Let me begin by stating that I won Nothing Ventured by Jeffrey Archer in a giveaway I put in for as I've become quite the fan of detective murder mysteries thanks to Agatha Christie, however this was not that. In saying that, I also thought it a bit ridiculous for him to mention her name in this novel, as well as Poirot's when stating that DNA evidence was making it harder to defend criminals, as Poirot does not defend anyone--he seeks only the truth! It was a name drop, and a confusing one, as the author himself states that this novel is not a detective mystery but a novel about a detective's life.
In saying all that, the novel is well written (other than William laughing as much as he did, it felt childish) and was very easy to read, but if you are unaware with some British terms you may need to look them up (though the rest of the sentences should fill in the blank for you) (examples: kip=sleep, gaffer=boss, and kerb=curb (just difference in British and American spelling)).
However, I wanted to give it three stars (I liked it) but some parts of the novel were just too much of a miss for me so I gave it two stars (it was okay). The first three chapters for example I thought were a slow way of beginning the story while being cheesy at that. It begins with a father disappointed in his son not following his footsteps (snooze). The story began for me in chapter four, but then once again felt cheesy and cliche in the fifth chapter when the officer who has taken the young rookie William Warwick under his wing was killed in a routine stop, one day short of his retirement (saw that coming). If someone dies in a novel, I think you should feel something and for me this death was not surprising in the least, it's been so overdone in other stories I rolled my eyes when William woke up in his hospital bed to find his partner had been killed.
William then meets a beautiful girl named Beth and after 6 short months they both announce how madly in love they are and want to marry, this too felt pretty cliche but hey, some loves are like that (still feels cliche, I think the author added it to the story possibly to give the next part of the story a door to cross, though it was another issue I had with the novel)
The part that gives conflict to his relationship with Beth is when Mrs. Faulkner climbs into bed with Warwick (cliche) and he felt he had two choices--to turn on the light and tell her to leave possible risking the return of the priceless art or to sleep with her and not tell Beth, securing the Rembrandt's return. This kinda made no sense to me on a few levels, 1) he had just told Beth how much he loved her and he wants to marry her so would he really risk that? Perhaps someone married a long time in a semi-happy relationship would but I don't think a madly in love person would, 2) Mrs. Faulkner needed the cops on her side more than William needed to sleep with her to secure the painting, it and the detective were already on board the yacht on the way to the museum with the police to be receiving them when they docked (I really don't think he was in enough of a corner to justify it-so in my mind it just makes him an non-loyal, untrustworthy creep), and 3) Mrs. Faulkner had put a private eye on her husband to gather as much information on his adultery as possible to secure the best possible out-come in her divorce proceedings, why would she risk her husband doing the same to her (which she should believe he would as he has the resources to do so) and discover she had slept with the detective? In my opinion, what she stood to gain from the divorce would have been too much a risk to ruin it on a young detective who hardly seemed receptive of the advance in the first place (he never made any show of flirtation towards her).
The final cheesy and cliche part was the very end of the book. Mr. Faulkner gets off with probation on the condition he does not commit any crimes or is thrown in prison to serve his full sentence, fine. But why on Earth when he shows up to the grand revealing of the returned Rembrandt and of the Rubens which he was so kind in gifting the museum would Faulkner whisper into Warwick's ear that he'd love to show him the real original Rubens in his New York apartment?!?!?! This made NO sense, considering the judge let him off easy on the condition that he supply the museum with the Rubens they believed to be the real deal (Warwick could bring this to someone's attention and have the Rubens at the museum scrutinized) and for the mere fact that this is the man who basically almost put you in prison and relieved you of your "two precious" (stolen) artworks!!! Why would he light that fire inside the detective again, considering he kinda got away with it (just barely) the first time? There's no way someone would be so foolish, and I get that it sets up the next book but it is so far from anything realistic. If Faulkner doesn't go to prison next time, I feel the readers of the series will be surely let down, because of the blatant careless demeanor Faulkner showed and the fact that it will be just another failure to the "hero" Warwick.