What do you think?
Rate this book
Joe Leland #1
The Detective
Joe Leland, war hero, career cop, private detective, is a public tough guy whose private world is coming apart.
When a wartime acquaintance is killed in a fall from a race-track roof, his young widow hires Leland to investigate. As the search progresses, Leland is drawn into the shadows of Colin MacIver's life and into the black areas of his own past—the war, his troubled marriage, the brutal murder case that ended his police career.
Made into a classic film starring Frank Sinatra, The Detective is a psychological thriller as well as a portrait of a man confronting violence and horror—and himself.
When a wartime acquaintance is killed in a fall from a race-track roof, his young widow hires Leland to investigate. As the search progresses, Leland is drawn into the shadows of Colin MacIver's life and into the black areas of his own past—the war, his troubled marriage, the brutal murder case that ended his police career.
Made into a classic film starring Frank Sinatra, The Detective is a psychological thriller as well as a portrait of a man confronting violence and horror—and himself.
508 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1966
162 people are currently reading
1318 people want to read
About the author
Roderick Thorp
28 books71 followersRoderick Mayne Thorp, Jr. was an American novelist specializing mainly in crime novels.
As a young college graduate, Thorp worked at a detective agency owned by his father. He would later teach literature and lecture on creative writing at schools and universities in New Jersey and California, and also wrote articles for newspapers and magazines.
Two of his best known novels were adapted into popular films: his 1966 novel The Detective was made into a 1968 film of the same name, starring Frank Sinatra as Detective Joe Leland, and his 1979 sequel to The Detective, Nothing Lasts Forever, was filmed in 1988 as Die Hard, starring Bruce Willis. Though Die Hard was relatively faithful to Nothing Lasts Forever, it was not made as a sequel to the film version of The Detective. Two other Thorp novels, Rainbow Drive and Devlin, were adapted into TV movies.
Thorp died of a heart attack in Oxnard, California.
As a young college graduate, Thorp worked at a detective agency owned by his father. He would later teach literature and lecture on creative writing at schools and universities in New Jersey and California, and also wrote articles for newspapers and magazines.
Two of his best known novels were adapted into popular films: his 1966 novel The Detective was made into a 1968 film of the same name, starring Frank Sinatra as Detective Joe Leland, and his 1979 sequel to The Detective, Nothing Lasts Forever, was filmed in 1988 as Die Hard, starring Bruce Willis. Though Die Hard was relatively faithful to Nothing Lasts Forever, it was not made as a sequel to the film version of The Detective. Two other Thorp novels, Rainbow Drive and Devlin, were adapted into TV movies.
Thorp died of a heart attack in Oxnard, California.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 47 reviews
September 10, 2017
It wasn't until after I'd started reading this that I discovered two things:
(a) It's the source novel for the 1968 movie The Detective, starring Frank Sinatra, Lee Remick and Jacqueline Bisset. I remember thinking this was a movie with merits but rather "worthy," so out of interest checked what I'd said about it in my A Comprehensive Encyclopedia of Film Noir :
Reading the entry as a whole, I realize how very faithful a screen adaptation the movie is, and this last sentence of it could equally well be applied to the novel. The big difference is that the movie is 114 minutes long; the novel fills six hundred quite extraordinarily tedious pages. There are long, long conversations in which people, even to strangers, recount ad nauseam the details of their sex lives -- sex lives that are of incomparable dreariness. Two of the three principal females, including the wife of the detective, Joe Leland, himself, are recovering from nymphomania; the third is a sort of inhibited nymphomaniac wannabe. Every motivation is picked over at wearisome length; since people's motivations are constantly changing, this means a lot of wearisomeness, a lot of length.
The writing style itself could be best described, I guess, as allusive. The trouble here is that, if you miss the allusions, you're left staring at the page thinking, "What the merry blue blazes [I paraphrase] is he talking about?" and parsing sentences as if they were cryptic crossword clues. Alas, I did quite a lot of that.
By the time I got to page 200 or so, the only thing that was keeping me going was a sort of Rocky-like determination not to be defeated no matter how much punishment I was receiving. The resolution of the mystery was bipartite, with one part seeming pat and the other contrived, but there was, too, a resolution of Leland's ethical conundrum that was far better handled.
(b) This novel's much later sequel was filmed as Die Hard. I gather it's a much pacier outing -- as it could hardly help but be. But I confess I'm not going to risk it.
(a) It's the source novel for the 1968 movie The Detective, starring Frank Sinatra, Lee Remick and Jacqueline Bisset. I remember thinking this was a movie with merits but rather "worthy," so out of interest checked what I'd said about it in my A Comprehensive Encyclopedia of Film Noir :
It's a good tale worth telling, but the screenplay seems intent on adding "meaning" at times when it should be storytelling. Further, much time is devoted to the difficulties Leland is having in his marriage to wife Karen (Remick), difficulties that simply aren't very interesting.
Reading the entry as a whole, I realize how very faithful a screen adaptation the movie is, and this last sentence of it could equally well be applied to the novel. The big difference is that the movie is 114 minutes long; the novel fills six hundred quite extraordinarily tedious pages. There are long, long conversations in which people, even to strangers, recount ad nauseam the details of their sex lives -- sex lives that are of incomparable dreariness. Two of the three principal females, including the wife of the detective, Joe Leland, himself, are recovering from nymphomania; the third is a sort of inhibited nymphomaniac wannabe. Every motivation is picked over at wearisome length; since people's motivations are constantly changing, this means a lot of wearisomeness, a lot of length.
The writing style itself could be best described, I guess, as allusive. The trouble here is that, if you miss the allusions, you're left staring at the page thinking, "What the merry blue blazes [I paraphrase] is he talking about?" and parsing sentences as if they were cryptic crossword clues. Alas, I did quite a lot of that.
By the time I got to page 200 or so, the only thing that was keeping me going was a sort of Rocky-like determination not to be defeated no matter how much punishment I was receiving. The resolution of the mystery was bipartite, with one part seeming pat and the other contrived, but there was, too, a resolution of Leland's ethical conundrum that was far better handled.
(b) This novel's much later sequel was filmed as Die Hard. I gather it's a much pacier outing -- as it could hardly help but be. But I confess I'm not going to risk it.
January 6, 2014
No. Just no. Don't read this book. I'm warning you.
Look, I was probably like about 50 percent of the people that read this book. I watched Die Hard with a friend drunk and then in the credits, "Oh, snap! Die Hard was based on a book!!?? There is a PREQUEL to THAT book??? Well, I have to read that. Have to. Just for the conversation you can have in a bar with someone that goes like this
PERSON A: "Watched Die Hard last night, awesome movie.
PERSON B (in this case, me) "Die Hard. (Laughs with a smirk)That's nothing like the book."
And yes, this book has absolutely nothing to do with Die Hard. Nothing. First of all, guys name is Joe Leland, not John McClaine. Second, he's a dectective, not a gun-slinging guy walking around with glass in his toes, jumping off buildings. I don't even recall one gun even going off in this book. It's just a lot of loooooonnnnnng conversations. Real long. I would read a 50-page chapter and NOTHING would happen. Nothing.
So, please, don't read this book if you're a Die Hard fan. Just read "Nothing Lasts Forever" by the same author, which isn't half bad. It's at least entertaining. The Detective was the worst book I read of 2013, possibly ever. I'm sure Roderick Thorp was a great person and had a great life (if he's still alive, this book was written 50 years ago) but this book just didn't hit it off with me at all.
Look, I was probably like about 50 percent of the people that read this book. I watched Die Hard with a friend drunk and then in the credits, "Oh, snap! Die Hard was based on a book!!?? There is a PREQUEL to THAT book??? Well, I have to read that. Have to. Just for the conversation you can have in a bar with someone that goes like this
PERSON A: "Watched Die Hard last night, awesome movie.
PERSON B (in this case, me) "Die Hard. (Laughs with a smirk)That's nothing like the book."
And yes, this book has absolutely nothing to do with Die Hard. Nothing. First of all, guys name is Joe Leland, not John McClaine. Second, he's a dectective, not a gun-slinging guy walking around with glass in his toes, jumping off buildings. I don't even recall one gun even going off in this book. It's just a lot of loooooonnnnnng conversations. Real long. I would read a 50-page chapter and NOTHING would happen. Nothing.
So, please, don't read this book if you're a Die Hard fan. Just read "Nothing Lasts Forever" by the same author, which isn't half bad. It's at least entertaining. The Detective was the worst book I read of 2013, possibly ever. I'm sure Roderick Thorp was a great person and had a great life (if he's still alive, this book was written 50 years ago) but this book just didn't hit it off with me at all.
October 18, 2023
DNF
I tried, but from the get-go, I was annoyed by the writing style. It keeps jumping all over the place instead of following a structure. One minute our protagonist talks about corruption and the next he's on a tangent about law and then back onto crime. It's like watching a bunny on heroin bounce off the walls. I couldn't get a clear idea of the plot mainly because I was trying to skip the random info dumps . Maybe this is on me as I was expecting something better from a novel that led to the highest-grossing film the year it aired.
Super disappointing, would not recommend it.
I tried, but from the get-go, I was annoyed by the writing style. It keeps jumping all over the place instead of following a structure. One minute our protagonist talks about corruption and the next he's on a tangent about law and then back onto crime. It's like watching a bunny on heroin bounce off the walls. I couldn't get a clear idea of the plot mainly because I was trying to skip the random info dumps . Maybe this is on me as I was expecting something better from a novel that led to the highest-grossing film the year it aired.
Super disappointing, would not recommend it.
January 1, 2011
I can't imagine a book this slow-paced being published today — but it's very much a book of its times: a fascinating look into how World War II shaped the men who fought it, and how their return to civilian life went on to shape the communities in which they lived. You can see the women's movement getting ready to happen in intelligent women whose middle-class suburban lives were driving them to neurosis, alcoholism and worse. These were oh-so-not the good old days. There's an intriguing mystery at the center of the whole thing, as well.
March 9, 2019
Crying uncle. Tapping out. I give up. Completely agree with the other reviewers who cite the novel’s tedious pacing and extended pages of navel-gazing dialogue. Imagine “My Dinner With Andre” super-imposed over the story of a detective on a case that may involve a murder but his entire investigation is more concerned with marital relations and divorce. I made it 65% of the way through hoping something would eventually kick the story into gear. When this all started to seem like a bad, tortured homework assignment I decided to finally check in here and see what others are saying. Seems they’re all warning me that there’s nothing ahead that remotely redeems reading this book. Like others, I was initially drawn in by the fact that the character was the reputed basis for John McClane. I don’t see how, but okay. The other incentive for picking up the book was that it appears to have been successful enough in its time to inspire a successful film adaptation. All that having been said, I’m abandoning this one. My only regret: should have abandoned it sooner.
April 26, 2016
Slow going but worth it. Take note that this was made into the 1968 Sinatra movie. Thirteen years later a quicker-paced sequel would come out titled "Nothing Lasts Forever" which would later be made into the movie "Die Hard".
Read
April 6, 2008This was the worst book I've ever read. I finished it (all 500 pages) for 2 reasons: 1. I could not believe that it could really keep up the level of artistic atrocity that it had been maintaining and 2. I was sick with a bad cold and didn't have the energy to go back to my shelves and pick something else.
Wow. Where to start--the incredibly clever and descriptive title? the non-plot? That "plot" mostly consisted of unbelievable conversations between the detective John Leland and other people, particularly his wife (in the first few chapters, he realizes that she's going back to her self-destructive, nyphomaniac ways on the basis of a short note she leaves him in the morning saying she'll be home late from work. I shudder to think what he would have thought if she'd misplaced a comma or something). Or, to take another example, to set up the merry sub-plot about a child rapist/murderer, Leland and his taxi driver have a discussion about the physiological effects on a little girl when an adult rapes her. I've never read a book where so many characters are supposed to be normal but act so completely deranged. Oh, and Leland's wife isn't the only one--every female character in the book is a self-destructive sex addict. Yawn. Since none of them even approach believable, this does not add any great tension to the novel, so the author has to resort to telling us how tense the characters are.
A plot almost breaks out in the last 75 pages or so, but its conclusion is almost as random as the character's actions, so it doesn't amount to much. Still, the book did get a little better somewhere near the end.
Here's the punch line: This book, with no action or plot at all, has a sequel. That sequel? Was the basis of the movie Die-Hard. I have no intention of reading it, though, so maybe some other brave soul can tell me if it's a little more interesting.
There it is--the most unbelievably bad book I've ever read. Caveat Lector!
Wow. Where to start--the incredibly clever and descriptive title? the non-plot? That "plot" mostly consisted of unbelievable conversations between the detective John Leland and other people, particularly his wife (in the first few chapters, he realizes that she's going back to her self-destructive, nyphomaniac ways on the basis of a short note she leaves him in the morning saying she'll be home late from work. I shudder to think what he would have thought if she'd misplaced a comma or something). Or, to take another example, to set up the merry sub-plot about a child rapist/murderer, Leland and his taxi driver have a discussion about the physiological effects on a little girl when an adult rapes her. I've never read a book where so many characters are supposed to be normal but act so completely deranged. Oh, and Leland's wife isn't the only one--every female character in the book is a self-destructive sex addict. Yawn. Since none of them even approach believable, this does not add any great tension to the novel, so the author has to resort to telling us how tense the characters are.
A plot almost breaks out in the last 75 pages or so, but its conclusion is almost as random as the character's actions, so it doesn't amount to much. Still, the book did get a little better somewhere near the end.
Here's the punch line: This book, with no action or plot at all, has a sequel. That sequel? Was the basis of the movie Die-Hard. I have no intention of reading it, though, so maybe some other brave soul can tell me if it's a little more interesting.
There it is--the most unbelievably bad book I've ever read. Caveat Lector!
February 6, 2019
I was going to give this book a two star rating. On my copy there is a pic of Frank Sinatra, he having been cast in the movie.
This book can be read by skipping every other page. Maybe every third.
There is only one surprise, that of who the actual murderer was. You the reader will probably want to exact retribution just by how boring this fellow is.
There is far too much psychobabble, 1960's psychobabble that coined the term psychobabble. I find authors like Faulkner painful because I want to reach through the pages and strangle them: you said that already. Twice already. You think it's a clever way to express how people repeat their thoughts but it isn't. It's a crashing bore.
Not only is it psychobabble, but it is also amateur psychobabble, and it makes the female characters, namely Karen (Joe's wife) and Norma (Joe's customer) even more tiresome than they already are. They're both combination immature and stupid and naive. At some point, it isn't psychology: some people are just pains in rumps.
This book may have gotten a big run in the 1960's because here was a book that dissected sexuality, and discussed bodies, needs, homosexuality and the excitement of hiding things. There is drinking, gambling, corruption, affairs, police incompetence, weird family dynamics and of course a tainted hero type, Joe Leland, to get it all straightened out when the universe and city hall are against him.
Save yourself some time and watch an old Larry Bird mixtape if you want to see psychology in action.
This book can be read by skipping every other page. Maybe every third.
There is only one surprise, that of who the actual murderer was. You the reader will probably want to exact retribution just by how boring this fellow is.
There is far too much psychobabble, 1960's psychobabble that coined the term psychobabble. I find authors like Faulkner painful because I want to reach through the pages and strangle them: you said that already. Twice already. You think it's a clever way to express how people repeat their thoughts but it isn't. It's a crashing bore.
Not only is it psychobabble, but it is also amateur psychobabble, and it makes the female characters, namely Karen (Joe's wife) and Norma (Joe's customer) even more tiresome than they already are. They're both combination immature and stupid and naive. At some point, it isn't psychology: some people are just pains in rumps.
This book may have gotten a big run in the 1960's because here was a book that dissected sexuality, and discussed bodies, needs, homosexuality and the excitement of hiding things. There is drinking, gambling, corruption, affairs, police incompetence, weird family dynamics and of course a tainted hero type, Joe Leland, to get it all straightened out when the universe and city hall are against him.
Save yourself some time and watch an old Larry Bird mixtape if you want to see psychology in action.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
January 24, 2012
I may have put this book on my list for the wrong reason. The movie Die Hard was based on the book Nothing Lasts Forever. Nothing Lasts Forever is a sequeal to The Dective. I wanted to read Nothing Lasts Forever so I figured I should read The dective first. Big mistake it is long 500 pages and moves slowly. I don't know if it was popular when it was published. Maybe it was good for 1961 I don't know. I am 80 pages in and I give up.
August 24, 2014
if you are a fan of the movie, you will like the book.
October 30, 2023
Around Christmas I was watching Die Hard - as you do - and in the credits I was reminded that the movie is based off of a book called “Nothing Lasts Forever”. Curious, I looked the book up and learned that it was the sequel to “The Detective” by Roderick Thorp (1966), so I decided to read that book first. I couldn’t find the book at the library so I bought an original copy online for pretty cheap. Original copies of the sequel are hundreds of dollars, no doubt due to the popularity of the movie that it inspired.
The book is about a private investigator, Leland, who is approached by the widow of a man who fell off a roof and died. The coroner’s office ruled the death a suicide but the widow isn’t convinced and wants a deeper investigation. The husband left behind a considerable amount of money and so she can afford Leland’s expert services.
The plot is kind of meandering and a pretty huge part of it is devoted to the marriages/romantic relationships of Leland and the widow’s late husband. The drama therein was interesting but being constantly fed details about hysterical and unfaithful women was kind of anxiety inducing too.
I didn’t like the writing style much; Thorp seems to prefer hinting at things rather than spelling them out clearly, making it really confusing as to what was going on most of the time. At first I thought that such a thing was mandated by the propriety of the times when the book was written, but there’s plenty of explicit detail about everything from sex to murder in the book that that explanation doesn’t really make sense. At the end of the book there is a surprising plot twist and I’m still not sure how it even worked; Leland just seemed to figure out something magically that was never even considered before. Maybe there were subtle hints that I was just too dense to pick up on? The last-minute plot twist is both confusing in how it comes about and also kind of a savior of the rather plodding story. All of that is kind of exacerbated by period slang/lexicon. It helps to cement the hard-boiled detective mood but it also made the dialogue hard to follow.
If I hadn’t been told that this was the prequel to the basis for “Die Hard” then I’d have never guessed it in a million years. It appears that there was a movie adaptation of the book made in 1968 with the same title, starring Frank Sinatra. I kind of want to watch it to see if the movie does a better job of moving the plot along and perhaps spelling out things I might have missed in the book.
Two fun games that I made for myself when reading were to try and guess where and when the book takes place, exactly. The two main cities where the book takes place are called “Manitou” and “Port Smith” but these appear to be fictional places. Real places are mentioned in the book but spoken of as if they’re somewhere else than where the story takes place: California, Nevada, Florida, NYC, and Montreal. For a while I thought the story must have taken place in Chicago but then “the ocean” is mentioned as being nearby. The climate is described as being cold and snowy so I’m guessing it's somewhere in the northeast. The author is from NY so that fits.
As for when, I’ve estimated that it takes place in either ‘56 or ‘57, based on the ages of the characters and the mention of dates at various times. Kind of interesting that Thorp picked out that date instead of just making the book contemporary; perhaps that’s just when he finished writing it and it took a few years to get it published?
Overall, the book has kind of a difficult style to read. It wasn’t a chore the whole time but I’ve absolutely seen writing styles that flow a lot better.
The book is about a private investigator, Leland, who is approached by the widow of a man who fell off a roof and died. The coroner’s office ruled the death a suicide but the widow isn’t convinced and wants a deeper investigation. The husband left behind a considerable amount of money and so she can afford Leland’s expert services.
The plot is kind of meandering and a pretty huge part of it is devoted to the marriages/romantic relationships of Leland and the widow’s late husband. The drama therein was interesting but being constantly fed details about hysterical and unfaithful women was kind of anxiety inducing too.
I didn’t like the writing style much; Thorp seems to prefer hinting at things rather than spelling them out clearly, making it really confusing as to what was going on most of the time. At first I thought that such a thing was mandated by the propriety of the times when the book was written, but there’s plenty of explicit detail about everything from sex to murder in the book that that explanation doesn’t really make sense. At the end of the book there is a surprising plot twist and I’m still not sure how it even worked; Leland just seemed to figure out something magically that was never even considered before. Maybe there were subtle hints that I was just too dense to pick up on? The last-minute plot twist is both confusing in how it comes about and also kind of a savior of the rather plodding story. All of that is kind of exacerbated by period slang/lexicon. It helps to cement the hard-boiled detective mood but it also made the dialogue hard to follow.
If I hadn’t been told that this was the prequel to the basis for “Die Hard” then I’d have never guessed it in a million years. It appears that there was a movie adaptation of the book made in 1968 with the same title, starring Frank Sinatra. I kind of want to watch it to see if the movie does a better job of moving the plot along and perhaps spelling out things I might have missed in the book.
Two fun games that I made for myself when reading were to try and guess where and when the book takes place, exactly. The two main cities where the book takes place are called “Manitou” and “Port Smith” but these appear to be fictional places. Real places are mentioned in the book but spoken of as if they’re somewhere else than where the story takes place: California, Nevada, Florida, NYC, and Montreal. For a while I thought the story must have taken place in Chicago but then “the ocean” is mentioned as being nearby. The climate is described as being cold and snowy so I’m guessing it's somewhere in the northeast. The author is from NY so that fits.
As for when, I’ve estimated that it takes place in either ‘56 or ‘57, based on the ages of the characters and the mention of dates at various times. Kind of interesting that Thorp picked out that date instead of just making the book contemporary; perhaps that’s just when he finished writing it and it took a few years to get it published?
Overall, the book has kind of a difficult style to read. It wasn’t a chore the whole time but I’ve absolutely seen writing styles that flow a lot better.
October 6, 2024
I cannot remember the last novel I read where, every hundred pages or so, I looked up and went, "Huh?" Probably Finnegans Wake, of which I didn’t make 100 pages. Frankly, I have no idea why I stayed with this. I suppose it’s due to a reputation as being cutting edge for its time, and that the main character is the model for John McClain in Die Hard.
Well, no.
The main character is actually Joe Leland, a former cop turned detective, who is hired by the recently widowed Norma to find out why she is recently widowed. Her husband, the recently deceased Colin MacIver, took a header off the roof of the local racetrack and Norma isn’t buying the verdict of suicide. I’m not sure I would, either, because that’s a strange place and method for doing oneself in. Especially as Colin turns out to be some kind of genius accountant who knows how to move money rather surreptitiously.
Hmm. Accountant. Moves money. And he’s at a racetrack. Wonder where this could be heading?
Not where you think. Not even close. This is one thing I have to give Thorp a lot of credit for, it hides rather well the true reasons for the events. Of course, it does that by throwing hundreds of pages of absolutely meaningless dialogue at you, making you so eye-glazed that if a perverse murderer jumped up and pulled your finger, you wouldn’t notice.
There are conversations between Norma and Joe, Joe and Norma’s therapist Dr Wendell Roberts, Joe and his sort of ex-wife Karen, and Joe and various mothers and ex-wives and police and what not, none of which you can make heads or tails. These dialogues go on sometimes for 10 - 20 pages, and, every time, I sat back and went, “I have no idea what that was about.” Sort of my reaction to Finnegan’s, but that’s everyone’s reaction. Really shouldn’t be the same for a detective novel.
The only reason I can conjure for all of this baffling dialogue and psychological analysis of the most decidedly quack-like is that it’s the 60s. This book was published in 1966 when we’re in the first true wave of psychoanalysis and therapists and the best way to sound learned and insightful is to throw out a bunch of psychological gobbledygook while looking sage. That’s what's going on here; everybody’s trying to be wise and analytical and they aren’t. It’s a lot like watching one of those movies made in the late 50s or early 60s where people do stuff that’s just downright incomprehensible, like Aron shoving his head through a railroad car window in Elia Kazan’s East of Eden.
So why did I stay with this? The alleged relationship with John McClain, which actually is in Thorp’s sequel to this, called Nothing Lasts Forever, published in 1979 and, allegedly the basis for Die Hard. I guess. I suppose. Don’t know. I’m so confused by this one that I just don’t want to find out.
Well, no.
The main character is actually Joe Leland, a former cop turned detective, who is hired by the recently widowed Norma to find out why she is recently widowed. Her husband, the recently deceased Colin MacIver, took a header off the roof of the local racetrack and Norma isn’t buying the verdict of suicide. I’m not sure I would, either, because that’s a strange place and method for doing oneself in. Especially as Colin turns out to be some kind of genius accountant who knows how to move money rather surreptitiously.
Hmm. Accountant. Moves money. And he’s at a racetrack. Wonder where this could be heading?
Not where you think. Not even close. This is one thing I have to give Thorp a lot of credit for, it hides rather well the true reasons for the events. Of course, it does that by throwing hundreds of pages of absolutely meaningless dialogue at you, making you so eye-glazed that if a perverse murderer jumped up and pulled your finger, you wouldn’t notice.
There are conversations between Norma and Joe, Joe and Norma’s therapist Dr Wendell Roberts, Joe and his sort of ex-wife Karen, and Joe and various mothers and ex-wives and police and what not, none of which you can make heads or tails. These dialogues go on sometimes for 10 - 20 pages, and, every time, I sat back and went, “I have no idea what that was about.” Sort of my reaction to Finnegan’s, but that’s everyone’s reaction. Really shouldn’t be the same for a detective novel.
The only reason I can conjure for all of this baffling dialogue and psychological analysis of the most decidedly quack-like is that it’s the 60s. This book was published in 1966 when we’re in the first true wave of psychoanalysis and therapists and the best way to sound learned and insightful is to throw out a bunch of psychological gobbledygook while looking sage. That’s what's going on here; everybody’s trying to be wise and analytical and they aren’t. It’s a lot like watching one of those movies made in the late 50s or early 60s where people do stuff that’s just downright incomprehensible, like Aron shoving his head through a railroad car window in Elia Kazan’s East of Eden.
So why did I stay with this? The alleged relationship with John McClain, which actually is in Thorp’s sequel to this, called Nothing Lasts Forever, published in 1979 and, allegedly the basis for Die Hard. I guess. I suppose. Don’t know. I’m so confused by this one that I just don’t want to find out.
December 3, 2019
Workmanlike novel about Joe Leland, a cop-turned-PI whose investigation of a rich man's suicide dredges up memories of a case from his police past. In a way, it's easy to see why this novel was a best-seller in its day (inspiring a popular film starring Frank Sinatra): Thorp writes as very much the anti-Chandler or Hammett, eschewing their stylized private eyes for a weather-beaten wariness. Certainly the book's sexual frankness (Leland's wife is a nymphomaniac, one suspect a tormented homosexual) would have been shocking in the 1960s. Unfortunately, this doesn't make the novel good: Thorp's prose style is dense to the point of unnavigable, with huge blocks of staccato, affectless dialogue and exposition that reads more like a court reporter's notes than a fiction. As a mystery, the book isn't up to much, with Thorp losing himself in thickets of exposition and digressions to the point that Leland's investigation vanishes. As a character study of Leland (a war hero and jaded cop unable to separate his work and private lives), the book has some merits, but even these passages feel like they're jammed into the mystery plot without caring how they'll fit (the thinness of the supporting players doesn't help, either). Whether read as a whodunnit, crime fiction or more serious literature it's clunky and unsatisfying.
July 2, 2021
For the most part I enjoyed it. However, as has been noted by many others, it kind of overstays its welcome. I would give it 4 stars if it were about 150 pages shorter. Many of my complaints about its treatment of homosexuality, or the kind of over-eager desire by everyone to speak openly about wanting to bone the protagonist, I can forgive, actually. Those strike me as "shocking for the times" kinds of ideas, trying to shake things up in the genre. And to be honest I never really felt like the protagonist, Joe Leland, held archaic nor sexist attitudes. He seemed pretty openminded to me, or at least as openminded as a portrayal from those days could muster.
Ultimately, the story just bogs down and begins to feel more like a chore than a pleasure. I found the book, not through its Die Hard connection, but because I was on a detective novel kick and saw it on a list of "The Best Detective Novels" I was all-in for a slow-paced, hard-boiled detective story but this one just became a drag after a while. It's juggling at least three distinct stories: Joe's relationship with his wife, a grisly murder from early in his career, and the current case. I think the stuff with his wife could have been inferred heavily through clever dialogue and good editing; at least enough to convey the same weight and import to the main story.
Ultimately, the story just bogs down and begins to feel more like a chore than a pleasure. I found the book, not through its Die Hard connection, but because I was on a detective novel kick and saw it on a list of "The Best Detective Novels" I was all-in for a slow-paced, hard-boiled detective story but this one just became a drag after a while. It's juggling at least three distinct stories: Joe's relationship with his wife, a grisly murder from early in his career, and the current case. I think the stuff with his wife could have been inferred heavily through clever dialogue and good editing; at least enough to convey the same weight and import to the main story.
January 7, 2023
I think maybe 3 stars is a little generous. The book is not bad, but it is too long. The detective work is accomplished in rambling, noir-style conversations that somehow combine oversharing with obliqueness. There’s a whole side case about a vagrant who killed a missing child that could have 100% been cut from this book, and a lot of areas that could have just been trimmed and made mare active. I am a bit curious to see how this was adapted into a film, because there’s no way a movie could be this rambling and have any success. In any case, I’m also trying to decide if this book is homophobic. An easy, obvious interpretation says that it is, except that the heterosexual people in the story don’t really come across as good, healthy people, either. It’s hard to tell what was in the author’s mind when he wrote this. But, my guess is that he isn’t against homosexuality per se as he is trying to be against repression - not in a “we should all practice free love” kind of way, but more like “we all need to deal with our inner crap because everyone suffers when we don’t.” Which could be an interesting way to approach a detective story, but this one, which combines influences of mid-century psychoanalysis and noir, leans way to heavily on the psychoanalysis. It needs a little less talk and a lot more action.
August 3, 2022
"Joe Leland returned from World War II with a chest full of medals, but his greatest honor came after he traded his pilot’s wings for a detective’s shield. Catching the Leikman killer made Joe a local hero, but the shine quickly wore off, and it wasn’t long before he left the police force to start his own private agency. Years after his greatest triumph, Joe has a modest income and a quiet life—both of which may soon fall apart. When Colin MacIver dies at the local racetrack, the coroner rules that he took his own life, but his widow knows better. Because MacIver’s life insurance policy doesn’t cover suicide, his wife is left broke, desperate, and afraid for her safety. She hires Leland to find out who could have killed her gentle, unassuming husband—a simple question that will turn this humble city inside out." The book was often confusing and I got lost in it ---movie was much better.
July 21, 2025
I wanted to read Nothing Lasts Forever (the novel that the classic film, Die Hard is based on). The character Joe Leland appears in The Detective first so I decided to read that and will read the sequel nearer Christmas due to its setting. I can only hope (and have heard it is) that it’s a faster paced and better read than this sluggish story. I wasn’t bored with it for first 100 or so pages but then it got bogged down with the main character’s marital woes and it got more boring as it dragged on. The investigation wasn’t all that interesting either. How the sequel is so much better I don’t know. The author could have created another character for Nothing Lasts Forever so I wouldn’t have had to read this. If ever a book could have lost 300 pages, it’s this one. It did have a lot of taboo subjects in this for the time of its publication which was surprising. I’d rate it 2.5 but not gonna round up to 3.
July 3, 2017
Having this book on my shelf for so long kept me from reading since I didn't want to keep reading it but didn't want to start a new book without finishing this one first.
This book just doesn't get going. I feel like I have been reading this book forever but I am only about halfway. I don't really care for any of the characters involved and I would complain about the pacing but that would imply that it had any. It kinda reads like somebody's fever dream. Stray thoughts and stories that have nothing to do with the main story. It does give you a lot of background on the main character, but I personally prefer to keep things a bit more ambiguous. From the other reviews here I gather that it kinda builds up to a decent ending but I just can't be bothered to keep reading since I am not invested.
This book just doesn't get going. I feel like I have been reading this book forever but I am only about halfway. I don't really care for any of the characters involved and I would complain about the pacing but that would imply that it had any. It kinda reads like somebody's fever dream. Stray thoughts and stories that have nothing to do with the main story. It does give you a lot of background on the main character, but I personally prefer to keep things a bit more ambiguous. From the other reviews here I gather that it kinda builds up to a decent ending but I just can't be bothered to keep reading since I am not invested.
May 25, 2020
I love vintage hard-boiled detective novels, this one intrigued me with a darker murder.
At first the slow pace didn’t bother me. It read at the same pace as the classic, black and white, Hollywood movies I love to watch. It was fun to get that same experience in book form, and the mystery was intriguing enough to keep me interested.
However, as I made may way through the last half of the book the fun turned to a race to finish. It became bogged down with too much detail. This book could have easily been two hundred pages less. At the same time though? He hinted and left a lot unsaid, you had to read between the lines to get was was really being said between characters.
Finally, the ending. Initially it was a great twist I did not see coming. Then in disintegrated with a lot of navel-gazing and conclusions that were offensive and showed how badly this book aged.
At first the slow pace didn’t bother me. It read at the same pace as the classic, black and white, Hollywood movies I love to watch. It was fun to get that same experience in book form, and the mystery was intriguing enough to keep me interested.
However, as I made may way through the last half of the book the fun turned to a race to finish. It became bogged down with too much detail. This book could have easily been two hundred pages less. At the same time though? He hinted and left a lot unsaid, you had to read between the lines to get was was really being said between characters.
Finally, the ending. Initially it was a great twist I did not see coming. Then in disintegrated with a lot of navel-gazing and conclusions that were offensive and showed how badly this book aged.
April 6, 2018
Before I started reading this book, I thought it might be similar in style to the great works of Raymond Chandler or Dashiell Hammett. It was written in the 1960's and is set in the 1950's. But this book is soooo painfully slow. A crime has been committed before you enter the narration. By page 300, you are saying to yourself, "When is the main character, a detective, going to start detecting?" The storyline picks up, but the characters' personalities are vague and not very likeable. There is a lot of digression, retelling, and psychoanalyzing. Thorp is the author of the novel upon which the "Die Hard" movie is based, but there is no Bruce Willis and no action-packed scenes in this book. I'm not even sure a gun was fired, but after 598 pages, it is difficult to remember.
September 16, 2018
This book really meanders, and for a novel called "The Detective," the main character is shockingly bad at doing just that. It adheres to a classic trope where more than one case dovetails together, this time over the course of a very long career, and it was too goddamn long.
This is the book before Nothing Lasts Forever, which was adapted into a movie called Die Hard (you may have heard of it) and that book and this book have very little in common except for the protagonist. Bleh. I'm never touching this book again, thank you very much.
This is the book before Nothing Lasts Forever, which was adapted into a movie called Die Hard (you may have heard of it) and that book and this book have very little in common except for the protagonist. Bleh. I'm never touching this book again, thank you very much.
August 20, 2018
Ugh ... this was poorly written. And overly written. The killer's confession was 40 pages long, I think.
On the positive side, reading the book was a pleasure. I mean, the physical sensations, not the actual story. The book I read was printed in the 60s. The pages were thick, they had weight to them. The cover was a worn comfortable plastic lattice. The heft of it felt good in my hands. I think this was the only reason I finished reading it.
Oh and that I'm a nut about Die Hard.
On the positive side, reading the book was a pleasure. I mean, the physical sensations, not the actual story. The book I read was printed in the 60s. The pages were thick, they had weight to them. The cover was a worn comfortable plastic lattice. The heft of it felt good in my hands. I think this was the only reason I finished reading it.
Oh and that I'm a nut about Die Hard.
December 21, 2021
Super detailed detective novel. This book went step by step the whole way a private investigation would go. Its a bit dry in the middle but picks up in the third act. My only complaint is the ending wasn't as great as the rest of the book
Super detailed detective novel. This book went step by step the whole way a private investigation would go. Its a bit dry in the middle but picks up in the third act. My only complaint is the ending wasn't as great as the rest of the book
Super detailed detective novel. This book went step by step the whole way a private investigation would go. Its a bit dry in the middle but picks up in the third act. My only complaint is the ending wasn't as great as the rest of the book
March 5, 2022
Some people will say that the plot of this book is thoroughly thought out and nuanced with plenty of subplots to form a coherent narrative. Others will suggest that it is far too slow paced and full of needless padding to create a book that is twice as long as strictly necessary.
Those in the former camp will be leaving four and five star reviews whilst those in the latter are only giving this book one or two stars. I choose to sit firmly on the fence.
Those in the former camp will be leaving four and five star reviews whilst those in the latter are only giving this book one or two stars. I choose to sit firmly on the fence.
May 15, 2018
DNF at 25%. The main case was already moving slowly even before we dived into this extended flashback, which has been full of homophobic attitudes against the murder victim. There's lots of weird sexual oversharing, too. I don't know how this book was received when it came out in 1966, but it's just not working for me.
February 7, 2023
It's hard to imagine that the main character from such a talky book where so little happens could eventually become Die Hard's John McClane. "The Detective" is loaded with 50-plus-page flashbacks and interminable conversations that drone on like scenes from one of those Ethan Hawke/Julie Delpy "Before..." movies. The climax is boring and the big conspiracy reveal just left me scratching my head.
March 12, 2021
Boring. Disinteresting. Full of long psychoanalysis and the confessions of a sex addicted widow. Probably considered provocative stuff back in the sixties. But just plain boring.
Hard to believe this was made into a movie.
Hard to believe this was made into a movie.
January 8, 2022
Ummmm. Okay. At 509 pages, it was too long. There were at least three stories going on at the same time. It seems these were not resolved, or connected until the last chapter. I may have missed some clues. On the other hand…
January 21, 2023
Read this book only if you must perform penance. It is absolute drudgery with pages and pages of pseudopsychologic inner narratives, cliched characters, nonsensical dialogue, and almost no clear descriptions. I’m amazed this quagmire could be turned into a coherent screenplay.
February 12, 2023
Agree with some of the other reviews. Decent story but bloated - too much back story and exposition. Subplot of father’s case has nothing to do with the overall plot so why have it? I heard the movie was good so maybe the streamlined it. Should have been 400 pages, not 600.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 47 reviews