Skip to main content
PBS logo
 
 

Book Reviews of The Manual of Detection

The Manual of Detection
The Manual of Detection
Author: Jedediah Berry
ISBN-13: 9781594202117
ISBN-10: 1594202117
Publication Date: 2/19/2009
Pages: 320
Rating:
  • Currently 3.4/5 Stars.
 14

3.4 stars, based on 14 ratings
Publisher: Penguin Press
Book Type: Hardcover
Reviews: Amazon | Write a Review

2 Book Reviews submitted by our Members...sorted by voted most helpful

reviewed The Manual of Detection on
Helpful Score: 1
What a journey it is to read this book. It starts out obscurely, in the rain. It builds through a series of quiet encounters that leave you curious and expectant. Before you know it you find yourself immersed in a world and then like an Escher print you end up back where you started, not quite sure how you got there. I highly recommend this piece of rainy noir, this mystery that unfolds and resets with mathematical closure - it's a book that many have tried to write, I think and Berry gets it just right.
BaileysBooks avatar reviewed The Manual of Detection on + 491 more book reviews
I don't exactly know quite how to describe this book. It was quirky and convoluted and, to be perfectly honest, confusing. The story takes place in an unnamed city at an undisclosed time in history. It has the feel of a semi-dystopian gumshoe detective noir with hints of steampunk, urban fantasy, and alternate realities, and it almost pulled it off.

This book had incredible potential. It started out slow but intriguing before getting bogged down in the middle with multiple story arcs and nesting dream states (think the movie Inception). By the time the end rolled around, I wasn't entirely sure what really happened.

I liked the feel of the book, the uncertainty of the realities, and the mysterious aura of the city and the secrets that it contained. Unfortunately, I feel like the plot was just a touch too messy and it did not come together quite like it could (or should) have. It is a slim book that can be read rather quickly, and perhaps that is where I went wrong. Then again, perhaps not...