What do you think?
Rate this book
Kniha zrkadiel
Do literárnej agentúry príde ukážka z rukopisu, v ktorom sa autor vracia k neobjasnenej brutálnej vražde z konca osemdesiatych rokov minulého storočia. Obeťou bol prominentný profesor psychológie, ktorý sa zaoberal tajným výskumným projektom a pracoval s duševne chorými zločincami. Prečo musel zahynúť? Kto z jeho smrti profitoval?
Autor rukopisu sľubuje, že záhadu vysvetlí, lenže potom zomrie aj on a zvyšok textu záhadne zmizne. Začne sa pátranie, do ktorého sa zapája čoraz viac ľudí. Po toľkých rokoch však už nik nevie, čo je pravda a čo výmysel, ktoré spomienky sú skutočné a ktoré len predstierané...
Autor rukopisu sľubuje, že záhadu vysvetlí, lenže potom zomrie aj on a zvyšok textu záhadne zmizne. Začne sa pátranie, do ktorého sa zapája čoraz viac ľudí. Po toľkých rokoch však už nik nevie, čo je pravda a čo výmysel, ktoré spomienky sú skutočné a ktoré len predstierané...
288 pages, Hardcover
First published January 26, 2017
223 people are currently reading
5315 people want to read
About the author
E.O. Chirovici
4 books126 followersAlso writes under Eugen O. Chirovici and Eugen Ovidiu Chirovici.
Eugen O. Chirovici had a career in mass-media, running a national daily newspaper and then a TV news channel. He has published over 1,000 articles in Romania and abroad. He currently holds three honorary doctorates (in Economics, Communication & History) and is a member of the Romanian Academy of Science. He is the recipient of several prizes for journalism. He lives in both the UK and New York City.
Eugen O. Chirovici had a career in mass-media, running a national daily newspaper and then a TV news channel. He has published over 1,000 articles in Romania and abroad. He currently holds three honorary doctorates (in Economics, Communication & History) and is a member of the Romanian Academy of Science. He is the recipient of several prizes for journalism. He lives in both the UK and New York City.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 927 reviews
April 5, 2022
This is a story told by three narrators, each of whom picks up the trail begun by Richard Flynn, then an ex-student from Princeton in New Jersey with aspirations to be a writer. It is he who has submitted part of his account of a traumatic period in his life nearly thirty years earlier. Peter Katz, the literary agent to whom he has sent it, is intrigued to find out the rest of the story, but this proves more complex than he had thought. He therefore passes the baton to someone else. And so the story develops into one of murder and passion.
As with a hall of mirrors, this well written novel confuses and masks the true picture both of what had happened in 1987 and of what is happening now as paths are re-trodden and old memories awakened.
The author was born in Transylvania into a Romanian family, and his earlier novels and non-fiction works were published in his native language. The Book of Mirrors is his first to be written in English.
For me, it was an entertaining read, enjoyable, if a little slow at times.
As with a hall of mirrors, this well written novel confuses and masks the true picture both of what had happened in 1987 and of what is happening now as paths are re-trodden and old memories awakened.
The author was born in Transylvania into a Romanian family, and his earlier novels and non-fiction works were published in his native language. The Book of Mirrors is his first to be written in English.
For me, it was an entertaining read, enjoyable, if a little slow at times.
December 7, 2016
The Book of Mirrors is an intelligent, well-paced, decently written thriller set in the academia world. It was a fun, light read but it wasn’t extraordinary. The written is simple, engaging and I can see a movie being made after the book.
I decided to read this novel when I saw the name of the author, Chirovici. It seemed Romanian (it is) and I was intrigued as I haven’t heard of him before. The research for more information took me to a Guardian article where I learned more about the author and the novel. E.O. Chirovici worked in Romania as a journalist and wrote mystery novels in his spare time as the market is too small here to be able to win enough money from writing. He decided to move to UK in order to become a full time writer and after a short while he wrote Book of Mirrors, his first novel written in English. After failed attempts to find a publisher in the US he got lucky and managed to find an enthusiastic agent in UK. After that, the reception of his work gained momentum fast and the book was sold to publishers in 23 countries even before the release date (January 2017). Impressive and overwhelming, I would say. Will this be the „literary mystery ” of 2017? We shall see.
The novel’s onset is ideal for a book lover. A literary agent receives a sample of a manuscript and it becomes apparent that the subject is a true crime that happened twenty-five years before in which the author was involved. A famous psychology professor was killed at that time and the manuscript can prove to be the key to finding the killer. There is a only small problem. The author dies and the manuscript is nowhere to be found.
The book is structured in three parts and is narrated by three people: the agent, a journalist hired to investigate the disappearance and verity of the manuscript and a retired police officer that was assigned to the case 25 years ago. I thought the structure to be interesting and well done although the voices seemed somewhat similar.
The main theme that emerges from the novel’s pages is the unreliability of memory. The novel made me think of another book about memory, The Sense Of An Ending by Julian Barnes which probably inspired Chirovici as one of the three parts starts with a quote from the Booker winning novel. From the beginning (even from the title) we are drawn to believe that the solution to the mystery has something to do with memory and human psychology but is it there where we have to look? Or is this another mirror? To find the answer to that question you need to read the book.
I received this copy from the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.
The Guardian article I was talking about can be found here: https://www.theguardian.com/books/201...
I decided to read this novel when I saw the name of the author, Chirovici. It seemed Romanian (it is) and I was intrigued as I haven’t heard of him before. The research for more information took me to a Guardian article where I learned more about the author and the novel. E.O. Chirovici worked in Romania as a journalist and wrote mystery novels in his spare time as the market is too small here to be able to win enough money from writing. He decided to move to UK in order to become a full time writer and after a short while he wrote Book of Mirrors, his first novel written in English. After failed attempts to find a publisher in the US he got lucky and managed to find an enthusiastic agent in UK. After that, the reception of his work gained momentum fast and the book was sold to publishers in 23 countries even before the release date (January 2017). Impressive and overwhelming, I would say. Will this be the „literary mystery ” of 2017? We shall see.
The novel’s onset is ideal for a book lover. A literary agent receives a sample of a manuscript and it becomes apparent that the subject is a true crime that happened twenty-five years before in which the author was involved. A famous psychology professor was killed at that time and the manuscript can prove to be the key to finding the killer. There is a only small problem. The author dies and the manuscript is nowhere to be found.
The book is structured in three parts and is narrated by three people: the agent, a journalist hired to investigate the disappearance and verity of the manuscript and a retired police officer that was assigned to the case 25 years ago. I thought the structure to be interesting and well done although the voices seemed somewhat similar.
The main theme that emerges from the novel’s pages is the unreliability of memory. The novel made me think of another book about memory, The Sense Of An Ending by Julian Barnes which probably inspired Chirovici as one of the three parts starts with a quote from the Booker winning novel. From the beginning (even from the title) we are drawn to believe that the solution to the mystery has something to do with memory and human psychology but is it there where we have to look? Or is this another mirror? To find the answer to that question you need to read the book.
I received this copy from the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.
The Guardian article I was talking about can be found here: https://www.theguardian.com/books/201...
February 7, 2017
You know those movies with a lot of exposition and little action? Reading The Book of Mirrors felt like watching such a movie. Add a noir feel to it, and you lost my interest (therefore it took me over a week to finish it).
Official blurb:
I was extremely excited about reading a book by a Romanian author sold in 38 territories around the world. I even heard talk about a movie based on it, so I was sure it had to be great. Unfortunately, it's completely not my style.
I need to connect with at least one character in the book to like it. I thought that character would be Richard Flynn, even if his book within the book felt lifeless. I came to despise Laura Baines. And then I felt cheated because it turned out that Flynn wasn't completely honest in his manuscript. So I stopped liking/rooting for him.
Enter the journalist who felt indifferent in the end. Except for a phone call he had with Laura, he showed little emotion. Not even his f**k-buddy dumping him made him take action. So he made me feel nothing.
Then came the ex-cop who needed to solve the mystery of the murder as his last big thing. Now that I think about it, all the narrators felt like they had the same voice. They could have been the same person and it would have made little difference. And they were all talk, and no action. It was all very anticlimatic when the murderer was finally confronted. It felt like a bunch of old people fooling around.
Also, I disliked the ending. I need closure when reading a book. I need to know that everybody got what they deserved to some extent. It's hard to explain without giving away huge spoilers, so I'll just leave it at that.
Needless to say, I didn't like The Book of Mirrors. The second star is because it was written by a Romanian author, and I wish him all the best in the world. I hope he becomes known worldwide.
*Copy provided by the publisher via Netgalley in exchange for an honest review.
Official blurb:
Sold in 38 territories around the world, THE BOOK OF MIRRORS is a truly global phenomenon.
ONE MAN'S TRUTH IS ANOTHER MAN'S LIE.
When big-shot literary agent Peter Katz receives an unfinished manuscript entitled The Book of Mirrors, he is intrigued.
The author, Richard Flynn is writing a memoir about his time at Princeton in the late 80s, documenting his relationship with the famous Professor Joseph Wieder.
One night in 1987, Wieder was brutally murdered in his home and the case was never solved.
Peter Katz is hell-bent on getting to the bottom of what happened that night twenty-five years ago and is convinced the full manuscript will reveal who committed the violent crime.
But other people’s recollections are dangerous weapons to play with, and this might be one memory that is best kept buried.
I was extremely excited about reading a book by a Romanian author sold in 38 territories around the world. I even heard talk about a movie based on it, so I was sure it had to be great. Unfortunately, it's completely not my style.
I need to connect with at least one character in the book to like it. I thought that character would be Richard Flynn, even if his book within the book felt lifeless. I came to despise Laura Baines. And then I felt cheated because it turned out that Flynn wasn't completely honest in his manuscript. So I stopped liking/rooting for him.
Enter the journalist who felt indifferent in the end. Except for a phone call he had with Laura, he showed little emotion. Not even his f**k-buddy dumping him made him take action. So he made me feel nothing.
Then came the ex-cop who needed to solve the mystery of the murder as his last big thing. Now that I think about it, all the narrators felt like they had the same voice. They could have been the same person and it would have made little difference. And they were all talk, and no action. It was all very anticlimatic when the murderer was finally confronted. It felt like a bunch of old people fooling around.
Also, I disliked the ending. I need closure when reading a book. I need to know that everybody got what they deserved to some extent. It's hard to explain without giving away huge spoilers, so I'll just leave it at that.
Needless to say, I didn't like The Book of Mirrors. The second star is because it was written by a Romanian author, and I wish him all the best in the world. I hope he becomes known worldwide.
*Copy provided by the publisher via Netgalley in exchange for an honest review.
December 27, 2016
Thank you to Net Galley, the publishers and author for an ARC copy.
Firstly, all I can say some books work for me some do not.
I noted that many readers have given this book 4 and 5 stars, I feel I am being very generous giving this two stars, purely for the difference in the plot.
I tried very best to keep going, knowing as many had mentioned it would get better, to me it did not.
I found the book so hard to try to get into, a book has to grip me somehow in someway, this failed.
This does seem to be a book that you love or you hate?
No tension, no shock, no... well nothing.
Sorry, but just not for me, but as you know from reviews many have loved this book
Two stars from me.
Firstly, all I can say some books work for me some do not.
I noted that many readers have given this book 4 and 5 stars, I feel I am being very generous giving this two stars, purely for the difference in the plot.
I tried very best to keep going, knowing as many had mentioned it would get better, to me it did not.
I found the book so hard to try to get into, a book has to grip me somehow in someway, this failed.
This does seem to be a book that you love or you hate?
No tension, no shock, no... well nothing.
Sorry, but just not for me, but as you know from reviews many have loved this book
Two stars from me.
September 20, 2018
"Uneori, cei plecați dintre noi sunt mai puternici decât atunci când trăiau. Amintirea lor, sau ceea ce doar credem că ne amintim despre ei, ne obligă să încercăm să-i mulțumim într-un fel în care n-ar fi reușit să ne convingă s-o facem când erau vii."
"- (...). O chestie foarte ciudată... Da' apoi m-am obișnuit. Până la urmă, n-ai încotro și te obișnuiești cu orice, nu-i așa?"
"- (...). O chestie foarte ciudată... Da' apoi m-am obișnuit. Până la urmă, n-ai încotro și te obișnuiești cu orice, nu-i așa?"
May 30, 2020
Read in one sitting. Thoroughly enjoyed this book. So many points of view, depending on the narrator. It's true, your memories aren't necessarily true, they're just your version of the truth.
July 30, 2025
4.5 ⭐️
„Книга на огледалата“ се оказа страшно силна и вълнуваща криминална мистерия! Заплетеният сюжет проследява търсенето на истината за убийството на професор, което дълги години е останало неразкрито. Румънският автор умело е изградил историята от три еднакво интересни гледни точки, елегантно вплитайки книга в книгата. Именно незавършен ръкопис на герой, който е бил заподозрян в убийството, постепенно и увлекателно ни потапя в разплитането на загадката...
„Книга на огледалата“ се оказа страшно силна и вълнуваща криминална мистерия! Заплетеният сюжет проследява търсенето на истината за убийството на професор, което дълги години е останало неразкрито. Румънският автор умело е изградил историята от три еднакво интересни гледни точки, елегантно вплитайки книга в книгата. Именно незавършен ръкопис на герой, който е бил заподозрян в убийството, постепенно и увлекателно ни потапя в разплитането на загадката...
February 10, 2017
Book of Mirrors grew on me as I read it. At face value, it's a cold case whodunit concerning the murder of a prominent psychologist and Princeton educator, but it's also a meditation on how we as humans remember things, forget things, and invent things in our memories and our pasts, consciously and unconsciously. It also has a nice undercurrent of how relationships and moments are reflected in the eyes of different people, and how each person sees the past, present and future through their own individual prism of thought and need and desire.
The novel is told in three parts: first from the perspective of literary agent Peter Katz, who receives a mysterious partial manuscript from a Richard Flynn that is purportedly nonfiction concerning the 1987 murder of Professor Jospeh Wieder; then from John Keller, a former journalist that Katz hires to research the background of Flynn's manuscript and locate the missing second half; and finally from Roy Freeman, the ex-cop who worked the Wieder case and was Keller interviewed, prompting him to re-canvas and put the puzzle pieces together. You're never in Katz's perspective for long: he sets things in motion by receiving the manuscript, but it's mostly from the manuscript and Richard Flynn's first person account that we get the initial perspective and set up.
Because it's our first perspective, I started by following the trail Richard was laying out in terms of the "facts" of the situation. As John and then Roy start to pull on various threads and webs, what were secondary characters become spotlight suspects and witnesses, and everyone's relationship with and viewpoint of everyone else is both clarified and called into question. And the blurred lines between truth and fiction, fact and invention are thrust into the forefront. The touch on Roy's Alzheimer's serves to further underline the fleeting and limited grasp of the human brain to remember.
The writing is just ok to fine: I found Chirovici to do a better job showcasing the myriad reflections of the characters in the whodunit drama of 1987 and present (Laura, Richard, Wieder) than being able to provide truly different voices for our ostensible narrators Peter, John, and Roy. There weren't enough stylistic and tonal difference, for example, between John, a thirty something well educated journalist working for a check , and Roy, an aged black ex-cop pursuing his cold case out of the pursuit of justice and righting mistakes before his mind permanently betrays him.
Overall, this is a fairly entertaining, easy read thriller-type that does present some interesting (though not new) ideas about how humans view, catalogue, and remember events and people. But it's nothing transcendent of the genre. Fun and mostly forgettable, but I did like it. Solid three stars for me.
The novel is told in three parts: first from the perspective of literary agent Peter Katz, who receives a mysterious partial manuscript from a Richard Flynn that is purportedly nonfiction concerning the 1987 murder of Professor Jospeh Wieder; then from John Keller, a former journalist that Katz hires to research the background of Flynn's manuscript and locate the missing second half; and finally from Roy Freeman, the ex-cop who worked the Wieder case and was Keller interviewed, prompting him to re-canvas and put the puzzle pieces together. You're never in Katz's perspective for long: he sets things in motion by receiving the manuscript, but it's mostly from the manuscript and Richard Flynn's first person account that we get the initial perspective and set up.
Because it's our first perspective, I started by following the trail Richard was laying out in terms of the "facts" of the situation. As John and then Roy start to pull on various threads and webs, what were secondary characters become spotlight suspects and witnesses, and everyone's relationship with and viewpoint of everyone else is both clarified and called into question. And the blurred lines between truth and fiction, fact and invention are thrust into the forefront. The touch on Roy's Alzheimer's serves to further underline the fleeting and limited grasp of the human brain to remember.
The writing is just ok to fine: I found Chirovici to do a better job showcasing the myriad reflections of the characters in the whodunit drama of 1987 and present (Laura, Richard, Wieder) than being able to provide truly different voices for our ostensible narrators Peter, John, and Roy. There weren't enough stylistic and tonal difference, for example, between John, a thirty something well educated journalist working for a check , and Roy, an aged black ex-cop pursuing his cold case out of the pursuit of justice and righting mistakes before his mind permanently betrays him.
Overall, this is a fairly entertaining, easy read thriller-type that does present some interesting (though not new) ideas about how humans view, catalogue, and remember events and people. But it's nothing transcendent of the genre. Fun and mostly forgettable, but I did like it. Solid three stars for me.
November 29, 2016
I received this in exchange for an honest review from Netgalley. Thank you to the author, E.O. Chirovici, and the publisher, Century, for this opportunity.
One of the most suspenseful and unguessable crime stories I have ever read! This chronicles the years following the death of Professor Joseph Wieder after a partial manuscript appears, where author, Richard Flynn, claims to have details concerning his mysterious death.
Split into three sections and using three different protagonists, this could often become quite a confusing and muddling read, but wading through the murk to get to the truth proved rewarding.
I felt constantly a pace behind the narrative of this and continually had a myriad of conflicting theories concerning who the perpetrator of the crime was and what their intentions were. It wasn't until the final grand reveal that all became clear and, as the author so rightly says, this is more of a "whydunnit than a whodunnit".
Fast-paced with a cast of untrustworthy characters, this is compelling suspense fiction at its finest!
One of the most suspenseful and unguessable crime stories I have ever read! This chronicles the years following the death of Professor Joseph Wieder after a partial manuscript appears, where author, Richard Flynn, claims to have details concerning his mysterious death.
Split into three sections and using three different protagonists, this could often become quite a confusing and muddling read, but wading through the murk to get to the truth proved rewarding.
I felt constantly a pace behind the narrative of this and continually had a myriad of conflicting theories concerning who the perpetrator of the crime was and what their intentions were. It wasn't until the final grand reveal that all became clear and, as the author so rightly says, this is more of a "whydunnit than a whodunnit".
Fast-paced with a cast of untrustworthy characters, this is compelling suspense fiction at its finest!
April 12, 2017
Unglaublich sensationell! Meine Neuentdeckung des Jahres! Ich glaube, ich habe noch nie einen Roman bis nachts drei Uhr gelesen, bei Chirovici fiel mir das nicht schwer. Dem Autor gelingt hier ein toller Spannungsaufbau, unbedingt lesen!
May 9, 2024
Nothing is as it seems. “Most other people are other people.” – Oscar Wilde.
The story is a murder mystery with a strong psychological component.
The story is about a professor’s murder in the late 1980’s.
Twenty-five years later, a literary agent receives an intriguing manuscript called the Book of Mirrors which almost seems like a confession to the professor’s murder. What could this mean?
There is one problem.
Pages are missing. Not all the pages of the manuscript are provided!
Is it possible that the author is confessing to a murder through his novel? What will this literary agent do to find the truth? Will this case finally be solved? What is this literary agent willing to do to get to the truth?
The premise of the novel is interesting: a book sample is submitted to an agent, who gets hooked by what he finds. (Indeed, it was enough to make me read well into the night/morning.)
The agent was so enthralled with it, he reaches out to the author, who unfortunately dies. Still, that doesn’t seem to stop the agent from being curious about the murder and the investigation – so he decides to investigate both.
The first part of the novel is, comprised of the sample chapters submitted to the agent (a book within a book story).
The second part is the perspective of the agent’s journalist friend who is hired to investigate.
The third and final part of the novel is told from the perspective of the retired policeman who was on the original case.
The story begins at a pace with near-relentless momentum. But there were flaws. The middle section felt muddled and slow. My attention waned. I found myself not really certain that I was going to believe who really killed the professor, or why, or if it mattered. I felt less interested and/or invested in the characters.
By the end, I just wanted it to…well, end.
3.5 stars rounded down.
The story is a murder mystery with a strong psychological component.
The story is about a professor’s murder in the late 1980’s.
Twenty-five years later, a literary agent receives an intriguing manuscript called the Book of Mirrors which almost seems like a confession to the professor’s murder. What could this mean?
There is one problem.
Pages are missing. Not all the pages of the manuscript are provided!
Is it possible that the author is confessing to a murder through his novel? What will this literary agent do to find the truth? Will this case finally be solved? What is this literary agent willing to do to get to the truth?
The premise of the novel is interesting: a book sample is submitted to an agent, who gets hooked by what he finds. (Indeed, it was enough to make me read well into the night/morning.)
The agent was so enthralled with it, he reaches out to the author, who unfortunately dies. Still, that doesn’t seem to stop the agent from being curious about the murder and the investigation – so he decides to investigate both.
The first part of the novel is, comprised of the sample chapters submitted to the agent (a book within a book story).
The second part is the perspective of the agent’s journalist friend who is hired to investigate.
The third and final part of the novel is told from the perspective of the retired policeman who was on the original case.
The story begins at a pace with near-relentless momentum. But there were flaws. The middle section felt muddled and slow. My attention waned. I found myself not really certain that I was going to believe who really killed the professor, or why, or if it mattered. I felt less interested and/or invested in the characters.
By the end, I just wanted it to…well, end.
3.5 stars rounded down.
December 2, 2016
I'd rate this book between 3.5 - 4 stars! This is a totally compelling novel - my only qualm with it is that it's not *really* a thriller. Or at least, it's not the kind of thriller I was anticipating.
THE BOOK OF MIRRORS does many things very well—my personal favorite element of this book is how it gives the reader 3 unique perspectives on one cold case. This is a super unique and engaging way of unraveling a mystery from the past! I did love that element of this book. However, I hoped for more intrigue and suspense from this story. I somehow never felt invested enough in the story's cold case to be truly shocked by any twists of the plot.
My main point with this book: you need to know what you're getting before you begin reading, or you might end up disappointed. This book definitely has mystery elements, and it definitely has a crime at its core, but it's really a cross between literary thriller and character study - it's not a psychological thriller. If you're in the mood for a literary thriller or a slow-burning story that examines a cold case from all different angles, this is a perfect choice! If, however, you're looking for more active thriller elements, look elsewhere.
THE BOOK OF MIRRORS does many things very well—my personal favorite element of this book is how it gives the reader 3 unique perspectives on one cold case. This is a super unique and engaging way of unraveling a mystery from the past! I did love that element of this book. However, I hoped for more intrigue and suspense from this story. I somehow never felt invested enough in the story's cold case to be truly shocked by any twists of the plot.
My main point with this book: you need to know what you're getting before you begin reading, or you might end up disappointed. This book definitely has mystery elements, and it definitely has a crime at its core, but it's really a cross between literary thriller and character study - it's not a psychological thriller. If you're in the mood for a literary thriller or a slow-burning story that examines a cold case from all different angles, this is a perfect choice! If, however, you're looking for more active thriller elements, look elsewhere.
October 20, 2024
UPDATE: Și la recitire după 4 ani îi dau cărții același punctaj. Mi-a plăcut foarte mult! ❤️
Să fii un autor român, să te muți în Anglia, să scrii o carte în limba engleză și să ai un succes răsunător în zeci de țări din lume. Și să mai alegi și genul thriller. Pff... Mie mi-a plăcut și „Cartea oglinzilor”, la fel cum mi-a plăcut și „Cartea secretelor”. Dar nu vreau să mă pronunț, așa că mai încerc câte ceva de la Eugen Ovidiu Chirovici.
Până atunci, ce avem aici? Avem un manuscris incomplet, la finalul fragmentului fiind menționată o crimă. O crimă care s-a petrecut în realitate. Afli că autorul manuscrisului a murit. Cum descoperi deznodământul? Poți fi sigur că nu citești invenții? Interesant...
Recenzia - https://youtu.be/bW6hDglQPGs
Fragmente din „Cartea oglinzilor”: https://youtu.be/eB6j9ixbSVw
Să fii un autor român, să te muți în Anglia, să scrii o carte în limba engleză și să ai un succes răsunător în zeci de țări din lume. Și să mai alegi și genul thriller. Pff... Mie mi-a plăcut și „Cartea oglinzilor”, la fel cum mi-a plăcut și „Cartea secretelor”. Dar nu vreau să mă pronunț, așa că mai încerc câte ceva de la Eugen Ovidiu Chirovici.
Până atunci, ce avem aici? Avem un manuscris incomplet, la finalul fragmentului fiind menționată o crimă. O crimă care s-a petrecut în realitate. Afli că autorul manuscrisului a murit. Cum descoperi deznodământul? Poți fi sigur că nu citești invenții? Interesant...
Recenzia - https://youtu.be/bW6hDglQPGs
Fragmente din „Cartea oglinzilor”: https://youtu.be/eB6j9ixbSVw
October 8, 2025
" ربما هذه القصة مثل إحدى الدمى الروسية ، كل واحدة منها تُخفي أخرى مختلفة بداخلها. "
يصل الى الناشر جزء من مخطوطة رواية تتعلق بجريمة قتل حدثت منذ ثلاثين عاماً للبروفيسور جوزيف ويدر الذي وٌجد مقتولاً بوحشية ولم يتم إكتشاف القاتل .
تنقسم الرواية لثلاثة أجزاء ومن نظر ثلاث شخصيات حيث تدور الرواية بين الماضي والحاضر ، فنبدأ بالمخطوطة التي أرسلها ريتشارد فلين لنتعرف على احداث الماضي من وجهه نظره حتى ليلة مقتل البروفيسور ثم ننتقل في الجزء الثاني مع بيتر الناشر في محاولة بحثه عن باقي المخطوطة ويشترك معه الصحفي جون كيلر في البحث عما حدث في الماضي ومن وراء عملية القتل وفي أثناء البحث يلتقي بروي فريمان المحقق السابق في القضية الذي سنستكمل معه البحث والتنقيب عن القاتل في الجزء الثالث .
فما هي الحقيقة وماذا حدث ومن قتل البروفيسور ؟ ولماذا ؟ وهل يمكن أن تخدعنا ذاكرتنا وان يكون ما نتذكره ليس ما حدث فعلاً ؟!
"تظن أنك نسيت شيئاً- حدثاً، أو شخصاً، أو موقفاً- ثم فجأة تدرك أن الذكرى تقبع في غرفة سرية ما في ذهنك ، وظلت دائماً هناك ، كما لو أنها حدثت بالأمس فحسب .يشبه الأمر فتح خزانة قديمة ملأى بالخُردة ، وكل ما عليك فعله هو تحريك صندوق واحد، لينهار كل شئٍ متحطماً فوقك ."
الرواية أسلوبها شيق وممتع والترجمة جيدة لكن عندما وصلت للنهاية شعرت ان هناك نقاط لم يتم إيضاحها ، ونقاط ألقي الكاتب الضوء عليها لكنه لم يخبرنا عن حقيقتها مثل كتاب البروفيسور الأخير وما هي الرواية الحقيقة عنه ، لكن قد يكون هذا جزء من فكرة الكاتب عن ان الذاكرة قد تقوم بخداعنا وفكرة تزييف الذكريات .
إجمالا الرواية جيدة .
١٥ / ٩ / ٢٠٢٥
يصل الى الناشر جزء من مخطوطة رواية تتعلق بجريمة قتل حدثت منذ ثلاثين عاماً للبروفيسور جوزيف ويدر الذي وٌجد مقتولاً بوحشية ولم يتم إكتشاف القاتل .
تنقسم الرواية لثلاثة أجزاء ومن نظر ثلاث شخصيات حيث تدور الرواية بين الماضي والحاضر ، فنبدأ بالمخطوطة التي أرسلها ريتشارد فلين لنتعرف على احداث الماضي من وجهه نظره حتى ليلة مقتل البروفيسور ثم ننتقل في الجزء الثاني مع بيتر الناشر في محاولة بحثه عن باقي المخطوطة ويشترك معه الصحفي جون كيلر في البحث عما حدث في الماضي ومن وراء عملية القتل وفي أثناء البحث يلتقي بروي فريمان المحقق السابق في القضية الذي سنستكمل معه البحث والتنقيب عن القاتل في الجزء الثالث .
فما هي الحقيقة وماذا حدث ومن قتل البروفيسور ؟ ولماذا ؟ وهل يمكن أن تخدعنا ذاكرتنا وان يكون ما نتذكره ليس ما حدث فعلاً ؟!
"تظن أنك نسيت شيئاً- حدثاً، أو شخصاً، أو موقفاً- ثم فجأة تدرك أن الذكرى تقبع في غرفة سرية ما في ذهنك ، وظلت دائماً هناك ، كما لو أنها حدثت بالأمس فحسب .يشبه الأمر فتح خزانة قديمة ملأى بالخُردة ، وكل ما عليك فعله هو تحريك صندوق واحد، لينهار كل شئٍ متحطماً فوقك ."
الرواية أسلوبها شيق وممتع والترجمة جيدة لكن عندما وصلت للنهاية شعرت ان هناك نقاط لم يتم إيضاحها ، ونقاط ألقي الكاتب الضوء عليها لكنه لم يخبرنا عن حقيقتها مثل كتاب البروفيسور الأخير وما هي الرواية الحقيقة عنه ، لكن قد يكون هذا جزء من فكرة الكاتب عن ان الذاكرة قد تقوم بخداعنا وفكرة تزييف الذكريات .
إجمالا الرواية جيدة .
١٥ / ٩ / ٢٠٢٥
October 1, 2016
The Book of Mirrors is a very clever novel. I do like one of those. It is also UTTERLY addictive – picked this up earlier today meaning to make a start on it and now here we are and I’m done. On the surface it is an old school murder mystery but like an onion every layer you peel away reveals another layer, perception is in the eye of the beholder and it is an immersive experience in that your own perceptions and realities will definitely inform what you read.
We start with a manuscript section sent to an agent. But is the story in it true? And what on earth actually did happen all those years ago considering the story is only half told? What follows is a multi viewpoint unravelling of an old crime, character driven in more ways than one, endlessly compelling and with a narrative you will start questioning all the way.
I particularly liked how the author plays with the theme of memory, of how our life experiences skew our viewpoint, that thing that makes eye witness accounts of the same incident so very varied. Whilst there is a police presence in The Book of Mirrors that is absolutely not its focus – I wouldnt like to call it a psychological thriller either, it is more about letting the characters speak and therefore reveal not only themselves but perhaps the truth behind a murder.
Really beautifully constructed to encompass nuance of plot and depth of character, The Book of Mirrors is one of those novels you know you are going to continue to think back on, to wonder about. It is a simple story in many ways, a story oft told within the human experience – what Mr Chirovici does though is highly effective, fascinating and potent storytelling. Hence I just lost my Saturday afternoon to it. Worth every minute.
Highly Recommended.
We start with a manuscript section sent to an agent. But is the story in it true? And what on earth actually did happen all those years ago considering the story is only half told? What follows is a multi viewpoint unravelling of an old crime, character driven in more ways than one, endlessly compelling and with a narrative you will start questioning all the way.
I particularly liked how the author plays with the theme of memory, of how our life experiences skew our viewpoint, that thing that makes eye witness accounts of the same incident so very varied. Whilst there is a police presence in The Book of Mirrors that is absolutely not its focus – I wouldnt like to call it a psychological thriller either, it is more about letting the characters speak and therefore reveal not only themselves but perhaps the truth behind a murder.
Really beautifully constructed to encompass nuance of plot and depth of character, The Book of Mirrors is one of those novels you know you are going to continue to think back on, to wonder about. It is a simple story in many ways, a story oft told within the human experience – what Mr Chirovici does though is highly effective, fascinating and potent storytelling. Hence I just lost my Saturday afternoon to it. Worth every minute.
Highly Recommended.
April 27, 2017
2.0 stars... could have been more- read on- The Book of Mirrors is told from the perspectives of a would-be writer, Richard Flynn, in his partially finished manuscript, followed by the literary agent Peter Katz who receives it. When Flynn dies of a long term illness, his wife claims to have no knowledge of the book, so Peter enlists journalist John Keller to look into the facts that they have, in hopes of finding the manuscript. After meeting with nearly everyone who might still be alive connected with Richard's unfinished story, John connects with retired police officer Roy Freeman. Finding himself at a crossroads with bits and pieces of information that seem to lead nowhere, he returns the old case files to Freeman. This was one case which still niggled at him after all these years, after being part of the original investigation and Freeman begins to put pieces together in ways he never did earlier.
The set up was tantalizing- thirty years ago a genius psychologist Joseph Wieder was murdered. His project was top secret and slightly sinister. He liked to manipulate and play with people's heads. His university students worshipped him. Others worked for and with him. Some had received controversial treatment from him, in his role as court appointed psychiatrist. Who killed him? Was it the suspect the cops put in prison?
That was the good stuff. Kept me reading quite eagerly.
//////:::::::::::::::;;;;;;;;;////:::::::::::::::://///::::::::::::://////::::::://:::::::::::::;;;;//::::::
However, I kept being jolted by myriad of irritating aspects:
~ The "manuscript" introducing the book had an odd, stilted style and a few phrases which appeared to have been poorly translated versions of English idioms. (However, the book was not a translation. The writer, however, is from Transylvania.)
- " I felt like a FISH IN WATER among that Babel of different races and customs".
- "...we let our POCKETS BLEED and bought a bottle of Côtés du Rhône..."
AND... SIMPLY OUTRAGEOUS: "in an accent she brought with her from the Midwest and that she seemed disinclined to shed merely to keep in step with fashion....'I fell in love with a boy'- she pronounced it BUOY."
ERROR IN CONTEXT & SETTING:
- "trying to squirt mustard from a tube, without realizing you first have to peel off the tinfoil seal."
- "Is there something wrong with the boiler? I had to wait half an hour for the water to warm up."
-- A North American English editor would have noticed these idiosyncrasies, I think. We don't use fish in water, but out of water. Perhaps "pockets bleed dry", even though it is a clunky turn of phrase? Europeans use TUBE mustard and boilers, which are turned off and on again for hot water as needed unlike North Americans who expect hot water on demand.
--The Brits are very accent conscious, unlike most North Americans. No, Laura would not shed her accent for STYLE! And what does BUOY sound like? I cracked up laughing at that nonsense.
----------
"BUOY- [boy, bwoy, or BOO-wee] noun: an anchored floating object in water that shows hazards, mooring places, and so on; verb: to keep afloat; to mark with a buoy
This is a true shibboleth word in that how you pronounce this word depends a great deal on where you live. “Boy,” “bwoy,” and “BOO-wee” are all technically correct, although “boy” is the pronunciation that is most often found in dictionaries.
Buoy is first found in the fifteenth century—spelled boye or boyee, bouee, boie, boya, boia, boei, and boia depending upon the language (Old French, English, French, Norman, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, and Provençal, respectively). No one is sure whether the English buoy evolved from the Old French (boye) or Middle Dutch (boei).
As for pronunciation, it’s a split decision: linguists historically have recognized “bwoy” as the preferred pronunciation, but “boy” is more common among sailors (who should know best) and is more often found in England and other non-American Englishspeaking countries. It’s the most common pronunciation in New England as well.
****As for the rest of the United States, “BOO-wee” wins. ***"
(You're Saying It Wrong, by ROSS PETRAS AND KATHRYN PETRAS)
That was the "manuscript" portion of The Book of Mirrors.
The mystery... Should I go on? Well. I'm on a roll, and if I'm going to give this book a lowly rating, I should be fair with my observations.
In general, I began to realize that the secondary characters and even VERY MINOR characters - a grocery bag full of them with names and useless little side stories not even HINTING of a bit of peppery suspense, so much blah, blah, blah - were unwelcome as spoiling vegetables in my cooler. Why include the most boring piece of dialogue that I've ever read, about the salesman sitting beside you on the plane, give the man a name AND report that he told you dull police jokes? And to add insult to injury, describe the girl who met him, "dressed up like a cowboy singer, in Levi's, a gingham shirt, and a leather vest, with a cowboy hat perched on her long blond hair"! (Maybe for the international German cowboy loving readers? Gawk!) So many distractions cluttering the plot, and not a stinky red herring among them!
WHO DUNNIT? Philosophically, everything is tied up neatly with a bow. Yes, just think about those double crossing mirrors - distorted images - what we choose to see. Uh huh. Deep.
And literary agent Peter Katz tells us, "I haven't read the manuscript yet. ...Most likely, Richard Flynn had been wrong to the very end. Laura Baines had probably..."
EDGE OF MY SEAT!! It's THE TWIST! I knew it!
I turn the page.... holding my breath for the clincher! The fun house book of mirrors!
||||||||||||||
NO! Groan...
"Acknowledgements".
And that's all he wrote.
E.O. Chirovici missed his chance for a grandstand ending.
American cliches - screwed up idioms- stupid accents (the southern one is embarrassing). How much you will like this one will depend on how much you either ignore, forgive or altogether miss the constant faux pas, the extraneous dialogue and characters and a story ended by telling you how to think about it. I liked it about a three star rating but it lost so much in its poor editing and missed opportunities, and because I thought that I'd hit adrenaline before an exciting twisty ending. Meh.
The set up was tantalizing- thirty years ago a genius psychologist Joseph Wieder was murdered. His project was top secret and slightly sinister. He liked to manipulate and play with people's heads. His university students worshipped him. Others worked for and with him. Some had received controversial treatment from him, in his role as court appointed psychiatrist. Who killed him? Was it the suspect the cops put in prison?
That was the good stuff. Kept me reading quite eagerly.
//////:::::::::::::::;;;;;;;;;////:::::::::::::::://///::::::::::::://////::::::://:::::::::::::;;;;//::::::
However, I kept being jolted by myriad of irritating aspects:
~ The "manuscript" introducing the book had an odd, stilted style and a few phrases which appeared to have been poorly translated versions of English idioms. (However, the book was not a translation. The writer, however, is from Transylvania.)
- " I felt like a FISH IN WATER among that Babel of different races and customs".
- "...we let our POCKETS BLEED and bought a bottle of Côtés du Rhône..."
AND... SIMPLY OUTRAGEOUS: "in an accent she brought with her from the Midwest and that she seemed disinclined to shed merely to keep in step with fashion....'I fell in love with a boy'- she pronounced it BUOY."
ERROR IN CONTEXT & SETTING:
- "trying to squirt mustard from a tube, without realizing you first have to peel off the tinfoil seal."
- "Is there something wrong with the boiler? I had to wait half an hour for the water to warm up."
-- A North American English editor would have noticed these idiosyncrasies, I think. We don't use fish in water, but out of water. Perhaps "pockets bleed dry", even though it is a clunky turn of phrase? Europeans use TUBE mustard and boilers, which are turned off and on again for hot water as needed unlike North Americans who expect hot water on demand.
--The Brits are very accent conscious, unlike most North Americans. No, Laura would not shed her accent for STYLE! And what does BUOY sound like? I cracked up laughing at that nonsense.
----------
"BUOY- [boy, bwoy, or BOO-wee] noun: an anchored floating object in water that shows hazards, mooring places, and so on; verb: to keep afloat; to mark with a buoy
This is a true shibboleth word in that how you pronounce this word depends a great deal on where you live. “Boy,” “bwoy,” and “BOO-wee” are all technically correct, although “boy” is the pronunciation that is most often found in dictionaries.
Buoy is first found in the fifteenth century—spelled boye or boyee, bouee, boie, boya, boia, boei, and boia depending upon the language (Old French, English, French, Norman, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, and Provençal, respectively). No one is sure whether the English buoy evolved from the Old French (boye) or Middle Dutch (boei).
As for pronunciation, it’s a split decision: linguists historically have recognized “bwoy” as the preferred pronunciation, but “boy” is more common among sailors (who should know best) and is more often found in England and other non-American Englishspeaking countries. It’s the most common pronunciation in New England as well.
****As for the rest of the United States, “BOO-wee” wins. ***"
(You're Saying It Wrong, by ROSS PETRAS AND KATHRYN PETRAS)
That was the "manuscript" portion of The Book of Mirrors.
The mystery... Should I go on? Well. I'm on a roll, and if I'm going to give this book a lowly rating, I should be fair with my observations.
In general, I began to realize that the secondary characters and even VERY MINOR characters - a grocery bag full of them with names and useless little side stories not even HINTING of a bit of peppery suspense, so much blah, blah, blah - were unwelcome as spoiling vegetables in my cooler. Why include the most boring piece of dialogue that I've ever read, about the salesman sitting beside you on the plane, give the man a name AND report that he told you dull police jokes? And to add insult to injury, describe the girl who met him, "dressed up like a cowboy singer, in Levi's, a gingham shirt, and a leather vest, with a cowboy hat perched on her long blond hair"! (Maybe for the international German cowboy loving readers? Gawk!) So many distractions cluttering the plot, and not a stinky red herring among them!
WHO DUNNIT? Philosophically, everything is tied up neatly with a bow. Yes, just think about those double crossing mirrors - distorted images - what we choose to see. Uh huh. Deep.
And literary agent Peter Katz tells us, "I haven't read the manuscript yet. ...Most likely, Richard Flynn had been wrong to the very end. Laura Baines had probably..."
EDGE OF MY SEAT!! It's THE TWIST! I knew it!
I turn the page.... holding my breath for the clincher! The fun house book of mirrors!
||||||||||||||
NO! Groan...
"Acknowledgements".
And that's all he wrote.
E.O. Chirovici missed his chance for a grandstand ending.
American cliches - screwed up idioms- stupid accents (the southern one is embarrassing). How much you will like this one will depend on how much you either ignore, forgive or altogether miss the constant faux pas, the extraneous dialogue and characters and a story ended by telling you how to think about it. I liked it about a three star rating but it lost so much in its poor editing and missed opportunities, and because I thought that I'd hit adrenaline before an exciting twisty ending. Meh.
March 17, 2017
Also ich bleibe dabei: In gedruckter Form hätte ich es vielleicht abgebrochen, als Hörbuch fand ich es aber toll :)
June 23, 2025
القصة تحكي عن واحد اسمه بيتر كاتز، وكيل أدبي، لقى مخطوطة غريبة من واحد اسمه ريتشارد فلين، زي ما تكون اعتراف إنه قتل بروفيسور اسمه جوزيف ويدر في جامعة برينستون من 25 سنة. بس المخطوطة ناقصة، ومن هنا اللغز بيبدأ.
الرواية مقسمة لتلات أجزاء، كل جزء بيحكي من عين واحد تاني. الأول بيتر، اللي بيحاول يفهم إيه الحكاية. التاني جون كيلر، صحفي بيحقق في الجريمة بس بيخاف ويسيب الموضوع. التالت روي فريمان، تحري عجوز عنده زهايمر وبيحاول يكشف الحقيقة. كل واحد بيحطك في حتة، وتفضل تايه بتسأل: "مين بيحكي الحقيقة؟" القصة مليانة ألغاز، وبتخليك تفكر في الذاكرة وإزاي ممكن تخونك، وإن الحقيقة مش دايمًا زي ما بنشوفها.
الرواية مقسمة لتلات أجزاء، كل جزء بيحكي من عين واحد تاني. الأول بيتر، اللي بيحاول يفهم إيه الحكاية. التاني جون كيلر، صحفي بيحقق في الجريمة بس بيخاف ويسيب الموضوع. التالت روي فريمان، تحري عجوز عنده زهايمر وبيحاول يكشف الحقيقة. كل واحد بيحطك في حتة، وتفضل تايه بتسأل: "مين بيحكي الحقيقة؟" القصة مليانة ألغاز، وبتخليك تفكر في الذاكرة وإزاي ممكن تخونك، وإن الحقيقة مش دايمًا زي ما بنشوفها.
November 17, 2017
This novel may have been slow but I found its mystery so enticing that I loved moving and learning with each character. So many theories run through this novel that you’re never sure what to think, it’s a great classic murder mystery.
It’s only taken me almost a year to knock this book off my Netgalley shelf, but I finally got there! I’d seen lots of hype for this one at the beginning of 2017 but I still didn’t feel inclined to pick it up back then. Now I’ve read it, I’m glad that I waited. I think this one would have disappointed me if I had read it in its prime due to its slow nature, but I can appreciate slow books far more now than I could back then.
Like so many other reviewers, I did think this one was pretty slow paced, but I actually quite liked that about the plot. A cold case of over 20 years isn’t going to get solved overnight, so it was practical that it took a while to find out what really went on that night. I do think there were some sections of the book that were unnecessary and added to the slowness of the plot, for example when one narrator gets on a plane and there’s a whole segment about an irrelevant salesman talking to him and flirting with a girl. That bit wasn’t needed in any way for the plot to progress and did just feel like filler bumf, but I’ve read books with far worse filler scenes.
This story is told in a few different ways. It’s told in the perspective of 3 different people and then also as a book within a book. I really liked the way this was laid out and think having the 3 different tones of voice gave the story some character it could have missed out on had it just stayed with the one narrator.
Each character in this was interesting in their own way, and I liked that each person had their own story to tell while also moving the main mystery along.
In terms of plot, this one wasn’t the most innovative or astounding, but there was something enchanting about it. There were a few different theories as to Professor Weider’s demise and I liked that it kept you guessing all along. I was actually quite surprised and impressed by the end of the book, the conclusion to the mystery was cleverly thought out and well executed.
Looking at the reviews of this book I think people are being a little harsh. There are lots of books that are slow mysteries but this one seems to be pissing people off more than most. I know it’s down to everyone’s own opinion but I don’t see what the big issue with this one was. Personally, I enjoyed it.
Thanks to Netgalley and Arrow for giving me the opportunity to read this in exchange for an honest review.
It’s only taken me almost a year to knock this book off my Netgalley shelf, but I finally got there! I’d seen lots of hype for this one at the beginning of 2017 but I still didn’t feel inclined to pick it up back then. Now I’ve read it, I’m glad that I waited. I think this one would have disappointed me if I had read it in its prime due to its slow nature, but I can appreciate slow books far more now than I could back then.
Like so many other reviewers, I did think this one was pretty slow paced, but I actually quite liked that about the plot. A cold case of over 20 years isn’t going to get solved overnight, so it was practical that it took a while to find out what really went on that night. I do think there were some sections of the book that were unnecessary and added to the slowness of the plot, for example when one narrator gets on a plane and there’s a whole segment about an irrelevant salesman talking to him and flirting with a girl. That bit wasn’t needed in any way for the plot to progress and did just feel like filler bumf, but I’ve read books with far worse filler scenes.
This story is told in a few different ways. It’s told in the perspective of 3 different people and then also as a book within a book. I really liked the way this was laid out and think having the 3 different tones of voice gave the story some character it could have missed out on had it just stayed with the one narrator.
Each character in this was interesting in their own way, and I liked that each person had their own story to tell while also moving the main mystery along.
In terms of plot, this one wasn’t the most innovative or astounding, but there was something enchanting about it. There were a few different theories as to Professor Weider’s demise and I liked that it kept you guessing all along. I was actually quite surprised and impressed by the end of the book, the conclusion to the mystery was cleverly thought out and well executed.
Looking at the reviews of this book I think people are being a little harsh. There are lots of books that are slow mysteries but this one seems to be pissing people off more than most. I know it’s down to everyone’s own opinion but I don’t see what the big issue with this one was. Personally, I enjoyed it.
Thanks to Netgalley and Arrow for giving me the opportunity to read this in exchange for an honest review.
September 13, 2019
Ένα ευφυές έργο. Το μόνο αρνητικό είναι ότι έκανε μια κοιλιά λίγο μετά τη μέση. Το τέλος ήταν δυνατό κ σίγουρα ανατρεπτικό.
December 22, 2023
Crime mystery with 3 (maybe not so very different) POVs (actually 4 if you consider Flynn's, and I think it can be considered), and an open ending.
Quite well done, it kept me engaged and totally interested in the story.
Quite well done, it kept me engaged and totally interested in the story.
December 26, 2017
Odlična! Ako Rumunji nastave ovako pisati trilere, Šveđanima će tron biti ozbiljno uzdrman.. ;)
February 5, 2017
2.5 stele.
M-am încăpățânat să termin romanul, dat fiind celebritatea recentă a autorului și a contractelor semnate pentru traducerea ei. E primul roman citit de Chirovici, nu am idee dacă voi reveni și voi mai citi ceva.
Plusuri: lectură foarte rapidă, discurs cursiv, fără gafe de exprimare, metafore greșite, aiureli poetice cum am mai găsit prin câțiva autori români de thriller. Senzația că nu citești romanul unui scriitor român, ci o traducere. Evident, cadrul poveștii, numele personajelor și intriga ajută la crearea acestei senzații. Intriga decentă, cu un plus pentru prima parte. De altfel, ca realizare literară, romanul pare să scadă valoric cu fiecare parte în parte: sunt 3 plus epilog.
Minusuri: detalii de construcție, 3 voci diferite folosite ca narator, dar fără diferențe vizibile între ele. Intriga, interesantă la început, își pierde repede misterul și motivația de a merge înainte cu romanul nu prea are combustibil în paginile cărții. Nu empatizezi decât cu primul personaj, autorul manuscrisului. Motivația de a duce ancheta la capăt din ultima parte (mă refer la polițistul pensionar) nu ține, e cusută cu ață albă pentru a prelua microfonul de la naratorul intermediar. Finalul nu mulțumește pe nimeni și e suficient de plat cât să te gândești de ce ai mai citit cartea. E mișto că autorul are grijă să contextualizeze bine detaliile din roman, evenimentele politice importante din anii respectivi, evoluția economică etc. Însă de multe ori mania aceasta e transmisă personajelor, așa că mai toate vorbesc despre biografia lor, observă ca un bun detectiv detaliile unei încăperi, orientarea clădirilor etc. De la un punct încolo devine deranjant.
Un roman decent, suficient de scurt pentru a-l duce până la capăt. Dublat de un PR bun, probabil.
M-am încăpățânat să termin romanul, dat fiind celebritatea recentă a autorului și a contractelor semnate pentru traducerea ei. E primul roman citit de Chirovici, nu am idee dacă voi reveni și voi mai citi ceva.
Plusuri: lectură foarte rapidă, discurs cursiv, fără gafe de exprimare, metafore greșite, aiureli poetice cum am mai găsit prin câțiva autori români de thriller. Senzația că nu citești romanul unui scriitor român, ci o traducere. Evident, cadrul poveștii, numele personajelor și intriga ajută la crearea acestei senzații. Intriga decentă, cu un plus pentru prima parte. De altfel, ca realizare literară, romanul pare să scadă valoric cu fiecare parte în parte: sunt 3 plus epilog.
Minusuri: detalii de construcție, 3 voci diferite folosite ca narator, dar fără diferențe vizibile între ele. Intriga, interesantă la început, își pierde repede misterul și motivația de a merge înainte cu romanul nu prea are combustibil în paginile cărții. Nu empatizezi decât cu primul personaj, autorul manuscrisului. Motivația de a duce ancheta la capăt din ultima parte (mă refer la polițistul pensionar) nu ține, e cusută cu ață albă pentru a prelua microfonul de la naratorul intermediar. Finalul nu mulțumește pe nimeni și e suficient de plat cât să te gândești de ce ai mai citit cartea. E mișto că autorul are grijă să contextualizeze bine detaliile din roman, evenimentele politice importante din anii respectivi, evoluția economică etc. Însă de multe ori mania aceasta e transmisă personajelor, așa că mai toate vorbesc despre biografia lor, observă ca un bun detectiv detaliile unei încăperi, orientarea clădirilor etc. De la un punct încolo devine deranjant.
Un roman decent, suficient de scurt pentru a-l duce până la capăt. Dublat de un PR bun, probabil.
December 27, 2016
3.5 stars. Peter Katz is a literary agent. He receives an unfinished manuscript entitled The Book Of Mirrors written by Richard Flynn. Flynn is writing a memoir about his time at Princeton around the late 1980's, his relationships with the famous Professor Joseph Wieder. In 1987 Wieder was brutally murdered at home and the case was never solved. Peter Katz is determined to get to the bottom of what happened and is convinced the full manuscript will reveal the identity of who committed this violent crime. But will stirring up people's memories become dangerous?
A decently written thriller but it does tend to run flat at times. Lots of twists to the storyline. Enjoyable tho.
I would like to thank NetGalley, RandomHouse UK - Cornerstone and the author E. O. Chirovici for my ARC in exchange for an honest review.
A decently written thriller but it does tend to run flat at times. Lots of twists to the storyline. Enjoyable tho.
I would like to thank NetGalley, RandomHouse UK - Cornerstone and the author E. O. Chirovici for my ARC in exchange for an honest review.
Read
October 17, 2016Even before I started this novel, I was aware of the publicity around it. Romanian author, Eugene Chirovici, who has previously written ten literary mysteries in his native country, before re-locating to the UK and trying his luck with the larger market here. It seems to have been a good move. In Romania, Chirovici had to work as a journalist; not making enough from his writing to live on. This first novel in English has resulted in a huge success – with 23 countries snapping this up and the author looking at a huge success. When you hear of novels making that kind of excitement before they have even been released, you wonder whether the book will be exciting as it promises to be.
I have to admit that I have a fondness of books set around academia and so the premise of this novel appealed to me. Having read it, I thought it was both simpler than I thought it would be – more straightforward – and yet is obviously is not a debut novel and the author has written a clever, literary mystery. This begins with a really strong opening, with a literary agent receiving a letter from Richard Flynn, who majored in English at Princeton in 1987. He sends a sample of a manuscript about events during his last year there and, despite the huge number of submissions he receives, the agent is intrigued by the submission letter.
During his time at Princeton, Richard Flynn fell in love with the beautiful Laura Baines. Through her, he was introduced to Professor Joseph Wieder and begins to work for him, organising his library. Flynn is an aspiring writer, but when the Professor is found murdered, he becomes a suspect. Enthralled by this sample, agent Peter Katz, is keen to read the rest of the work – however, it transpires that the rest of the manuscript cannot be found.
This is really a book in three parts, with the agent reading the unfinished manuscript and an investigation by both journalist, John Keller, and a detective who worked on the case, Roy Freeman, to either discover the missing book or find out what really happened. The author is keen to tell us that the book is about memory and how we interpret, or mis-interpret, our memories over time. Really, though, this is an interesting mystery, with a good cast of characters, various possible motives and an enjoyable investigation into events. This is enjoyable and clever – not quite as great as I had hoped, but I would certainly read more by this author.
I have to admit that I have a fondness of books set around academia and so the premise of this novel appealed to me. Having read it, I thought it was both simpler than I thought it would be – more straightforward – and yet is obviously is not a debut novel and the author has written a clever, literary mystery. This begins with a really strong opening, with a literary agent receiving a letter from Richard Flynn, who majored in English at Princeton in 1987. He sends a sample of a manuscript about events during his last year there and, despite the huge number of submissions he receives, the agent is intrigued by the submission letter.
During his time at Princeton, Richard Flynn fell in love with the beautiful Laura Baines. Through her, he was introduced to Professor Joseph Wieder and begins to work for him, organising his library. Flynn is an aspiring writer, but when the Professor is found murdered, he becomes a suspect. Enthralled by this sample, agent Peter Katz, is keen to read the rest of the work – however, it transpires that the rest of the manuscript cannot be found.
This is really a book in three parts, with the agent reading the unfinished manuscript and an investigation by both journalist, John Keller, and a detective who worked on the case, Roy Freeman, to either discover the missing book or find out what really happened. The author is keen to tell us that the book is about memory and how we interpret, or mis-interpret, our memories over time. Really, though, this is an interesting mystery, with a good cast of characters, various possible motives and an enjoyable investigation into events. This is enjoyable and clever – not quite as great as I had hoped, but I would certainly read more by this author.
November 11, 2016
I nearly gave this book up a quarter of the way through but seeing as the majority of Goodreads reviews were 4 or 5 stars I decided to keep trying and finish it. I really wished I'd given up. As with a lot of the books I review I received a free ARC from netgalley for an honest review. When you send to kindle every now and again the formatting goes wonky and sentences and paragraphs will have breaks in odd places. This however seemed to have had no proof reading done to it whatsoever. Around 90% of the capital letters were missing which made an already un-enjoyable book that much harder.
One of the other issues was language. The author is Romanian and this is his first English language novel. And for me it really showed. The book is split into three parts, each moving the story on from the point of view of Katz the agent, a journalist and a retired policeman who worked the original murder. They are all written in first person and all have the same tone and pitch; the result being each character blended into one and I found it quite easy to forget who I was reading about. On top of the lack of capital letters this book became really unreadable.
The sad thing is the actual premise is a good one. Richard Flynn sends a book proposal to a literary agent which could lead to the solving of a 30 year old murder. This sets the above three mentioned characters on a mission to eventually find out whodunnit. The twist wasn't bad and as someone who has a keen interest in mental health issues I found the parts around retrograde amnesia really interesting.
Overall I think a lot more could have been done with this book and even just sorting out the language and grammar would have moved it up another star. A real shame
One of the other issues was language. The author is Romanian and this is his first English language novel. And for me it really showed. The book is split into three parts, each moving the story on from the point of view of Katz the agent, a journalist and a retired policeman who worked the original murder. They are all written in first person and all have the same tone and pitch; the result being each character blended into one and I found it quite easy to forget who I was reading about. On top of the lack of capital letters this book became really unreadable.
The sad thing is the actual premise is a good one. Richard Flynn sends a book proposal to a literary agent which could lead to the solving of a 30 year old murder. This sets the above three mentioned characters on a mission to eventually find out whodunnit. The twist wasn't bad and as someone who has a keen interest in mental health issues I found the parts around retrograde amnesia really interesting.
Overall I think a lot more could have been done with this book and even just sorting out the language and grammar would have moved it up another star. A real shame
February 18, 2017
I really enjoyed this thriller.
Peter Katzis a literary agent who receives an unusual query and partial manuscript from fledgling writer Richard Flynn. Richard’s powerful life-changing and tragic story leaves Peter wanting to know more so he sets out to find the rest of the manuscript.
In the shared pieces of Richard’s manuscript we meet wickedly smart Laura Baines, a fellow Princeton psychology student studying to get her second Master’s; famous Professor Joseph Wieder, who runs a research program at Princeton that is expected to be a huge scientific breakthrough. He is also supervising Laura on her graduate thesis. Laura is Wieder’s protégé but is she also something more? Richard is falling in love with her and becoming suspicious. One day Joseph Wieder is murdered and Richard becomes a suspect.
The story is now in place and the search is on to find the rest of the manuscript and to find resolution in the 25-year old unsolved case. It is set up in three parts from three different perspectives; that of Peter Katz; another from John Keller, a journalist/blogger and friend of Peter ‘s who’s curiosity is piqued after John tells him about Richard Flynn’s manuscript; and lastly Roy Freeman, a retired detective involved in the 25-year old unsolved case and still obsessed by it.
Well, I became obsessed with this book, loved the multi-perspectives, the twists and the mystery surrounding the manuscript. The back-stories of characters were just right and didn’t get bogged down. It was a suspenseful crime story that hooked me early on and kept me guessing until the end.
Thanks to Atria and Netgalley for providing an ARC.
Peter Katzis a literary agent who receives an unusual query and partial manuscript from fledgling writer Richard Flynn. Richard’s powerful life-changing and tragic story leaves Peter wanting to know more so he sets out to find the rest of the manuscript.
In the shared pieces of Richard’s manuscript we meet wickedly smart Laura Baines, a fellow Princeton psychology student studying to get her second Master’s; famous Professor Joseph Wieder, who runs a research program at Princeton that is expected to be a huge scientific breakthrough. He is also supervising Laura on her graduate thesis. Laura is Wieder’s protégé but is she also something more? Richard is falling in love with her and becoming suspicious. One day Joseph Wieder is murdered and Richard becomes a suspect.
The story is now in place and the search is on to find the rest of the manuscript and to find resolution in the 25-year old unsolved case. It is set up in three parts from three different perspectives; that of Peter Katz; another from John Keller, a journalist/blogger and friend of Peter ‘s who’s curiosity is piqued after John tells him about Richard Flynn’s manuscript; and lastly Roy Freeman, a retired detective involved in the 25-year old unsolved case and still obsessed by it.
Well, I became obsessed with this book, loved the multi-perspectives, the twists and the mystery surrounding the manuscript. The back-stories of characters were just right and didn’t get bogged down. It was a suspenseful crime story that hooked me early on and kept me guessing until the end.
Thanks to Atria and Netgalley for providing an ARC.
March 5, 2017
Ein gut geschriebener Kriminalroman, in dem es um ein unvollendetes Manuskript, einen ungeklärten Mordfall und die Unzuverlässigkeit und Manipulierbarkeit von Erinnerungen geht. Erzählt wir nacheinander aus drei Perspektiven: aus der eines Literaturagenten, eines Reporters und eines pensionierten Polizisten. Das Buch hat genau meine Erwartungen nach einer kurzweiligen, nicht allzu tiefsinnigen Lektüre erfüllt und als solche kann ich es durchaus weiterempfehlen. Allerdings würde ich Denis Scheck nicht zustimmen, der in dem Werk die erzählerische Raffinesse eines Werkes von Nabokov erkennt (http://www.ardmediathek.de/tv/Druckfr...). Muss ja aber auch nicht.
March 13, 2017
Nachdem es bereits sehr viele begeisterte Stimmen zu "Das Buch der Spiegel" gab, wurde ich direkt neugierig und musste dem Buch unbedingt eine Chance geben, da es total in mein Beuteschema passt. Hier habe ich mir eine spannende, vielseitige und interessante Geschichte erhofft und letztendlich auch bekommen.
Auffällig ist hierbei der sehr gute Schreibstil, der dafür sorgt, dass sich die Geschichte stets leicht, locker und dennoch spannend lesen lässt. Dadurch, dass die Geschichte in mehreren Teilen und Perspektiven erzählt wird, erhält man hier nicht nur einen guten Eindruck, sondern erlebt auch immer wieder andere Blickwinkel, sodass ich das ein oder andere Mal auf die falsche Spur gelockt wurde.
Die Geschichte ist in insgesamt drei Teile unterteilt. Im ersten Teil der Geschichte geht es hauptsächlich darum, dass Peter Katz, seines Zeichens Literaturagent, ein Manuskript von Richard Flynn erhält, der in seinem neuestem Manuskript über die Ermordung des Professors Joseph Wieder schreibt, allerdings ist das Manuskript unvollständig, sodass man nichts über den Mörder und den Grund des Mordes erfährt. Problematisch ist zudem, dass der Autor mittlerweile verstorben ist, sodass Peter Katz dringend Antwort haben möchte, zumal die Geschichte laut Autor tatsächlich Realität ist.
Im zweiten Teil lernt man den Journalisten John Keller kennen, aus dessen Perspektive die Geschichte erzählt wird. Dieser versucht ebenfalls herausfinden, was es mit dem Mord an Joseph Wieder auf sich hat und entdeckt dabei auch das ein oder andere Detail, bei dem der Leser weiterhin miträtseln kann, was es damit auf sich hat.
Im dritten und letzten Teil erzählt der Detective Roy Freeman die Geschichte. Dieser war bereits vor einiger Zeit mit dem Fall vertraut, konnte diesen aber nie abschließen, sodass er sich nun erneut mit dem Fall befasst. Auch hier erfährt man als Leser immer wieder neue Details, bildet sich seine Meinung, rätselt mit und wird am Ende doch überrascht.
Die Figuren sind allesamt gut ausgearbeitet, man lernt sie ausreichend kennen, fiebert und rätselt mit ihnen mit und lernt aufgrund der verschiedenen Perspektiven auch die ein oder andere Macke der jeweiligen Figur kennen. Obwohl mir nicht alle Figuren in der Geschichte sympathisch waren, muss man dennoch sagen, dass diese allesamt gut und vor allem glaubwürdig in die Geschichte eingebaut wurden, sodass man hier nichts bemängeln kann.
Gleiches gilt auch für den Ablauf der Geschichte. Ich habe zunächst befürchtet, dass drei Perspektiven eventuell zu viel sein könnten, allerdings war es genau richtig so, denn dadurch nimmt die Geschichte erst recht Fahrt auf und ich wollte immer mehr über den Fall und dessen Auflösung wissen, sodass ich das Buch nur selten aus den Händen legen konnte.
Das Cover ist für mich ein absoluter Hingucker, sodass ich direkt neugierig wurde und unbedingt einen Blick auf die Kurzbeschreibung werfen musste. Diese hat mir ebenfalls sofort gefallen und somit habe ich mich sehr darauf gefreut, das Buch endlich in den Händen halten zu dürfen.
Kurz gesagt: "Das Buch der Spiegel" ist eine spannende und gut ausgearbeitete Geschichte, die mich mit einem mitreißenden Schreibstil und interessanten Figuren von der ersten bis zur letzten Seite an überzeugen konnte, sodass ich das Buch somit nur empfehlen kann.
Auffällig ist hierbei der sehr gute Schreibstil, der dafür sorgt, dass sich die Geschichte stets leicht, locker und dennoch spannend lesen lässt. Dadurch, dass die Geschichte in mehreren Teilen und Perspektiven erzählt wird, erhält man hier nicht nur einen guten Eindruck, sondern erlebt auch immer wieder andere Blickwinkel, sodass ich das ein oder andere Mal auf die falsche Spur gelockt wurde.
Die Geschichte ist in insgesamt drei Teile unterteilt. Im ersten Teil der Geschichte geht es hauptsächlich darum, dass Peter Katz, seines Zeichens Literaturagent, ein Manuskript von Richard Flynn erhält, der in seinem neuestem Manuskript über die Ermordung des Professors Joseph Wieder schreibt, allerdings ist das Manuskript unvollständig, sodass man nichts über den Mörder und den Grund des Mordes erfährt. Problematisch ist zudem, dass der Autor mittlerweile verstorben ist, sodass Peter Katz dringend Antwort haben möchte, zumal die Geschichte laut Autor tatsächlich Realität ist.
Im zweiten Teil lernt man den Journalisten John Keller kennen, aus dessen Perspektive die Geschichte erzählt wird. Dieser versucht ebenfalls herausfinden, was es mit dem Mord an Joseph Wieder auf sich hat und entdeckt dabei auch das ein oder andere Detail, bei dem der Leser weiterhin miträtseln kann, was es damit auf sich hat.
Im dritten und letzten Teil erzählt der Detective Roy Freeman die Geschichte. Dieser war bereits vor einiger Zeit mit dem Fall vertraut, konnte diesen aber nie abschließen, sodass er sich nun erneut mit dem Fall befasst. Auch hier erfährt man als Leser immer wieder neue Details, bildet sich seine Meinung, rätselt mit und wird am Ende doch überrascht.
Die Figuren sind allesamt gut ausgearbeitet, man lernt sie ausreichend kennen, fiebert und rätselt mit ihnen mit und lernt aufgrund der verschiedenen Perspektiven auch die ein oder andere Macke der jeweiligen Figur kennen. Obwohl mir nicht alle Figuren in der Geschichte sympathisch waren, muss man dennoch sagen, dass diese allesamt gut und vor allem glaubwürdig in die Geschichte eingebaut wurden, sodass man hier nichts bemängeln kann.
Gleiches gilt auch für den Ablauf der Geschichte. Ich habe zunächst befürchtet, dass drei Perspektiven eventuell zu viel sein könnten, allerdings war es genau richtig so, denn dadurch nimmt die Geschichte erst recht Fahrt auf und ich wollte immer mehr über den Fall und dessen Auflösung wissen, sodass ich das Buch nur selten aus den Händen legen konnte.
Das Cover ist für mich ein absoluter Hingucker, sodass ich direkt neugierig wurde und unbedingt einen Blick auf die Kurzbeschreibung werfen musste. Diese hat mir ebenfalls sofort gefallen und somit habe ich mich sehr darauf gefreut, das Buch endlich in den Händen halten zu dürfen.
Kurz gesagt: "Das Buch der Spiegel" ist eine spannende und gut ausgearbeitete Geschichte, die mich mit einem mitreißenden Schreibstil und interessanten Figuren von der ersten bis zur letzten Seite an überzeugen konnte, sodass ich das Buch somit nur empfehlen kann.
January 10, 2018
"Psihološki triler koji ostavlja bez daha..." - baš lijepo izgleda ovako napisana najava, natjera vas da kupite knjigu a onda da ju i pročitate. Srećom, samo sam čitala. Ne smijem reći da sam upala u zamku, nitko me nije natjerao. Što mogu, kad čujem i pročitam "psihološki triler", odmah pomislim na Nestalu (Gillian Flynn) a dala sam joj "samo" četiri zvjezdice. Ipak me pošteno prodrmala. Ali, odlutala ja predaleko...
Uglavnom, ova knjiga nit' mi je triler a još manje psihološki. Sasvim obična drama u kojoj imamo malo krimi radnje, vrlo mlake. Kao u mojoj knjizi iz kaznenog prava. A počelo je solidno, do kraja prvog dijela, iako me cijelo vrijeme nervirao suviše jednostavan, dokumentaran način pripovijedanja. Nakon toga me jednostavno prestala zanimati. Saznat ćemo mi na kraju i tko je ubio i zašto (stručnjaci kažu da je bitnije ovo zašto) ali mene se nije dalo uvjeriti. Bez daha bih možda ostala jedino da sam čitala trčeći. U ovom žanru uvijek puno očekujem, mislim da kao čitatelj imam na to pravo. I ne zamjeram si to. Autoru pak želim puno sreće u budućem radu, možda napiše nešto poput "Nestale". Šteta što neću provjeravati.
Uglavnom, ova knjiga nit' mi je triler a još manje psihološki. Sasvim obična drama u kojoj imamo malo krimi radnje, vrlo mlake. Kao u mojoj knjizi iz kaznenog prava. A počelo je solidno, do kraja prvog dijela, iako me cijelo vrijeme nervirao suviše jednostavan, dokumentaran način pripovijedanja. Nakon toga me jednostavno prestala zanimati. Saznat ćemo mi na kraju i tko je ubio i zašto (stručnjaci kažu da je bitnije ovo zašto) ali mene se nije dalo uvjeriti. Bez daha bih možda ostala jedino da sam čitala trčeći. U ovom žanru uvijek puno očekujem, mislim da kao čitatelj imam na to pravo. I ne zamjeram si to. Autoru pak želim puno sreće u budućem radu, možda napiše nešto poput "Nestale". Šteta što neću provjeravati.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 927 reviews