvious choice. Secondly he would automatically assume that it had been bought fresh from the butchers that day, as the use of freezers as a domestic appliance was a relatively new idea.
“Lamb to the Slaughter” is set somewhere in England, but there is no indication as to where about. The book was published in 1954, and the story is set at the same time. It is clear from the story that it is the fifties, with the husband going to work as the breadwinner of the family, while the wife stays at home to cook and clean, being the stereotypical housewife. This was very common at the time, and typical of the era. The setting, however, is not one associated with classic murder mystery stories. It is simply set in the ‘normal,’ suburban house in which they live, with ‘normal’ lives and a ‘normal’ job, depending on people’s views on what exactly normal is. Due to the normality and general average qualities of the situation, it’s quite surreal as a murder scene. It’s exactly this which helps Mary to secure her alibi – Sam from the local shop – she’s at home, having made the house lovely for her husband, therefore not a suspicious scenario.
“The Speckled Band” is set in 1892 London, quite some time before Dahl’s story. The setting of the murder and most of the story is in a large country house, a perfect scene for a murder. The house in Stoke Moran is set back and secluded, the type that was very popular with the rich people at the time. It is a typical setting for a crime of this sort. The large house is where Dr Roylott and his stepdaughter resided at the time. It’s described as a rich country house, with some rather terrifying aspects; “The building was of grey…stone…with…two curving wings like the claws of a crab…The windows were broken.” This quote connotates towards danger, and the simile shows how unfriendly and unwelcome the house must look. It creates a tense atmosphere which also leads to a small amount of fear. Pathetic fallacy is used in both stories, but especially in “The Speckled Band.” The weather definitely reflects and affects the sombre mood of Holmes and Watson’s midnight vigil; “It was a wild night. The wind was howling outside and the rain was beating…”. It all adds to the scene, and tension mounts as the climax draws closer. Pathetic fallacy was a more traditional style used in the nineteenth century, and as the only people who could read then were the rich and very fortunate, the techniques and styles suited the audience of the time.
The Sherlock Holmes story follows the general structure of the traditional ‘whodunit’ format, although there are some slight variations. We know who committed the murder, so the format is more ‘how did he do it’. It still complies with the looking for clues and evidence of the ‘whodunit’ format, but as with traditional murder mysteries there are no suspects to whittle down as the final suspect as the murderer, Dr Roylott, is pretty much already known. The crisis point of the story is when Holmes and Watson sit for countless hours on end in the country house at Stoke Moran, waiting for Dr Roylott to strike. “The Speckled Band” is a very long ‘short story,’ especially compared to “Lamb to the Slaughter,” which in comparison is relatively shorter. Conan Doyle uses flashbacks, which makes the story more intriguing and interesting to read, intensifying the readers’ interest. Dahl’s story, however, is too short to incorporate flashbacks. This story focuses on the actual crime, whereas Conan Doyle focuses mainly on the investigation surrounding the crime. This is because his audience loved to read about a good murder mystery story, and also loved reading about their hero Holmes methodically solving the crime. Dahl’s audience, however, was more modern, and expected a modern, unique plot which didn’t follow the often monotonous ‘whodunit’ format. It highlights the fact that the audience of “The Speckled Band” was at the time only the rich and educated, who could understand the complexity of Conan Doyle’s detailed language and plot.
“Lamb to the Slaughter” is a shorter, simpler and clearer story compared to “The Speckled Band.” The storyline is less complex, and the general structure is easier to follow. The key point of this story is when the murder is actually committed. The story revolves around that one event, and the rest of the plot is based on it. There are no clues planted in this story, firstly because the reader already knows all there is to know about the crime, and secondly because the story is too short. Suspense and tension is created in this story after the murder when the reader is waiting to see whether Mary Maloney will be discovered, or whether she manages to fool the police force and get away with murder.
Watson narrates Conan Doyle’s story. He is the one who introduces the story, giving an eyewitness account of all Holmes’ activities. At one point, the narrator switched from Watson to Helen Stoner, then back to Watson. This enables the reader to feel closer to Helen, and have a deeper insight into her feelings, especially at such an emotional time in her life.
Dahl’s story, however, is written in the third person, an ‘unseen’ narrator. It is written in minute detail, and each and every move of the protagonist is followed closely. This is helpful to the reader, as it helps them to follow the story better and understand what is going on. It also forces the reader to concentrate more to se what is going to happen next.
Each story displays very different styles of writing, due to many factors, some of which include society at the time and various cultural differences. “The Speckled Band” is suited for the audience it was written for. The use of long, complex and detailed sentences was very much the style at the time and the longer the sentence the better. This popular style is reflected in the very first sentence of the story, which contains seven commas and one semi-colon, covering and impressive nine lines. This sets the tone for the rest of the story, indicating that this is the pattern which the story will follow from now on.
“Lamb to the Slaughter,” however, is aimed at a much wider audience. In contrast, the sentences used are varied in structure, containing briefer and less complex descriptions, for example when Patrick tells his wife that he is leaving her, his words are not told to the reader, only afterwards is the fact discreetly revealed. The stories are similar as each one contains a murder or death in some form, and as far as the storyline goes that is about the only similarity; apart from the actual process of solving the crime, which greatly differs in each story anyway.
The language in “The Speckled Band” is archaic, compared to the modern, colloquial language used by Dahl. Conan Doyle uses words such as ‘defray’ and ‘fain,’ words which are definitely not used today and are not recognised in our vocabulary. The descriptions are long and drawn out, compared to the brief and to the point ones Dahl uses.
“Lamb to the Slaughter” is not stereotypical of any particular genre, but is different altogether, in a league of it’s own. The theme of the plot is also lighter and in places more jovial than Conan Doyle’s, and there are a few instances where we can laugh at Dahl’s ironic situations.
“Lamb to the Slaughter” is a much more appealing story to me, as it is shorter and easy to understand. Much of the language used by Conan Doyle is too archaic for the younger generation to understand and take an interest in.