The housekeepers

Thanks to Netgalley and the publisher for the eARC of this novel.

Although I enjoyed this book, I have worked as an editor and writer for decades, and the errors ruined things for me regarding the "suspension of disbelief" aspect.

Writing a historical novel is a challenging choice for a first-time author, and unfortunately I feel the book's fact checker (editor) really "dropped the ball" when it came to idioms or references that did not EXIST in the time period in which this book was written to represent.

Here just a few errors (there are more):

The novel is set in 1905

"More skin in the game" - idiom first used in 1986 in a Wall Street Journal article.

"No use putting a canary in a coalmine when he doesn't have a "nose" for gas".
In the first place, birds don't HAVE noses, in the second place, it wouldn't matter if a canary had "a beak for gas" or not, because when any bird breathes a certain amount of gas, they DIE.
Lastly, the practice of using canaries in coal mines only dates back to 1986.

Until next time, remember, "the devil is in the details"! Circa the 1800's.

Says Erin Kelly, author of He Said/She Said, on one of the blurbs: “Imagine Ocean’s 8 had an illegitimate baby with Fingersmith — a big fat diamond of a book, sharp and shiny, joyful and generous, intricately plotted and featuring an ingenious use for a trapeze.”

Most of these blurbs or summaries comparing a new book to one or two others are exaggerations or downright false. Not here — although I would have called Alex Hay’s debut novel a cross between Ocean’s 8 and Upstairs, Downstairs. Dinah King — Mrs. King to you, thank you very much — has been dismissed from her position at the grandest house on Park Lane in Mayfair, a seven-floor marble temple to nouveau riche splendor and ambition. But Mrs. King has plenty of ambition of her own — and a grand plan for a daring heist and a grand collection of friends. Readers will be on the edge of their seats as the plan unfurls, step by step, with one surprise after another, and one twist after another. It was very hard to put down until the very last satisfying page.

In the interest of full disclosure, I received this book from NetGalley. Harlequin Trade Publishing and Graydon House in exchange for an honest review.

All is not well in the deVries household on Park Lane in the aftermath of the death of Wilhelm deVries. The housekeeper, Mrs. King, is unceremoniously let go one morning after having been spotted entering the men's quarters. (Oh, the scandal!) And without her calm guidance, the household staff becomes more chaotic as preparations continue for Miss deVries' ball (the audacity!) just one month later.

But Mrs. King has plans to return to Park Lane... and to lead the biggest heist London has ever seen, on the very night of the grand ball.

This delicious historical novel, set in 1905 and the glittering society of the Edwardian era, runs the reader in circles as we learn about the all-female crew leading the heist, the machinations needed to bring the plot together, and the dark secrets hidden in the deVries household. Each character had layers and secrets that took time to be revealed, and the complexity of the heist plot seemed nearly impossible to pull off.

I try not to indulge in too much schadenfreude, but in this book, the comeuppance was sorely needed and deserved, and not just by the upper crust. I love seeing those who abuse their power and wealth face real justice, and this book served it up hot.

Thank you, Graydon House and NetGalley, for providing an eARC of this book. Opinions expressed here are solely my own.

I didn’t care for this book at all. I didn’t like the writing or the characters, and had to skim the book in order to finish it.

This was a fun heist. This book is great! Would definitely recommend. Thanks so much to NetGalley and the publisher for the ARC.

Placeholder. Will update when the Harper Collins union new contract is finalized. Thank you again to the publisher for the copy.

Thank you to the publisher and NetGalley for an advanced copy of this book.

I am sad to report that I could not bring myself to finish this book. I made it 22% before realizing that I really didn’t care about the protagonists in the way that I had to in order to be emotionally invested in them. The historical time period was fine, but if there was a greater mystery that the writer was working me up toward, I could not find it or bring myself to care enough to keep reading and figure out what it might be.

Thank you to NetGalley for an ARC of The Housekeepers.

I was excited my request was approved because the premise sounded intriguing, sort of like an old timey version of Ocean's Eleven.

The author did a good job of setting the scene, the world building of a 20th century London and a fine household headed by a less than reputable man.

The writing was good, the caper being organized by Mrs. King was intriguing, and I liked the female cast of characters; all different with their personal woes and agendas.

The biggest problem was suspending disbelief and how Mrs. King's plans would be carried out successfully.

Mrs. Bones knew all the right people to bribe, recruiting who to play a part in the farce and not worry they would be betrayed and/or turned in to the authorities was very hard for me to believe.

The sheer cast of characters and all the moving parts and logistics made it very hard for me to believe something like this could work, but it was a different time so maybe people were not as smart back then or self aware.

Ocean's Eleven works well because all the participants know each other, trust one another, and have shared history and goals.

Mrs. King and her core team members have a shared history and familial blood yet they seem to be working against each other; she and Mrs. Bones don't trust each other, and the others in the crew play minor or supporting roles that get lost in the rush of other minor and supporting characters, like the butler.

The narrative also dragged toward the end, when the ball is in full swing, and everyone is rushing about. It was hard to keep track of who was who and doing what to whom.

The ending is satisfactory, and though I enjoyed the premise and parts of the story, I think this could have been better with stronger characters and a caper with a more grounded plot.

A fun and entertaining read. A great perspective from the other side of the stairs. Many unexpected twists and turns. A must read for any historical fiction fan.

Than you to NetGalley and Harlequin Trade Publishing for the ARC. The opinions expressed are my own and given freely.

First off, I recommend this book to anyone who likes historical fiction with a bit of thrill and mystery. The main character, Mrs. King, has been wronged by her employer and her family, and she wants revenge, so she plans the biggest heist in history (not based on an actual event or people), involving 6 other women with their own wrongs to right. From page 1, I was hooked and didn't put it down until I finished it. The main plot, weaved with two great subplots, had me reading late into the night.

I liked how the characters are described; for example, Mrs. King is not married, nor is her family name King, but when her employer suggested that she choose a new name, she went with King to irritate them. When the butler is described, I found him to be immediately loathsome (and rightfully so!): "He made an excellent butler. But he’d have done even better as a priest. He had that air about him, so tremendously pious. He stared at her, feasting his eyes on her, loving every minute of this [Mrs. King's dismissal]."

Overall, the writing, characters, and plot make this book so entertaining; take this detail, for example, "Mrs. King shrugged. They could inspect her bedroom and sniff the sheets and lick the washbasin all they liked."

My main criticism is the conclusion. The focus is on a box of knives, and while Mrs. King is polishing knives when the book opens, knives are not a key motif throughout. A minor criticism is the lack of detail regarding the hundreds of other people involved. How are they paid? What are they paid? Why would they put themselves at such risk for the women to get the proceeds?