You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
Reviews tagging 'Misogyny'
How to murder your Boss – McMasters Handbuch zum Morden by Rupert Holmes
30 reviews
adventurous
dark
emotional
funny
mysterious
medium-paced
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated
Content Warnings
Graphic: Death, Domestic abuse, Emotional abuse, Gun violence, Misogyny, Sexism, Suicide, Violence, Murder, Pregnancy, Sexual harassment
dark
funny
lighthearted
mysterious
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
I really liked it and I think there was only one person in my book club that didn't like it at all. It was very innovative and different. Everything that happens during the middle of the book all comes full circle which can be a very hard thing to do considering that there are three different main characters.
Content Warnings
Moderate: Death, Misogyny, Sexism, Suicide, Violence, Murder, Sexual harassment
I mention the descriptions about because one of the characters, Doria, experiences sexism/sexual harassments from her target and of course the name of the book isn't a hidden message. There is murder in the book. Also two of the characters commit suicide although the man who did (whose name slips from me) is revealed to do so later. You also will get to know who Cliff's sponsor is.
adventurous
dark
lighthearted
reflective
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Content Warnings
Moderate: Suicidal thoughts, Suicide, Suicide attempt, Murder
Minor: Gun violence, Misogyny, Transphobia, Death of parent
funny
mysterious
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
N/A
This book was a lot of fun! The style is innovative and engaging, it eas easy to invest in the characters and their stories, and the end was very satisfying. The afterword, however, felt rather on the nose and undeserved.
Content Warnings
Moderate: Death, Emotional abuse, Rape, Sexism, Suicidal thoughts, Suicide, Terminal illness, Blood, Murder, Sexual harassment
Minor: Chronic illness, Drug use, Homophobia, Incest, Infidelity, Misogyny, Racism, Transphobia, Blood, Grief, Pregnancy
funny
informative
inspiring
lighthearted
mysterious
fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Content Warnings
Moderate: Bullying, Death, Emotional abuse, Misogyny, Rape, Sexism, Sexual assault, Medical content, Murder, Gaslighting, Toxic friendship, Abandonment, Classism
adventurous
funny
lighthearted
mysterious
fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
TLDR: Very good Golden Age Style Mystery with a few twists.
I was pleasantly surprised by this mystery novel. The blurb promises entertainment which is delivered mostly in puns in the first half of the book. Then Mr Holmes gets to work with an intricately plotted how-they done-it novel.
The forward is a bit tiresome, but necessary to understanding the setting. The rest of the narrative is an omnipresent narrator and a mix of journal entries from the main character to his patron, reports, and letters. The later being indicated by chapter headings. The style is down to earth with enough description to fill in the blanks but not be flowery. The action is pretty easy to follow and main characters are easy to differentiate.
The characterisation was okay, the minor characters suffered in particular. Main characters were somewhat stereotyped though they acted consistent with their characters throughout the novel. The first part of the novel was rather under peopled though filling a school like it should be is always tricky for both the writer and the reader.
In true Golden Age fashion all the would be deletees were nasty humans. I thought two of them deserved an Orient Express experience to tell the truth. I anticipate there were after the funeral parties. The setting is 1950’s America so at least the author didn’t have to worry about the modern banes of deleters existence DNA and mobile phones. Though one deletion method was old fashioned, the other two were quite novel.
The postscript does make me wonder if the punishment will fit the crime.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Bullying, Death, Emotional abuse, Violence, Murder
Moderate: Body shaming, Misogyny, Rape, Sexism, Sexual assault, Sexual content, Suicide, Blood, Kidnapping, Death of parent, Gaslighting, Alcohol
Minor: Gun violence, Grief, Car accident, Pregnancy, Injury/Injury detail
This book felt like it was more about the author proving his own cleverness, explaining the perfect crimes in perfect detail, than it was about telling a good story. It would have made a funny short story. At novel length, it gave me a lot of time as a reader to pull on threads. Under a close reading, things quickly began to unravel.
Holmes never fully leaned into the macabre and the satire. The bad guys had to be completely irredeemable. The deletists had to be good people. We had to be told with the same overly academic heavy-handedness that these deaths are ethical! This didn't give the reader any room to be uncomfortable and seriously ponder the ethics of extrajudicial murder. It also made the book less fun and silly than it could have been.
The entire book is expositive. It made it difficult as a reader to emotionally relate to any of the characters.
McMasters is an absolutely bananas, nonsense place with bananas, nonsense rules. This could have been cool - but once again, Holmes kept telling us 'no no it makes perfect sense.' It does not, and that sort of disconnect was really frustrating as a reader. I'm down to read about and accept nonsense. Asking me to accept why nonsense rules are actually rational just made me bristle.
We follow three deletists and I kept wondering - why these three? I kept waiting for some artful connection at the end. Cliff and Gemma reconnect in a campy, unearned, and frankly jarring happy ever after. Doria's story never reconnects to Cliff and Gemma's after leaving McMasters. Her story was the most interesting AND the most problematic.
I generally don't give books below 2 stars unless they really piss me off - but Doria Maye's method of deletion was awful. Apparently it was evil for Fiedler to plant Communist Party pamphlets with Cliff's work documents but copacetic for Doria to lean into 1950s trans panic. Doria makes it appear as though a man dressed as a woman murdered Leo Kosta. To really sell this lie she uses another person's actual DNA - effectively framing someone innocent. Despite McMasters being about deletions not harming anyone innocent, Doria's modus operandi harms the specific human whose DNA she plants at the crime scene and an entire marginalized community.
I just don't know how you can spend the entire book bleating on about how moral all these murders are . . . and then pin the blame on a queer boogeyman? I get that within the 1950s setting this would have worked and I guess? been shocking? clever? But framing a marginalized community (AND AN ACTUAL INNOCENT INDIVIDUAL BECAUSE DNA YO) does not abide by Rule #3. What innocent person might suffer by your actions? Guy McMasters asks. The answer: A lot of innocent persons. We just don't care about them.
I know some folks out there may play devil's advocate and say, 'well maybe Holmes wanted the reader to be critical of Doria's method of deletion . . .' Then why spend so much time going over the McMaster's rule of mitigating harm to others and setting up our three deletists as good people acting ethically? Why didn't the McMaster's board permanently expel Doria the same way they did to Jud Helkampf? Isn't letting Doria live and hint at murdering again kind of implicit approval of the way she chose to go about deleting Leonid Kosta?? What does it say that they gave Gemma a second chance for saving an awful person merely because the awful person was pregnant? We care more about a fetus than we do about queer people??? You can't have it both ways.
</spoiler
Holmes never fully leaned into the macabre and the satire. The bad guys had to be completely irredeemable. The deletists had to be good people. We had to be told with the same overly academic heavy-handedness that these deaths are ethical! This didn't give the reader any room to be uncomfortable and seriously ponder the ethics of extrajudicial murder. It also made the book less fun and silly than it could have been.
The entire book is expositive. It made it difficult as a reader to emotionally relate to any of the characters.
McMasters is an absolutely bananas, nonsense place with bananas, nonsense rules. This could have been cool - but once again, Holmes kept telling us 'no no it makes perfect sense.' It does not, and that sort of disconnect was really frustrating as a reader. I'm down to read about and accept nonsense. Asking me to accept why nonsense rules are actually rational just made me bristle.
We follow three deletists and I kept wondering - why these three? I kept waiting for some artful connection at the end. Cliff and Gemma reconnect in a campy, unearned, and frankly jarring happy ever after. Doria's story never reconnects to Cliff and Gemma's after leaving McMasters. Her story was the most interesting AND the most problematic.
I generally don't give books below 2 stars unless they really piss me off - but Doria Maye's method of deletion was awful. Apparently it was evil for Fiedler to plant Communist Party pamphlets with Cliff's work documents but copacetic for Doria to lean into 1950s trans panic.
I just don't know how you can spend the entire book bleating on about how moral all these murders are . . . and then pin the blame on a queer boogeyman? I get that within the 1950s setting this would have worked and I guess? been shocking? clever? But framing a marginalized community (AND AN ACTUAL INNOCENT INDIVIDUAL BECAUSE DNA YO) does not abide by Rule #3. What innocent person might suffer by your actions? Guy McMasters asks. The answer: A lot of innocent persons. We just don't care about them.
I know some folks out there may play devil's advocate and say, 'well maybe Holmes wanted the reader to be critical of Doria's method of deletion . . .' Then why spend so much time going over the McMaster's rule of mitigating harm to others and setting up our three deletists as good people acting ethically? Why didn't the McMaster's board permanently expel Doria the same way they did to Jud Helkampf? Isn't letting Doria live and hint at murdering again kind of implicit approval of the way she chose to go about deleting Leonid Kosta?? What does it say that they gave Gemma a second chance for saving an awful person merely because the awful person was pregnant? We care more about a fetus than we do about queer people??? You can't have it both ways.
</spoiler
Content Warnings
Graphic: Transphobia
Moderate: Misogyny
lighthearted
mysterious
fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated
It’s okay, but the schtick got old very quickly.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Death, Violence, Murder
Moderate: Bullying, Suicide, Blood, Injury/Injury detail
Minor: Homophobia, Misogyny, Terminal illness, Death of parent, Alcohol
dark
funny
mysterious
tense
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated
Content Warnings
Graphic: Bullying
Moderate: Death, Suicide, Violence, Car accident, Murder, Alcohol
Minor: Drug use, Misogyny, Terminal illness, Blood, Medical content, Grief, Death of parent, Pregnancy, Injury/Injury detail
adventurous
dark
funny
lighthearted
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Murder Your Employer is like if Harry Potter was written for the macabre, in a good way. It's a fun story with some interesting (if at times, simple) characters as well as a fantastical setting in the form of McMasters and the U.S. in the 1950s.
It's worth mentioning that I think part of the reason that this book takes place in this time period is because quite a few of the methods mentioned in this book around "getting away with murder" would not be possible due to today's surveillance state and much more accurate and sensitive forensic technologies. Still, a good romp through hypothetical murders and the fantasy by proxy of an evil employer being shown the door!
It's worth mentioning that I think part of the reason that this book takes place in this time period is because quite a few of the methods mentioned in this book around "getting away with murder" would not be possible due to today's surveillance state and much more accurate and sensitive forensic technologies. Still, a good romp through hypothetical murders and the fantasy by proxy of an evil employer being shown the door!
Content Warnings
Moderate: Bullying, Death, Gun violence, Homophobia, Infidelity, Misogyny, Sexual content, Suicide, Terminal illness, Medical content, Kidnapping, Grief, Murder, Pregnancy, Gaslighting, Alcohol, Sexual harassment, Injury/Injury detail, Classism