Typical Setting Of A Murder Mystery example essay topic

Speckled Band By Sir Arthur Conan-Doyle, And Lamb To The Slaughter By Roald Dahl, 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 youre 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 othe 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 Dahls 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 Ive 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 doesnt 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 Stoners 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 Stoners 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 couldnt 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, hes 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 hes just about to tell her. Also hes not particularly rich, and the only wealth hes 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 in particular. He seems irritated and gives short answers to the questions Mrs Maloney asks. Tired darling Yes he said Im 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-Doyles story, The Speckled Band centres around the detective- the original typical detective- Sherlock Holmes, whereas in Dahls 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! Patricks dead! Whos speaking Mrs Maloney. Mrs Patrick Maloney.

You mean Patrick Maloneys 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, youve 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 doesnt follow up every angle of the case. He doesnt mention anything about a motive; how the murderer got into the house; why, if the murderer didnt 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. Hes 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 dont, 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 Drs own method of killing his daughters to put an end to him, creating a poetic justice when the snake, Dr Roylotts 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 hasnt, 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 weapons) 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 Dahls characters are flexible, Conan-Doyles 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 Roylotts death, but in Lamb to the Slaughter it doesnt, and the villain gets off scot-free. Even if they had found her out, they wouldnt have any evidence. The main ingredient is missing in Lamb to the Slaughter, but even so, that doesnt make the story any worse.