Speckled Band? By Sir Arthur Conan-Doyle, And ?Lamb To The Slaughter? By Roald Dahl, Essay, Research Paper
???? In this
essay, I intend to compare and contrast the two short stories ?The Speckled
Band? by Sir Arthur Conan-Doyle, and ?Lamb to the Slaughter? by Roald Dahl,
picking out techniques used which make it exactly, or exactly the opposite of a
typical detective story/murder mystery. ??????? When many
people think of a murder mystery, they think of a dark and stormy night, a
large forbidding house, a gunshot heard by everyone yet seen by no one, and the
phrases ?you?re probably wondering why I called you all here?, ?The butler did
it?, and of course not forgetting ?elementary, my dear Watson?. In the end, the
intelligent and very observant detective solves the case, and justice,
sometimes through the courts and sometimes poetic, is served. ??????? Both ?The Speckled Band? and ?Lamb to the Slaughter?? have ingredients for a detective story, i.e.
they both have a murderer who is cold and calculating, and just that little bit
mad. On the other hand, they are presented to us very differently, making one
story very typical of its genre, and making the other very untypical of the
murder mystery genre. ??????? Both Conan-Doyle and Dahl use various techniques to make
their stories more interesting; for example, in Dahls ?Lamb to the Slaughter?
the story revolves around the character of Mrs Mary Maloney, loving housewife
and psychopathic killer. Whereas many stories concentrate on the detective or
sometimes the victim, this story concentrates on the character of the murderer.
This perspective helps with the telling of the murder, making it more
unexpected. The story includes two major plot twists; the first being the
murder itself, made unexpected by what we have seen of Mary Maloneys character,
the setting, and the form the murder weapon takes among other things. The
second plot twist is at the end, where the detectives eat the murder weapon. Conan-Doyle
used techniques in writing ?The Speckled Band? also. His story revolves around
the character of the detective, Sherlock Holmes, which is a preferred technique
of mystery novelists, probably because it leaves a place for sequels. The
story, though centred on Holmes, is told as seen through the eyes of his
companion, Dr Watson, providing a good example of writing in the first person.
Unlike Dahls story, "The Speckled Band" is a classic ‘whodunit’, and
so, like many ‘whodunits’ there is suspense. ??????? Although both the stories have some of the typical components
of a detective story, they are presented differently, differing noticeably in
the setting, the characters and of course the plot, as I intend to show in this
essay. ??????? In ?The Speckled Band, the setting of the main part of the
story is very typical of the murder mystery genre. The story is set in an old
forbidding house. Just the look of it could make you think twice about going
inside; after all, it could collapse on you any moment, as Dr Watson described. ??????? ?In one of the wings the windows were broken, and blocked
with wooden boards, while the roof was partly caved in, a picture of ruin.???????? The manor of Stoke Moran is the kind of place that you would
expect to be the setting of a murder mystery if you read the description. The
more successful mystery authors like Arthur Conan-Doyle favour this type of
setting (he used a ?large forbidding house? setting for other stories, such as
?Hound of the Baskervilles?). Conan-Doyle being one of the most widely read
mystery authors, alone through his use of this type of setting made the ?large
forbidding house? a typical murder setting. Agatha Christie, another famous
mystery author, used this type of setting for some of her novels. She too being
one of the authors to shape the typical detective story helped this setting to
become associated with this genre. ??????? While Stoke Moran is the typical setting of a murder mystery,
the Maloney residence is not. The setting fore the story is a warm 1950?s
family home, belonging to Mr and Mrs Patrick Maloney. Dahl starts the story
with a short description of the setting. ?The room was warm and clean, the
curtains drawn, the two table lamps alight, hers and the one by the empty chair
opposite.? ??????? This description as you can see is not at all like the
typical setting for this type of story, and definitely nothing like the
description of Stoke Moran. This technique lulls the reader into a false sense
of security, making you unaware of what is going to happen. The way it is
portrayed, you are shocked when the murder happens, which is exactly Dahl?s
intent. ??????? With the murderers, Conan-Doyle went with the more
traditional approach, making him very typical. The character of the murderer is
Dr Roylott, a very violent man. You can assume that he is the murderer in this
story just by the description Dr Watson gives of him. He describes Dr Roylott
as ?a huge man?, who possessed ?A large face seared with a thousand wrinkles
and marked with every evil passion?. He has ?deep-set, bile shot eyes? and a
?high thin fleshless nose, (which) gave him the resemblance of a fierce bird of
pray? ??????? Dr Roylott would seem to be evil from the start. Watson on
looking at him remarked that his face was ?marked with every evil passion? and
this appearance gives a prediction of what the personality may be like, in this
case evil. If you had heard what Helen Stoner had told Holmes, you would assume
that this man was the same man whose ?violence of temper approaching mania?
resulted in ?long term imprisonment? in India because ?in a fit of anger caused
by some robberies which had been perpetuated in the house, he beat his native
butler to death.? ??????? Dr Roylott lived a secluded life once he moved to Stoke Moran.
Once he arrived, instead of being sociable, ?he shut himself up in his house,
and seldom came out, save to indulge in ferocious quarrels with whoever might
cross his path.? This lack of friends, and the absence of a friendly
personality resulted in a void, which he used anger to fill. He became an
embittered angry man after the death of his wife. Helen Stoner said that after
the death of his wife, he abandoned all ideas of setting up a practise in
London and moved to Stoke Moran. ?But a terrible change came over our
stepfather at that time? he became the terror of the village, and folks would
fly at his approach, for he is a man of immense strength, and absolutely
uncontrollable in his anger.? This, along with my other points proves that Dr
Grimsby Roylott was an extremely violent man, who could quite possibly be
capable of murdering his own daughters with little or no remorse, just for
money. ??????? In ?Lamb to the Slaughter? however, the murderer is not so
typical. In fact, Mrs Mary Maloney is more of a typical victim than a murderer.
Would you suspect a person who is described as someone who ?now and
again? would glance up at the clock? merely to please herself with the thought
that each minute gone by made it nearer the time when he would come.? (The ?he?
being her husband, the man she is going to kill.) She already seems like a
loving, caring housewife waiting for her husband to come home on a Thursday
night, hardly capable of murder. As I said
before, Dr Roylott would seem to be evil right from the start, and so Dahl
writing this story to be anti-stereotypical of the detective novel creates a
murderer who does not resemble a fierce bird of pray, but instead there is ?a
slow smiling air about her and about everything she does?. Dahl goes on to
describe her more, using phrases such as ?curiously tranquil?, ?Her skin? had
acquired a wonderful translucent quality,? and ? The eyes? seemed larger,
darker than before? What makes her so untypical though, more than all these
descriptive phrases was that ?this was her sixth month with child?; a pregnant
murderer! If Dr Roylott is the typical murderer, then Mary Maloney is the
opposite of all we associate with murderers. The way Dahl
develops his character for Mary Maloney though makes her definitely the more
interesting of the two villains. She goes from a loving housewife waiting for
her husband to come home, to a woman with a frozen leg of lamb above her head,
just about to swing it down and kill him as an act of revenge, and then to a
very cold and calculating woman, covering her tracks perfectly by getting an
alibi and destroying the murder weapon. The change in character is amazing.
Would you think that the woman who ? at that point? simply walked up behind him
and without any pause? swung the frozen leg of lamb high in the air and brought
it down as hard as she could on the back of his head? was the same woman who I
described earlier on. The strange thing about this woman is that instead of
reacting to this terrible crime she committed, merely tells herself ?Alright?
so I?ve killed him? The change in
her character happens immediately at this point. ?It was extraordinary, now,
how clear her mind became all of a sudden. She began thinking very fast.? She
decides that she doesn?t mind the death penalty is acceptable. ?In fact, it
would be a relief?. This is not the general frame of mind of a housewife
totally devoted to her husband, or a murderess who has just killed the husband
she was totally devoted to. She seems either totally in control of the
situation and trying to cover it up, or in shock or denial. Personally, I think
she is a bit of both at this point in the story. Throughout the
police investigation, she acts totally innocent, unlike Dr Roylott. She
manipulates the detectives into having a drink of whiskey and that slows down
their deductive reasoning, making them not realise that when they are sat at
the table, they are eating the murder weapon. She almost seems as if she has
done this before. Her intelligence and ability to cover her tracks well make
her more like a murderer, yet the fact that she succeeded makes the story all
the more different from the typical murder mystery. The character of Mary
Maloney is the last person you would think of as a murderer. She is a pregnant
loving housewife who ?loved to luxuriate in the presence? of her husband- the
man she killed. This is why she is such an untypical and interesting character. As for
victims, Conan-Doyle makes the most typical character in Helen Stoner. The typical
victim in a murder mystery is a person, usually a woman when the murderer is as
typical as Dr Roylott, and almost always rich or about to come into money. Miss
Helen Stoner fits this description to the letter. Firstly, she is a woman
obviously, and a scared one, terrified by her predicament. ?It is not cold
which makes me shiver? It is terror?. As for the
second requirement, money, it is revealed that Helen Stoner is about to come
into a fairly large amount. She says that an agreement was made whereby all her
mothers fortune was to go to Dr Roylott, ?with a provision that a certain
annual sum should be allowed to each of us in the event of our marriage?, then
later reveals that she will be marrying ?a dear friend, whom I have known for
many years? Later in the
plot, Holmes uncovers the will of Helen Stoner?s mother, and finds out ?each
daughter can claim an income of £250, in case of marriage.? So, from all these
quotes, we can determine that after Helen Stoner?s wedding, Dr Roylott would
have had to given her £250 per year- an amount which could have ruined the
?good doctor?, as at the time the story was set, £250 had much more value than
it does now. So we have a
scared woman just about to come into money. She seems the type who couldn?t put
up much of a fight. A fairly typical victim, and then, you look at ?Lamb to the
Slaughter?. Looking at the description of Mary Maloney, she seems to be the
perfect choice for the character of the victim of this story, yet she turns out
to be the murderer. So, in-keeping with the theme of opposite characters, we
ask ourselves, ?Who would be the least likely to be the victim?? The answer is
her husband, Patrick Maloney. Firstly, he?s
a policeman- a sergeant- so that gets rid of the anxious, terrified image.
Secondly he seems quite aggressive, but that could be just the whiskey and
soda, or the news that he?s just about to tell her. Also he?s not particularly
rich, and the only wealth he?s likely to come into in the near future is his
pay packet. In short, he is definitely not the typical victim. He seems to
have done something scandalous which, when he tells his wife, becomes her
motive. This day when he comes home, he is particularly on edge because of the
?scandalous event?. You can tell this by his mannerisms inparticular. He seems
irritated and gives short answers to the questions Mrs Maloney asks. ??Tired
darling?? ?Yes? he said ?I?m tired?? He also seems to be drinking more than
usual, draining half a glass of his whiskey and soda ?in one swallow?. Maybe
trying to boost his courage with some ?Dutch Courage?. You can see by the way
he gives short monosyllabic answers, and the way he words some of these
answers, that he is irritated. He adopts some of the mannerisms of our typical
murderer, making it all the more unexpected when he becomes the victim. Now detectives.
Conan-Doyle?s story, ?The Speckled Band? centres around the detective- the
original typical detective- Sherlock Holmes, whereas in Dahl?s ?Lamb to the
Slaughter?, the detectives, led by Jack Noonan, play a comparatively minor role
in the story. Holmes is, as
I have already pointed out, the classic detective. Assisted by Dr Watson, he
makes the ?rapid deductions, as swift as intuitions, and yet always founded on
a logical basis? that have made him so famous among avid readers and film buffs
alike as the super-sleuth of Baker Street. Holmes 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.? Holmes takes every chance he gets to
exercise, or sometimes show off, his abilities. When talking t Helen Stoner,
her says ?You have come by train I see? I observe the second half of a return
ticket in the? palm of your left glove.?
He then goes on to deduce that she went to the train station by dog-cart. ?The
left arm of your jacket is spattered with mud in no less than seven places. The
marks are perfectly fresh. There is no vehicle save a dog-cart which throws up
mud in that way, and only when you sit on the left hand side of the driver.? He
may be exercising his skill, or he may be using this occurrence as a sales
tactic, impressing a potential client. Basically,
Holmes is presented as an observant, intelligent and committed detective, which
is the typical investigators role in a murder mystery. On the other
hand, in ?Lamb to the Slaughter?, the detectives are as unobservant as Holmes
is observant, as unintelligent as Holmes is intelligent, and as uncommitted as
Holmes is committed. In short, they are Holmes? exact opposites. Their first
show of observance is when Mrs Maloney is talking to them on the phone:
??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. The main
detective in the story- although there are three others there- is Sergeant Jack
Noonan. He is definitely not over observant or intelligent. Firstly, he allows
Mrs Maloney to persuade him to drink some whiskey while on duty. This makes him
less observant, since whiskey is strong enough to dull the mind and the senses.
He also assumes that since Patrick Maloney was hit with a large, blunt, heavy
object, it had to be a man since a woman may not have been able to use an
object that heavy. His phrase for cases like this one was ?Get the weapon,
you?ve got the man?, the final part of this being the appropriate point- strengthening
this point; the first part of the phrase is an appropriate quote for my next
point- he orders his men to search for the weapon for six hours, even though if
it had been an attack like he suggests, it is more likely the murderer would
have taken the weapon with him for a way, then buried it or hidden it
somewhere. This all shows that he doesn?t follow up every angle of the case. He
doesn?t mention anything about a motive; how the murderer got into the house;