Love in Amsterdam

Van der Valk #1

by Nicolas Freeling

Alluring, unstable, and frantically self-absorbed, Elsa de Charmoy was a dangerous woman, and now she's a dead one, shot with a gun bought by her former lover. Sulking in an Amsterdam jail, he swears it's been years since he saw Elsa, but Inspector Van der Valk isn't quite ready to be persuaded. Like Inspector Maigret (to whom he is often compared), Van der Valk tends to pick apart the details, ideally over a good meal. And while Van der Valk's ruminations may frustrate his more action-minded colleagues, they inevitably yield a surprising resolution.

Genres: Mystery, Fiction, Crime, Thriller, Mystery Thriller, Detective, Procedural

204 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1962

About the author

Nicolas Freeling born Nicolas Davidson, (March 3, 1927 - July 20, 2003) was a British crime novelist, best known as the author of the Van der Valk series of detective novels which were adapted for transmission on the British ITV network by Thames Television during the 1970s.

Freeling was born in London, but travelled widely, and ended his life at his long-standing home at Grandfontaine to the west of Strasbourg. He had followed a variety of occupations, including the armed services and the catering profession. He began writing during a three-week prison sentence, after being convicted of stealing some food.[citation needed]

Freeling's The King of the Rainy Country received a 1967 Edgar Award, from the Mystery Writers of America, for Best Novel. He also won the Gold Dagger of the Crime Writers' Association, and France's Grand Prix de Littérature Policière.

From Wikipedia

Series:
* Van Der Valk
* Henri Castang

Reviews

[Ivonne Rovira]

I had wanted a break after reading a number of Maigret novels, so I turned to Love in Amsterdam. English author Nicholas Freeling’s Dutch detective Inspector Van der Valk is compared to Belgian author Georges Simenon’s French Chief Inspector Jules Maigret by Audible — and perhaps by others. But whereas I find Simenon’s writing thoughtful and a great commentary on human nature, I found Freeling simply plodding.

The novel, the first in a series, was published in 1962, but the setting seems older than that, 40’s or 50’s, perhaps. I love Simenon’s Maigret (set in the 1930’s and 1940’s) and Elizabeth Edmondson’s Hugo Hawksworth (set in the 1950’s), and I adore Dame Agatha Christie, so my problem isn’t the historical setting. I just simply couldn’t get into the book. I won’t rate the book, as I only got 30 minutes into the Audible version before remembering that life is too short to read books that make one’s mind wander.

The sardonic drawl of the narrator of the Audible version of Love in Amsterdam, Christopher Oxford, certainly didn't help. Imagine listening to Draco Malfoy narrate a book affecting the most exaggerated RP, and you just about have a sense of the oozing Oxbridge sense of entitlement felt by the chief suspect, Martin. I may come back to this in a print version, but I doubt it.

[Richard · Rating 3 out of 5]

The release of a modern Van der Valk TV series got me wondering about the original novels I have not read; meaning, my knowledge of the Amsterdam detective was based solely on Barry Foster’s interpretation of the fictional character.
Well although the title remained the same as the book, it bears no resemblance to the printed page.
Published in 1965 it has more similarity to the later Maigret novels; indeed the author makes several references to that famous detective and those books. There are plenty of other literacy references and Van der Valk also talks about policing operations imitating the practices of the FBI.
Much is said of modern writers in regards to plot and story development beyond the accepted approach of either first person or third person narrative.
Love in Amsterdam is a revelation in this regard.

The plot outline is in three sections. Each with a different feel and emphasis. Part I - Detective interviewing suspect and garnering evidence. Part II Suspect reflecting on his life and association with the victim. Finally the sting to establish guilt.
Therefore, the novel does not read well in the conventional sense. However, it is superbly written and is easy to follow. Consequently, it provides a detailed insight into character, motive and method.
Police work follows much of the methods employed by Maigret although the judicial system is explained as being intrinsically different. Stresses character and the psychology of testimony regaining truth and the acceptance of recollection of the perceived ‘facts.’
I liked the depth of relationships that are revealed. The observations of the stories participants and the orchestration of Van der Valk in the background in seeking the truth and collecting evidence.
It is a police procedural approached from an oblique angle and in my opinion a brave new approach to the crime novel.
Without individual chapters it can seem a chore reading and endless book; however, you retain the important detail and gain much insight into this new detective.
You can also see the wonderful location that Amsterdam brings and the strange mix post war Europe had on crime and investigation.
A great novel for the purest and all crime fans.

[Tim Hicks · Rating 2 out of 5]

Almost - but the middle third was deadly dull, and I am not going risk being exposed to that again in a second Freeling. Maybe a novella with the same detective; his method was interesting, working right out in the open with a possible/probable accused.

[Bandit · Rating 2 out of 5]

I can think of so many things to love in and about Amsterdam. Alas, this book wouldn’t be one of them. Surprisingly so, since I’m very much a fan of Scandinavian noir. Maybe I don’t love Scandinoir classics? This is, after all, from 1962. Of course, some things from 1962 age really well, like Jim Carrey or Michelle Yeoh or The Manchurian Candidate or any Elvis’ song from that year…and some things less so.
Literature (most things, really) dates itself in many different ways, sometimes it’s the expired zeitgeist of the time, sometimes it’s the general tone, sometimes it’s whatever used to be hip and in vogue and just didn’t travel through time…sometimes it’s something difficult to describe, like the way people spoke in old movies, a forgotten cadence. This book dates itself in one of those difficult to explain ways, nothing overt or disturbing to modern readers, no grotesque sexism/racism/etc., and I’m sure this was very hip for its time, but the style of the narrative just really didn’t work for me.
It’s a classic three act story and quite short (though it doesn’t read like it) with act one finding Martin being arrested for the murder of his ex lover Elsa, act 2 traveling back in time to trace their love affair and act 3, back to present day to sort of this mess and solve the crime. The detective Van Der Valk doesn’t seem to actually do all that much, considering he’s the star of the show and the subsequent series. And Martin isn’t all that likeable. Act 2 was interesting enough as far as historical fiction goes, post WWII Amsterdam and all that, but the rest of the novel didn’t really engage and neither did the characters. The entire love triangle is overwrought and kind of sordid and contrived. The mystery is underwhelming and the resolution is fairly bathetic.
Not sure I can adequately describe why writing didn’t work for me, there was a very specific sort of density to the narrative that seems to be appropriate to the time, but not appealing to this reader. There was a strangely Kafkaesque aspect to Martin’s predicament and Van Der Valk’s detecting methods. Maybe the legal system in Scandinavian has changed since or maybe their fiction has just dramatically improved, but nowadays they produce some of the most excellently moody brooding mystery thrillers out there. This book doesn’t quite measure up.
Mind you, I wouldn’t mind checking out the recent PBS adaptation of it. Modern day interpretations of the 1960s stories seem to be in general much more enjoyable. Best of both worlds.

This and more at https://advancetheplot.weebly.com/

[Michele]

First impressions are often unreliable, but I just couldn't wait to tell you about this author. I believed he was from the Netherlands, since he writes about a detective from Amsterdam and pretends to know all the inside stuff only a native would know and throws in lots of Dutch words. But he's from England. He's apparently traveled widely in Europe, and now lives in France. So you see what I thought was a very poor translation from Dutch to British English is just very poor British English with lots of Dutch words thrown in willy-nilly.

This was supposed to be a classic of the genre. It was written in 1962, and is part of a large series of similar mysteries involving Dutch detective Inspector van der Valk which have been most popular. But by the time I reached page 22, I couldn't take any more.


The scene on page 22 is this: the fake-Dutch detective and his murder suspect are in the morgue for identification of the body. At the end of a page of useless and annoying description which gets them from the front door of the building and through the reception area, commenting continuously on trivial observations such as how thin the receptionist's legs are as compared to her too-long hands and feet, I came to the following paragraph. "A corridor, full of doors. Two or three obvious laboratory technicians glancing incuriously as they went on accustomed, undramatic, errands. The smell of formaldehyde was stronger. Another door, swinging on bronze hinges with an effortless, noiseless lunge like a huge mouth opening." This man would not know a sentence if it bit him in the bum, and his "door lunging like a mouth opening" analogy is not to be tolerated.

As worthy as this writing is for ridicule, the insight into human behavior is even worse. I don't believe I'll go any further with this review or with the book. It's too awful, and life is too short.

[Mark · Rating 4 out of 5]

My interest was piqued in the Van der Valk series, when I saw the television version advertised on a streaming service. I’m much more of a reader than a TV viewer so I immediately went looking to find this, the first book in the series, Love in Amsterdam. Being a European noir and literature fan, this was right up my alley.

Nicolas Freeling’s Love in Amsterdam (1962) is quite unlike anything I’ve read before. Sure it has the ingredients of a procedural but structurally it’s quite different, divided into three distinct parts (chapters). Firstly, we’re kind of thrust straight into the aftermath of the crime (the death of Elsa), honing in very specifically on former lover, Martin, whom, incidentally is interrogated relentlessly almost to prove that he was not the perpetrator of the crime.

Secondly, we delve into the events from 5 or so years earlier, and read the ‘back story’ with many pieces of the puzzle commenced in part one coming together. The third part takes us back to the current and we are in the midst of the Dutch judicial system and ultimately see the murder solved in a fairly unique and kind of rapid manner in the last few pages.

I actually really liked Freeling’s writing style, consisting of an inordinate amount of dialogue which actually made it intriguing. The dialogue tended to become the narrative with the story built around it, or growing out of it. I’m not too sure about Van der Valk himself as a character at this stage. There wasn’t really an opportunity to get to know him in any detail except to get a sense of his less than conventional investigative techniques.

Great first encounter with Freeling. I’ll definitely be working my way through these ones. 4 stars.

[Mike Sumner · Rating 2 out of 5]

What a disappointment. I fondly remember the 70s TV series of Van der Valk starring Barry Foster. More recent we enjoyed the reprise starring Mark Warren. As is often the case with me, I had to investigate if the original books, written by Nicolas Freeling, were still available. Live in Amsterdam is the first and this paperback edition was published in 2020 as a TV tie-in (first published in 1962). The cover states; "the inspiration behind the major TV series".

How could anything so dull and turgid inspire anything? The contents are divided into three parts, approximately seventy pages each. Part one introduces a murder suspect, Martin, when a woman, Elsa, is brutally murdered in her Amsterdam apartment. Martin is her ex-lover and was seen outside the building around the time of the crime - by a policeman. Enter Van der Valk in what looks like a straightforward case. Who is he you might ask? No character development whatsoever, no background - and disposed to using smutty language from time to time.

Part two is essentially an essay about Martin and his relationships, past and present. Reasonably interesting but most noticeable for the complete absence of VdV. Then comes part three where we learn of the possibility of another suspect. VdV believes that Martin is not guilty of murder and instead of charging him takes him on a bizarre tour of the investigation into the darkly obsessive world of Elsa...

Thank goodness that this was a fairly short read at jus 210 pages. My first, and probably my last book in the Van der Valk series.

[Marcella Wigg · Rating 1 out of 5]

Just awful. Incredibly dated, plodding, full of unbelievable plot elements, and with basically no compassion shown for the murder victim, who is depicted as almost deserving it because of her multiple partners and manipulativeness. Ugh. I try to give slightly more leeway for 60-year-old books' gender dynamics, but some books age exceptionally poorly, and this seems to be one of those.

[Lukasz Pruski · Rating 4 out of 5]

"I don't want it particularly accurate; my whole idea was to write about Europe in a European idiom. Something that has a European flavor and inflection."

"Love in Amsterdam" (1962), Nicolas Freeling's very first novel, was retitled "Death in Amsterdam" in the U.S.; how's "Death sells better than love" for a snide remark? The fragment quoted above is uttered by Martin, the novel's protagonist, a Dutch writer of sorts, but it aptly describes Freeling's own writing. His entire opus, all about Europe, all with distinctly European flavor and inflection, has been written in a European idiom.

Martin's ex-lover, Elsa von Charmoy, is shot and he is the obvious suspect, since on the night of the murder he was seen close to the place where Elsa lived. Yet inspector Van der Valk does not quite believe that Martin is guilty, and works hard to find other suspects. His clever scheming leads to a lively finale, a bit too lively for my taste.

The novel is divided into three parts: while the first and the third are captivating psychological procedurals (with the third offering a glimpse of the Dutch judicial system, quite different from the British one), the middle part is a vivid portrayal of Elsa and almost a clinical study of Martin's infatuation with her. "[Elsa] blossomed on dramas and scenes, loved upheavals, denouncements, tremendous rages, weeping reconciliations." I feel as if I have known her forever. Had I been in literary criticism instead of applied mathematics, I would have written a paper entitled "Portrayals of Women in Nicolas Freeling's Books". Maybe when I retire...

This is Van der Valk's first appearance in one of the most famous detective series in the history of the genre. Critics often compare Freeling's work to Simenon's. True, the psychological depth and the authentic European flavor are similar in both authors' works, yet I much, much prefer Mr. Freeling for his inimitable prose, rich, convoluted, and multilingual, full of quirky digressions and virtuoso passages depicting streams of consciousness. Already in this first novel we are offered a spellbinding account of Martin's galloping thoughts, while he is in the grip of neurosis, afraid of losing his sanity.

"The man paced up and down the cell.": With this sentence, the literary career of the most erudite, literate, and idiosyncratic author of psychological crime novels began in 1962, the career that ended 40 years later, with his memoir The Village Book and the final mystery, "The Janeites".

While not a masterpiece like other Van der Valk's novels A Long Silence and particularly Gun Before Butter , "Love in Amsterdam" is a wonderful psychological drama, and a very good mystery

Four stars.

[Jannelies (living between hope and fear) · Rating 1 out of 5]

I’m actually sitting here being somewhat ashamed… This book dates from 1962, so although I hadn’t mastered the art of reading at the age of four, I have honestly never ever heard of this author and this series of books. I requested it purely because I like reading stories set in the Netherlands, but written by authors from other countries. Sometimes it’s fun to see how they perceive our culture, sometimes they do a good job with the language, sometimes not.
Anyway, I was stunned when I started reading this book. It is awkward, the writing style is – well, I don’t even have the right words for it. Maybe, if I’d learn to read when I was four years old, I would have liked it.
I gather the tv-series can be fun to watch – after all, other series from the early sixties are still quite popular – but I gave up on reading the book in an early stage.

Thanks to Edelweiss for this digital review copy.

[Andrew Wildman · Rating 4 out of 5]

I have always enjoyed Van der Valk (remember the TV series?) and the books are great, if not always an easy read. I would have liked a bit more in the way of characterization and location and a bit less crime solving but a good read and a must for any true Nederlandophile.

[Susan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not sure about this book. I like the TV series much better.

[Frank · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is the fourth (and last for the time being) book I read by Freeling in 2017.
He reminds me of Simenon (whom I have been rereading) in some ways: lucid, plodding, fact-oriented, thoughtful and not in others.
It goes deeper in terms of psychological characterization than most police procedurals and I'm grateful for that.
The plot concerns the murder of a woman shot by a former lover (it appears) and is full of smarts characters and (sometimes) engrossing details. But often he plods along and the interest sags. You feel like you should keep reading in places because, well, we finish books we start yes? Not necessarily.
As usual, the action is downplayed by the motivation and crime scenarios but except for the plodding, that approach is fine by me--in general.
This was the first Van der Valk book.

[Michael Flick · Rating 5 out of 5]

Van der Valk detective novel, complex, but there’s no way the reader can solve the crime—the detective does that using the person who didn’t kill to reveal the one who did.

[Christopher Rush · Rating 2 out of 5]

"Mr. Freeling, should you introduce or talk about your main hero, Van der Valk, at all?"
"No, I want it focused on this schlemiel of a suspect and his horrible treatment of every human being he encounters."
"Are you sure you want to waste the audience's time with a meaningless, discursive second part flashback about the murder victim, since we already know what she's like and that she's dead, so none of it really matters?"
"That is the most important part of this mystery novel, the tiresome and irrelevant litany of profligacy and Lifetimean balderdash."
"Do you really want the resolution to be so wholly unconnected to the rest of the story, making the entire focus on this schlemiel feel like a huge waste of the audience's time?"
"It is crucial to make it seem like I changed my mind at the last possible moment to a wholly unrealistic and irrelevant conclusion."
"Very well. Here is your contract for three more books. Keep them coming, please."

[Katy · Rating 2 out of 5]

Another book I just couldn’t get myself to finish, which is always disappointing. Writing was dry and the style was just odd. Seemed like it had potential. Lots of run-on talking/jibber-jabber. Not a style suited for everyone I suppose.

[Jayaprakash Satyamurthy · Rating 3 out of 5]

This series would improve but book 1 is rather good, if a bit too keen on showing Freeling is aware of Simenon. Some dialogue grates; mainly one use of 'buster'. Yet much of the action such as it is in parts 1 and 3 is carried by dialogue... Unsurprisingly a later volume in the series is called CRIMINAL CONVERSATION and is rather good even if Freeling, like Highsmith, tends to overplay his hand.
Police procedural can be dour, rote copaganda. Here, Freeling sets a simple ethical landscape to avoid ACAB concerns but complicates the process of investigation and spends a good 3rd of the book with the prime suspect. Van Der Walk is almost a walk-in in this novel. Later on, Freeling would understand better how to create a non-loathsome policeman and not duplicate Maigret (which to his credit he doesn't do here either). Chandler is name checked, by the way, but Greene and Conrad are good reference points too, although both better novelists than Freeling.
The book is gripping but worth reading slowly. I read it in a 1969 Penguin edition with a much better cover than the one shown here.

[Sparrow .]

This is the most Dutch book I’ve ever read – and indeed the most Amsterdamian. Even the title memorializes this evenhanded city. Love in Amsterdam entails French wine, French books, and German whips. Or so it seems. (Canals and hashish are largely irrelevant.)

Always tell the police all your secrets, at least in Holland.

Opening at random:

‘And what about me? It is of no consequence, I suppose, being rude to me.’

She got out of bed and threw off her nightdress in an angry heap.

‘I didn’t, and don’t, think that I had to worry that you wouldn’t be looked after.’

[Dave · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interestingly, this book was nothing like the TV series, at all. It was also a bit of a plod.

[C.C. Yager · Rating 3 out of 5]

Long ago, when I was researching the city of Amsterdam, I came across Nicolas Freeling. I bought this book and read it purely for it being set in Amsterdam. This time, I read it for the mystery, although I was very aware of the lack of sensory details or description of the city -- a disappointment.

The mystery revolves around a woman named Elsa who is shot one evening in her apartment. The murder occurs about the same time that Martin, a former lover, happens to be walking on the same street where Elsa's apartment is located. A policeman notices him, wonders what he's doing on the street because he seems to be wandering, lost in thought (which he was). Due to his physical proximity to the murder location and being there at the time of the murder, Van Der Valk, the "brilliant" Dutch detective, decides to bring him in and question him. The first section is Van Der Valk's questions from Martin's POV. The second section is the backstory of Martin and Elsa's relationship. The third section is Van Der Valk solving the murder from Martin's POV.
.
I wondered as I read why Freeling chose to tell this story from Martin's POV. He really had no insightin to what happened and no clues to share. All he knew was Elsa. The reader does not get to follow Van Der Valk as he investigates or to be privy to his thinking. And for me, the ending was terribly unsatisfying as a result. I could understand why I didn't pursue this author further.

While I'm not wild about this mystery novel, some mystery reader out there might pick it up and enjoy it, so I gave it 3 stars. Can't say that I would personally recommend it, however.

[Anna · Rating 1 out of 5]

I started the book some time in February, but it was so boring I ended up reading at least a dozen other books before giving it a second try. The covers promise it to be "The most outstanding detective in European fiction since Maigret", a clip they've added from NYT book review. That New York Times book review must have been when the book was first released in 1962, since it's hard to find ten more boring European detectives. Or it's all loosely definable by how and to what you apply the outstandingness. Outstandingly boring, no doubt.

The characters - not just the inspector and the crew but everyone - had about as much drive as a three-legged donkey on racecourse, or as Angela Lansbury aged 95 would have investigating the murders in a retirement home full of demented patients. But surely the story must pick up at some point? Perhaps later in the series. It didn't in this book, and I actually finished reading it, only to see if it would get any better.

Freeling - despite the name, he was an Englishman - didn't quite manage to capture the early 1960s, or Amsterdam, and the throwing in non-English words for the sake of it got irritating rather fast. If this was a great European detective book in the early 1960s, it makes the others of the same era, like Agatha Christie and Maj Sjöwall & Per Wahlöö just seem so much better (and less eaten by time). And it makes the modern European ones seem even better.

[martin · Rating 3 out of 5]

A little disappointing, not least because I’d come to it via the excellent 1970s TV series Van der Valk. The charismatic and unconventional detective is here and he solves a murder, but he’s not the main character and nor is this primarily a detective novel. Our protagonist is instead the main suspect, a rather self-indulgent writer and former lover of the victim, with the plot centred far more on that abusive love affair. The murder and investigation are simply the reasons for him to revisit and re-examine that affair and his still unresolved feelings about it.

Does it work? Not really. I found it a bit unstructured and the long reminiscence section in the middle didn’t really fit. Maybe it’d have worked if it had emerged in smaller sections intermingled with progress in the investigation.

The language used is occasionally odd and it felt like a foreign language novel translated into English. The word geezer was used a lot and rather oddly was spelled geyser. He also used the expression “have something by me” instead of “on me” - which felt like a literal translation of the way it would be said in Dutch or German.

[Tara · Rating 1 out of 5]

I received this book from Edelweiss and the publishers due to the 2020 reboot of Van der Valk on ITV and PBS.

I think some books should be left in the 60s where they belong. This is so dated. I don't want to read casual misogyny. I don't want to know how perky a corpse's breasts are. I don't like the casual references to police brutality.

I honestly thought this book was translated from Dutch at first because it is so clunky, but apparently Freeling is a Brit. Most importantly, this book is boring. I wasn't even interested in who the killer was. It's killed any desire I had to watch the rebooted show and I normally love TV tie-in books.

I did like that it was set in Amsterdam and Freeling had love for the city.

[Bettie · Rating 2 out of 5]

[image error]

Hot Damn! but I used to love the TV series 'back then' - and the theme tune was fab too. Anyway, here are today's details:

Martin's former lover has been murdered. He's the prime suspect and knows something. Van der Valk will winkle out the truth
Broadcast on:
BBC Radio 7, 1:30pm Tuesday 12th January 2010

Very dated.

[Hermien · Rating 3 out of 5]

A bit dated but quite enjoyable.

[Budge Burgess · Rating 4 out of 5]

I recall watching the 'Van der Valk' TV series in the 1970s and not being particularly impressed. I watched the latest incarnation in the 2020s and, again, I was underwhelmed. In the last month I've watched all the 1970s, 1990s and 2020s episodes and was left, frankly, wondering quite why Nicholas Freeling had won such a reputation as a writer. Cue my reading of his first Van der Valk book.
And it leaves me just a tad confused.
Delivered in three sections (no chapters), Van der Valk appears almost as a minor character. A woman has been murdered, a man has been brought in for questioning. He protests his innocence. And the first section of the book presents his initial agreement to 'help the police with their enquiries'. It documents the interrogations he undergoes over several days.
It's very different from the usual run of English cosy - it breaks away from the often clawingly middle class storylines, this is more a psychological enquiry. It's interesting, it's different ... it gets a bit tedious.
And then Freeling takes us into the central third of the book, and we get the backstory, how the relationship developed between victim and suspect. And it is brilliant. Although stylistically nothing like Dostoevsky, it has the genius of Dostoevsky. It is absolutely enthralling.
But we return to the realities of the investigation in part three. Again, Van der Valk is almost a minor character - much of this section is given over to the interaction of suspect and examining magistrate. And it's over-elaborated, it becomes tedious ... then suddenly phases into the denouement as Van der Valk returns to reveal the killer.
And I didn't like the ending - a bit too pat, a bit contrived, especially given the brilliance of the middle section. Had first and third sections come anywhere near as close to the quality of the middle section, this is a book which would have warranted a 5 score - the 1st & 3rd sections barely merit a 3. But the middle is memorable.

[Peggy · Rating 2 out of 5]

I listened to this audiobook. Written in 1962, this is the first Van Der Valk book. I saw some of the TV series and thought this book seemed different than the character I watched. Not as dark. Not as brooding. Van Der Valk is an Amsterdam detective and his style is to chatter nervously, making jokes and random observations. A woman is found shot to death. The police soon zero in on Martin, her ex-lover. He claims that he hadn’t seen her in over 5 years, is married, and never thinks about Elsa, much less killed her. Van Der Valk engages him in what seems like banter, but is really designed to keep Martin off kilter. The first part of the book shows Van Der Valk taking Martin to the crime scene, to the morgue, and whittling away at Martin’s defenses. The book then suddenly transitions to a lengthy retrospective about the dysfunctional and destructive relationship between Martin and Elsa. I found this part a little too long. Then, back to Martin being held by the police. Van Der Valk continues to tell Martin that he does not believe him to be the killer. He gets him to voluntarily agree to a battery of psychological examinations. It seemed like brainwashing torture to me. It was uncomfortable and seemed designed to break Martin and convince him that maybe he did kill Elsa. Finally, Van Der Valk enlists Martin and his wife (who is also a background suspect) in a final ploy to uncover the murderer. I would have given this more stars if the story had more Van Der Valk and less neurotic Martin.

[Carolyn · Rating 1 out of 5]

I've read a number of tedious books this year, and this one takes the cake. I've been watching the 2022 Masterpiece Theater version on PBS (from BBC), and it's excellent, so I thought I'd try to books. Turns out there were at least two other television series and, I think, a movie, and the wonder is that anyone thought this book (and I presume series of books) was worth making into video versions. The character of Van der Valk in the book is almost a complete nonentity. He isn't in many scenes, and we never see him doing anything. He talks a lot. The book consists of three LONG chapters, the middle one of which is completely extraneous to the plot. The main character of the book is not Van der Valk, but rather the chief suspect, who, we know more or less from the start, is innocent, but spends the whole time in jail anyway because, apparently, the police are stupid, have to have someone, and so anyone handy will do. Madness. The real bad guy, when finally "discovered," is someone about whom we never learn anything. Not even his name, or why he did the murder. We are left with Van der Valk's imagination of how and why the murder came about, and I guess we're supposed to just assume he's a genius or something, I don't know what. Since the real culprit dies in the pursuit, we'll never know. This is a terrible mystery. Badly imagined and badly constructed, and, while I will watch a season 4 of the Masterpiece Theater series, I will never read another one of these novels!!

[Mark Lisac · Rating 4 out of 5]

Freeling began his writing career here with all his stylistic quirks firmly in place. If you accept them you have a very nice feast — although it is also an unusual dish that some people will like and some won't. The novel begins with a fairly standard murder investigation, veers into a deep psychological portrait, and finishes with remarkable tension. Along the way Freeling sprinkles in his judgmental and sometimes arcane references to food, art and literature. The characters often speak in a clipped manner that's perceptive and articulate in a highly improbable degree (they usually do in Freeling's books). Van der Valk engages in methods no real-life police inspector would contemplate. The novel's appeal is that it overrides these criticisms; it creates a world in which you can feel the characters' emotions and smell the beer.
Read this again after many years because I saw an episode titled "Love in Amsterdam" from a series called Van der Valk on PBS and suspected it had little to do with the novel. In fact, it had nothing to do with the novel except the title, the Amsterdam setting, and Van der Valk's name (the TV version of the character being pretty much the opposite of the book version in every way). One wonders why they bothered associating the series with the books. It's notable but unsurprising that the novel is individualistic while the TV episode is formulaic, a pastiche of the tastes and conventions of 2020.

[Ruskoley · Rating 3 out of 5]

I have to be honest and say that this is a difficult novel to review and rate. It makes sense that readers seem to be a bit polar opposite in their feelings toward it.

The difficulties in discussing this novel begin straightaway because this is a crime novel but the bulk of it is really a psychological non-thriller. Definitely a very slow-burn, as they say. Being honest, there were plenty of points that I would have given this, just barely, a weak 2-star rating. My reaction immediately upon finishing the novel was that it was a 4-star novel, for sure, and certainly the author is underrated and incredibly talented.

The novel is divided, unequally, into three sections. The first seems choppy, but is readable. The second section is, obviously, the part that loses readers. If readers are going to quit or complain – it is definitely in this second section. It is such a slog. It repeats the entire history of the relationship between Martin and the deceased.

Anyway, this is a slow, slow-burning noir. It looks at unpleasant people and their obsessions and connections in their unhealthy relationship. Guilt and revenge and stubbornness are examined. That whole immensely tiring middle section of the novel is horrible to have to read through. However, once its read, it fits perfectly and makes the weight of the novel and gives the characters a reality that otherwise would not be there. It is a well developed investigation of what was a gross relationship.