We know that this is how Dahl wanted her to be seen because of the way in which he describes her with words like placid, soft and tranquil. Also the fact that she gets away with the murder tells us that she is not meant to be seen as a cold-blooded killer who must be brought to justice. In fact I think that the main point that Dahl is trying to make in this story is that appearances can be deceiving.
Conan-Doyle on the other hand, wanted Grimesby Roylott to be seen as almost the complete opposite to Dahl’s character. He is aggressive, selfish, nasty and also very odd, keeping strange pets and letting gypsies stay on his grounds. We can clearly see that this is the way Conan-Doyle wanted people to see him, as he is given not a single redeeming feature. He beat his butler to death and also killed his own stepdaughter for money. Also, the fact that he is killed off at the end shows us that he is not supposed to be a likable character.
The time of writing of the two stories makes a huge difference in the way that the murderers are portrayed. If ‘Lamb to the Slaughter’ had been written sixty years earlier, at the time of the other story, it would have seemed completely far-fetched. Back then the idea that any woman could commit such a crime would be difficult to believe, let alone a pregnant woman. There was, and still is to a certain extent, a stereotype of the delicate, harmless pregnant woman who needs looking after. At first it seems that Dahl has conformed to this type of character with Maloney, but then he also explores the dark side of her nature which would not have been done in 1892.
The way that Grimesby Roylott is portrayed in ‘The Speckled Band’ is also heavily influenced by the time of writing. He is a horrible, evil man who has already killed, and although this is very stereotypical, it was acceptable then because people tended to fit their stereotypes. If he had been portrayed in another way, the story would not have been believable for audiences of the time.
Mary Maloney is not a stereotypical murderer. She is a loving, caring person and above all, she is pregnant. She is almost the total opposite of the stereotypical killers we see in lots of murder mystery stories.
Grimesby Roylott, on the other hand, is the perfect stereotype of a killer. He is an extremely vile person who has killed before, so it is easy to see how he could be a murderer. He is described as being ‘…a huge man…with a face seared with a thousand wrinkles… and marked with every evil passion.’ So even his physical description is that of the stereotypical murderer.
The reason for stereotypes being used or not in these stories is to do, again, with the time of writing. When ‘The Speckled Band’ was written in1892, in order for the story to seem realistic, it was very important that the murderer actually fitted the stereotype because generally, most people did. After all, stereotypes have to come from somewhere.
By the 1950’s, it had become important not to use stereotypes in stories because they had become a cliché, and any story that included them would be dismissed as silly and unrealistic. This is why Dahl’s murderer is very different to the typical killer.
Audiences in1892 would react very badly to Mary Maloney killing her husband. The idea of a pregnant woman being a murderer would seem ridiculous to the kind of people that would read the story. Women were seen as being below and inferior to men, and the type of murder that is described in ‘Lamb to the Slaughter’ would be completely unheard of. Audiences would think it absurd that a woman could have the strength, confidence and courage to do such a thing, and as a result, the story would not work.
Audiences in 1954 would react very differently. The 50’s were a very important turning point for women. During World War 2, women had to take over men’s jobs while they were away at war. They found that not only could they do the work, but also they were often better than the men were. During this time, women became a lot more confident as they realized that they could be independent and survive without men. After the war, the men returned and for a little while things went back to the way they were before the war, but women that had been independent for years wanted to carry on that way. During the years that followed women became more independent and grew more confidant until their role in society had completely changed. It was this that made Mary Maloney’s character acceptable, and while it would still have been a bit of a shock to audiences, it would have been believable.
Just as Mary Maloney would not have been accepted in1892, so Grimesby Roylott would not be in 1954. Although it is still a good story with a nice twist, the character would not have been believable because he is too stereotypical. In 1892 however, he would have been completely believable and entirely accepted.
The detectives in Lamb to the Slaughter’ ‘are very kind and considerate towards Mary Maloney. They speak to her gently and sensitively and only ask her closed questions because they already know her and don’t think for a minute that she could have killed her husband. When she rings the police, the officer says ‘Be right over’ straight away which shows that they also treat her with great importance. The book also says ‘They were exceptionally nice to her, and Jack Noonan asked if she wouldn’t rather go somewhere else… perhaps to his own wife who would take care of her…’ which further shows their kind and caring attitude towards Mary.
Holmes is portrayed as a very strong, confident and cocky person in his attitude towards Grimesby Roylott. When Grimesby bursts in he says ‘Mt stepdaughter has been here. I have traced her. What has she been saying to you?’, Holmes replies ‘ It is a little cold for the time of year.’ This shows us that despite Grimesby being a huge, strong and obviously violent man, Holmes refuses to be put down by him at all.
The detectives in ‘Lamb to the Slaughter’ are extremely foolish. They do not investigate properly, and had they been less blinded, they might have persued their questioning and Mary was so wobbly she may have broken under the pressure. We know that they are meant to be seen this way because at the end of the story when they are eating the murder weapon, on of them says ‘It’s probably right under our noses.’ Which shows just how stupid they are.
Sherlock Holmes on the other hand is an outstanding detective and if it weren’t for him, Grimesby Roylott would not have been stopped.
The attitude of the detectives effects the outcome of both stories. ‘In Lamb to the Slaughter’ if they had been a bit more persistent in questioning Mary, she may have confessed and would have gone to prison.
