For The Speckled Band the crime was premeditated as Dr Roylott planned to kill Julia for her mother’s money because when Julia married, the money that was left to her in her mothers will would be given to her. Helen’s attempted murder nastily repeats the situation that Julia had been in. Dr Roylott killed Julia and attempted to kill Helen because he would be left poor after both girls had married. In this murder a snake called an Indian Swamp Adder, which was brought from India by Dr Roylott while he was on his travels, killed Julia, this was a very unusual weapon (like the one in Lamb to the Slaughter) and would not be spotted as the murder weapon very easily!
Dr Roylott put a lot of thought and time into the murder. All this thought gave him the ideas of how to conceal the murder as he went to great lengths to make sure that nobody found out that he had killed Julia and was planning to kill Helen. He even followed Helen to Baker Street where Sherlock Holmes lived just to warn him to stay out of his business and to stop medalling in his private life. Dr Roylott hid the snake in the safe, he secretly bolted Julia’s bed to the floor and he made repairs by putting the main part of his plan, which was a ventilator and a bell rope in Julia’s room. Neither the ventilator or bell rope worked. Also the windows had shutters over them from the outside, which could not be forced open as the hinges were made of iron. There wasn’t even a slit, which a knife could be passed to raise the bar. As in Lamb to the Slaughter there were no witnesses of this murder.
What is investigation? Is it jumping to conclusions that haven’t been popularly examined or inquired like the detectives in Lamb to the Slaughter or is it ideas being tested out to prove they are either right or wrong like Sherlock Holmes did in The Speckle Band? The detectives in Lamb to the Slaughter jumped to conclusions “ get the weapon and you’ve got the man.” As they presumed that the killer was a man. Also they ruled Mrs Maloney out without really questioning her enough. The detectives did check her alibi but what they didn’t check was the time that Mrs Maloney went to the grocers and the time of Mr Maloney’s death. Throughout the whole investigation Mrs Maloney ‘acted’ so upset, she was six months pregnant, her husband was a police man and her life seemed so perfect with her husband “ Mary Maloney was waiting for her husband to come home from work.” The detectives weren’t very thorough, as they just seemed to presume everything without really checking it out. They did get something right though as they thought the weapon was a heavy blunt instrument. The reason why the detectives did get one success was because it was obvious that a heavy blunt instrument had killed him. The reason why the detectives failed mostly was because the didn’t check things out enough, they ruled Mrs Maloney out without questioning her enough, they drank on the job and also they ate all the evidence there possible was! So basically they were unprofessional, gullible and too sympathetic towards Mrs Maloney as I think that if they were a little bit harder on her she would of cracked and the police would of solved the crime.
Sherlock Holmes and his sidekick Dr Watson worked very differently to the detectives in Lamb to the Slaughter. He always worked thoroughly and when he suspected what had happened to Julia and what was suppose to be happening to Helen he checked them out before telling anyone “I should prefer to have clearer proofs before I speak.” Even his sidekick Dr Watson didn’t know what he was thinking. Sherlock Holmes used his method of deduction to solve the crimes, as he didn’t have all the forensics available to detectives in the future. Unlike most detectives Sherlock Holmes worked because he loved what he did, he did not work for the money “working as he did rather for the love of his art than for the acquirement of wealth.” He is very precise and careful when he does his work and he even does research on the family so he knows what is going on. Sherlock Holmes is very analytical with clues and that’s why he succeeded through out the whole investigation. At this time Sherlock Holmes didn’t think much of the police force. All of his work was a success due to the way he worked. The successes that he had were finding out what killed Julia and solving the crime unlike the detectives in Lamb to the Slaughter. Another success of Sherlock Holmes’ work was that he gave justice to the family by the snake killing Dr Roylott.
In Lamb to the Slaughter the clues seemed very hard to find to the detectives. There wasn’t that many clues like there were in The Speckled Band but they were very simple clues. The clues for Lamb to the Slaughter were the leg of lamb, congealed blood, Mrs Maloney’s alibi and the timing of her alibi. The only clue that the detectives found was the congealed blood “Noonan discovered a small patch of congealed blood on the dead mans head.” The false clue was Mrs Maloney’s alibi. The detectives didn’t find the other clues, which were the leg of lamb and the timing of her alibi.
In the Speckled Band the clues seemed very simple to Sherlock Holmes, but they weren’t. They were quite a lot of clues but they weren’t obvious ones. The clues in The Speckled Band were the bell pull, ventilator, iron safe, saucer of milk, the seat, dog lash, the speckled band and the bed clamped to the floor. All the clues were found but when Sherlock Holmes did find the clues he did not reveal how and why the clues were important to the crime, but at the end of the story he then revealed how and why they were and there were no false clues.
Victims and villains in both stories are very different as in The Speckled Band the villain, Dr Roylott, wad very mean and had already got a criminal record for being violent “A series of disgraceful brawls took place, two of which ended in the police court, until at last 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.” His relationship with other people was very isolated and if he did make friends with other people they were people of the lower class such as gipsies and the gipsies were only friends with Dr Roylott because he let them camp on his land. Dr Roylott’s physical appearance was very domineering. “He was so tall was he that his hat actually brushed the cross-bar of the doorway, and his breath seemed to span it across from side to side.” He had a large face, which was scared with a thousand wrinkles, burned yellow with the sun, and marked with every evil passion. The author wants the reader to feel that Dr Roylott is the villain of the story and be prepared for the crimes committed as Julia has already been killed and it seems like Helen is the next victim. However the readers are still surprised at how he killed Julia, as there are no really obvious clues.
The victim in The Speckled Band, Helen Stoner, was made out to be a typical victim as she goes to Sherlock Holmes scared and nervous “it is fear, Mr Holmes. It is terror. She raised her veil as she spoke and we could see that she indeed in a pitiable state of agitation.” Her appearance reflects the state of her feelings. “Her face all drawn and grey, with restless, frightened eyes, like these of some hunted animal.” Although Helen Stoner is still young this gives the impression of having suffered a lot-the reader would guess that Dr Roylott is to blame for this. “Her features and figure were those of a women of thirty, but her hair was shot with premature grey, and her expression was weary and haggard.”
For Lamb to the Slaughter the villain, Mrs Maloney was very nice and seemed to love her husband very much. Her behaviour was normal and happy ”there was a slow smiling air about her, and about everything she did. The drop of the head as she bent over her sewing was curiously tranquil.” Mrs Maloney’s appearance was glowing “ her skin-for this her sixth month with child-had acquired a wonderful translucent quality, the mouth was soft, and the eyes, with their new placid look, seemed larger, darker than before.” I think her lifestyle is very ordinary as she is a housewife, who has a loving husband and she has a child on the way. The relationship that Mrs Maloney had with others was friendly, she was always very nice to people and she wasn’t violent towards anyone except Mr Maloney and this shows that she wasn’t a typical villain.
The author presents Patrick Maloney as a strong but yet a weak character. He is shown to be strong as hi is a police officer and he also comes across as angry with Mrs Maloney. He comes across weak when he tells Mrs Maloney that he is leaving her “there was a little muscle moving near the corner of his left eye.” Patrick Maloney was not a typical Victim because he was a police officer. The readers aren’t prepared for the crimes committed as Mrs Maloney is six months pregnant so it doesn’t seem like she can kill anyone and Mr Maloney was a police officer so I don’t think it would occur it the readers that he could get killed.
The Speckled Band was set in the 19th century we know this because of the transport. When Sherlock Holmes and Dr Watson travelled to Stoke Moran Manor House they went on a steam train and then caught a dogcart. There were many locations in The Speckled Band and these were Holmes’ flat, Stoke Moran Manor House and the pub called the Crown Inn. The murder was set in a typical scene with a big mansion and a storm. “It was a wild night. The wind was howling outside. And the rain was beating and splashing against the windows.”
The setting in Lamb to the Slaughter was just a typical house setting. The wife waiting for her husband to get home from work so then she could cook dinner for him. Lamb to the Slaughter was set in 20th century and we can tell this because it has cars, fridges and freezers. There were only two locations in Lamb to the Slaughter and these were Mr and Mrs Maloney s home and grocers. The plot moves very quickly as the murder is impulsive so everything happens suddenly and readers of this time liked this, as it was surprising. The murder was set was in a modern 20th century setting.
The Speckled Band was a traditional story as the murder was in a mansion on a stormy night. Also the story had lots of clues in it, which were not too obvious to the readers. Sherlock Holmes never revealed any of his ideas till he had deduced all the other options, not even to his side kick Dr Watson or Helen Stoner which makes the readers think for themselves and also want to read on to find out what happens at the end of the story “I should prefer to have clearer proof before I speak.” In the Speckled Band Sherlock Holmes solved the mystery, which was because he used his powers of deduction and always checked his ideas thoroughly before speaking them to anyone else. This meant Sherlock Holmes was always in charge. When the Speckled Band was written readers of this period expected there to be no loose endings or unanswered questions so at the end of the story Sir Arthur Conan Doyle ties up any loose ends and answers any unanswered questions. He explains to the readers exactly what killed Julia and how, right at the end of the story. Also the readers of that period would expect the villain to be killed as it would give justice to the victims family and the readers would like this as it would be a satisfactory ending.
For Lamb to the Slaughter the story was the opposite to The Speckled Band as all the action is very quick, there is no hanging around because the story only has a short introduction and then the action starts. However the introduction is very unusual as it starts by describing the home of Mr and Mrs Maloney “the room was warm and clean, the curtains drawn, the two table lamps a light-hers and the one by the empty chair opposite. On the sideboard behind her, two tall glasses, soda water, whisky. Fresh ice cubes in the thermos bucket.” It also explains how Mrs Maloney is waiting for her husband to get home “Mary Maloney was waiting for her husband to come home from work.” The viewpoint comes from Mrs Maloney, the murderer. Unlike The Speckled Band, the story ends with questions unanswered; it also has a twist of the detectives eating the evidence right at the end and an irony from the detectives “Probably right under our very noses.” The readers are left with a question like; does she get away with it? Also throughout the story the readers are asking questions like; what’s the crime, is she going to get away with it and what will happen to her baby? Mrs Maloney is actually asking herself the last question too “what about her child? What were the laws about murderers with unborn children? Did they kill them both-mother and child? Or did they wait until the tenth month? What did they do?” As Lamb to the Slaughter was written later than The Speckled Band the readers prefer all the unanswered questions, the twist, the irony and even that the murderer didn’t get caught or the family of Patrick Maloney didn’t get justice for his murder.
In Lamb to the Slaughter Roald Dahl jumps straight into the action after only a short introduction to the story. This means that the questions, such as what’s he going to tell her and what’s she going to do come almost straight away. This creates suspense and makes the readers want to read on. I think for a short story, Lamb to the Slaughter is organised well as everything happens quickly. Lamb to the Slaughter was written after The Speckled Band and I think the story reflects this as it is short, the suspense comes quickly and the ending leaves you wondering and probably suspecting that she gets away with it.
The Speckled Band has a slow introduction, which explains what happened in the past and what Helen Stoner is afraid is going to happen in the future. I think this long introduction draws the readers in and makes the readers want to know what is going to happen, so like in Lamb to the Slaughter the questions start early on. However I don’t think the suspense comes till much later on in the story “Holmes for a moment was a startled as I. His hand closed like a vice upon my wrist in his agitation. Then he broke into a low laugh and put his lips to my ear.” This keeps the readers reading as I think they know that the suspense will come. The story is organised well for a long story as right up until the end it keeps the readers guessing and asking questions. When The Speckled Band was written the readers of that period liked things to be explained to them, they also liked the victim to get justice by the villain being caught.
The language in Lamb to the Slaughter is modern. The sentences are short “Hullo, darling” and there are no complex words. The people that read this story didn’t have to have been travelling and they didn’t have to be of a particular social class. The sentences are also very simple “ Mary Maloney was waiting for her husband to come home from work.”
The language in The Speckled Band is old fashioned and complicated and the sentences are long “in glancing over my notes of the seventy odd cases in which I have during the last eight years studied the methods of my friend Sherlock Holmes, I find many tragic, some comic, a large number merely strange, but none commonplace; for, working as he did rather for the love of his art than for the acquirement of wealth, he refused to associate himself with any investigation which did not tend towards the unusual, and even the fantastic.” The intended readers for this story were the educated people as they address each other by surname but to a woman Sherlock Holmes would call her miss or madam. This was very appropriate for the readers of this time.
Out of both the stories I preferred Lamb to the Slaughter. I think this is because there was more action, it had an irony “probably right under our very noses” and it was shorter that The Speckled Band, which I thought, made it more effective. I felt that The Speckled Band story dragged on a bit, even though it had a lot of suspense.
Both stories would appeal to very different readers as The Speckled Band would probably appeal to adults and Lamb to the Slaughter would probably appeal to readers today who like varied endings with a twist.
