Irony In 'Lamb To The Slaughter And Trifles'

In “Lamb to the Slaughter” and “Trifles,” Roald Dahl and Susan Glasspell use irony to underscore the women’s competence and utilitarianism, as well as emphasize the men’s incompetence and absolutism.

Firstly, Dahl uses irony to show the men’s incompetence in “Lamb to the Slaughter,” juxtaposing them with Mary. The men conduct the investigation opposite of how they should. Firstly, they did not evacuate the scene - allowing Mary to stay in the house. This opens up an opportunity for her to manipulate the evidence. The men allow Mary to stay in the house because of their benign sexism: they do not believe that a woman would be smart enough to tamper with the evidence at a crime scene, even if she was guilty. They are incompetent in their jobs

However, the investigators’ even worse offense was drinking on the job and touching evidence (which is to say, eating the murder weapon). The men allow themselves to be manipulated by Mary, showing their incompetence in their job: “There was a good deal of hesitating among the four police men, but they were clearly hungry, and in the end they were persuaded to go into the kitchen and help themselves” (Dahl 9). Because they drank on the job and tampered with the evidence, any observations they made and any judgements that were based on the scene would be voided due to their compromised mental capacity. This shows the incompetence of the men by pointing out the misconduct in their job performance. Likewise, in “Trifles,” the county attorney and sheriff also allow Mrs. Peters and Mrs. Hale to remain at the crime scene. Like the investigators in “Lamb to the Slaughter,” they are extremely sexist and do not believe the women are capable of manipulating the scene. They are later proved wrong, showing the men’s faults. Additionally, even before they come on the scene, the sheriff allows Frank (who is