Customer Reviews

Sundays at Tiffany's

5 star:		(92)
4 star:		(62)
3 star:		(42)
2 star:		(57)
1 star:		(53)

 

 

Eight-year-old Jane Margaux is the daughter of a chic and famous Broadway producer. And since her mother is always busy producing musical hits and her father is mostly vacationing with his new trophy wife in Nantucket, she seems to spend a whole lot of time on her own. That's all right though, because Michael, her imaginary friend, is always there. But what's going to happen to her when Michael leaves her after her ninth birthday? He doesn't want to leave her, but he must. Alas, she won't remember him anyway, so it doesn't matter. Michael is somewhere in his early to mid thirties -- a handsome man with magnetic green eyes. His job is to be a child's imaginary friend for a while. He cannot be seen by grownups during these assignments. Then he lives a semi-normal life whenever he's on sabbatical. Twenty-three years later, he sees Jane again. She's a grownup now, working on turning her musical production into a feature film. The play is based on her relationship with Michael. She has never been able to forget her imaginary friend, no matter what he had told her. Her life is sort of a mess -- a controlling mother, an actor boyfriend who is using her, and an imaginary friend she can't seem to get off her mind. What happens when Jane and Michael are face to face after so many years? And how is it possible that this man -- someone she had thought was a figment of her imagination -- is actually real?

Sundays at Tiffany's reminds me of The Velveteen Rabbit, where the boy's love makes the rabbit real. James Patterson got the help of Gabrielle Charbonnet, a children's book writer, to create this modern-day romantic fantasy. The love story itself is simple and beautiful. I have to admit, however, that the whole concept of a man falling in love with a woman he had been close to when she was a child seemed kind of creepy at first, but Patterson handles it well. This is one of Patterson's love stories, not one of his thrillers, and his tear-jerkers have always reminded me of Nicholas Sparks. The one big difference is that Sparks's novels seem to be targeted to older, middle-aged/elderly readers, whereas Patterson's books are based on younger characters and therefore more fun. I give this book three stars because I couldn't quite understand Michael's job very well. The explanation is insufficient. Also, the whole thing with Jane's mother strikes me as strange. Isn't this the woman who forgot her daughter's ninth birthday? And I can't get over how short this book is. With the giant font size on 309 pages (with some empty pages in between a few of the chapters), this is more like a novella, sold at the price of a full-length novel. I really, really hate it when publishers do that. So greedy. Other than that, Sundays at Tiffany's is an enchanting novel, but I'd wait for the paperback or bargain price edition. The overpriced hardcover gets 0 stars, the story itself gets three stars.

This is a very cute idea of a story. Yes, a little far fetched but hey, what fairytale type Cinderella, isn't. It was well written, though I didn't expect anything less with James Patterson's name on it. Always loved the extremely short chapters. I love to stop at a new chapter which is one of the reasons the short chapters are so great, yet at the same time I always find myself saying, "Just one more chapter". Especially because they're so short.

This book was fast paced. I couldn't wait to see what happened, next. Loved the characters, and how everything played out. I read some not so nice reviews about the whole "imaginary friend" thing. All's I have to say is, get over it. It's a wonderful fictional love story. Kind of like finding the prince charming ever little girls dreams of. And really, haven't these people been taught...If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything!

I loved this heartwarming story. It's now been added to my favorites list of James Patterson books along with, Suzanne's Diary to Nicholas. Both are stories that will stay with me forever.

James Patterson has tried centering a whole novel around a gimic that doesn't work...at least not for me. I enjoyed the beginning of the novel when Jane is a young girl. Very believeable and touching. I also enjoyed the character of Jane as an adult. Patterson's heroine is extremely likeable. And, actually, I truly liked the hero, Michael, as well. The problem for me isn't the characters of Jane and Michael, per se, as much as how childish the gimic of their relationship becomes half-way through. I can usually suspend my disbelief pretty well as a reader, but this just didn't work for me. Midway through, I started to feel I was reading a pre-teen paranormal novel. I was internally rolling my eyes during the last half of the book. I love a love story, but this one just left me disappointed. My husband asked me what I thought after I closed the book, and all I could answer was, "Stupid."

Warning: this is not for James Patterson fans addicted to Alex Cross. Think of his romantic novellas like Suzanne's Diary for Nicholas and if you liked that, you'll be more inclined to like this one. However, even though I am perfectly willing to suspend reality and slip into fantasy mode when necessary, I do expect the fantasy to be logical and well thought out---in other words, a realistic fantasy, one that could be possible in a dream-come-true world. This one fails on that score.

The most endearing part of the novel is Jane as the poor little rich girl. Her divorced mother is too busy for her and constantly belittles Jane for her weight and just about everything else. Her absent father has little purpose other than showing up occasionally to disappoint her. No wonder young Jane slips into Fantasy Land and is only too happy to have Michael, her imaginary friend, become her best and only friend. This concept works well, especially for the hundreds of adults who might recall with fondness their own imaginary friend from childhood. It is only when the adult Jane reconnects with Michael that the novel becomes a bit creepy and all logic is lost. Apparently, the authors had a wonderful idea of telling the story of an imaginary friend, but didn't take the time to work out answers to the details of his life---details like why he doesn't age, how he explains his occupation to the real-world adults he associates with between assignments, his status as angel or not, etc. Michael's character, one that could have been truly wonderful, is just not that well thought out. Even Michael doesn't know the answers.

If one of my children had written this when they were eight or nine, I would have praised their creativity in coming up with such a plot. But a distinguished writer like James Patterson owes his adult audience a book with a more well-defined parameters. Even fantasies have to make sense on some level.

Extremely light-weight fantasy about a poor little rich girl with an imaginary friend who grows up to be a poor little rich young woman who meets her imaginary friend again and falls in love all over again. Happy ending. Yahoo.

There is virtually no character development of either of the two main characters, Jane and Michael, and absolutely no explanation of who, what or how Michael is,or how he got to be that way, or why Jane still remembers him when all other children of imaginary grown-up playmates promptly forget about their imaginary friends when they turn 9 and the imaginary friend must leave for another "assignment" according to the "rules".

This ground was covered in much greater depth and with much greater poignancy in the film "City of Angels" or the book on which it was based, "Wings of Desire". The only James Patterson in evidence is his trademark 2-page chapters. There is no suspense or tension, or conflict or resolution. Or explanation. Only "... and they lived happily ever after". Presumably this was plotted and written mostly by the co-author, Gabrielle Charbonnet, with coaching on the chapter structure by Patterson.

All in all, very disappointing.

The good about the book:

1.) Interesting premise regarding imaginary friends.
2.) Quick read. 300 pages that probably should have been 150 in normal cirumstances.
3.)A lot of "aww" moments within the love story.

The BAD:

1.) Older imaginary friend has lover. Michael, knew Jane as a child for 5 years (from 4-9). Yet he falls head over heels in love with her after knowing her as an adult for 2 days? Isn't it once you know someone as a kid, they're always a kid to you? Everytime it's mentioned about him noticing her acting childlike "she had a child's curiosity.", it made me cringe.

2.) Stereotypical characters. Jane's Mom is overbearing and super critical. Michael is the perfect man, stereotypically, think of what the perfect man is to a woman (good listener, sensitive, loves kids, handsome, good in bed, loves your flaws). Perfect is boring, Michael is boring. He has no weight as a character whatsoever. Jane, is miserable without a good man in her life to show her how to live and run her life. Ugh.

3.) Never explained imaginary friend position. Michael is an imaginary friend but he lives and interacts as any other person, BUT he can be invisible when he wants to, snaps to get money. Huh? When Jane asks him he says "I don't know." I don't know either.

All in all, it's ok.

Let me preface this by saying I usually don't write book reviews. I generally believe that books are really an individual choice, and that each person gets something personal from reading it that can't be realized until they've experienced it for themselves. That being said, I felt the need to comment on this book because of how shocked and disappointed it left me.

I got "Sundays at Tiffany's" in paperback form at a local store (luckily, it was only $5). My favorite authors are mystery writers - Harlan Coben, Michael Connelly, etc. I don't read Patterson's work but know he has numerous hit books under his belt. The title of this book and front cover art caught my eye. After reading the back cover and the premise of the story, I was immediately intrigued. I loved the idea of a little magic, a little romance, a little Peter Pan-esque mythical escape for 350 pages. The reality of it is, I could hardly finish it - and it's really very short!

There are so many unquestioned answers, so many loose ends and things left unexplained that I don't even know where to start. Who... or what... was Michael? How did he do what he did? Was he of this world? Of another world? Why is it that when Jane was a child, no one but her could see him, yet when he encounters her again as an adult, other people could see him? Was he was still "imaginary"? How do imaginary people have sex and live in apartments? The idea of him was lovely but ridiculously underdeveloped. Even the character of Jane would ask him the questions that the reader wanted to know, but he could not answer. I fully expected everything to be explained by the end of the book. I mean, surely the author would not propose questions that she did not intend to answer. Surely, I am not the author because not a single answer was given by the last page. And, because nothing was answered, you didn't know what to make of Michael, which made his entire relationship with Jane somewhat creepy and not at all romantic. Throw in very amateur dialogue and a highly repetitive writing style and it turns into an enormous mess.

It's obvious that Gabrielle Charbonnet wrote this book with little or no help from a seasoned professional like James Patterson. His name on the cover sells books. I imagine his involvment ends there. Ms. Charbonnet's biography says that she writes children's books, and from the way this one turned out, it's glaringly obvious. She should probably stick to that instead.

Needless to say, this book is very poor and I can't recommend it.

First of all, James Patterson did not write this. He couldn't have. Being a published author myself, it is impossible for writers to put out 2-3 books a year like he supposedly does. I suspect the publisher is merely slapping his name on it and leaving the co-author to write the book as evidenced by the quality of this book. The plot line is an interesting premise but the characterization, plot and language is very one-dimensional and dumbed down. I wish Patterson would pick up a pen again and start writing good quality stuff instead of making a profit from his co-authors. Shame on you, Mr. Patterson, for becoming a commodity.

My goodness, where do I begin?
The mystical, the love, the breathtaking everything. What's not to love? Maybe it's because I have a very vivid imagination, but I FELT as if it were me in the story. It was very good, and I wish Mr. Patterson would write more stories like this one. It's marvelous. btw, Michael was supa dupa hot in my mind, so it wasn't to freakish that he would marry me (lol) as an adult, even though knowing me as a child. There's something eternally just SWEET about the whole thing. At least, you know for sure divorce isn't in their future. That kind of love is forever.

I really hated this book ... It was so sappy and artificial I could hardly get through it. A friend loaned it to me who loved it, and honestly I just don't get it.
I thought the idea of the story wasn't so bad, so I guess I kept expecting it to get better. It never did. The "romantic" parts were totally unbelievable and just stupid. Even the characters didn't seem convincing ... I'm sorry, but no straight man would ever rollerblade through Manhattan listening to Corinne Bailey Ray.
If you liked the concept of the book, I highly recommend "The Time Traveler's Wife" instead of this shallow waste of time. Time Traveler is one of the most romantic stories I've ever read about timeless love and is in a class far above Sundays At Tiffany's.