What do you think?
Rate this book
Deadly Sins #3
The Second Deadly Sin
Lawrence Sanders's masterpiece, The First Deadly Sin, set a standard for today's novels of psychological suspense. Now, retired Captain Ed Delaney returns to a distinctly urban milieu of paranoia and impulsive violence to solve a brutal murder that shocks New York's unshockable art world. The victim is Victor Maitland. Long-considered one of the world's greatest artists, he excelled in capturing the beauty of life on canvas. In private, he destroyed whomever he his wife, his son, his mistress, his dearest friends and family. Fittingly, Maitland has paid for his sins. But in a world where self-delusion is rewarded, where greed triumphs, and where murder is just another art, who else will pay the price?
443 pages, Mass Market Paperback
First published January 1, 1977
900 people are currently reading
794 people want to read
About the author
Lawrence Sanders
160 books372 followersThere is more than one author with this name
Lawrence Sanders was the New York Times bestselling author of more than forty mystery and suspense novels. The Anderson Tapes, completed when he was fifty years old, received an Edgar Award from the Mystery Writers of America for best first novel. His prodigious oeuvre encompasses the Edward X. Delaney, Archy McNally, and Timothy Cone series, along with his acclaimed Commandment books. Stand-alone novels include Sullivan's Sting and Caper. Sanders remains one of America’s most popular novelists, with more than fifty million copies of his books in print. Also published as Mark Upton.
Lawrence Sanders was the New York Times bestselling author of more than forty mystery and suspense novels. The Anderson Tapes, completed when he was fifty years old, received an Edgar Award from the Mystery Writers of America for best first novel. His prodigious oeuvre encompasses the Edward X. Delaney, Archy McNally, and Timothy Cone series, along with his acclaimed Commandment books. Stand-alone novels include Sullivan's Sting and Caper. Sanders remains one of America’s most popular novelists, with more than fifty million copies of his books in print. Also published as Mark Upton.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 115 reviews
October 26, 2022
[9/10]
That was what he smelled: the greed of contemptuous leeches. Their scorn hung in the air, and they turned their backs to those tortured, blazing paintings on the walls.
I’m not sure in what order the capital sins are rated in the church dogmas, but in Lawrence Sanders’ catalogue this is the third novel featuring ex-Chief of Detectives Edward X. Delaney of New York. It may not be clear at the start of the investigation, but apparently we are dealing here with GREED in its most aggravated form, the one that leads to murder.
Chief Delaney is rather bored at the start of this episode: retirement doesn’t completely agree with his busy mind. When he gets restless at home, his second wife sends him out walking the streets where he used to be a patrolman, where he visits his favourite bars and restaurants, having a drink and a philosophical conversation with the barman.
In his lexicon, “nice” meant quiet, cleanliness, order. Perhaps Barbara, his first wife, had been right. She said he had become a cop because he saw beauty in order, and wanted to maintain order in the world. Well ... he had tried. [...]
He had resigned his prestigious post for a single reason: he could no longer endure the political bullshit that went along with his high-ranking job.
Known among his former colleagues as ‘Iron Balls’ for his unbending adherence to principles set in stone, for his dogged determination and for his cranky manners, the Chief is still pursued by that political ‘bullshit’ that has soured his last days on the job.
From what we’ve learned, this Maitland was a Grade-A bastard. As the old saying goes, the list of suspects has been narrowed to ten thousand. Everyone hated his guts, including his wife and son. Everyone but his mother. A boy’s best friend etcetera.
A famous painter, whose art sells upward of six figures, is knifed in the back in his own studio. Despite all the manpower and all the resources allocated to the case, the New York finest fail to identify a suspect. Or, more precisely, fail to narrow down the list of people who wanted to do away with the talented, yet annoying, Victor Maitland. [.. and I wouldn’t really strike his mother off that list, either]
When a high political relative of the deceased starts to put pressure on the Deputy Commissioner for results, he comes to the ex-Chief with the files and asks him to lend a hand, for old times sake.
Because the Chief is no longer on the Force, he gets assigned a single helper, Sergeant Abner Boone, a young man who is himself about to be dishonourably discharged for alcoholism. Delaney is asked to also make a last try to help this burned-out cop.
Someone must have seen something or heard something. It doesn’t have to be big. In fact, if it was big, it would probably be in the file. What I’m looking for are odds and ends, little inconsequential things. You understand, sergeant?
This sub-genre is called a ‘police procedural’ for a reason: it realistically depicts the thankless job of following false leads and lying witnesses, poring over the same reports time and time again, in the hope the investigator will notice something everybody else has missed. Lawrence Sanders also wrote some light ‘crime capers’ set in Florida, featuring private investigator Archie McNally, but his ‘Deadly Sins’ series are the best he has to offer as a writer.
When the crime scene, the witnesses and the pathological reports fail to provide answers, the hard work really begins. Chief Delaney, with his methodical approach, is offering us [and Sergeant Boone] a true lesson in crime investigation. Some of his actions I personally find objectionable [lying to witnesses, impersonation, intimidation, breaking and entering, entrapment, etc] but they do have the feel of true crime, of the mentality and the [unofficial] methods used by investigators in order to get results.
Delaney wasn’t particularly proud of his role in the case, but you worked with what you had. ;
The roles fitted to circumstances. ;
He thought the results had justified what they had done, ;
“You don’t happen to have a set of lock picks, do you, sir?” ;
... entrapment is legal junk. It all depends on whether the judge got laid the night before.
Delaney is relentless in following leads, ready to break the law if it can get him some result, some reaction from the people he suspects. In the absence of any physical evidence, the case of the dead painter has to be solved by getting to know the people around Victor Maitland, by stirring their nest of lies in the hope the killer gets spooked and makes a mistake.
Usually we work with physical evidence. Hard facts. Percentage, timing, weapons, testimony of witnesses, things you can look at, hold in your hand, or put under a microscope. But sometimes when none of this exists, or not enough to break a case, you’ve got to turn to people. As you said, why they do what they do. You try to put yourself in their place. What drives them? What do they want? Everyone wants . But some people can’t control it. Then want becomes need. And need – I mean real greedy need – the kind that haunts you night and day – that’s motive enough for any crime.
The most interesting aspect of the Chief, revealed not so much by his words but by his mood and by his actions, is how much the hunter is thrilled to be back on the prowl. Delaney has rediscovered his zest for life in this chase where he must pit his wits and his determination against a very intelligent and cool-headed criminal. His private investigation goes on for week after week without any tangible progress, yet with each day the Chief seems more invested in the case. Sergeant Boone, the usual buddy cop that seems almost a pre-requisite for a film adaptation, is himself an interesting case of a sensible person who is mentally destroyed by the horrible things he witnesses. Here we also have a showcase from Delaney about how to manage people that work with you: be a mentor, be understanding but also be a pillar of strength through your principles.
You had to accept everything, keep your wits and nerve, let the mess grow and grow until you caught a pattern; two pieces fit, then more and more. It was like the traffic jam, he saw at Second Avenue and 66th Street. Car stalled every which way. Horns blaring. Red-faced drivers bellowing and waving. Then a street cop got the key car moving, the jam broke, in a few minutes traffic was flowing in a reasonably ordered pattern. But when was he going to find the key to the Maitland jam?
>>><<<>>><<<
From previous episodes, confirmed here, I would say the main strength of Sanders is his psychological observation of both the criminal mind and of the investigator’s reasoning. But the whole intellectual puzzle is solidly anchored in the little details about Delaney’s private life and about his obvious love for the metropolis, for its history, its vitality, its street food and its people.
“This place used to be called Ye Old Canal Inn,” the Chief said, looking around the bustling restaurant. “And before that, I don’t know what it was called. But there’s been a tavern or restaurant on this spot since the early days of New York, when Canal Street was uptown. By the way, there really is a canal here. Underground now. A cheeseburger for me, with home fries and slaw. Black coffee.”
The novel can be easily placed in the context of the seventies, where urban decay and street violence [ He carefully double-locked the outside door behind him. ] goes hand in hand with posh parties, drugs and sexual experimentation, with predatory females [Belle Sarazen], venal lawyers and crazy interior design.
They were seated somewhat nervously on a short crimson velvet couch shaped like human lips. Jake Dukker slouched opposite them in a soft leather chair shaped like a baseball mitt.
>>><<<>>><<<
The Deadly Sins series is more than a catchy appellation for a best-seller thriller. I believe it has more to do with Edward X Delaney than with any religious overtones, and this can be explained by a couple of short remarks that puts our Chief in the role of the Hand of Fate, a position he consciously embraces.
No one should do that and get away with it. It’s not right.
><><
“Oh, it’ll put him away all right. Or help to. I can’t let him walk, Monica. I’d never forgive myself if I let him off the hook.”
“I know,” she said, almost sadly. “God’s surrogate on earth.”
Recommended for realistic crime investigation and insightful character studies.
That was what he smelled: the greed of contemptuous leeches. Their scorn hung in the air, and they turned their backs to those tortured, blazing paintings on the walls.
I’m not sure in what order the capital sins are rated in the church dogmas, but in Lawrence Sanders’ catalogue this is the third novel featuring ex-Chief of Detectives Edward X. Delaney of New York. It may not be clear at the start of the investigation, but apparently we are dealing here with GREED in its most aggravated form, the one that leads to murder.
Chief Delaney is rather bored at the start of this episode: retirement doesn’t completely agree with his busy mind. When he gets restless at home, his second wife sends him out walking the streets where he used to be a patrolman, where he visits his favourite bars and restaurants, having a drink and a philosophical conversation with the barman.
In his lexicon, “nice” meant quiet, cleanliness, order. Perhaps Barbara, his first wife, had been right. She said he had become a cop because he saw beauty in order, and wanted to maintain order in the world. Well ... he had tried. [...]
He had resigned his prestigious post for a single reason: he could no longer endure the political bullshit that went along with his high-ranking job.
Known among his former colleagues as ‘Iron Balls’ for his unbending adherence to principles set in stone, for his dogged determination and for his cranky manners, the Chief is still pursued by that political ‘bullshit’ that has soured his last days on the job.
From what we’ve learned, this Maitland was a Grade-A bastard. As the old saying goes, the list of suspects has been narrowed to ten thousand. Everyone hated his guts, including his wife and son. Everyone but his mother. A boy’s best friend etcetera.
A famous painter, whose art sells upward of six figures, is knifed in the back in his own studio. Despite all the manpower and all the resources allocated to the case, the New York finest fail to identify a suspect. Or, more precisely, fail to narrow down the list of people who wanted to do away with the talented, yet annoying, Victor Maitland. [.. and I wouldn’t really strike his mother off that list, either]
When a high political relative of the deceased starts to put pressure on the Deputy Commissioner for results, he comes to the ex-Chief with the files and asks him to lend a hand, for old times sake.
Because the Chief is no longer on the Force, he gets assigned a single helper, Sergeant Abner Boone, a young man who is himself about to be dishonourably discharged for alcoholism. Delaney is asked to also make a last try to help this burned-out cop.
Someone must have seen something or heard something. It doesn’t have to be big. In fact, if it was big, it would probably be in the file. What I’m looking for are odds and ends, little inconsequential things. You understand, sergeant?
This sub-genre is called a ‘police procedural’ for a reason: it realistically depicts the thankless job of following false leads and lying witnesses, poring over the same reports time and time again, in the hope the investigator will notice something everybody else has missed. Lawrence Sanders also wrote some light ‘crime capers’ set in Florida, featuring private investigator Archie McNally, but his ‘Deadly Sins’ series are the best he has to offer as a writer.
When the crime scene, the witnesses and the pathological reports fail to provide answers, the hard work really begins. Chief Delaney, with his methodical approach, is offering us [and Sergeant Boone] a true lesson in crime investigation. Some of his actions I personally find objectionable [lying to witnesses, impersonation, intimidation, breaking and entering, entrapment, etc] but they do have the feel of true crime, of the mentality and the [unofficial] methods used by investigators in order to get results.
Delaney wasn’t particularly proud of his role in the case, but you worked with what you had. ;
The roles fitted to circumstances. ;
He thought the results had justified what they had done, ;
“You don’t happen to have a set of lock picks, do you, sir?” ;
... entrapment is legal junk. It all depends on whether the judge got laid the night before.
Delaney is relentless in following leads, ready to break the law if it can get him some result, some reaction from the people he suspects. In the absence of any physical evidence, the case of the dead painter has to be solved by getting to know the people around Victor Maitland, by stirring their nest of lies in the hope the killer gets spooked and makes a mistake.
Usually we work with physical evidence. Hard facts. Percentage, timing, weapons, testimony of witnesses, things you can look at, hold in your hand, or put under a microscope. But sometimes when none of this exists, or not enough to break a case, you’ve got to turn to people. As you said, why they do what they do. You try to put yourself in their place. What drives them? What do they want? Everyone wants . But some people can’t control it. Then want becomes need. And need – I mean real greedy need – the kind that haunts you night and day – that’s motive enough for any crime.
The most interesting aspect of the Chief, revealed not so much by his words but by his mood and by his actions, is how much the hunter is thrilled to be back on the prowl. Delaney has rediscovered his zest for life in this chase where he must pit his wits and his determination against a very intelligent and cool-headed criminal. His private investigation goes on for week after week without any tangible progress, yet with each day the Chief seems more invested in the case. Sergeant Boone, the usual buddy cop that seems almost a pre-requisite for a film adaptation, is himself an interesting case of a sensible person who is mentally destroyed by the horrible things he witnesses. Here we also have a showcase from Delaney about how to manage people that work with you: be a mentor, be understanding but also be a pillar of strength through your principles.
You had to accept everything, keep your wits and nerve, let the mess grow and grow until you caught a pattern; two pieces fit, then more and more. It was like the traffic jam, he saw at Second Avenue and 66th Street. Car stalled every which way. Horns blaring. Red-faced drivers bellowing and waving. Then a street cop got the key car moving, the jam broke, in a few minutes traffic was flowing in a reasonably ordered pattern. But when was he going to find the key to the Maitland jam?
>>><<<>>><<<
From previous episodes, confirmed here, I would say the main strength of Sanders is his psychological observation of both the criminal mind and of the investigator’s reasoning. But the whole intellectual puzzle is solidly anchored in the little details about Delaney’s private life and about his obvious love for the metropolis, for its history, its vitality, its street food and its people.
“This place used to be called Ye Old Canal Inn,” the Chief said, looking around the bustling restaurant. “And before that, I don’t know what it was called. But there’s been a tavern or restaurant on this spot since the early days of New York, when Canal Street was uptown. By the way, there really is a canal here. Underground now. A cheeseburger for me, with home fries and slaw. Black coffee.”
The novel can be easily placed in the context of the seventies, where urban decay and street violence [ He carefully double-locked the outside door behind him. ] goes hand in hand with posh parties, drugs and sexual experimentation, with predatory females [Belle Sarazen], venal lawyers and crazy interior design.
They were seated somewhat nervously on a short crimson velvet couch shaped like human lips. Jake Dukker slouched opposite them in a soft leather chair shaped like a baseball mitt.
>>><<<>>><<<
The Deadly Sins series is more than a catchy appellation for a best-seller thriller. I believe it has more to do with Edward X Delaney than with any religious overtones, and this can be explained by a couple of short remarks that puts our Chief in the role of the Hand of Fate, a position he consciously embraces.
No one should do that and get away with it. It’s not right.
><><
“Oh, it’ll put him away all right. Or help to. I can’t let him walk, Monica. I’d never forgive myself if I let him off the hook.”
“I know,” she said, almost sadly. “God’s surrogate on earth.”
Recommended for realistic crime investigation and insightful character studies.
July 23, 2018
Edward X Delaney was such a judgmental prick in this book. And the murder was kind of boring. (I missed Daniel Blank - let’s not even consider how troubling that is). For real though - Edward seemed like the bad guy throughout this book. So pompous. Just better than literally everyone. Head so far up his own ass it’s a miracle that he can get dressed in the morning.
Still an awesome book. The characters. The food. The turn of phrase. I think I probably like these books in an ironic fashion, but I like them so much that it doesn’t matter. The racism and misogyny in this one were full-force. (I’m now referring to women as “twists” in my head). Edward has all the charm of a Mostly-cooked slab of meat. Doesn’t matter. There’s magic in these books. So bad theyre good? Retro? Irony? Some weird cult following? I don’t know.
I do know that I read with an absence of emotion and a complete fascination.
Oh, and have I mentioned the SANDWICHES?
Still an awesome book. The characters. The food. The turn of phrase. I think I probably like these books in an ironic fashion, but I like them so much that it doesn’t matter. The racism and misogyny in this one were full-force. (I’m now referring to women as “twists” in my head). Edward has all the charm of a Mostly-cooked slab of meat. Doesn’t matter. There’s magic in these books. So bad theyre good? Retro? Irony? Some weird cult following? I don’t know.
I do know that I read with an absence of emotion and a complete fascination.
Oh, and have I mentioned the SANDWICHES?
December 23, 2021
Edward X. Delaney is retired from his job as Chief of Detectives with the NYPD. He is adjusting successfully to life with his second wife, Monica, and his two young stepdaughters. He is also trying to adjust, less successfully, to retirement. So when his former mentor asks him to investigate a difficult cold case involving the murder of a famous artist, Victor Maitland, he is receptive. The assignment comes with a catch, though: Delaney has to supervise a young detective, Abner Boone, who has gotten in trouble because of a drinking problem.
When Delaney and Boone investigate, they discover that although everyone in Maitland’s orbit recognized his talent, few seemed to like him. “None of [them] seemed particularly distressed by the sudden blanking of Victor Maitland, and made little effort to hide their indifference. Depending on the education and/or social status of the acquaintance questioned, the dead man was described as everything from ‘an offensive and disagreeable individual’ to ‘a piece of sh*t’” [asterisk mine]. But that doesn’t deter Delaney from going all out to find Maitland’s killer. “‘Jesus,’ Delaney said in a low voice. ‘I don’t care what the guy was, he shouldn’t be dead.’”
But Delaney’s trouble is that he also begins to like and feel sympathy for all the people in Maitland’s life, one of whom, he’s convinced, is the killer. They all seem to have pretty good alibis, but each one also had a possible motive. Delaney reflects: “Cui bono? The first question of any homicide dick: Who benefits? He had a disturbed son envious of his father’s talent. A sexless wife furious at her husband’s cheating. An art dealer scorned and humiliated in public. An artist friend jealous of the victim’s integrity. A quondam mistress hating his contempt. A mother and sister deserted and left to flounder. Some very highfalutin motives for murder—but cui bono?”
The evidence in the case is slim. So, as Delaney tells Monica, if there’s not enough physical evidence to break a case, you look at the people and try to determine why they do what they do. “‘You try to put yourself in their place. What drives them? What do they want? Everyone wants. But some people can’t control it. Then want becomes need. And need—I mean a real greedy need—the kind that haunts you night and day—that’s motive enough for any crime.’” Greed: the second deadly sin.
One of Delaney’s great strengths as a detective is his ability to observe and “read” people and situations. And one of Lawrence Sanders’s great strengths as a writer is his ability to describe what Delaney observes and does in meticulous detail without being tedious. His characters all feel very alive. As a reader, I liked and/or felt sympathy for them all, just as Delaney does. I knew one would be guilty, but I didn’t know which one until Delaney did.
Published in 1977, The Second Deadly Sin is, unsurprisingly, somewhat outdated in terms of its descriptions of New York City, police procedures, and attitudes about women and certain minorities (although it is quite sensitive with respect to Boone’s alcoholism). Nonetheless, it’s an engrossing story and a great read for mystery fiction fans.
When Delaney and Boone investigate, they discover that although everyone in Maitland’s orbit recognized his talent, few seemed to like him. “None of [them] seemed particularly distressed by the sudden blanking of Victor Maitland, and made little effort to hide their indifference. Depending on the education and/or social status of the acquaintance questioned, the dead man was described as everything from ‘an offensive and disagreeable individual’ to ‘a piece of sh*t’” [asterisk mine]. But that doesn’t deter Delaney from going all out to find Maitland’s killer. “‘Jesus,’ Delaney said in a low voice. ‘I don’t care what the guy was, he shouldn’t be dead.’”
But Delaney’s trouble is that he also begins to like and feel sympathy for all the people in Maitland’s life, one of whom, he’s convinced, is the killer. They all seem to have pretty good alibis, but each one also had a possible motive. Delaney reflects: “Cui bono? The first question of any homicide dick: Who benefits? He had a disturbed son envious of his father’s talent. A sexless wife furious at her husband’s cheating. An art dealer scorned and humiliated in public. An artist friend jealous of the victim’s integrity. A quondam mistress hating his contempt. A mother and sister deserted and left to flounder. Some very highfalutin motives for murder—but cui bono?”
The evidence in the case is slim. So, as Delaney tells Monica, if there’s not enough physical evidence to break a case, you look at the people and try to determine why they do what they do. “‘You try to put yourself in their place. What drives them? What do they want? Everyone wants. But some people can’t control it. Then want becomes need. And need—I mean a real greedy need—the kind that haunts you night and day—that’s motive enough for any crime.’” Greed: the second deadly sin.
One of Delaney’s great strengths as a detective is his ability to observe and “read” people and situations. And one of Lawrence Sanders’s great strengths as a writer is his ability to describe what Delaney observes and does in meticulous detail without being tedious. His characters all feel very alive. As a reader, I liked and/or felt sympathy for them all, just as Delaney does. I knew one would be guilty, but I didn’t know which one until Delaney did.
Published in 1977, The Second Deadly Sin is, unsurprisingly, somewhat outdated in terms of its descriptions of New York City, police procedures, and attitudes about women and certain minorities (although it is quite sensitive with respect to Boone’s alcoholism). Nonetheless, it’s an engrossing story and a great read for mystery fiction fans.
April 26, 2016
A classic crime book. It's been a long time since I've read one. It was an Ok read-nothing spectacular. I felt like the story dragged a bit. Also, the toxic masculinity ideals in this book are unbelievable. It felt like chief Delaney was this big awesome alpha male- it was annoying. Plus, the fragile women with sensitive sensibilities were also annoying. Other than that, a solid book with an interesting plot. I learned a bit about art dealers, the art scene, and the American tax system. Now, I'm ready to get back into the raven cycle!
May 3, 2022
Very good book. Excellent for the crime solving cop genre. Written in the late 70s
so expect some anachronisms. Gritty crime dramas set in urban settings with a cynical cop were a staple of
American movies (The French Connection), television(Kojak) and books
by writers like Lawrence Sanders. I recommend it to people who like mysteries that aren’t cozy. You jump on and hang on to the satisfying ending.
so expect some anachronisms. Gritty crime dramas set in urban settings with a cynical cop were a staple of
American movies (The French Connection), television(Kojak) and books
by writers like Lawrence Sanders. I recommend it to people who like mysteries that aren’t cozy. You jump on and hang on to the satisfying ending.
August 5, 2013
I enjoyed the second book more than the first one I think. I've started the third one and bought the fourth in anticipation of wanting to read more & more!
I love the main character and the way he thinks. Yes, the series is dated but it is still very interesting reading. I enjoy older books that don't include high tech police work but using the good old fashioned brain.
I love the main character and the way he thinks. Yes, the series is dated but it is still very interesting reading. I enjoy older books that don't include high tech police work but using the good old fashioned brain.
October 31, 2016
Sanders impresses me with his ability to change form with each novel in the Deadly Sins series from the post-modern police file format of The Anderson Tapes to the psychological, slow burning character study of the The First Deadly Sin. The form of the Second Deadly Sin seems to be an imitation of a hack thriller novel. Zing! But really, Sanders has proven he can do light years better than this and can capture the feel of New York and the many quirky characters inhabiting it with more momentum and focus.
That being said, even a bad or mediocre Sanders novel is the cream of the crop of most of the trade paper back mysteries for its time or anytime thereafter. I still absolutely love the "Iron Balls" Delaney and his somewhat dual personality of classic, gentlemanly nearly geriatric sensibility with a contrast of daring, wild, youthful rigor and boldness in how he relates to people and manipulates his cases. He is an adoring family man and enjoys simple rye highballs and a good sandwich, but cross him and he will chew you out with enough profanity and spite to make the pope blush.
He is at once timeless and fresh green. He worships order and meticulous detail to find rationality in what is a very irrational industry, case and general world, but he also accepts and understands the unknown, the unthinkable and unpredictable circumstances when it suits the case. Judging by the multiple police case references he makes to support a point, he has had to witness and investigate some seriously disturbing, faith breaking shit. Yet, as he says later in the novel he had "low expectations" to begin with so he's never disappointed in humanity and is instead pleasantly surprised by moments of grace and hope. This is how he stays unbreakable yet soft enough to be sensitive to love, compassion and friendship.
Boone on the other hand felt like a pointless, forced, styleless doppelganger of Delaney. I was excited when I got wind of this entry into the series introducing a buddy cop and I was hoping for someone a bit more contrasted or challenging to Delaney's nature. But all I got was a younger, more alcoholic version of Delaney. Boone freaking agrees and holds a similar worldview and perspective on with nearly everything Delaney does! It would go like this,
Delaney: Something just struck me-
Boone: The girl kept checking her watch.
Delaney: Exactly! You know that reminds me of a case-
Boone: The hightree homicides of 1965?
Delaney: Exactly! Now how about a-
Boone: Rye highball and salami-cheese sandwich? Sure thing!
He was like a dull, lifeless Watson without the hero worship. I felt no chemistry between the two as partners. Every conversation and powwow between them was an empty circle jerk and I found myself looking forward to Boone leaving the scene or getting blackout drunk and getting fired. But of course, like many untied ends of this story, Boone's twice suicidal blackout drunk delirium is never addressed and he is never demoted or fired. Wtf?! And even when these events occur they do little to develop Boone's character other than establish that he is capable of slipping. It does nothing for elaborating on his soul or what he's seen or defines him by his actions. He just acts like a fucking disgusting slob. I hated him a little more each time he did this pointless setup.
And it wasn't just that he was an echo of Delaney, he didn't even express himself in a stylish or defining way. Delaney is hardworking and detail oriented but he still has a sense of humor and a bold way of establishing his thoughts and insight. Boone just sort of went with the flow and never offered much of himself beyond the shell of agreeableness. I guess you could argue that is part of realistic fiction since many people do in fact behave with a personality vacuum of agreeableness at work and school to fit in and get things done, but in crime fiction it sucks the life out of the dialogue.
Aside from Boone, this case and the way it was unfolded felt very detached to me. Delaney seems almost like a side character rather than being the foundation of the narrative view like he was in the previous book. There was a lot more telling than showing and sometimes just plain lazy writing and filler scenes. In the previous book, every moment felt necessary and active to the plot even when Delaney was just shooting the shit with an old coworker at a cafe or something. He would learn something about the case, himself, the world, etc. It was always moving the case forward or making food for thought in some sense. In this story, there were probably five or more chapters where Delaney just hangs out with his wife and friends and has dinner, but nothing really significant ever came of it. They just hang out and the chapter ends. General filler material.
Even Delaney himself just seemed to sort of sleepwalk through the case. He did his homework, but there was like 80% less reflection. He just did whatever task he set out and then the author chose not to elaborate on his thoughts or insight very long. This is a huge change from the previous book where Delaney's internal musing and philosophical journey were the cornerstone of the whole story.
The supporting characters and villain were quite bland and dimensionless in comparison too. Where Daniel Boone felt sympathetic, multilayered, enigmatic, frightening yet charming and relatable, the suspects in this book were like something out of a Columbo episode. All of them were easily annoyed, vapid, boring rich or high class people with fast evaporating tolerance for cross examination. They each got a couple of quick scenes of questioning and any character development pickings are slim since they spend the majority of those moments complaining or being contrived.
The only supporting characters that stood out to me were Mama Perez, Dolores and Jason T. Even in the few parts featuring them they were full of life or at least emotionally intriguing.
The ending was a mixed bag. I love the last couple of lines and how they say so much with so little and how brutal and fast paced the final showdown was, but I was sad to find there was no epilogue for the huge cast of characters. The last book tied up a lot of loose ends nicely and gave a realistic, albeit brief capture of time for these characters. Overall, I wonder if Sanders really wanted to push this book so soon or at all. Something feels rushed about the whole thing. It is still worth your time because Sanders is a hell of a good writer even on a bad day, but don't expect it to be The First Deadly Sin.
That being said, even a bad or mediocre Sanders novel is the cream of the crop of most of the trade paper back mysteries for its time or anytime thereafter. I still absolutely love the "Iron Balls" Delaney and his somewhat dual personality of classic, gentlemanly nearly geriatric sensibility with a contrast of daring, wild, youthful rigor and boldness in how he relates to people and manipulates his cases. He is an adoring family man and enjoys simple rye highballs and a good sandwich, but cross him and he will chew you out with enough profanity and spite to make the pope blush.
He is at once timeless and fresh green. He worships order and meticulous detail to find rationality in what is a very irrational industry, case and general world, but he also accepts and understands the unknown, the unthinkable and unpredictable circumstances when it suits the case. Judging by the multiple police case references he makes to support a point, he has had to witness and investigate some seriously disturbing, faith breaking shit. Yet, as he says later in the novel he had "low expectations" to begin with so he's never disappointed in humanity and is instead pleasantly surprised by moments of grace and hope. This is how he stays unbreakable yet soft enough to be sensitive to love, compassion and friendship.
Boone on the other hand felt like a pointless, forced, styleless doppelganger of Delaney. I was excited when I got wind of this entry into the series introducing a buddy cop and I was hoping for someone a bit more contrasted or challenging to Delaney's nature. But all I got was a younger, more alcoholic version of Delaney. Boone freaking agrees and holds a similar worldview and perspective on with nearly everything Delaney does! It would go like this,
Delaney: Something just struck me-
Boone: The girl kept checking her watch.
Delaney: Exactly! You know that reminds me of a case-
Boone: The hightree homicides of 1965?
Delaney: Exactly! Now how about a-
Boone: Rye highball and salami-cheese sandwich? Sure thing!
He was like a dull, lifeless Watson without the hero worship. I felt no chemistry between the two as partners. Every conversation and powwow between them was an empty circle jerk and I found myself looking forward to Boone leaving the scene or getting blackout drunk and getting fired. But of course, like many untied ends of this story, Boone's twice suicidal blackout drunk delirium is never addressed and he is never demoted or fired. Wtf?! And even when these events occur they do little to develop Boone's character other than establish that he is capable of slipping. It does nothing for elaborating on his soul or what he's seen or defines him by his actions. He just acts like a fucking disgusting slob. I hated him a little more each time he did this pointless setup.
And it wasn't just that he was an echo of Delaney, he didn't even express himself in a stylish or defining way. Delaney is hardworking and detail oriented but he still has a sense of humor and a bold way of establishing his thoughts and insight. Boone just sort of went with the flow and never offered much of himself beyond the shell of agreeableness. I guess you could argue that is part of realistic fiction since many people do in fact behave with a personality vacuum of agreeableness at work and school to fit in and get things done, but in crime fiction it sucks the life out of the dialogue.
Aside from Boone, this case and the way it was unfolded felt very detached to me. Delaney seems almost like a side character rather than being the foundation of the narrative view like he was in the previous book. There was a lot more telling than showing and sometimes just plain lazy writing and filler scenes. In the previous book, every moment felt necessary and active to the plot even when Delaney was just shooting the shit with an old coworker at a cafe or something. He would learn something about the case, himself, the world, etc. It was always moving the case forward or making food for thought in some sense. In this story, there were probably five or more chapters where Delaney just hangs out with his wife and friends and has dinner, but nothing really significant ever came of it. They just hang out and the chapter ends. General filler material.
Even Delaney himself just seemed to sort of sleepwalk through the case. He did his homework, but there was like 80% less reflection. He just did whatever task he set out and then the author chose not to elaborate on his thoughts or insight very long. This is a huge change from the previous book where Delaney's internal musing and philosophical journey were the cornerstone of the whole story.
The supporting characters and villain were quite bland and dimensionless in comparison too. Where Daniel Boone felt sympathetic, multilayered, enigmatic, frightening yet charming and relatable, the suspects in this book were like something out of a Columbo episode. All of them were easily annoyed, vapid, boring rich or high class people with fast evaporating tolerance for cross examination. They each got a couple of quick scenes of questioning and any character development pickings are slim since they spend the majority of those moments complaining or being contrived.
The only supporting characters that stood out to me were Mama Perez, Dolores and Jason T. Even in the few parts featuring them they were full of life or at least emotionally intriguing.
The ending was a mixed bag. I love the last couple of lines and how they say so much with so little and how brutal and fast paced the final showdown was, but I was sad to find there was no epilogue for the huge cast of characters. The last book tied up a lot of loose ends nicely and gave a realistic, albeit brief capture of time for these characters. Overall, I wonder if Sanders really wanted to push this book so soon or at all. Something feels rushed about the whole thing. It is still worth your time because Sanders is a hell of a good writer even on a bad day, but don't expect it to be The First Deadly Sin.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
May 5, 2021
Interesting plot. Lots of information about how the art world functions. Dated in that police procedures and attitudes towards women have changed in the last fifty years. Delaney is a rather pompous ass but he gets the job done.
May 12, 2020
I feel bad that I had not discovered this character and series, Edward "X marks the spot" Delaney. A great NYC detective. The plot is good and the people are delicious.
August 6, 2016
I read the series oh so long ago-late 1970's. I recall it being a favorite series, Don't know how it's aged.
July 1, 2017
The pace is too slow. I do not particularly like the author but the title interested me so just picked it and started reading. Half-way through and I was just trying to kill my time and the book.
July 29, 2020
Ah, a classic who-dun-it! Still a psychological thriller, but a nice examination of the second deadly sin, which is greed. An artist is murder in his studio, and the police, who have run out of leads, turn to retired police chief Daniel X. Delaney to solve the case.
The book was written in 1977, and like its predecessor is full of anachronistic talk and behavior, particularly sexism. Women fall apart at any near crisis, young women are constantly referred to as "twists", and Sanders is particularly clumsy at dealing with relationships between men and women. But a new character, an alcoholic cop named Boone, is deftly drawn and handled in a balanced way. The workmanlike solving of the murder via cop painstaking procedure is wonderful, as is the cop lingo employed throughout. Crime solving back in 1977 was a completely different animal than it is now (no cell phones, no DNA), although the human side of it (good cop, bad cop, using charm to get information) is still in use today, of course.
The book, like the last one, is still too full of descriptions of nonrelevant things, like food, dress and furnishings. But it works because Delaney is fascinating and extremely smart, the dialogue is snappy and involving (excepting the romantic scenes), Boone is all too human, and the examination of greed is fascinating.
The book was written in 1977, and like its predecessor is full of anachronistic talk and behavior, particularly sexism. Women fall apart at any near crisis, young women are constantly referred to as "twists", and Sanders is particularly clumsy at dealing with relationships between men and women. But a new character, an alcoholic cop named Boone, is deftly drawn and handled in a balanced way. The workmanlike solving of the murder via cop painstaking procedure is wonderful, as is the cop lingo employed throughout. Crime solving back in 1977 was a completely different animal than it is now (no cell phones, no DNA), although the human side of it (good cop, bad cop, using charm to get information) is still in use today, of course.
The book, like the last one, is still too full of descriptions of nonrelevant things, like food, dress and furnishings. But it works because Delaney is fascinating and extremely smart, the dialogue is snappy and involving (excepting the romantic scenes), Boone is all too human, and the examination of greed is fascinating.
November 7, 2022
A police procedural which when read today with the idea of ACAB does nothing to dispel those thoughts. I know that this is trying to plumb that line of good and evil and whether someone deserves certain fates but something robs me the wrong way.
In terms of the mystery, it definitely follows the police procedural line that runs downs leads. You can only go so far with trying to figure out what is going on while waiting for clues and breaks in the case. These books work in terms of trying to understand people.
This was written quite a while ago and some of the language is stilted, especially when talking about queer folks. I wonder if this was rewritten today, how it would be? Maybe still the same. And that is what I am left with.
In terms of the mystery, it definitely follows the police procedural line that runs downs leads. You can only go so far with trying to figure out what is going on while waiting for clues and breaks in the case. These books work in terms of trying to understand people.
This was written quite a while ago and some of the language is stilted, especially when talking about queer folks. I wonder if this was rewritten today, how it would be? Maybe still the same. And that is what I am left with.
May 27, 2020
I enjoyed the plot but not the presentation, mainly because I didn't care for the characters. Chief Delaney seemed to confuse confidence with arrogance. But all of the suspects were despicable and totally unlikable. The police were sometimes decent; other times less so. The clue to the ending--the "ending" not the culprit--was obvious must earlier.
Perhaps my dislike for the characters is because I have just read several mysteries, some may even be "cozy" mysteries where the characters were sort of folksy. So the hard-boiled detectives of NYC were too much a contrast.
Perhaps my dislike for the characters is because I have just read several mysteries, some may even be "cozy" mysteries where the characters were sort of folksy. So the hard-boiled detectives of NYC were too much a contrast.
January 12, 2024
These characters don't do a single thing without having a drink first. Middle of the day, middle of the night, middle of a work shift; all perfect opportunities to stop and have a drink or few, apparently.
There were some parts where Sanders would drone on a bit with boring details about the police work, but overall, it was a compelling story.
You actually got some decent character development, which is a bit unusual for detective fiction. I would happily read more of Delaney's adventures even if some of the writing is a bit dated.
There were some parts where Sanders would drone on a bit with boring details about the police work, but overall, it was a compelling story.
You actually got some decent character development, which is a bit unusual for detective fiction. I would happily read more of Delaney's adventures even if some of the writing is a bit dated.
Read
May 23, 2020This story keeps you guessing as to who committed the murder. Sanders' characters are believable and most engaging. The retired "Chief" is pulled out of retirement to, basically, pacify societal and political parties involved in this murder case. What transpires is the actual solving of a murder case that was thought to be unsolveable. This is one of those books that is hard to put down once you start reading it.
November 22, 2021
The second in the Edward X Delaney series regarding hi-brow murder in New York. Sanders's wonderful protagonist is the ideal tough cop. Tough, intimidating, but with a soft spot in his soul the size of Manhattan. Now retired, he is still the go-to sought after investigator to resolve a uniquely grim crime. Sanders was prolific with his writing, but few measure up to his accomplishments with the Deadly Sin series.
November 11, 2024
Not very good. I read it for the second time (first time probably > 30 years ago) as I found it - in pieces - just before a long trip. It might be a “classic” but I don’t find that it has withstood time. Slow, heavy and actually a bit boring. Have I changed or did writing styles change so much? Don’t think so; presently reading Henning Mankell’s over 39 years old ‘The man that smiled’ and it’s great, captivating and doesn’t feel outdated.
Note to self: Do NOT reread the other Sander novels!
Note to self: Do NOT reread the other Sander novels!
June 24, 2018
Still good after all these years
I think I first read this book in high school. I enjoyed it then but now, with a police career behind me, I understand it. It is still a good procedural and Sanders characters and dialogue still sing. Some of the techniques seem quaint and some of the tactics are of questionable legality but it makes for a good story.
I think I first read this book in high school. I enjoyed it then but now, with a police career behind me, I understand it. It is still a good procedural and Sanders characters and dialogue still sing. Some of the techniques seem quaint and some of the tactics are of questionable legality but it makes for a good story.
June 19, 2020
If I have read one of Sanders books, I have read a dozen and every one was a 4 or 5 star book, UNTIL this one.
Not the greatest story, and it plodded along, where 2 or 3 pages could have been written in a paragraph. Poor story and not so interesting characters and Not a Lawrence Sanders book.
So if you want to skip this one, you won't be missing much.
Not the greatest story, and it plodded along, where 2 or 3 pages could have been written in a paragraph. Poor story and not so interesting characters and Not a Lawrence Sanders book.
So if you want to skip this one, you won't be missing much.
October 5, 2020
Edward X. Delaney, retired chief of detectives, is asked to work a case that has stymied NYPD. Victor Maitland has been stabbed to death in his art studio. There are an abundance of suspects, including his mother, sister, wife and son, the gallery owner who sells Maitland's paintings, a lawyer, and others. All have alibis. Much effort and a lot of deduction led to the breaking of an alibi.
October 20, 2020
Has anyone else noticed the similarities between this book and McNally's Risk? Both books are about the investigation of a murdered artist. Both artists are irritable, loathed, hateful personalities with a penchant for philandery. Both artists are portrait artists who make a habit of sleeping with their models. I thought it was interesting, considering the passage of time that occurred between Sanders writing each book. I wonder if he knew someone that he drew on for the inspiration of Silas Hawkins and Victor Maitland? Plus, this book even has a character named Horowitz. Interesting, no?
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
February 19, 2023
This was a re-read for me and in terms of a procedural, it’s definitely a “ how to” of detective work. Main complaint: The book is ponderous. Every movement is chronicled, from clearing a table to writing in a notebook to deciding between walking or taking a cab. Still, a nice intricate plot with interesting characters, even the unlikeable ones.
November 3, 2023
A will written mystery
A will written mystery with lots of twist and turns. The characters are interesting and well developed. It is interesting how Delaney developed the case and reaches a conclusion. I would recommend this series too anyone who enjoys a good old-fashioned mystery. Enjoy reading 2015
I read or listened to this from the local library.
A will written mystery with lots of twist and turns. The characters are interesting and well developed. It is interesting how Delaney developed the case and reaches a conclusion. I would recommend this series too anyone who enjoys a good old-fashioned mystery. Enjoy reading 2015
I read or listened to this from the local library.
May 30, 2018
I remembered liking detective Chief Edward X. Delaney for the interesting, messy sandwiches he makes. I re-read this book that was written in the 70's. The slang is outdated, but the story is good. I won't re-read the others, but I think I read just about every book Lawrence Sanders wrote.
November 1, 2020
A 400 odd page book that resolves the mystery in the last 80 pages, this is in a serious need of editing. Well, the writer dwells more on the food the characters are eating rather than building up the plot or the characters themselves. Quite a disappointment.
April 21, 2022
An older book, but enjoyable like all the others. Makes me miss Sanders even more. A little slow in places, everyone's a suspect, and then it's way too easy to figure out the climax. Still, fun to read.
May 30, 2022
Out of the First, Second and Third sins this one was the hardest to read because I found it incredibly irrelevant and boring to Delaney's life. I think the Third will stay as my favorite although I still haven't read the Fourth.
March 17, 2024
Read a Lawrence Sanders book after a long time. The plot is not very interesting but the key characters are something good. The story end is quite predictable. However, if one has nothing more to do or nothing better to do then this book will be a reasonable read.
September 6, 2024
Terrific story and writing!
An engrossing page turner from a master of detective and police stories. Written in the 1970s it gives readers a great look at the methods of police investigations without 21st century technology.
An engrossing page turner from a master of detective and police stories. Written in the 1970s it gives readers a great look at the methods of police investigations without 21st century technology.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 115 reviews