We all know Roald Dahl as the author who wrote the book, “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory,” right? A poor kid is offered the chance of a lifetime, and ends up becoming heir to a large company, magically solving all of his issues. The book is supposed to be heartwarming, to teach kids that they ought to be grateful for what they’ve got, and to not be obnoxious little brats, while making a mockery of obese children.
The story centers around two main characters, Mary Maloney and her husband, Patrick. Here’s a link to the full story.
Warning: Beyond here lie spoilers. Continue at your own risk.
Time Period
This short story was written in 1953. At the time, World War Two had ended, leading to a focus on economic growth, and was the beginning of the Baby Boomer Generation, aptly named due to the influx of children being born. At this time, most men were expected to provide for their families, and women were supposed to stay home, cook, clean, and raise children.
The Characters
Mary, Mary, quite contrary
Simply put, Mary is characterized as the perfect wife. She cooks, cleans, sews, tends to her husband, and bears his children (she is six months pregnant with her first child as the story begins). She is literally. perfect. She is so perfect she makes me want to puke. The story opens with her finishing up her sewing, in which she is described with “…a slow smiling air about her, and about everything she did,” a “[curiously tranquil] drop of [her] head,” and “…placid [looking] eyes. (1). She is innocent and submissive, the two best qualities when searching for a wife in the 1950s. She’s done everything right, but why does her husband still decides to leave her for another woman?
Mary is, unsurprisingly distraught after hearing about the affair, and that Patrick is leaving her. In order to cope with it, she does the only thing she knows how to do– attempts to make her soon-to-be-ex-husband dinner. But behind this woman’s placid eyes and demure smile is a raging beast that claws its way out of little by little. First, of course, she murders her husband, which I guess could be a result of shock and grief, but she even goes as far to train herself to lie to her grocer (whom she uses as an alibi), as well as the cops who come to investigate (whom she uses to “hide” the murder weapon).
In the span of just over five pages, Mary has proven herself to be quite the manipulator, an entirely different woman from the one we are initially introduced to. However, she is quickly written off by the cops, who believe that her “womanly sensibilities” could never allow her to harm her husband. And once she’s in the clear, “Mary Maloney began to giggle.” (5) This ultimately leads to the question: is Mary simply in shock, or had she been acting the entire time?
Passionless Patrick
Patrick, Mary’s husband. He is first seen arriving home from work, in which Mary greets him with “Hullo darling,” and he returns with a “Hullo darling,” with all the enthusiasm of a weatherman reading from a teleprompter. From the beginning, he is introduced as a passionless man. Most of what he said is him echoing something Mary just said, or command her to do something for him, (he tells her to sit down at least twice on the first two pages of the story). Interestingly enough, his longest line of dialogue is after he tells Mary that he’s leaving her. He’s super considerate about the whole thing, though, as he recognizes that “…it’s kind of a bad time to be telling you, bet there simply wasn’t any other way,” and says that he hopes “there [isn’t] any fuss.” Thankfully, Patrick’s painful dialogue stops when Mary clubs him on the back of the head with a leg of lamb and kills him.
Theme
“So you better run for cover when the pup grows up”
In the beginning of my post, I talked about “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory,” which I’d like to bring back now. In both Chocolate Factory and Lamb, Dahl presents the theme of underestimation. Charlie is considered less of a competition for the Grand Prize because he is poor. While he was extremely lucky (as he did happen to buy the correct chocolate bar containing the Golden Ticket), he is easily written off by the wealthier contestants, who are shocked that he manages to win the competition.
Similarly, Mary is underestimated by Patrick. He coddles her, talks down to her, but at the same time, expects to come home to supper on the table, his wife there to cater to his every whim like Donna Reed. As a result, Patrick begins to take Mary for granted, and that is his undoing. He grows insensitive to Mary, which is why he begins an affair. As Mary returns from the kitchen with the leg of lamb, Patrick says “‘For God’s sake,’ he said, hearing her, but not turning round. ‘Don’t make supper for me. I’m going out.’” (2) Though I’ve already talked about the characters, here I’d like to point out that Patrick takes Mary for granted so much that he doesn’t turn around to acknowledge her, an action that could have saved his life.
Final Thoughts
Altogether, I found Lamb to the Slaughter to be a thought-provoking story about one’s inner psyche. It was fast-paced, ironic, and made me laugh at times. The story explores what could happen if women take justice into their own hands, something I found fascinating considering under-representation in modern-day legal systems.
“Lamb to the Slaughter – Meaning and Usage.” Literary Devices, 14 Sept. 2017, literarydevices.net/lamb-to-the-slaughter/.
“Lamb to the Slaughter Theme Essay.” StudyHippo.com, 6 Apr. 2017, studyhippo.com/essay-lamb-to-the-slaughter-theme/.
Wow, this is the third blog I read about “Lamb to the Slaughter,” and I really enjoy learning about the different perspectives of the story. There is this one thing you said that really caught my attention:”The story explores what could happen if women take justice into their own hands.” I just do not quite agree with what you said about it being justice. Is it really justice when Mary kills Patrick with a lamb leg and manipulates the detectives to eat it? I don’t believe Patrick deserved death. I mean, he was a pretentious jerk to Mary, but death, really? Also, the fact that she was manipulating the detectives about his death and letting them eat the weapon- was that also all in the name of justice? On the other hand, I really like how you tied in “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” with this story. It adds a nice connection between two of Road Dahl’s works.
You’re right– it definitely depends on the reader’s own feelings on whether Patrick’s death was deserved or not. But, the way I interpreted it was that, when he tells her that he is leaving her, Dahl was also implying that Patrick was having an affair, thus the reason he wanted to leave Mary. I don’t think murder was the only way for Mary to feel as though she’s had her revenge, but it’s what she does, so it’s what I have to work with. I think another big question Dahl was trying to ask the reader was, “when is murder justified?” He purposely creates Mary to be a sympathetic character: she believes Patrick to be her sun and moon, and she’s seemingly oblivious to his condescension and power over her. I also believe that this story was Dahl’s way of cautioning the reader: is Mary an empowered woman, or has she taken it too far, and crossed the line into Feminazi territory? As for the police men, one specific piece of dialogue comes to mind. Remember when Patrick basically says “I don’t want you to make a big fuss that I cheated on you and I’m leaving you, because it would be bad if that came back to haunt me at work?” Remember, Patrick is (or at least was) a police man himself. The men that come investigate are Patrick’s work friends, meaning that their values most likely intertwined with his own, as they’d spent a lot of time together. Here, Dahl is trying to imply that the police (these men put into important positions of power) don’t care who they hurt, so long as they stay blameless, which again ties back into the theme of a male-dominant society. And I think Mary realized this too, so by making the police “dispose” of the murder weapon, she was also getting her revenge on the patriarchy.
I remember reading Lamb to the Slaughter in middle school. It was quite the experience! I remember actually finding some humor in the situation; my English class also watched a movie adaptation of it, and it was almost comical how she hits her husband in the head. I wonder if maybe Roald Dahl intended on the story being at least somewhat humorous; yes, it’s a good commentary on gender roles and society, but I think there might be some level of dark humor at play.
I also remember watching the film, which, as I recall, was directed by Alfred Hitchcock. There is definitely a humorous aspect to the film, but one thing that interested me is the difference between short story and movie Mary. In the story, she is seen as a lot more sympathetic; the murder was clearly a crime of passion. But in the film, she is portrayed as much more cunning and vicious, namely in the scene where she clubs Patrick with the leg of lamb. She is seen carrying the leg up the stairs as one would a baseball bat, holding it with both hands out in front of her, which leads to the question, was the murder premeditated? And if so, why would the director choose to portray her in such a light? Thanks for taking the time to comment!