why, if the murderer didn?t use a weapon already in the house, he would have
left it anywhere near the crime scene; or even why nobody would have noticed a
man or woman walking into the Maloney house carrying a large sledgehammer, then
walk out again five minutes later either not holding it or with it covered in
blood. He?s kind to
Mrs Maloney because he knows her, which is fine, but would Holmes be kind and
overlook Watson if there was a possibility that he killed his own wife? Finally, and most importantly, after he spends six
hours looking for the murder weapon, he goes into the kitchen and eats it, not
having put together the facts that Sam the Grocer probably told him that Mary
was cooking a leg of lamb straight from frozen, and that this particular leg of
lamb was shaped like a club. The main difference
though between the two detectives though is that in the end, Holmes solves the
case while the detectives don?t, and even if they had, they would have already
destroyed all the evidence they had. The
resolutions of the two stories are, as I have just touched on, very different.
?The Speckled Band? ends with Holmes figuring out the mystery, and thwarting
the evil Dr Roylott, using the Dr?s own method of killing his daughters to put
an end to him, creating a poetic justice when the snake, Dr Roylott?s ?murder
weapon? turns and, enraged by Holmes hitting it with a stick, crawls back
through the ventilator and bites Dr Roylott. This is quite a typical
resolution- justice has been served, the murderer brought about his own
destruction, helped along by the intelligent detective setting the means of
murder against the murderer. By the end of the story the reader is left feeling
satisfied with the ending. Good has triumphed, evil hasn?t, the right person
came out on top, and the world is a much safer place to live in, etc. In ?Lamb
to the Slaughter? however, the ending follows a different. After the
detectives have spent hours searching the premises, Mrs Maloney manipulates
them into eating the leg of lamb in the oven, which just happens to be the
murder weapon; and the story closes with Mrs Maloney giggling while the
detectives talk amongst themselves. ??Have some more Charlie?? ?No. Better
not finish it? ?She wants us to finish it. She said so. Be
doing her a favour? ?Okay then
give me some more? Personally, I think (the weapon?s) right here on the
premises? ?Probably
right under our very noses. What do you think Jack?? And in the
other room, Mary Maloney began to giggle? Some may
interpret this giggle as a sign that she has gone psychopathic, others may say
she is just giggling at the irony of the situation. Personally, I think maybe a
bit of both. The ending is definitely not entirely typical, but in some ways it
is. The person who the story is based around wins, therefore the story does not
seem unfulfilling. Its just that the story is based around the murderer.
Because of the way they are resolved, both stories end well, giving a feeling
that the right person won, although in the case of ?Lamb to the Slaughter?, the
?right person? happens to be a possible psychopath. Dahl engineered the story
to make you feel as if there was nothing missing, whereas the main ingredient
of the detective story- justice- is absent (or it could have taken the form of
the murder, depending on what Patrick Maloney told his wife) Dahl and
Conan-Doyle have engineered the two stories well, but in my opinion, Dahls
story, ?Lamb to the Slaughter?, is the better of the two, for two main reasons.
Firstly, Dahl
has written this story specifically to go against the traditional detective story,
making the setting, plot and characters untypical. Secondly, I particularly
like the way in which Dahls characters develop as the story goes on. Mary
Maloney goes from loving housewife and potential victim to possible
psychopathic murderer. Patrick Maloney develops from potential psychopathic
murderer to dead victim, and the detectives? well the detectives are pretty dim
to begin with anyway. While Dahl?s
characters are flexible, Conan-Doyle?s stay rigid and static. Dr Roylott stays
violent, Helen Stoner stays terrified, and Holmes stays as vigilant and
observant as ever. The main
ingredient of a detective story is that the villain is caught and justice is
achieved. This happens in ?The Speckled Band?, with the poetic justice of Dr
Roylott?s death, but in ?Lamb to the Slaughter? it doesn?t, and the villain
gets off ?scot-free?. Even if they had found her out, they wouldn?t have any
evidence. The main ingredient is missing in ?Lamb to the Slaughter?, but even
so, that doesn?t make the story any worse.