Lamb To The Slaughter Mary Maloney

On July 24, 2002, David Lynn Harris was brutally murdered. David had been seeing another woman in secrecy; when his wife, Clara Harris, found out, she ran over him three times with their daughter in the passenger seat witnessing everything. Clara was sentenced to 20 years in prison along with a fine of $10,000. Just as Clara was found guilty, so should Mary Maloney from the short story, Lamb to the Slaughter by Roald Dahl. This story was based in the fifties and clearly shows the roles of men and women. However, when Patrick, the husband of Mary, came home, he spoke of bad news and Mary hit him on the head with a leg of lamb, hence the name of the story. Readers can automatically come to the conclusion that Mary Maloney is guilty. Her mental

stability before, during, and after the incident, the logical cover up story, and her emotions and actions towards her wrong doings all prove that she was aware and responsible for the hostile act towards Patrick, and therefore should be proven guilty.
First of all, Mary Maloney was mentally stable throughout the whole incident, thus she cannot be proven insane. At the beginning of the story Dahl says, “Now and again she would glance up at the clock, but without anxiety, merely to please herself with the thought that each minute gone by made it nearer the times when he would come.” (Dahl 379) and, “But, darling you have to eat! I’ll fix it anyway and then you can have it or not, as you like.” (Dahl 380) . Both of which show she was normal, stable, and simply living the everyday life of a domestic goddess. Just before she murders him, Dahl states another example of her awareness quoting, “All right then they would have lamb for supper…” leading to, “... She saw him standing over by the window with his back to her, she stopped.” (Dahl 381) Proving Mary was aware of her environment and thoughts in the moment and still conscious. Throughout the story, Mary remains calm and normal as if nothing happened and was still showing domestic goddess characteristics. She still offers men their food, and has an innocent appearance, and when the cops say that the weapon could be right under their noses, Mary giggles showing that she indeed knows what she did and is finding joy in manipulating the cops. Her innocent projection as a woman in the 1950’s helped her get away with it since no one suspected a woman to commit a crime, and was all part of her clever plan to dodge the bullet which leads us to the next topic.
Moving on, Mary went through a lot of trouble to formulate a clever, and logical cover up story.

After the incident Mary goes to the store to buy Patricks favorite food. “I want some potatoes, please, Sam. Yes , and perhaps a can of beans too. Patricks decided he was tired and he doesn’t want to eat out tonight…”, (Dahl 382) Dahl quotes. Why would Mary go to the store and pretend nothing happened after she just murdered her husband? Mary was trying to gain an alibi so that when the cops asked where she was when the murder happened, she could have Sam, the grocer, cover her up, and say that she was acting normal. Not only this, but before she went to the grocery store, she recited what she would say to Sam as if she was rehearsing for a play. Roald Dahl puts a lot of emphasis on this, using the word acting and innocent in many places, and can display many scenarios. However, they all lead back to the fact Mary was logically planning a cover up story so that she wouldn’t mess up her one and only chance to hide the evidence. In the end it worked, Mary called the cops while the lamb was in the oven for Patrick and manipulated them into eating it. They were oblivious to the fact that they were eating the murder weapon, and creates irony throughout the story. If Mary was insane, she wouldn’t have even thought she did anything wrong, or she would have tried to plead her way out using the insanity defense in the courtroom, but instead she covered it up because she knew she was

guilty. For instance, when a kid breaks something valuable, they create a story to cover up what happened because they know that they’re guilty just as Mary does.
Furthermore, Mary can also be proven guilty because of her emotional breakdowns; her breakdowns also signify awareness and responsibility of the murder.

The text says, “ All the old love for him came back came back to her, and she ran over to him, knelt down beside him, and began to cry hard. It was easy, no acting was necessary.” She was filled with guilt and regret, and started to cry over what she did. Most people with disorders claim to not remember incidents, and they don’t really think about it or get emotional over their victims; they do it out of impulse and keep doing it until they have fulfilled their goal. Later on in the story she comes back to the police officers with tearful eyes, and asks if they would want to eat the pork chop for Patrick's desires and wishes. “Well,” she said. “ Here you all are, and good friends of dear Patricks too, and helping to catch the man who killed him. You must be terribly hungry by now…” the text says and goes on to say that she wanted them to eat the lamb because Patrick would want them to. This proves two points, she felt bad and wanted to make Patrick happy, and that she was once again being clever and sly so she could get rid of the weapon. The story also tells of her sitting in her chair for long periods of time, drinking alcohol in silence while the cops search the house. Not only was Mary acting innocent, she was pondering on thought of her husband being gone; since alcohol washes away emotions and memories, the reader can

infer that she was trying to convince herself or forget that she had just murdered her husband.
However, during the incident Mary may have cracked and went through a spell of insanity. For example the text says,” The violence of the crash, the noise, the small table overturning, helped bring her out of the shock.” This can show she was experiencing temporary insanity during the moment of the murder, and she was following her instinct even though it was wrong. There are many mental illnesses make people go through spells, and cause them to do things they shouldn’t do out of impulse; schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and other personality disorders are all examples. Even though this can be true in some cases, there are other reasons that contradicts she is insane. For example, symptoms of insanity include illogical thinking, apathy, problems thinking, and withdrawal. Mary's character is portrayed as very clever, sly, and naturally a logical thinker which can automatically cancel out the illogical thinking statement. During the story, Mary goes upstairs and practices what she is going to say to the grocer to try to be as normal as possible. Mary talks a lot about how her day has been, asks how the grocers day has been and orders the usual in a very friendly and talkative manner; therefore the withdrawal cannot be used in Mary's case. Not only does she talk to the grocer, but when her husband arrives home she is very jittery and excited and asks how his day has been, what he was up to, if he wants dinner, and much more. When the cops show up, she once again has many conversations and is very good at communicating with one another. In the end even though she may have shown symptoms of mental illnesses, she is still guilty at the end of the day.
Over all, Mary Maloney from the short story, “Lamb to the Slaughter”, should be proven guilty due to her mental stability before, during, and after, her well thought out cover up story, and her emotional breakdowns. There were many points in the story to prove this, and many reasons to go along with it.