Mary Had A Huge Lamb Leg: A Review on Roald Dahl’s Lamb To The Slaughter

~SPOILER ALERT~

 

If you haven’t read this gruesomely hilarious story, I would strongly recommend it. My review and analysis on this text would be about as cold and dead as a frozen lamb leg without some spoilers. Don’t worry, I’ll wait and laugh quietly to myself in the other room.

I’ll wait and laugh quietly in the other room… (Source: Alfred Hitchcock’s 1958 production of Lamb to the Slaughter)

Link to full story: https://4.files.edl.io/4a65/10/23/18/235824-cd055462-e062-467c-a8ae-492f46d8caad.pdf

 

Done? Alright, let’s talk about it.

 

When I first finished this short story, I honestly didn’t know whether to laugh or to be terrified at the horrific events which unfolded at the end. After a quick google search on the topic, I realized that this was most likely Roald Dahl’s purpose, and that the feeling of unnaturalness and confusion is a keystone element in the story. 

 

This makes Lamb To The Slaughter what’s known as a black comedy, or a humorous portrayal of a traumatic series of events, and this makes perfect sense. I mean, take a step back and think about what we just read: Mary, the doting housewife of Patrick, crushes Patrick’s skull with a frozen lamb leg? Although the ending was eerie, let’s be honest for a second here—it doesn’t get much funnier than that.

 

Similar to this duality of humor and horror, this story is also drowning in irony. Take the title, for instance. While it fittingly describes the plot of the story, sure, the phrase’s roots are biblical in nature, describing someone whose innocence leads them to be manipulated. This irony manifests the meaning that lies beyond the almost slapstick murder of Patrick, and I would argue that there are two “lambs to the slaughter” present: Mary and Patrick. Mary, whose name itself is a play on a childhood nursery rhyme, is, at the beginning, obsessed with her marriage. Her seemingly unconditional devotion to her husband is cut short, and Mary the lamb is “slaughtered” when Patrick reveals his intended departure. On the flip side, Patrick’s image of Mary—a caring wife that he can manipulate—gives him a false sense of trust, leading this lamb to be “slaughtered” physically (and with a lamb, at that).

 

Mary and Lamb… sound familiar? (Source: Storynory)

At the same time, dramatic irony—an information gap between the readers and certain characters in the story—adds to the delicious tension that compounds during our readthrough. When the policemen arrive and find their coworker murdered on the floor, it’s their appetite and politeness to Mary which is perhaps the most hilarious of all. As they discuss the obviousness of the murder weapon somewhere in the house over dinner, the dinner is precisely what is destroying the evidence. To Mary, as well as the readers, this could not be more obvious. However, it’s the lack of knowledge that the policemen have which makes this story hysterically funny (to both us as well as Mary, apparently). 

 

Jokes aside, is this story’s purpose to exist as a dark comedy, creeping out all those who read it? Well, not exactly. While humor and irony both give this lamb leg story flavor, the meat of the piece requires some context. In reality, this story was written during the Post-War Period, or just shortly after World War II. This period was rich with cultural transformation, specifically with the relationship between men and women. For one, divorce was common during this time, providing a logical reason for Patrick’s attempted departure from his marriage. Even more interestingly, however, is that this period served as a time of liberation for minorities and women, and it is this historical snippet which I think reveals insight about the true meaning of this story.

 

In my eyes, Lamb To The Slaughter is not so much a murder story as it is a story of the empowerment of women. Mary’s actions, when viewed objectively, actually break the shackles of manipulation and dependence Mary has for her husband. Sure, you could argue that Patrick was leaving her already, but it’s Mary’s deliberate action to end her relationship with her husband that grants her freedom from Patrick’s patriarchal reign. Not only that, but Mary is depicted as the only female character in a story full of men, yet she is the one who is proactively outsmarting the male policemen and her husband. While the details remain grotesque, Mary’s symbolic journey to independence ought to be admired rather than laughed at. 

 

Although this idea may seem far fetched, I’m not alone on this one. Professional critics of the story itself have divided into classes of thought, with a popular one being crowned the “Feminist Criticism.” Take Nisa Nine’s—a postdoctoral researcher at the Northern University of Malaysia— critique paper, where she claims that “Dahl wants to highlight the importance of respecting and understanding the women of our lives.” This party of critique views this story to be one of liberation and freedom rather than murder, and I would have to agree.

 

After all, Mary is the one who has the “clear head” at the end of the story. As for Patrick? His head is, well… you know where this is going.

 

Whether we dive into Dahl’s broader social commentary or not, I would definitely consider this story to be a must-read. While a lot of claims I made are still widely debated by English researchers worldwide, this short story about a lamb leg is truly some appetizing food for thought.

 

 

Alfred Hitchcock’s 1958 production of Lamb To The Slaughter:

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x70l4os

 

 

 

Works Cited

Hitchcock, Alfred. “Alfred Hitchcock Presents S03E28 Lamb To The Slaughter – Video Dailymotion.” Dailymotion, Dailymotion, 13 Jan. 2019, www.dailymotion.com/video/x70l4os.

Howard, Philip. “Dahl, Roald (1916–1990).” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004; online ed., May 2006 [2]. Retrieved August 8, 2007

Nine, Nisa. “Literary Criticism Theory in Discussing The Lamb to The Slaughter by Roald Dahl.” Academia.edu, May 2013, www.academia.edu/5993986/Literary_criticism_theory_in_discussing_The_Lamb_to_The_Slaughter_by_Roald_Dahl.

Where is Everybody?

Sitting in Los Alamos National Lab, physicist Enrico Fermi looks up from his lunch break and asks his colleagues a question that has been debated ever since.

“Where is everybody?”

From sci-fi blockbusters to the recent Area 51 raid endeavors, extraterrestrial life has caught the attention of children and physicists alike. I’m sure that almost everyone, at some point, has gazed into the star-studded sky and wondered: is anyone else out there? 

While I cherish my childhood memories of the Toy Story martians and the oddly shaped Jar Jar Binks from Star Wars, the physics behind the topic itself is even more intriguing. Here, I’ll offer my human insight on this alien problem and try to convince you of two things. First, that other intelligent life forms exist in abundance nearby, even in our own Milky Way galaxy; second, that the reason why we haven’t received signals of other life is due to our own lack of intelligence and technology.

Let’s start where just about every physics lesson begins: with an equation. 

The Drake Equation (taken from the SETI Institute)

Formulated in 1961 by astrophysicist Frank Drake, the Drake Equation offers a prediction on the number of advanced civilizations in a given area. In layman’s terms, this equation is essentially an alien population predictor. With some data points with stars, planets, and percentages, Drake calculated between 1,000 and 100,000,000 other intelligent beings in our galaxy. Math doesn’t lie, and our question appears to have been answered. 

Where is everyone? Simple: all around us.

But that’s not satisfying, is it? For one, if these calculations predict so many other intelligent life forms around us, why have we not seen signals of contact from them? This is where Enrico Fermi’s lunchtime speculation comes back to the forefront of discussion. His infamous question, now formally known as the Fermi Paradox, is, to this day, completely unsolved. However, I would like to consider four different hypotheses and unpack both their viability and the implications they provide to humanity as a species.

(Above is a video explaining the basic concepts regarding the Fermi Paradox, as well as a brief introduction to the solutions discussed below.)

The first potential solution has been coined the Zoo Hypothesis, with the explanation being just that: we are like animals in a zoo. Humans do this all the time. From zoo exhibits to national parks and reservations, we often observe less intelligent animals in their natural habitats and avoid interfering with their ecosystems. Replace a zebra or panda with humanity and the bars and cages with a galaxy, and you have yourself a fascinating perspective of our universe and those watching from the outside—Exhibit Earth of the Galactic Zoo: the human species. I wonder how much the entrance fee would be to see the 2020 elections pan out.

But we don’t always leave other animals alone, and this philosophy allows us to arrive at a more humbling solution to the Fermi Paradox: we’re just too stupid to hear alien signals. To put this into perspective, imagine being stranded in a desert all alone. After billions of years of wandering, you come into contact with another species—a desert ant. Isolated and lonely, you try desperately to have it acknowledge your existence. You tell it stories, sing it songs, and write it letters. Will the ant ever realize that there’s a much smarter animal attempting to make contact with it? Of course not—some species are comparatively more advanced than others, making communication between the two impossible. But that’s just it.

Another well-known hypothesis is the Great Filter. At a basic level, it states that there are multiple steps for species to be complex enough to harbor galactic communication, and that we are one step away from doing so. I, as do many theoretical physicists, find this near impossible to believe. Consider the Earth alone, with around nine million plant and animal species. While we may reign supreme on our home turf, the probability for our superiority at the predicted scale of around one hundred million species seems far-fetched, at best. 

The basic principle of The Great Filter, visualized (taken from Medium)

A more eerie rendition of the Great Filter takes us to our last solution: intelligent beings self destruct. Whether it be from overpopulation, pollution, or unsustainable environmental practices, the energy and resources required to maintain a complex, technological society are extremely taxing. Perhaps species, before gaining the ability to communicate intergalactically, destroyed themselves. They ignored their planet’s atmosphere and exploited natural resources, leading to their gradual, yet inevitable, extinction. Sound familiar? It should—it tells the horror story of our current battle against climate change and carbon emissions near perfectly.

While these hypotheses remain speculative in nature, a common truth seems to arise no matter which angle you attack the problem from—we are not nearly as smart as we think we are. Regardless if it be through a lack of technology and resources or the overuse of it, humanity as a whole remains oblivious to the world around them both domestically and in the Milky Way. To answer the question, “where is everybody?”, perhaps it’s best to first look retrospectively at ourselves rather than the cosmos above.

 

Works Cited

“Drake Equation.” Drake Equation, SETI Institute, www.seti.org/drake-equation-index.

Jasty, Kunal. “6 Mind-Bending Solutions to the Fermi Paradox.” Medium, Radio Open Source, 30 July 2014, medium.com/tag/astronomy/archive.

Kurzgesagt. “The Fermi Paradox – Where Are All The Aliens?” YouTube, YouTube, 6 May 2015, www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNhhvQGsMEc.

Shostak, Seth. “Fermi Paradox.” SETI Institute, 19 Apr. 2018, www.seti.org/seti-institute/project/fermi-paradox.