In Lamb to the Slaughter Dahl wanted Mary Maloney to be seen as soft and caring. In many ways he wanted her to be seen as the perfect wife, utterly devoted to her husband. Evidence of this can be seen on p137, with the line “…merely to please her with the thought that each minute gone by made it nearer the time he would come.” I believe Dahl has done this to distance Mary as far as possible from the typical murder’s persona.
We know that Dahl wants her to be seen in this way because he lets her remain innocent, he lets her get away with it. If it were a character he disliked then it would be unlikely that they would get away with it.
In The Speckled Band Conan-Doyle wanted Grimesby Roylott to be seen as an utterly unpleasant character, with nothing redeemable about him. Evidence of this can be seen on p164, with the line “ A large face, … marked with every evil passion.”
We know he wants him to be seen in this way due to the fact Roylott is not successful in his plans, in the end he is the victim of his own plans and dies. You could say he gets a taste of his own medicine, which is ironic due to the fact that his ex-profession was that of a doctor.
The time of writing makes a difference to how the murderers are portrayed. This is because at the time of writing for The Speckled Band; 1842, society viewed women in a different way to that of 1954. They were still seen as the inferior of the sexes, and were certainly not suspected murderers. If Conan-Doyle decided to cast a female as his murderer then it would’ve been revolutionary, and I doubt readers of the time would except it. The reverse of this could also be applied. If Dahl were to present his murderer as it is in The Speckled Band, completely nasty and evil, than readers of 1954 would most probably view it as unoriginal having the murderer following an exhausted stereotype. For this reason Dahl instead used a character that was more unexpected to his audience.
The detectives in both stories are portrayed differently in their attitude towards the murderers. In The Speckled Band Holmes is presented as an observant, intelligent and committed detective, which is the typical investigators role in a murder mystery. He and Watson can also be seen as mischievous at times. Evidence of this can be seen on page 165, with the line “…Holmes the Scotland Yard Jack-in-office,” Holmes chuckled heartily, “Your conversation is most entertaining…”
In The Speckled Band Holmes’ detective skills are outstanding. He is the classic detective. He has a clear and very sharp ability to deduce even the most complex mysteries, a gift which Dr Watson admires greatly. He says ‘I had no keener pleasure than in following Holmes in his professional investigations, and admiring…(the way in which)…he unravelled the problems which were submitted to him.’
By contrast the detectives involved with Mary Maloney in Lamb to the Slaughter are very gentle. They view her as helpless and so they provide all the support they can. This leads to them overall being portrayed as foolish. This is because they are straight away taken in by Mary Maloney’s act, and as such are blinded from the truth. The result is that the case is never solved. The detectives are as unobservant as Holmes is observant, as unintelligent as Holmes is intelligent, and as uncommitted as Holmes is committed. They are Holmes’ exact opposites. An example of how the detectives are shown as unintelligent can be seen in the telephone conversation between themselves and Mary: “Quick! Come quick! Patrick’s dead!”
“Who’s speaking?”
“Mrs Maloney. Mrs Patrick Maloney.”
“You mean Patrick Maloney’s dead?” This last sentence shows that they may be just a bit on the slow side.
You can conclude that Dahl believes that the detectives in his story are what they are portrayed as foolish. If he did not think this way then they would’ve been portrayed in a different manner. At not one point are they shown to have significant intelligence or the capability of carrying out the task. But then again they are portrayed as caring characters, which show a large amount of sympathy towards Mary and try there best to comfort her. Therefore although Dahl most probably does think they are foolish, perhaps he still likes their kinder personalities even if perhaps that is what prevented them from completing their investigation.
By Conan-Doyle’s portrayal of Holmes I believe you can recognise the fact that he greatly respects him. This is because he is shown as a highly intelligent and sophisticated character throughout, if Conan-Doyle didn’t like him then he wouldn’t be shown in this manner.
Although at first it wouldn’t seem so, both Mary Maloney and Grimesby Roylott do have similarities. There is the obvious fact that they are both murderers. But they are both extremely intelligent, although Grimesby Roylott doesn’t get away with the murder featured he has in the past, and of course Mary does as well. They both use unusual murder weapons, with Roylott’s being an exotic animal and Mary’s being a household item. They also both kill in their own homes, and someone of their own family.
As well as similarities, Mary and Roylott both have many differences. Whereas Roylott is completely unpleasant and hates any kind of social interaction, Mary is the complete opposite. She is a gentle and kind character that is portrayed as loving life. In the Speckled Band Roylott’s murder is pre-meditated which shows he is selfish and evil, whereas Mary’s is spontaneous, which shows it was a crime of passion that would only happen under extreme circumstances. Roylott has also killed before, whereas this is a first for Mary. Another big difference is that Mary doesn’t get caught, Roylott does.
Overall I didn’t like the character of Grimesby Roylott. This is not because he is an unpleasant character; I wouldn’t base my views on the way he is portrayed. The reason for my view is the fact that his character has been done so many times before that it fails to make any lasting impression. As soon as he is introduced into the story most people recognise that he is the murderer by the way he complies with a tried and tested stereotype. So it then becomes a case of wanting to know how it is done rather than who does it. However I do like the character of Mary Maloney for the opposite of this. To begin with the way she is introduced into the story raises no suspicions, she seems to be a normal, pleasant character. But this changes with the sudden change in events and your whole perception is thrown into confusion. The aspect I particularly like about her is the way she holds the stage. She is always the focus of the story but I never got bored of her, the turn in events kept me trying to understand her throughout. She fits into no stereotype, and that’s what I like. I can’t stand seeing the same ‘text book’ characters recycled again and again, I enjoy originality and the character of Mary Maloney is perfect example of it.
