In The Speckled Band, the type of murder differs from The Outside Dog, because the motives are different. In The Speckled Band, Dr Grimesby Roylott killed Julia Stoner because he didn’t want to pay her the money that her mother had left her in her will, in the event she married. This is obvious, because it was soon before the date of her marriage that he killed her, and it was also close to the date of Helen’s wedding, when he attempted to kill her. In The Outside Dog, Stuart doesn’t have an obvious motive for murder, but unlike Dr Grimesby Roylott (as far as we are aware); he is a serial killer. The murder in the Speckled Band is also much more scientific and planned than in the Outside Dog, and we are given much more details of the murder. We are told the technical details of how the Dr managed to kill her without leaving any trace of evidence, and this is mainly due to the texts purpose as a murder mystery where the reader wants to how the crime is committed themselves, unlike in the Outside Dog, where the purpose is just generally to entertain, and the audience is more concerned with whether Marjory knows he is the killer, or whether he will get caught. The details are minimal, and we only know the details that Marjory herself would know, for instance we find out when another person has been murdered by newspaper articles and when she describes conversations shes’ had with people, and her finding bloodstained clothes, which is probably how she would find out details in real life if she was the wife of a murderer.
Both texts have totally different settings, and introductions. The Speckled Band starts as if Watson is telling a story, and gets you interested at first by giving you a brief background of Sherlock Holmes and his work, whereas The Outside Dog begins in the middle of Marjory’s conversation, and as we are given no background, or setting description other than the fact that we are told she is sat in a kitchen, we are expected to work out for ourselves what she is talking about, and what the setting looks like. In this way, The Outside Dog seems more realistic, and more real as if we are actually there with Marjory, and going through what shes going through at the same time as her, rather than a story with a narrator. It is much easier to imagine what Sherlock Holmes and Watson look like, because we are given descriptions through-out the text, of settings and characters. These details help build the suspense, as we are told that Sherlock Holmes notices bruises on Helen’s arm, which suggests that she has been beaten, and then Dr Grimesby Roylott is described as violent, as ‘huge’, as having a face that was marked with ‘every evil passion’, and a nose that resembled a ‘fierce old bird’. These two descriptions leads us into thinking that there is a connection between the two instances, which would not have been detected without the vivid portrait of the characters, and their appearance. Even though the descriptions help with the story, they also make the story seem unrealistic, because they are so stereotypical. Helen is portrayed as a ‘typical woman’, as the heroine, and Dr Roylott as the ‘typical villain’, with his character description suggesting violence. It is harder to make such obvious connections at first with The Outside Dog, because Marjory is just making general observations in her conversation, but as we go deeper into it, we are able to work out facts about her husband, and are able to pick up on details that suggest his guilt. We have to do the same thing when trying to get descriptions of the setting, for instance we have to wait for her to say that shes been cleaning the dog kennel, before we realise she has one, and the same with having ornaments in the toilet. Overall, I think that this lack of description helps us use our own imagination as to what the characters look like, and would probably help when it comes when showing it as a play or on television, because people would be able to cast anyone as Marjory, and wouldn’t have to look for someone, or a setting with specific features. It also helps make it realistic, because unlike The Speckled Band, there are no stereotypes. Stuart is portrayed to be a person that leads a normal life that you wouldn’t question, which is what makes the whole idea seem more sinister and believable, because most murderers are people that you wouldn’t expect to be.
The language of both of the texts differs a lot, and I think that this has a lot to do with the time at which they were written. In The Outside Dog, the whole monologue is written in 1st person like the Speckled band is, but it is much more chatty and informal. The whole use of a Yorkshire dialect helps put this image across, and the whole text is written as if it is a conversation. This means that there are many incomplete/improper sentences, like ‘I hate the flaming dog.’ like there would be in a conversation, generally where you are commenting on something. Colloquialisms such as ‘slacks’, and ‘fly-tipping’, which also makes the whole scenario more realistic, because most people use abbreviations in everyday conversations to make life easier. It is written in sections, which fade, and each time you come back you are slowly updated with what has been happening while you have been away. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle uses much more old-fashioned language, which is because the text was written in the late 19th century when language was different. I think this makes the modern reader enjoy it more, because it can be slightly amusing to read the stereotypical Sherlock Holmes phrases such as ‘My dear fellow’, because we are not used to them. It can also make it harder to read the text though, because some phrases such as ‘to knock you up’ are unused now, so you have to work out what the author is meaning. The whole style of the text is formal due to the type of people that would be reading it, and complex vocabulary is used to show that it was aimed at intelligent people. It is written with a definite beginning (where Holmes is introduced to Helen, and finds out about her problem), middle (where he visits Helen’s house and investigates), and end (where he finally solves the murder), which is the example of a ‘typical’ story. There are also only a few main characters, which is the same in the Outside Dog, this is probably to keep things simple, because if there were too many character, things could get even more complicated than they are already.
Each text has a different way of involving the reader, but both authors are successful in their method. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle tries to involve the reader by using lots of description, and facts, so that the reader can become involved and try and solve the mystery of who committed the crime themselves, whereas Alan Bennett involves you by the fact that you know that Marjory’s husband has done it, but you’re waiting for her to find out, as you watch her find clues. This makes you examine her reaction to all the evidence she finds pointing to the fact that Stuart is the murderer, and seeing whether you think shes realised yet, or whether shes denying to herself that its him. Marjory is portrayed to be a lady that is obsessed with housework, she is recurringly mentioned to be cleaning, at the beginning she is shampooing the carpet, and even when her husband is standing trial she is ‘swilling out’ the dog kennel. This could be taken as just a woman that just likes cleaning, but I think it is her way of escapism. She is shown to be in a loveless marriage, as even when her husband is on trial she never shows any feelings towards him, she was more bothered about his appearance, and whether he would wear a tie. Her husband is shown to have an obsession with sex, which we the reader can tell is a way of relieving tension after every murder. In the middle of sex she says ‘it’s a blessing we’re detached’, which shows that she isn’t really interested, and makes the reader feel sorry for her, but makes us wonder why she stays with him, and whether maybe she knows. The cleaning could be her way of denying to herself what she knows deep down is going on with him. The Speckled Band is more of a ‘typical’ murder mystery, and he uses Red Herrings such as the mention of gypsies living outside, the match in Julia’s right hand, and the mention of the Speckled Band, to try turn us away from the idea that it was Dr Roylott. He also uses lots of clues, such as the fact that Holmes notices that there is a false bell pull in Julia’s room, and that the bed is bolted to the floor, so that we can get a clear image in our heads of all the evidence. This is so we can try and deduce for ourselves how the murder took place.
I think that while the ending to The Speckled Band is more satisfying because the murderer is caught, and so has a ‘happy’ ending, the ending to The Outside Dog is much more realistic and better even though it feels unjust. This is because you are left wondering what will happen next, for instance whether Marjory will leave her husband, or whether he will commit anymore murders. This is much more interesting than The Speckled Band, where the murderer is caught and dies, so you know that that is the end of all the attempted murders, and Helen will have a happy life. The ending may also have something to do with the century it is from, because maybe in the 19th century readers wanted a happy ending, and at the time it may have seemed realistic because they would have known a lot less about crime, but in the late 20th century people have realised that there aren’t always happy endings. The introduction of television and free speech by the media has been able to show that murders and motives are much more complicated and harder to solve than a simplistic Sherlock Holmes story. The ending in The Speckled Band reaches a climax, but I don’t think it is very effective, because by that time you have worked out the ending already, whereas The Outside Dog is effective because you’re not expecting Stuart to be let off.
I think that both authors were effective in suiting their chosen genre, because both texts managed to keep me interested until the end. The Speckled Band was successful in making me wonder who the murderer was, and what the method was throughout the text, even though for a more modern audience I would have preferred it to have less stereotypical characters. The Outside Dog was also successful in its purpose of making you wonder whether Stuart will get caught, and whether his wife knows and will stick by him, and I think the way you are entered into her life mid-conversation is effective because you have to make an effort to find out what’s going on, which gets you more involved. I prefer The Outside Dog because I prefer the way it is more realistic, and the fact that there is an open and unexpected ending, unlike in The Speckled Band where you know that the crime will be solved at the end. I think however that if I had lived in the 19th century when it was written I would have appreciated it more, because the language wouldn’t have seemed odd, and I would probably have been more willing to accept it as being realistic, or entertaining due to the culture of reading, rather than watching things in a monologue/ more down to earth form.
