Scan barcode
kateschu's review against another edition
4.0
Content Warnings
Graphic: Murder and Death
Moderate: Suicide, Violence, Cancer, Blood, and Terminal illness
Minor: Animal death, Child death, and Cursing
annalisaely's review against another edition
challenging
mysterious
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
1.0
I read this for a bookclub, and I have to admit this is one of the reason I don't do book clubs. Finding a book that is to everyone's tastes is hard. 1: I like likable characters. There were none in this book. Joy wasn't horrible, but she could hardly carry the book considering the size of her part. 2: I don't like who-dun-its unless the investigator is interesting and likable enough to carry my interest and enjoyment, and I felt meh about Atticus and openly hated the editor (the in story editor, the actual editor is probably a lovely person). Why did I openly hate said editor? Well, I'm autistic. So the first time a body-discoverer was described by a doctor character as "possibly a little autistic" my metaphorical ears perked up and I felt a little stabbing pain in my chest as I internally pleaded to the author, "Please don't be ableist, please don't be horrible to this character."
Well.
First of all, I wouldn't consider this to exactly canonically confirm, yes, this person is autistic. The doctor could have been entirely mistaken, and clearly couldn't be bothered to find out. But the character in question, Brent, was also coded as autistic ("coded" meaning "meant to appear as", the same concept as queer coding, where authors/directors/creatives make a character seem homosexual or genderqueer etc. without outright stating it, sometimes to get around rules about queer characters, sometimes to make a character seem more villainous or off putting). This was mainly accomplished by repeatedly, and by that I mean by every character perspective that included him, talking about how "off" he looked, how he was "sullen" (a common interpretation of flat affect combined with social anxiety, which many autistic people have), how his personal appearance was subpar, how not neat he was, how he was crumpled and had dirt beneath his fingernails (a gardener with dirt under his fingernails? Shocking!)
Both queer coding and autistic/neurodivergent coding are often used as signals to readers and other characters that a certain character is just not quite right, and therefore to cast suspicion. Sometimes it is used on the actual antagonist or murderer, and sometimes it's used as a red herring. Either way, it really sucks. It reliably reinforces that the coded traits are bad and that the people who have them are bad.
That's it for the non-spoiler section. Basically, if you are autistic, this book will probably hurt to read, and if you aren't but would like not to read things that reinforce negative stereotypes, you probably shouldn't read it either. For those who have already read the book, don't plan on reading it, or don't mind spoilers, I will now elaborate.
So Brent likes to read Boy's Life Magazine. My brother used to get this magazine and I can tell you there is nothing remotely sexual about it and it doesn't tend to feature boy scouts in even slight states of undress. Why do I have to say this? Because he also watches the boy scouts when they camp across the river from where he works. And from these two pieces of information, our illustrious editor decides he is a pedophile, and that's probably why he murdered Magnus Pye, to cover up the assault and murder of the child Tom that happened a number of years ago. In other words, she swallows the negative stereotyping of Brent hook line and sinker. Alternate explanation? Autistic people often have interests that are socially unacceptable for their age range, such as children liking chess and rocket science and adults liking glitter, or in this case, wanting to be a Boy Scout. Now you might say that this indicates that only the characters, not the author, are ableist (anti-disabled people - autism is a disability, therefore the best way to describe people who talk about or believe about autistic people in a negative way just for being autistic is "ableist"). And Anthony Horowitz may not believe horrible things about autistic people. But he couldn't be bothered to make sure he didn't portray them in a negative light or that the person who considered one a pedophile because of ablism was corrected. So people who know about autistic people and how their brains work, like me, might go away not believing Brent was a pedophile and generally a disgusting person (remember all those references to his appearance and attitude) but anyone who doesn't know how their brains work is very likely to go away having had their negative stereotypes about people who dress sloppily, make different types of facial expressions, and are interested in non-traditional things strengthened.
2017 is recent enough to know what sensitivity readers are and use them. A couple of changes could have made this book so much less damaging.
Well.
First of all, I wouldn't consider this to exactly canonically confirm, yes, this person is autistic. The doctor could have been entirely mistaken, and clearly couldn't be bothered to find out. But the character in question, Brent, was also coded as autistic ("coded" meaning "meant to appear as", the same concept as queer coding, where authors/directors/creatives make a character seem homosexual or genderqueer etc. without outright stating it, sometimes to get around rules about queer characters, sometimes to make a character seem more villainous or off putting). This was mainly accomplished by repeatedly, and by that I mean by every character perspective that included him, talking about how "off" he looked, how he was "sullen" (a common interpretation of flat affect combined with social anxiety, which many autistic people have), how his personal appearance was subpar, how not neat he was, how he was crumpled and had dirt beneath his fingernails (a gardener with dirt under his fingernails? Shocking!)
Both queer coding and autistic/neurodivergent coding are often used as signals to readers and other characters that a certain character is just not quite right, and therefore to cast suspicion. Sometimes it is used on the actual antagonist or murderer, and sometimes it's used as a red herring. Either way, it really sucks. It reliably reinforces that the coded traits are bad and that the people who have them are bad.
That's it for the non-spoiler section. Basically, if you are autistic, this book will probably hurt to read, and if you aren't but would like not to read things that reinforce negative stereotypes, you probably shouldn't read it either. For those who have already read the book, don't plan on reading it, or don't mind spoilers, I will now elaborate.
So Brent likes to read Boy's Life Magazine. My brother used to get this magazine and I can tell you there is nothing remotely sexual about it and it doesn't tend to feature boy scouts in even slight states of undress. Why do I have to say this? Because he also watches the boy scouts when they camp across the river from where he works. And from these two pieces of information, our illustrious editor decides he is a pedophile, and that's probably why he murdered Magnus Pye, to cover up the assault and murder of the child Tom that happened a number of years ago. In other words, she swallows the negative stereotyping of Brent hook line and sinker. Alternate explanation? Autistic people often have interests that are socially unacceptable for their age range, such as children liking chess and rocket science and adults liking glitter, or in this case, wanting to be a Boy Scout. Now you might say that this indicates that only the characters, not the author, are ableist (anti-disabled people - autism is a disability, therefore the best way to describe people who talk about or believe about autistic people in a negative way just for being autistic is "ableist"). And Anthony Horowitz may not believe horrible things about autistic people. But he couldn't be bothered to make sure he didn't portray them in a negative light or that the person who considered one a pedophile because of ablism was corrected. So people who know about autistic people and how their brains work, like me, might go away not believing Brent was a pedophile and generally a disgusting person (remember all those references to his appearance and attitude) but anyone who doesn't know how their brains work is very likely to go away having had their negative stereotypes about people who dress sloppily, make different types of facial expressions, and are interested in non-traditional things strengthened.
2017 is recent enough to know what sensitivity readers are and use them. A couple of changes could have made this book so much less damaging.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Ableism and Terminal illness
Moderate: Animal death, Child death, Death of parent, Suicidal thoughts, and Suicide
readerette's review against another edition
mysterious
tense
medium-paced
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.5
I much preferred the Atticus Pünd story (the "inner" mystery) to the "outer" mystery that wrapped around it about Alan Conway, the author of the Atticus Pünd stories. I didn't much like Susan Ryeland's character voice, and while I didn't guess the whodunnit in either mystery, the behavior of the revealed perpetrator in the "outer" mystery didn't feel in line with their character, which cheapened the whole ending of Susan's story for me.
Content Warnings
Minor: Animal death, Blood, Cancer, Child death, Chronic illness, Death, Grief, Infidelity, Mental illness, Terminal illness, and Violence
rorikae's review against another edition
adventurous
mysterious
tense
fast-paced
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0
‘Magpie Murders’ by Anthony Horowitz is a fascinating murder mystery that utilizes books and the murder mystery genre to explore two separate crimes. The frame story in Magpie Murders concerns Susan Ryeland, the editor at a publishing house who edits the novels of a famous murder mystery writer. We get the barest setup of her story before we are introduced to Magpie Murders by Alan Conway, the latest mystery book by the author that she edits. The first half of the book explores, in near its entirety, the fictitious novel Magpie Murders, reverting back to the frame narrative just before the reveal of what truly happens in the fictitious novel to explore a crime surrounding the book and its author. For the second half of the book, the reader is left trying to untangle two mysteries right alongside the main character as she tries to parcel out both the fictitious mystery in Magpie Murders along with the mystery that has sprung up in her own life.
By utilizing the frame narrative, Horowitz weaves an engaging mystery that kept me consistently on the edge of my seat. Though I think both mysteries are fascinating, I think the story within a story in the Magpie Murders by Alan Conway was my favorite of the two. It has a cozy, British mystery feel and because it takes up the first half of the book, I found myself more invested in these characters than I did in the characters from the frame narrative. Even so, I did find the mystery surrounding the book's author interesting as well though I found the solution and situation around it slightly less satisfying than the one in the book itself.
I do have a few quibbles with this book. For one, there were a few points were it was clear that this was a male writer writing female characters, though a majority of these are in the fictitious Magpie Murders so I’m not sure if these are intentionally placed by Anthony Horowitz to give insight into Alan Conway’s character or if these were just slips on his part. My other issue is with the character of Susan Ryeland. She’s an interesting character for most of the book but towards the end, she makes some big mistakes that seem contrary to how she has been acting in the rest of the novel. Suddenly, she is too trusting and doesn’t think too much about certain situations, where she has been overthinking most of the situations previously.
Despite this, I think this book was a ton of fun and a very gripping mystery. I highly, highly recommend the audiobook as it uses two different narrators (one for Susan’s story and another for Magpie Murders by Alan Conway) and both do a splendid job. I’m actually kind of sad that all of the books that Alan Conway wrote aren’t real though I am very much looking forward to the sequel to this series. I already have the audiobook on hold. If you like mysteries and are a big fan of books, I think you’ll thoroughly enjoy this novel.
By utilizing the frame narrative, Horowitz weaves an engaging mystery that kept me consistently on the edge of my seat. Though I think both mysteries are fascinating, I think the story within a story in the Magpie Murders by Alan Conway was my favorite of the two. It has a cozy, British mystery feel and because it takes up the first half of the book, I found myself more invested in these characters than I did in the characters from the frame narrative. Even so, I did find the mystery surrounding the book's author interesting as well though I found the solution and situation around it slightly less satisfying than the one in the book itself.
I do have a few quibbles with this book. For one, there were a few points were it was clear that this was a male writer writing female characters, though a majority of these are in the fictitious Magpie Murders so I’m not sure if these are intentionally placed by Anthony Horowitz to give insight into Alan Conway’s character or if these were just slips on his part. My other issue is with the character of Susan Ryeland. She’s an interesting character for most of the book but towards the end, she makes some big mistakes that seem contrary to how she has been acting in the rest of the novel. Suddenly, she is too trusting and doesn’t think too much about certain situations, where she has been overthinking most of the situations previously.
Despite this, I think this book was a ton of fun and a very gripping mystery. I highly, highly recommend the audiobook as it uses two different narrators (one for Susan’s story and another for Magpie Murders by Alan Conway) and both do a splendid job. I’m actually kind of sad that all of the books that Alan Conway wrote aren’t real though I am very much looking forward to the sequel to this series. I already have the audiobook on hold. If you like mysteries and are a big fan of books, I think you’ll thoroughly enjoy this novel.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Cancer and Terminal illness
Moderate: Animal death, Blood, Death, Suicide, and Violence
Minor: Animal death, Bullying, and Child abuse
frillyflutee's review against another edition
adventurous
mysterious
medium-paced
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
4.25
Content Warnings
Graphic: Death and Child death
Moderate: Violence, Cancer, Animal death, and Suicide
Minor: Terminal illness and Suicidal thoughts
More...