Reviews for paperback have been mixed, in the sense each one (with an exception), have given with one hand only to take back with the other. The problem is that it's being reviewed by crime reviewers and half the time they wonder why they've been given a book like mine to review. You can read their perplexity. It's my fault, a novel with a detective, a stolen painting, police procedure ought to be a crime novel. A novel with a plot to retrieve a great painting from the mafia underworld should be a thriller (a sub genre of the crime novel). If you read the novel as either of these things and only these things, it will disappoint. If you read it for both, but enjoy a novel grounded in ideas, you should be satisfied. Most have done the former; only one the later. The Glasgow Herald:

'The novel starts slowly, but builds layer by layer into an atmospheric thriller, saturated with intelligence, culture and superb characterisation.'

Note the first clause – responsive patience clearly rewards.

In fairness I should post some of the negative stuff, but it's really just this first clause as the whole criticism.