Wow! Loved this book! ( )

I really enjoyed this book. It was a fun quick read just when I needed something light. It is the story of a girl/woman and her imaginary friend, Michael. A little drop dead, a little time travelers wife-ish. ( )

Not a big fan...the book does not deserve to have Tiffany's in the title. I was not impressed with Patterson's work. ( )

“I miss you already.”


This light and lovely piece of fiction has more in common with Robert Nathan’s tender stories from the 1930s and 1940s than it does modern day romances. It is a charming but nearly undefinable romantic novel which is light and breezy, yet touches the heart. I’m usually not a big fan of Patterson, and have to wonder if co-author Gabrielle Charbonnet (Cate Tiernan) did more of the actual writing here, working from an outline and story provided by Patterson. At any rate, both receive credit for an old-style romantic fantasy marred only by one scene, which I’ll talk about later in the review.

Having seen the film starring Alyssa Milano a couple of years ago, I finally got around to reading this. I wish I’d opted to read it much sooner, because it is utterly charming. The basic premise is that those imaginary friends some children have are actually angels that only they can see. These angels exist to make it easier for a child to fit into the world, so they’ll feel less alone, and won’t be afraid. Michael is such an angel, and one of his assignments is little Jane Margaux, the lonely daughter of an overbearing and famous mother. Why Jane needs an angel during her youth is hinted at early on as her mother takes a bow onstage after a performance:

“I stood up too, and clapped the hardest, and I loved her so much I could hardly bear it. Someday she would love me back just as much, I was sure of it.”

There is something special about Michael’s connection to Jane, and hers to him. At the age of nine, when he has to move on, she is supposed to forget him, as all the others have. But she doesn’t. He continues his “work” for twenty-three years. He lives as normal humans do between “assignments” and everyone can see him. He boxes and enjoys life, but never forgets Jane. Though nowhere near as resonant, this is definitely Robert Nathan-land, at least in conception. There is nothing even remotely tawdry or inappropriate in tone, nor is there anything "creepy" about the story as some have suggested. This is rather an old-fashioned and innocent otherworldly fantasy, updated to modern times. It would have been quite at home in a more innocent, less uber-sensitive-to-everything era.

Years pass. Michael spots the grown up Jane (now in her early thirties) and is flabbergasted. In all the years — hundreds, thousands? — he’s been doing this, he’s never run into one of his former assignments as an adult. He observes that poor little Jane is still getting hurt; by her mother, Vivienne, and by a loser boyfriend named Hugh. Because we get moments from both Jane’s and Michael’s viewpoint, we know that unlike all the others, Jane never forgot Michael. Once they meet again, it is new territory for Michael, who realizes there must be a reason she didn’t forget him, and that reason could be heartbreaking.

Sweet and hopeful, and with a very special ending that fills the heart, this is almost a throwback story from another era. But there is a caveat. Either Patterson had some formula he wanted his co-author to adhere to, or one or both of these writers didn’t trust that modern readers would accept a romantic fantasy without a fully described sex scene.

I’m perfectly fine with sexual intimacy in "some" books, "some" series, especially if it’s beautifully realized, sensual or sexy. I myself write a series where sensuality is a major component to the visualized dystopian world I've created, but it happens to fit that story, that world. I understand, as an author, that even if you write a series that has no sex, graphically described or otherwise, but has interaction between the sexes, that someone will take exception in the current male-unfriendly climate. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not doing that at all.

It's unfair to criticize any book for being true to its genre, but I'm doing the exact opposite here; I'm criticizing the scene because it was very untrue to its genre. It's obvious that a lot of readers had not read the type of story from the 30s and 40s that Sunday at Tiffany's aspires to be. But I had, and that's why in this particular instance, the sex scene, which is relatively mild, but graphically described, is contrary to the old-fashioned romantic fantasy genre to which Sunday at Tiffany's is paying homage. If the author(s) had not done such a nice job up to that point in the story, it would be okay, but because they had, the sex scene inserted here just did not belong, not in the type of story they'd created. It didn't fit with the narrative which had preceded it at all. It felt so out of place for anyone familiar with this older style of story that it was jarring, taking the reader out of the older romantic fantasy and pulling them back into the modern world from which the story had been an escape.

Having become immersed into the grove and older style of the story, when I suddenly came upon the scene, it took me completely by surprise. It felt like something dropped in by parachute from a different book — or perhaps from a James Patterson formula? It was totally unexpected, like a slap in the face with a wet towel. Not because it was tawdry, or badly written, or unduly explicit; but because it was there, in THIS type of story.

These authors (or perhaps just Patterson, who most likely didn’t have time to write it by himself) wanted to tell an old-fashioned, Robert Nathan-like story, but I had to wonder if either of these authors had ever actually read one of Nathan’s books. To give readers an idea of how awkward that scene felt within this sweet and magical narrative, imagine Robert Nathan's Portrait of Jennie with an explicit sex scene between Eben and Jennie. Yeah, it was like that. Either fortunately, or maddeningly — I’ve still yet to decide — it was only a blip on the radar, and the ending was so lovely and heartwarming it almost made up for it. Almost.

This is still a wonderful read, and I highly recommend it. However, “formula” over appreciation for a style, a certain type of story and its mood, and its boundaries, force me to give Sunday at Tiffany’s four stars rather than the five I wanted to give it. Charming and wonderful overall, but it just missed being timeless because it was afraid to remain true to its origins, and the type of story to which it was paying homage. ( )

This was a really cute book. Cute romance, interesting story. I like it, but a lot references to famous actors, movies and shows, as well as New York City spots and streets. Some I was familiar with, some not, but it didn't diminish the enjoyment of the book. ( )