To further support my point the story reaches a comical climax in the dinner scene, in which the detectives eat the cooked lamb’s leg and discuss the opportunity of finding the blunt tool used to kill poor Patrick. Subsequently the action of the story begins to rise as Mary patently waits for her husband to return and continues to increase as it becomes clear that he is preparing to start the matter of divorce. Hence the falling action become interesting because she already killed her husband and wants to cover everything so she acts as an innocent woman as she sees her husband’s friends which are officers, and tries to hide the weapon by making them eat the leg’s lamb. Moreover, the story is expressed from the third person limited omniscient point of view so that the readers can see warmth, cleanliness, and scene of the story through Mary’s eyes. Indeed Mary has shown as a harmless domestic character at
Shakespeare is showing that “ cannot commit such crime without undergoing terrible inner torment and triggering self-defeating behavior”( Paris) shows that it is the less external consequences of his crime than the internal deterioration. Macbeth went through so much pressure to do the crime he later regretted and suffered and battles with himself and his paranoia. Lady Macbeth only saw the effects of blood visually she did not see how the blood stain was eating Macbeth from the inside. Once again Lady Macbeth is pushing Macbeth to forget about what happened and move on, the murder does not affect Lady Macbeth but the way Macbeth is acting shows that he was never ready to commit this
The couple in “The Gift of the Magi” were unaware of the fact they were both selling their possessions to provide accessories for said possessions. The police officers in “Lamb to the Slaughter” had no idea that they were being fed the murder weapon that assisted Mary in her crime. In one, a mystery was solved, and in the other, a mystery was left unsolved. Although, “The Gift of the Magi” is more believable than “Lamb to the Slaughter” due to the amount of luck it would take to be able to pull off a crime such as the one Mary
The character “Mary Maloney” from the short story “Lamb to the Slaughter” perpetrated condemning actions towards her husband and fellow society members, by her sinful behavior as follows, she carries out the crime of a murder by killing her husband (Patrick Maloney), then conceals the murder in mischievous ways, and tops it by mocking respected officers. Foremost, Mary Maloney ceased her husband’s life away forever with no sorrow within her. “All right, she told herself. So I’ve killed him” (p.13). From the quote there is perceptible evidence that Mary Maloney has evidently killed her husband and feels no regret towards it.
In Porphyria’s Lover, the only reference we have to the supernatural is towards the end. After Porphyria’s lover murders her, he makes a frightening reference towards God, “In one long yellow string I wound/ Three times her little throat around, /And strangled her. No pain felt she;/ I am quite sure she felt no pain/…And thus we sit together now,/And all night long we have not stirred,/ And yet God has not said a word!”(39-42,58-60). In Porphyria’s Lover, we see Porphyria’s murderer mock God for not taking any action against him for the murder that he just committed against his own lover. All night long he sits with the women he has just murdered and God never sends down any punishment on him for it.
An Irony is evident in the eighth chapter of The Great Gatsby, due to the unexpected situation, when Wilson kills Gatsby; this episode is Ironic because of multiple reasons; At first readers should have expected instead for Tom to kill him due to the fact that Gatsby was having an affair with Daisy. On the other hand Wilson thinks when he kills Gatsby that he is avenging his wife 's deaths but that 's simply a misunderstanding and finally the murderer is the only character who seems to care about conventional morality and rules of socially acceptable behavior. In chapter eight Gatsby states that: "He couldn 't possibly leave Daisy until he knew what she was going to do. He was clutching at some last hope and I couldn 't bear to shake him free" (155). Through this quote it is evident the deep affection and love.
Hamlet said sorry for killing Polonius by “accident” but, he doesn’t seem to be sorry at all, he just dragged Polonius across the floor behind him (III.iv.207-20). He didn’t even bother to save Polonius when he stabbed him; he just let him die. When King Claudius find out, he didn’t even want to punish Hamlet for killing Polonius because he loves Hamlet’s mother and Hamlet is loved b y the people, punishing him will rise a rebellion against him. Despite the crime that was created by Hamlet, a prince with high social class, he didn’t received any punishment, it was covered up. Polonius didn’t receive any justice for his death.
“A lie—a wicked lie… we never did—neither of us…” Most of the characters in this book blame themselves for murdering someone. “Drunk, that’s what it was—drunk… And I operated! Nerves all to pieces—hands shaking. I killed her all right. Poor devil—elderly woman—simple job if I’d been sober.” Dr. Armstrong knows exactly how he killed someone.
Another instance in which ‘you get what you give’ is experienced is when Heck Tate covers up Bob Ewell’s murder to protect Boo from the public eye. Mr. Tate was wise enough to know the punishment for killing innocent people, as experienced from Bob Ewell and Tom Robinson. Heck saw first hand what happened and how it ends for Mr. Ewell. Secondly, it was again karma for Bob as his murder was merely shown as ‘clumsy drunk Ewell fell on his kitchen knife and died’ no one would know the truth about his murder and even in his death no one would have sympathy for him or try and stand up for him. Even in death Bob Ewell’s fate got to him, he will soon be forgotten and any memory people have of him will be the rude drunk of Maycomb, as he was.
In the short story, “Lamb to the Slaughter” Patrick, Mary’s husband, goes home and tells Mary that he no longer wants to be with her and their baby. She then proceeds to express her anguish by murdering him and sets up the murder scene so that she would not get caught. Later on, she calls the police and says that her husband was murdered and the detectives try to uncover the murderer and murder weapon. Roald Dahl uses objects and symbols to contextualize his ideas that people go through things innocently without knowing the danger, like a lamb to the slaughter. Now, lamb has come to represent innocence and peace and the meaning of a lamb has come to change in this story where it is used to murder the woman’s husband.
I agree with the not-guilty verdict on the murder one and two charges; however, the evidence is not as incontrovertible as some have suggested. I also agree that there was some mischaracterization around the 31 days; yet, to trivialize this behavior as simply immature is inaccurate. The way Casey handled the death was inexcusable. Not calling 911 and hiding the body was morally and criminally wrong. The lack of remorse bothered me as an utter disregard for her dead daughter and selfishness unparalleled.
Both the terrorist organization and the Party committed crimes. The terrorist organization murdered people and destructed evidence just like the Party did. Winston mentions that if a person committed a thoughtcrime they were already dead because the Thought Police would figure it out and vaporize them. In his diary Winston writes, “Thoughtcrime does not entail death: thoughtcrime IS death.” What he means is it’s not a matter of IF the Thought Police find out, but WHEN they find out. In the article Beate Zschaepe explains that she wasn’t involved in preparing or carrying out the crimes, but she felt guilty because she couldn’t do anything to stop them.
The last similarity is irony. “The Lottery” is supposed to be a good thing for people, but the prize is anything but good; rather the “winner” ends up dying. In the “Lamb of the Slaughter” a lamb to the Slaughter usually refers the someone who is unaware they are about to be harmed, since lambs are innocent. They are unaware of what is to become of them, lambs are easily led to slaughter.
Who does the blame fall on in the murder? Now in the little town of Soledad two people have died, Lennie and Curley’s Wife. Lennie killed Curley’s wife George was right when he killed Lennie, even though they might have been able to make it out alive. George did the right thing when he killed Lennie because Lennie was starting not to listen to him and could end up getting George and Lennie killed. Lennie would do anything George told him don’t get me wrong, but Lennie could not remember what George told him, therefore he would do the opposite which would end up putting them in a worse situation.