Both Mary Maloney and Dr Roylott are clever about the ways they hide the evidence. Why does Mary Maloney get away with it and Dr Roylott does not?
Both Mary Maloney and Dr Roylott are clever about the ways they hide the evidence. Why does Mary Maloney get away with it and Dr Roylott does not?
Having investigated the detective genre throughout two crime fiction stories, I have decided to compare 'Lamb to the Slaughter' and 'The Speckled Band'
Both stories are classed as crime fiction, being a story made up about people or events in a criminal situation. They both fit into the genre of crime fiction because they tell of people and crimes which have not occurred. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle wrote 'The Speckled Band' in 1892 whereas Roald Dahl wrote 'Lamb to the Slaughter' in 1954.
In each of the stories the times in which they where written are reflected throughout. For example, the language used in 'The Speckled Band' is archaic compared to the language used in 'The Lamb to the Slaughter' which reflects the more modern times in which it was written.
'The Speckled Band' tells of the love of two sisters towards each other and of the hatred of both sisters towards their stepfather. It explains how one sister pleads for the help of Sherlock Holmes and his colleague Compared to 'The Speckled Band' we find that the Roylott house dates back over 'Two hundred years' It over shadows a local village leaving the Roylotts in total abandonment from the village people. Living in Stoke Moran is Dr Roylott with his two stepdaughters Helen and Julia. Also living with them under Dr Roylotts control is a baboon and a cheetah. Strangely, Dr Roylott also allows gypsies to roam around the grounds of Stoke Moran.
'The Speckled Band' tells of the love for one sister and the hatred of two sisters for their stepfather. It explains how one sister pleads for the help of Sherlock Holmes and his colleagues to discover the mystery of her sister's uncanny death. In comparison 'Lamb to the Slaughter tells of a wife's love for her husband, however the husband tells of having no love in return for his wife. We are told of the events that lead to the husband's death.
Dr Roylotts character is cold hearted, selfish and angry. From the marks on Helens hand, we can also say that Dr Roylott is a violent man. As an act of selfishness, he murders his stepdaughter Julia. When Sherlock Holmes examines the room, in which Julia was sleeping in at the time Roylott speaks to Holmes with absolute no respect, I also find him very arrogant.
On the night of the death, Dr Roylott goes to bed early which was unusual. Later in the evening when Julia and Helen go to bed, Helen was awoken by the cries ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
Dr Roylotts character is cold hearted, selfish and angry. From the marks on Helens hand, we can also say that Dr Roylott is a violent man. As an act of selfishness, he murders his stepdaughter Julia. When Sherlock Holmes examines the room, in which Julia was sleeping in at the time Roylott speaks to Holmes with absolute no respect, I also find him very arrogant.
On the night of the death, Dr Roylott goes to bed early which was unusual. Later in the evening when Julia and Helen go to bed, Helen was awoken by the cries from her sister. A snake, which was evilly placed in her room, attacks Julia. The killing was obviously planned because once the bedroom door was locked there was no other entrance or exit to the room. When the room had been inspected, it was found that there was an entrance, which was not used for its purpose. A vent was found not leading to fresh air however to Dr Roylotts bedroom; this was ones of the clues, which lead Sherlock Holmes to his conclusion. Another clue was that the bed was secured to the floor, therefore Julia's sleeping arrangements in the room could not be altered, and a fake bell pull was found hanging in the room. It was suspected that the gypsies, who Dr Roylott had roaming around the grounds, could have caused the death of Julia. When it was considered that the only way in from the outside was through the window, the window was inspected and it was found that the window was also secured. Therefore, Dr Roylott was the obvious suspect.
The motive for the killing of Julia was due to the £250 that the late mother of Julia and Helen had left in her will. As Julia was due to be married off the father would have to give Julia the money, which the mother had left. I understand that Julia was killed in such an evil way as an act of selfishness by Dr Roylott to keep the £250 for himself.
In comparison to Mary Maloneys Character is warm, loving and devoted to her husband. From the impression we get of her, we see that she is also very dependent on her husband. The reason for this being she does not have to proceed to work and the only income is from her husband, and the highlight of her day is on the arrival of her husband Patrick. As an act of hatred, (for which Mary was not known for) she very cleverly kills her husband. On the night in question, Mary awaits her husband to arrive home from work, when he arrives, he tells her the disturbing news that he is going to leave her. We are not told the reason for him leaving her, however Mary does not show any reaction or emotion until she awaits the moment, when she viciously attacks her husband with the frozen 'Leg of Lamb' which was meant for the couples supper. Mary's actions were not planned or thought through. Consequently, I believe that it was not in her personality to do something like it, Mary was totally out of character After the attack on Peter, after a few voice practices Mary confidently strolled into the grocery shop over the road to buy potatoes. When she returned home the detectives where called and Mary explained to them she was at the grocery shop when the attack took place. The killer is not obvious in this story however, because Mary's role in society puts her in a position which people see her as a loving wife we do come to an early conclusion that it was she. The motive in this case was because Patrick told Mary he was no longer going to continue their marriage. Mary did not expect this from her loving and devoted husband and she felt betrayed. As Mary was expecting a child she felt that she and her husband were at their closest.
In each of the stories, the killers hide their evidence extremely well. In 'Lamb to the Slaughter', after hours of searching for a murder weapon and clues, Mary very humorously convinces the detectives Jack Noonan and his colleagues to eat a little something. After along discussion it was said that it was a hard blow to the head that killed and Peter the detectives mistakenly ate the leg of lamb and there was no evidence to be found.
In comparison with the 'Speckled Band' there are plenty of clues that lead to the conclusion, yet there is no reliable evidence. There was the bed secured to the floor, the windows were locked and fastened, there was a fake bell pull and a vent, which lead to Dr Roylotts bedroom. These are all clues but they cannot be classed as evidence. However, there were two slight bite marks on Julia's arm, which suggested a snakebite. There was no snake found in the Roylott house.
Mary in 'Lamb to the Slaughter' has a very well organised alibi, considering it was a spur of the moment attack. The grocery shop provides Mary's alibi as she goes straight from the murder scene to the shop; she buys potatoes as if she was cooking for two. However, unlike Mary, Dr Roylott has no such alibi.
On investigating Sherlock Holmes and Jack Noonan I find that Sherlock Holmes is the typical detective. At the time in which Sherlock surfaced in 1887, the Victorians immediately fell for the fictional character, as they liked the fact he cracked every case, which he inspected. As in 'The Speckled Band' Holmes always defeats evil. He solves the investigation and concludes that it was Dr Roylott who murdered Julia. As For Jack Noonan, we find that he is not really a well-respected and clever detective. My reason being that if he was well respected Mary wouldn't have even thought of offering the evidence to him because he would find out some hoe that it was her therefore he is not very clever because he idiotically took the evidence and ate it, whereas if it were Sherlock he would have realised that it was the evidence being offered to him.
In conclusion, after reading both the stories I find that to a younger audience such as myself that 'Lamb to the Slaughter' is more appealing. The reason for this opinion is because it is more of an amusing story compared to 'The Speckled Band'; it is also written in a more familiar style. I believe this story is aimed at more of a mature audience. The story is great for readers who at the time the story was written had no T.Vs therefore wanted to be entertained in great detail with what they read. Whereas in 'Lamb to the Slaughter' provokes more of a humorous case. In the 'Speckled Band' I find I am left wandering throughout the story who or what killed Julia?' In comparison with 'Lamb to the Slaughter' I am told early on in the story who it was that killed Patrick. Overall, I find both stories very intriguing.
