How Sherlock Holmes and Rope Connect to Murder Your Employer by Rupert Holmes

The writing of Murder Your Employer: McMasters Guide to Homicide, Volume 1 is masterful. Even for someone like myself who has read and watched all kinds of mysteries over the years, there was a lot of "bait and switch," things hidden in plain sight and passing truths off as lies (and vice versa). The beginning provides the reader with enough description to give them the sense that it's the 1950s, which it later confirms. The type and level of humor is similar to Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman, I find. I'll admit, it was hard for me to follow at times because we're not presented with the characters' plans of murder in a linear fashion. It also doesn't help that the author alternates between three characters and not always in the same order. It's just a lot to take in.

Photo by Daniela Constantini

Summary 

The book is written as if Dean Harbinger Harrow of the McMasters school is a real person and the true author, Rupert Holmes, is the editor of this volume. It's written for people who wish to become students and murder their employer, so it addresses the reader as a potential student. There is an introduction to the school's history, terminology and essentially, it provides three case studies of successful deletions, a.k.a. murders. Note that "successful" is not always used for its obvious meaning. The case studies follow Cliff Iverson, who has been disgraced by a misogynist puppet master of an employer (who influenced the deaths of Cliff's friend and love interest); Gemma Lindley, who is being blackmailed by her employer; and Doria Maye, whose vindictive employer is trying to stifle her movie career for sexist reasons. We learn about each of their back story, how they end up at McMasters and how they influence each other while working on their theses. While at the school, the staff can put the students through simulations where they are the target. And sometimes, it's the students who try out different methods of murder on each other. If students fail to graduate or fail to complete their "final exam," they are deleted themselves in order to protect the school's existence.

  -- Spoilers --

Photo by Lance Reis on Unsplash

The Murders

When the murders final exams began, I loved that the author had each one think back to how the other students helped them while at McMasters. Each one arrived at the school with their own special set of skills and it was hard to know who would make or break it. Cliff and Gemma were interesting since he had a shaky start when beginning his education since Cliff tried to escape, and Gemma confessed that she had already murdered before, so readers would think she would be able to pull off a second one. Dulcie/Doria was in a league of her own as stated by Tarcott and Dobson. They say she could teach the staff some tricks and she was ready to go with a thesis proposal after just a few days of understanding the school's modus operandi. "She arrived here with extra wire cutters in her toolbox, if you get what I mean," (201). In her case, it isn't surprising that when things don't go her way, despite deleting Kosta, she's already plotting her next murder. 

Cliff's Final Exam

Of the three students, Cliff had the most intricate plan that had me confused a good part of the time as I tried to understand the logic behind each scene, how it could lead up to Fielder's murder and whether or not any part of it was set up as a red herring. What I admire most about Holmes' writing style is that he provides readers with apparent mistakes made by the character and tries to convince us and the character(s) that it is a mistake when, in actuality, it's a mistake that is used to one's advantage. In Cliff's case, he admits to Fielder at the "final exam" that he used a cheque Fielder had signed in order to frame him, but because Fielder has written so few cheques and keeps a record of them, Cliff "realizes" in the moment that he's put Liliana in danger. Cliff is so open about his actions to Fiedler that it's hard to discern what is true and what is a lie, as Fielder learns when Cliff admits to him that the bottle with a skull and crossbones actually contained the antidote and the liqueur had the poison all along. 

Between Cliff working on the two men at AirCorp and placing bets to lure Fiedler to various pick-up points, it was a lot for me to follow, but it was all thought out incredibly well. My favorite part is when we see the paper Fiedler signed and how it isn't the entire confession, but on its own, could fool anyone. That takes special skills in puzzle-solving to have the correct wording in the right location. 

I like that Cliff used a few disguises after some tutoring from Doria. He makes up for his botched attempt at the beginning. 

Salzburg Festival, 1947. Attila Hörbiger as "Jedermann" and Elfe Gerhart as "Buhlschaft."
Photo by Austrian National Library on Unsplash

Doria's Final Exam

I was mostly able to follow Doria's thesis. It took me some time to understand the car scenes. I think if it were a movie, I would have understood right away what her plan was and why she was doing it that way. It was only the scene at the gay bar that had me stumped until the police investigate the scene of the crime. Doria not only planned to delete Kosta, but also throw revenge into the mix by besmirching his reputation since he tried to destroy her career for no legitimate reason. 

I love how, in true Clue/Cluedo fashion, Doria womps Kosta over the head with an Academy Award. And readers realize that this is why she needed Cliff's help in the batting cage; this is the single fatal hit she needed to master (326). 

I like that the author had Doria tie up the loose end of also getting Kosta's two-faced goon, Finton "Finny" Flood, arrested. 

Gemma's Final Exam

I appreciate that Gemma's final exam required some puzzle-solving and lock-picking. She was a true sleuth with her befriending the lawyer's secretary and gathering intel from her as she cased the joint. While both Cliff and Doria's exams went as they had planned, Gemma's required two course corrections, adding good variety to the story. 

While Gemma did have feelings for Cliff and grieves for his death, she recalls times when they were working with chemicals and uses what he told her about Sasaki's principle in order to go unnoticed at the construction site (343).

I was so sure the author would kill off Gemma, so I was relieved that she lived and that the McMasters staff who had been watching Gemma's efforts recognized that she had followed the enquiries (more on those later), showing her selfless nature even when she could have been rid of her blackmailer (who actually tried to pimp her out for money on top of everything else!!!). I'm glad she, her mother and Cliff all got their happy ending. 

---MORE SPOILERS---

The Master Blackmailer

Upon being introduced to Gemma and her reason for being at McMasters, I thought immediately of Conan Doyle's The Master Blackmailer. I was happy to find Rupert Holmes point this out. While discussing Gemma's academic review, Coach Tarcott says, "... Murdering your blackmailer should be an act of self-defense," (201) demonstrating that he sympathizes with Gemma's plight. The dean of literatures adds, "...you'll recall Sherlock Holmes wouldn't raise his magnifying glass to identify the killer of the extortionist Milverton. I quote: 'There are certain crimes which justify private revenge. My sympathies are with the deletist, not the target, and I will not handle this case,' ... I paraphrase, of course," (201). The Jeremy Brett version has a dramatic ending that never left me after I first saw it. It stands out since Holmes leaves so few cases purposefully unsolved.

The Master Blackmailer holds a strong connection to Murder Your Employer since the school is designed for students to consider Four Enquiries before deleting their target (81):

1. Is this murder of yours necessary?
2. Have you given your target every last chance to redeem themselves?
3. What innocent person might suffer by your actions?
4. Will this deletion improve the lives of others?

If a student answers: "Yes, yes, no one and yes," then they are approved to study at the school. The Four Enquiries are in place to deal with the truly despicable, such as Cliff's Fielder, Doria's Kosta and, in Holmes' case, Milverton. When Holmes discovers the identity of the master blackmailer, he comments, "I've had to deal with fifty murderers in my career, but the worst of them never gave me this sense of revulsion that I feel at this moment," (24:56-25:06).

Photo by cottonbro studio

Milverton is a little like Brandon in Rope (in the next section) in that he wants people to know how he influenced various events with his large web of blackmail. When Holmes and Watson try to negotiate with Milverton in their Baker Street flat, Milverton mentions a recent marriage that was called off and the suicide of the former groom soon after. Milverton takes no blame for the tragic consequences; he wants only money and relishes ruining people:

Holmes: "That was tantamount to murder." 

Watson: "How do you answer for that, Mr. Milverton?"

Milverton: "How a man conducts himself under such circumstances is a matter for himself alone."

Holmes: "That is a monstrous assertion! It was you and you alone who caused his death." (1:09:26-1:09:42)

And in the same vein as Murder Your Employer, Holmes plans to burgle Milverton's house to get Lady Eva's letters from him since she's unable to pay (and shouldn't have to). And the dialogue between him and Watson is similar to the situations of Doria, Gemma and especially, Cliff. They resign themselves to murder to rid themselves and the world of horrid people. In Cliff's case, he wanted to murder Fielder, but with how he set up his "final exam," things could have gone pear-shaped, but he was willing to accept his own death (should it come to that) knowing Fielder would also be dead. 

Holmes: "I intend to burgle the Milverton house that night."

Watson: "For Heaven's sake, Holmes, think what you're doing!"

Holmes: "Well, let us look at it fairly and clearly. You will admit that the cause is morally justifiable?"

Watson: "Yes. Technically criminal."

Holmes: "No more than raiding his pockets, a cause which you were perfectly willing to help me."

[...]

Watson: "Think. If you're caught, an honored career ending in failure and public disgrace.

[...]

Holmes: "...It's the only way." (1:18:12- 1:19:43)

But in the end, it is one of Milverton's victims who resorts to murder while Holmes and Watson search for the letters. Lady Swinstead states, "I will free the world of a poisonous thing," (1:34:24) while Holmes and Watson witness the murder from their hiding place.

Photo by huan yu on Unsplash

A Rant about Holmes' Character (A Digression)

Sherlock Holmes is himself a calculating mastermind who could have been another Moriarty, but he always had humanity and some sensitivity towards others, (i.e., Watson, Mrs. Hudson, some female clients who had been through trauma, children and dogs). There are a few instances where he steps out briefly from cold logic. In The Naval Treaty, he is uncharacteristically distracted by a flower and voices an internal monologue that both Watson, the client and the client's wife don't comprehend and Watson verbally wakes Holmes from his reflection to get on with business. Holmes has donned various disguises during his career and is able to act with a warmer personality than his own, so it confirms that he is well aware that he is normally much more focused on logic; additionally, Watson sometimes chides him for his dismissal of certain clients' feelings. 

All of this to say that how he treats Milverton's housemaid, Agatha/Aggie has always upset me and seemed out of character for Holmes. In the Granada version, we see various times where Holmes, as a lowly plumber named Escott, becomes friendly with Aggie and he seems to play off his feeling of being uncomfortable with their physicality as ignorance and/or low intelligence. She is very out of place in that household since she's sweet and kind, so for Holmes to barge into Milverton's fortress as himself makes me angry that he was written that way. We see how hurt Aggie is as she thinks of a past statement he made to her. He led her on and got information out of her and then left her to see that he has no interest in her as a woman or even a human being. In Jeremy Brett's version, she leads him to Mr. Milverton to announce him; were any words exchanged at the door to explain his change in status and appearance? It matches Benedict Cumberbatch's version of Sherlock since he is portrayed as a machine and is still struggling between his normal self and a more human one by the time he meets Magnussen's personal assistant, Janine, who represents Aggie. There is one consolation: Jeremy Brett's Holmes admits at the very end that there are certain aspects of the case of which he is not proud, so perhaps he regrets how he treated Aggie.

The Motive for Murder in Rope (1948)

Alfred Hitchcock's Rope, starring Jimmy Stewart, is a hard-hitting movie that explores the concept of murder and the psychology of different types of perpetrators with a dash of philosophy.

What made me draw a connection between Murder Your Employer and Rope is the authentic portrayal of the processes and how both have academia woven within. Murder Your Employer demonstrates the studies and later, the intricate planning leading up to the "final exam" of a target's "deletion"; Rope shows the final seconds of murder itself and its aftermath, emphasizing the logic, state of mind and emotional turmoil in both murderers.

Murder Your Employer is set in the 1950s, a golden era of Hollywood, so it's not too far off from Rope's era.

Still of Phillip and Brandon in Brandon's apartment moments after the murder

In the opening scene, it is immediately established through body language how both characters, Phillip and Brandon, are feeling now that the murder has been committed. Their dominant character traits shine thorough, showing Phillip as the stereotypical pushover accomplice who still has some humanity in him and Brandon as the cold and arrogant mastermind with a warped philosophy he believes at his core. The scene also foreshadows how the evening will end since Brandon thirsts to have someone (his old housemaster, Rupert) know of his "brilliance."

While McMasters' education is designed to help students rid the world of truly horrid individuals, we learn that Brandon and Phillip committed murder because they could and because Brandon believed David, the victim, to be an inferior human being. Throughout the party, we learn that Brandon is a student of Rupert's philosophy, that "murder is, or should be, an art" (36:36-36:40) where a few superior beings commit it on inferior ones (jokingly (?) in season). 

We slowly start to see that Rupert wonders if Brandon has committed murder since David is uncharacteristically late and fails to phone Brandon's apartment or his own mother. Rope's ending where Rupert discovers the body and contemplates the situation with a mix of shock and horror has his final speech as the focus with Brandon's back to the camera. The murder shocks Rupert into realizing his philosophy is dangerous, "...you've given my words a meaning that I never dreamed of!"(1:16:18- 1:16:21). Rupert's talk of inferiority and superiority during the party seemed to contain a hefty amount of dark humor and nonchalance in contrast to Brandon's excitement and fervency for the topic, lending credence to the conclusion that Rupert's talk was only that, "There must have been something deep inside you from the very start that let you do this thing. But there's always been something deep inside me that would never let me [murder]" (1:16:35-1:16:46).

Rupert disputes Brandon's logic and belief in an impactful speech when he poses forceful questions about Brandon's delusion of being superior, his supposed right to deem David inferior and that he should be murdered, as well as "Did you think you were God, Brandon!?" (1:17:30-1:17:32).

The appeal of this film is its authenticity and cinematography: 

• The writing and direction encourage natural dialogue (e.g., talking over one another) and place long silences for the audience's immersion and added intensity. 
• The lack of an original soundtrack during the film allows for background chatter and the musical instruments in the scenes to complement the characters' emotions and states of mind (e.g., Phillip's panicked piano playing while Rupert is grilling him).
• The camera angles blatantly inform the audience of what and who is important to watch in each scene (e.g., focusing on the maid clearing the chest while moving from the main room and down the hall to the kitchen while hearing a pertinent conversation off-screen).
• The actors masterfully portray their inner emotions and thoughts through facial expressions and body language. They also stand in close proximity to each other, sometimes strangely so given they just met certain characters, adding an intimacy and focus for the audience.

Photo by Brandee Taylor on Unsplash

Conclusion

I really enjoyed Murder Your Employer: McMasters Guide to Homicide, Volume 1. It's just a book you need to be ready to read since it requires a lot of brainpower to follow and deduce (if you're like me and want to figure everything out before the reveal). I'm looking forward to Volume 2, which will focus on deleting spouses. I'm also curious about the fate of Dean Harrow; I don't like his Assistant Dean.

Like my book reviews? Check out my library for more or read some of my posts on mystery writing.

Hire a Book Reviewer

I have a freelance business where I offer editing, beta reading and ARC reading for mysteries, historical fiction and fantasy stories. Email me about your project at smurphy.writer1@gmail.com. 

Happy reading and writing!

Sources

Holmes, Rupert. Murder Your Employer: McMasters Guide to Homicide, Volume 1. Avid Reader Press. 2023.

Rope. Directed by Alfred Hitchcock. Transatlantic Pictures Production.1948.

The Master Blackmailer. Directed by Peter Hammond. Granada Television and WGBH. 1993.