I have written an essay about the incorrect assumptions that were made in "Lamb to the Slaughter" about Mary Maloney. I think my introduction needs improvement and I would like it to be edited...

I have written an essay about the incorrect assumptions that were made in "Lamb to the Slaughter" about Mary Maloney. I think my introduction needs improvement and I would like it to be edited thank you. Much appreciated.

Essay:

In “Lamb to the Slaughter” the detectives and the grocer made many incorrect assumptions about Mary Maloney. The detectives assumed that Mary could not have killed her husband, Patrick. The grocer had assumed that Mary was telling the entire truth. This resulted in Mary getting away with a murder, and a failed investigation.

The detectives had assumed that she wasn’t the murderer based on her behaviour and actions. The detectives whispered to themselves, “acted quite normal…very cheerful…wanted to give him a good supper… impossible that she…” implying, with those phrases that they had concluded she was not the murderer (16). She had acted quite normal and cheerful, and was planning to make her husband a good supper, which led the detectives to believe she was an innocent, grieving widow. Secondly, the fact that they ate supper in her house means they were comfortable enough to do so, because they did not believe she could have been the one to murder her husband. The narrator states, “They were persuaded to go into the kitchen and go help themselves” meaning that the detectives did not have any suspicion against Mary, and were comfortable “knowing” she did not kill Patrick ( ).

The second character who made an incorrect assumption was Sam, the grocer. He made casual conversation with Mary, because he felt that she was being truthful and a very caring, loving wife. He even makes a suggestion for her cooking “How about a nice big slice of cheesecake?...” and thanks her before she leaves (14). Also, after the detectives were informed by Mary that she had gone to the grocer, one of them had gone there and came back with notes, the said “ …peas…cheesecake…impossible…” concluding that Mary could not have done anything because he didn’t notice anything suspicious nor did he suspect Mary (16). The only motive they believed she had was to make her husband a perfect meal.

In conclusion, all the characters Mary interacted with after the death of her husband, made false assumptions about who she really was and what she could do. The officers and Sam the grocer thought Mary was a devoted and loving wife, but in the end, the murderer had gotten away with the crime.

Asked on by leina500

1 Answer | Add Yours

billdelaney's profile pic

William Delaney | (Level 3) Distinguished Educator

Posted on

Your essay reads all right, and the points you make are valid and convincing. However, it seems to me that you have left out the most important assumptions in the story and that you could strengthen your essay by bringing them in at the end. Roald Dahl's story is based on the unique murder weapon and that the police end up eating the very weapon they are searching for. The detectives assume that Mary Maloney's husband must have been killed with a "heavy blunt instrument." Jack Noonan, one of the detectives, says:

"It's the old story. Get the weapon, and you've got the man."

This concern about the weapon is the most important element of the investigation.

Later, one of the detectives came up and sat beside her. Did she know, he asked, of anything in the house that could've been used as the weapon? Would she mind having a look around to see if anything was missing--a very big spanner, for example, or a heavy metal vase.

The fact that Mary is cooking a leg of lamb makes her seem innocent rather than guilty. She is actually cooking it to destroy the evidence. In a frozen state it is a lethal weapon. As the author states:

She might just as well have hit him with a steel club.

But she puts it into the oven while still frozen in order to soften the meat as quickly as possible. By going to the grocery store to buy some potatoes and peas, she is stalling for time, giving the lamb time enough to defrost after turning the oven "on high." She doesn't have to report her husband's death to the police until after she has been to the store and returned.

The story is heavily ironic. One ironic element that adds to the overall irony is the fact that Mary's own husband is a police detective and that her house is full of police because they are naturally concerned about the murder of "one of their own." It is because of her close association with the police that she can invite them to have her leg of lamb for dinner and they will accept. This is unusual behavior for policemen, and they are only doing it because the author has established that Mary, as a cop's wife, is also "one of their own."

Sources:

We’ve answered 318,915 questions. We can answer yours, too.

Ask a question