This book appealed to my wishful thinking element of life. The what if factor. Yet, the over simplification of the characters and ultimately the story, disappointed. I was not surprised at the twists the authors introduced; many were predictable. Jane and Michael are very likable as main characters and Vivienne as the mother is equally unlikable. The book is rather black and white. Towards the end of the story, the characters form different attitudes that help bridge their relationships, but it is very sudden and somewhat unbelievable.

For fans of Pattersons lighter novels, the book is a bit of a letdown. It is a decent beach read, easily finished in one or two days. It is not a book to dwell upon long after finishing.

I wasn't impressed with the book and I don't recommend it. Imaginary friend coming to life, like whatever.Carry on.

I haven't read James Patterson before, so maybe that's why I so enjoyed this sweet, romantic, clever novel. I had no expectations whatsoever. This book is very easy to read. My 12 year old daughter wants to read it next. As I read it, I felt like I was watching a really wonderful movie...couldn't wait to find out what would happen next as I turned the pages. It's light and simple but very intriguing at the same time. I will highly recommend this book to all my reading friends.

What a beautiful way to spend a weekend reading this fairy tale. The book is enchanting, lovable and very sweet. A beautiful love story that transcends time and space. Too bad I do not remember if I had an imaginary friend, I would have loved to have one like Michael. if you are a romantic you will love this book.

First I'd like to make it clear that I love fantasy. However, I read better fairy tales when I was a child. This book was written at about the 3rd grade level.

While forcing myself to finish, because I could easily see where it was going, I skimmed through much of the book.

Don't waste your time.

This book is okay; pretty good. If you want something to read in a couple of hours (I read it in about 6), it's carrying enough (I won't say particularly engaging or absorbing). Certainly more than decent, though there are some things about imaginary friends that aren't explained.


I enjoyed reading it.

James Patterson is one of my favorite authors. This book was a complete surprise, it was unlike any book he has ever written. I couldn't put it down, and I loved the story very much. This idea for a story was a great one, and I would recommend this book to anyone

This book was terrible. The writing was uninspired, the characters were one-dimensional and there was no scene-setting what so ever. If you are looking for a great love story with wild twists - try The Time Traveler's Wife, you won't be disappointed.

This was not usual James Patterson material. I found it very endearing and sad at times. The book proves he can write just about anything.

I loved this book. What a great idea! It was so sweet, the main character is loveable and you can't help but to cheer her on when she finally begins to realize her self-worth. I actually caught myself saying things out loud while I was reading! (I have a psychiatry appointment on Monday) It is a touching story with an original premise. The characters are very believable. After all folks this is a "fictional" piece of literature, not a biographical piece. If you can't believe in your fictional story lines, what's next - telling us that Santa and the Easter Bunny are fakes too? Great story, quick and light read. This is a wonderful companion for beach or poolside reading. If you have read any of Patterson's other love stories, like Suzanne's letters to Nicholas or Sam's letters to Jennifer, you will also enjoy this book

The old man has gone soft. Or he's getting more in touch with his feminine side. Either those or maybe he's just trying to capitalize on all ends of the market - his Alex Cross novels are still selling like hotcakes, pulling in both men and women but how to capitalize on the other segment of the market, the women who aren't into thrillers? Oh, yes, write several sad, sappy books ala Nicholas Sparks but shorter.

It's not horrible but it's predictable. You won't need a box of hankies for this one or a brightly lit room.

The tale of a little girl and her imaginary friend falling in love. Yeah I didn't actually read the first half of this novel as being literally an imaginary friend falling in love with a little girl I read this as Michael being a real person in everyone but Jane's mind. So I read it as him being the hired babysitter/minder/father because the mother only wanted the child (Jane) as a toy/accessory to play with when she felt like it and left the rest up to her employee Michael. That's why he was never acknowledged by most other adults (Jane does say in the child years chapters he can sometimes been seen by some, she assumes it is when he wants them too) as Jane wasn't seen as important by the mum so its not necessary to have a conversation with the employee fake father about her day or whatever. Therefore no one else talks to him as he's not important. I read it as Michael either was a member of pedophile club or something that had rules that you had to leave when they reach a certain age so they won't remember you and it is also time to move onto someone younger. Either that or that's the maximum age the company he works for allows their customers children to be for staff to look after them.

So yeah I assumed he was a bit of villain who had maybe come to literally believe he was an imaginary guy over the years through living the lie that is the fantasy story from the Jane years and years after. The low self esteem of Jane was why she still believed he was an imaginary guy and why he was the ideal soul mate for her.

But the second half of the novel sort of makes you believe maybe he is supposed to be literally imaginary and which becomes certainly an unsatisfactory development from the former story as you were hoping he'd get his comeuppance, although the actual story is still pretty creepy. I mean if he literally was a substitute father figure how would any romantic thoughts about Jane enter his mind at all. This is like those creepy midday American shows you see where some stepfather starts sleeping with his daughter and justifies it's okay because their not related by blood.

What I think happened was James Patterson did write the initial skeleton of this and submitted it to the publishers with the Michael character being a real man. Then the publishers said " Yeah James, it'll sell well as anything with your name does, but you know you haven't released anything to sort of cater for the Suzanne's Diary for Nicholas fans for a while and you know that's a pretty profitable market." "Well I don't think I can write anything in that genre that's going to be as good at that, I mean look at the disaster that was Sam's Letters to Jennifer, I'm still getting demands for refunds from customers all the time on that book you know, I just don't have it in me to produce another quality book in that genre," James replied. "Okay then, well.., we've got this children's author Gabrielle Charbonnet trying to crack into the adult market, you know why I don't forward her your story and she'll finish it and make some changes, why you don't concentrate on another Alex Cross novel or something instead?" "Well ahhh okay," James replied.

To give the book its credit, it is an easy flowing story that's easy to read and you do have the keep turning the pages factor to see what's going to happen next helped by the very short James Patterson norm of chapter length. Where it fails though if Michael was actually supposed to be imaginary is that he should have really been around the same age as Jane when she was a child as it's just plain wrong otherwise. Some of Jane's actions contradicted her character at time like she has the confidence to work in a homeless shelter and get extra bananas and things for a lady making racist comments to her because she's mature and above that. But then gets so freaked out at some comment her boyfriend makes and you're also wondering why she's even in this situation if she's independent to work in a homeless shelter. Plus you wonder why her loyal secretary who was obviously listening in on a major argument in the book with ex boyfriend didn't stick up for her and tell her mum what really happened. Plus why did Michael have an apartment in New York if he only gets one or two weeks off between assignments that last years and years?

The ending is also to childish and not realistic and also sort of re-enforces the old thoughts of Michael as a pedophile and not an actual imaginary character when he's with his new client with the word "Michael was tempted to teach her something that he would call the Aggi-and-Michael game, but he resisted his urge" I know this could refer to a similar make fun of and pretend we know what the conversations of other tables are but still comes across as creepy.

I wait with baited breath to see that James Patterson has written a new noval. He his my new John Grisham.(who I wait for with baited breath too) I love how his easy reading is. I usually read before I go to bed in the AM (work nights) so I can always know I haven't missed anything. wake up missing my place in the book but can always find it with him without reading back several pages back. will read this book and get back to ya.

This is the James Patterson writing I love. It captured my interest from the first page. I couldn't put it down til I was finished.

James Patterson has done it again and written a love story that will make you laugh and cry to the very last page.

I used to adore James Patterson's books. Alex Cross was a dynamic personality, a genius in tracking down criminals, yet also human and possessed such kindness. It seems as if James Patterson is totally burnt out. Every book of his now has to have co-writers who, I suspect, are in fact the main writers. This will definitely be the LAST book I buy IF Alex Cross is out of the picture.
This book, Sunday at Tiffany's is such an absurd book that it is an insult to his readers. It deserves NO star at all. I wonder what has happended to Patterson to lend his name as the author of this book. Has he lost his sense of judgement?

This is unreadable. It is like no other James Patterson book. Be careful buying Patterson books with a co-author. They are just latching his name on for a pay day. Save your money this is his worst book ever.

The book was very enjoyable. Quick and easy reading. A nice "getaway" from studying. L.Rasmussen

I just found James Patterson's Alex Cross. I judge his demonstrated ability to describe the scene, ambience, characters, and feelings in incredibly few word. Tension is constant even during moments of contemplation.

This book is equally well written. I guess you could call it a "juvenile", but this old man loved it.

Buy it, read it, and give it to you teens - even younger.

What a disappointment! Looks like the considerable talents of Mr. Patterson have been wasted on a silly romantic fantasy.Sundays at Tiffany's Not worth the effort. Definitely not up to the standards set by the Women's Murder Club.The 6th Target (Women's Murder Club) You've been warned.

I'm very surprised to see such different views on this book. I thought it was great. I don't give out 5 stars often and this one is a definite 5!

... James Patterson's name is on it. Sweet and touching in the beginning, this one takes a "flyer" that is 'way outside the realm of even fanciful fantasy. What a crashing disappointment! What's worse, it makes me think that James and his friend, Gabrielle, are really "funning" with us to find out just how much drivel we will lap up before yelling, "Enough"! By gosh, we're tried and true fans out here, and we've loyally bought book after book, through good and bad; waited out your slumps and celebrated your returns to the groove we love so well. And, we were ready for something different - we think it's okay when you deviate from your norm. We liked Suzanne's Diary and Sam's Letters - but what on earth were you thinking with this one? This one is a waste of time and money, unfortunately. I wish I'd saved my money and pre-ordered your next book. Yeah, once a fan, always a fan, no matter what.

I enjoy all of James Pattersons books. I like to try to figure who done it!!!! I am surprised sometimes by the ending and can't wait for his next book. Thank you, Mary L.

Let me start by saying, I love James Patterson books. Now let me add BUT...I found this a little disturbing because Micheal was a grown man when she was 8-Imaginary or not it still seemed wrong. Had Micheal been 8 in the begining and aged as she did I could have enjoyed the story much more and maybe not been so creeped out.

It was creative, but not what I have come to expecct and apprecite from James Patterson

It's hard to believe that Patterson had anything at all to do with this awful book. Written at a grade school level and featuring flat characters, stupid dialogue, and a slightly creepy "love story" between a professional imaginary friend and a grown up former client, I made myself finish it only because I paid too much for the miserable thing. Zero stars warranted.

I was dissapointed with this book. I never did figure out if Michael was real or not. I would not recommend this book.

This book gets an A- because it was:

A) Different story, not a recycled one
B) Couldn't put it down
C) Light, easy reading

I think the poor ratings I've seen on this book is because a lot of James Patterson fans were expecting something similar to his past books. From what I read of the other bad reviews, everyone seemed disappointed that this book came from Patterson.

Setting that aside, let's assume that someone else wrote this book. Suspend your belief and read it for what it is. The book is about a little girl who has an imaginary friend, Michael, who she loves. He leaves her on her 9th birthday and she spends the rest of her life missing him even though she moves on without him.

Now, as far as imaginary friends go, once he leaves they are both supposed to forget about each other eventually. Yet she doesn't. And neither does he. In the imaginary friend circle, if you're an imaginary friend, you get recycled. Going from one child to the next, but you get breaks in between. Eventually you forget them.

The book doesn't delve into the whole imaginary friend world. Like who created them, how did they come into existence, or whatnot. You just have to fill in the blanks as the author doesn't tell you. I can see how some readers might even be annoyed by this.

Employment as an imaginary friend allows you to conjure up money at will as money does not motivate imaginary friends. That is how they are able to rent apartments and pay for cab fare when they are on breaks in between assignments. Like I said, suspend your belief. If you can get past this, you should enjoy this book. If you can't, you go into the camp of people who hate this book.

Think about it. Hollywood puts out tons of movies with totally crazier things. Remember that John Travolta movie, Michael, about an angel? So, what if the story is totally believable about real life and there is one very odd thing about it that makes it sound unreal? That is what you get when you read fiction.

I don't want to do a full book synopsis because what's the point in reading the book then? In a nutshell, 2 people find each other against all odds (sounds cliche', but it is) and they go through it as they find out more about themselves and each other.

This is such an easy read, you can read it on a Saturday and finish. It is a cute and easy book. If you don't like cute, don't read this.

I bought this in CD format was loved the voices rendered to the story telling of this sweet story. I liked it so much that I'm ordering a hardback for my library and passing on the CD to my friend. Of course it's a fantasy, but so is Star Wars and Indiana Jones..... I liked them also. I loved the characters in this story... you have to have a good group to make a story work and with Jane, Michael, Jane's looser boyfriend, and her mother, there-in sits the grouping for a great cast of dysfunctionals. How will they pull it together? I couldn't wait each day to get in my car to "read" a bit more of James Patterson's newest book. I am really shocked by some of the negative reviews. I truly loved "Sundays at Tiffany's" and give it my highest rating and recommendation. Please give it a chance and I think you will be pleasantly pleased. JMHO //(*_*)\\

Very unusual. Not nearly as good as Sams Letters for Jeniffer or Suzanne's Diary for Nicholas. Leaves you thinking though. I had some thoughts about what this imaginary friend meant to an adult. This thought came about two weeks after finishing book. Might be good fodder for discussion for a book club.

I am reading all of James Patterson's books, in the order written, but I skipped to this one because I have enjoyed his heartwarming ones in the past. In my opinion, this was not his best work. Aside from the theme being farfetched, his dialogues between characters were corny and uninteresting. Of the Patterson books I have read thus far, this one was my least favorite.

I loved this book. It was unpredictable and imaginative. Something different and quick and easy to read. I would definately recommend it.

I'm not the kind of person who can no finish a book, but this one really put me to the test. The plot was absurd and I found it impossible to care about any of the characters. The book is written around a simple idea and I was already sick of after the first few chapters. The character development is shallow, the plot is predictable, and the ending is all rushed and underwhelming. I usually sell my books after finishing them but I would hate to be the vehicle through which some other unwitting fool find themselves reading this awful book. I threw it in the trash - and I've NEVER done that to a book before.

As I read Sunday's at Tiffany's, (it may go down for me as the worst book I've ever read), I wondered what happened to the author of titles like Along Came a Spider, Kiss the Girls and several other books. If James Patterson did wtite this book - shame on him because his reading audience deserved better and if he didn't write this drivel, shame on him for duping his reading public. I have been a fan of Patterson's for many years and while I have always enjoyed his Alex Cross series, I also always read his other titles too. But in recent years with the addition of co-authors, I have felt my enjoyment going downhill. And now comes Sunday's at Tiffany's with a ridiculous premise, weak characters and enough name dropping to be completely annoying.

I urge you not to buy this book and even would say don't bother reading this book unless you are lost on an island with nothing else in sight.

Sorry, Mr.Patterson but for me your books need to shape up, or I will be reading other author's books way before yours.

I enjoyed every minute of this new James Patterson novel...I received it via the mail at 10am and literally could not put it down..finished it by 10pm the same day...Although I love his Alex Cross series, I also find his "softer" side equally engaging...if you haven't read Sam's Letters to Jennifer or Suzanne's Diary for Nicholas, you are surely missing out on the other side of James Patterson...Definitely give Sundays at Tiffany's a read...You won't regret it! Mr. Patterson, thank you again.

I normlly like a light romance for a change and I have enjoyed his other books but this book has got to be the worst one i ever read. The premise is not realistic - an imaginary friend who is real? He comes back and ends up real. I don't mind a little bit of non-reality but this was horrendous. I kept reading it hoping it would be better but it never did. Skip this book!

The book was good but !The story got a little
far fetched in the middle.
I have read most of Patterson's works with other authors
and really liked them . This was not as good as some of them.
I guess he became human in the end and Happly everafter
was the plot. It took some doing to get there but some of
it was out there .I have read better from him!!

I would gladly review this item if I wasn't stupid and ordered it in cassettes not cd's

Although any book with James Patterson's name seems to shoot to the top of the New York Times Book Review (as Sundays at Tiffany's has), be forewarned that the only apparent connection to James Patterson is the ink on the cover where his name appears. The author, Gabrielle Charbonnet, is a children's book writer and this book was written for a third grader. The publisher's synopsis makes the premise intriguing but that synopsis was better than the entire book. Beware!

James Patterson breaks the paradigm again. He is probably one of the most gruesome thrill writers and yet he surprises again with this book. I listened to it on cd and I give 4 stars to the reader. The story has elements that disturbed my senses but in all it was a pleasant story and easy listening. If you are looking for a feel good summer read or a gift for someone then this book will serve either purpose.

Very good book. With an unorthodox approach, the story was full of pleasant surprises.

I had hopes for this story because I like the premise of a girl's imaginary friend returning to her when she's grown up and because of the title's obvious echo of another great, wistful story, Breakfast at Tiffany's. Jane, the girl and woman in question here, doesn't come with a short supply of longing. She is a soul overlooked or beat on emotionally since childhood, yet she has the tolerance of a speed bag. She is clever (a little too much beyond her years as a child) and funny, so I took to her right away. Michael, her imaginary friend, is also likable but is more of a mystery. Again, too much so, I thought, considering that half the book is told from his point of view. Being so ill-defined meant that his abilities could be conveniently sprung upon the reader, just in the nick of time. This I found irritating in a contrived, deus ex machina sort of way.

In fact, after Jane and Michael meet up again for the second time--after they kiss for the first time, really--the story's tension ratchets itself up with nearly audible mechanistic predictability. Now that boy's got girl, he's gotta lose her. And from his own uncharacteristic lack of insight, as it turns out. I didn't believe it. Neither did I believe Jane's mother when the two women resolved their differences. But at that point, sentimentality took over and I just went with it. And that's the kicker; the story is sweet. Cute. Darling, even. It just lacks individuality. It is merely another fairy tale in which magic, rather than the depth of human character, saves the day.

Jane is a lovely 32-year-old woman with an overbearing, highly critical mother and a gorgeous, insincere boyfriend. The best times of her life were indisputedly spent with her beloved Michael...her imaginary childhood friend, who saved her from years of loneliness when her mother viewed her as simply an inconvenience. And although Michael has been gone from her life for the better part of 23 years, he has never been absent from her heart...a decidedly unusual thing, since children are supposed to forget their imaginary friends immediately when they have to move on to another child that needs them....
On the heels of her hugely successful Broadway play Thank Heaven, Jane is basking in the afterglow. It is, after all about a little girl and her imaginary friend...somewhat autobiographical, certainly. When Jane spots the love of her life in one of their favorite haunts--the St. Regis--she is in disbelief. Can it really be Michael? Is he real--or is she losing her mind? And more importantly....what is her doing here now?

A nice story, but falling far short of that fabulous tear-jerker, Suzanne's Diary For Nicholas. Although JP has tried, in my opinion he has never quite recaptured that magic in this genre. In this delightful tale, however, he comes closer that he has in quite some time.


DYB

Reviewed by Tyler R. Tichelaar for Reader Views (3/08)

The title of "Sundays at Tiffany's" recalls "Breakfast at Tiffany's" but the comparisons end there, other than it being a love story, and its main characters are actually somewhat more bizarre than Holly Golightly. The story begins with Jane, about to have her ninth birthday, and her imaginary friend, Michael, a handsome adult male. Jane lives with her mother, a famous Broadway producer and distant parent, whose only quality time with her daughter is on Sundays when they go to Tiffany's to look at jewelry. Jane has almost no relationship with her father, which implies she created Michael as her imaginary friend to replace her absent father.

On Jane's ninth birthday, Michael tells her she is now old enough that he must leave her. Jane is heartbroken by his departure. Michael tells her she will forget him, but she never does. The story then flashes forward to Jane as an adult, living with her mother, trying to turn the play she wrote about her relationship with Michael into a film, and having to fight with her mother and her handsome but obnoxious boyfriend, Hugh, about whether Hugh will get the lead role in the film.

And then, Jane and Michael spot each other. Actually, Michael sees Jane first and follows her around for a few days, fascinated that she is the first child he has served as an imaginary friend whom he has encountered as an adult. Michael turns out not to be imaginary at all, but rather like an invisible Mary Poppins, who helps children gain self-reliance, and then leaves them, apparently also making them forget him. When Jane also sees and recognizes Michael, Michael cannot understand why, unlike other children, she never forgot him. He soon notices other strange things also happening as he and Jane begin to fall in love, creating several complications in their lives.

"Sundays at Tiffany's" is the kind of light fare from which romantic comedy films are made. The book is entertaining, but I felt stronger character development was necessary. All the characters save for Jane and Michael are stereotypes. I'm not sure even Jane and Michael aren't stereotypes. Jane's journey is one of learning to follow her heart and stand up against her mother, yet when she and her mother come to understand each other, it is more her mother's doing than her own. I found it hard to admire Jane, although I sympathized with her frustrations. Michael was rather a disappointment to me. The book alternates without any pattern between first person narration told by Jane, and third person from Michael's viewpoint. Had Michael's sections also been in first person, it would have made him more real and interesting to the reader. I also thought the authors should have been more specific about Michael's past and purpose, something even Michael did not understand. I imagine the authors wanted to make Michael's assignments mysterious, but by more fully realizing what his duties and role were in terms of the bigger picture of his work, he would have been a more fully realized and intriguing character.

"Sundays at Tiffany's" is the first James Patterson novel I have read, and it does not appear to be typical of his writing. I suspect Gabrielle Charbonnet did most of the writing, although Patterson states the idea originated from something his four-year-old son once said. I doubt this book is what most Patterson fans will expect, but female readers looking for a romantic escape will enjoy "Sundays at Tiffany's."

James Patterson is acclaimed for his thrillers, detective series and countless #1 bestsellers, including the Women's Murder Club novels (which were adapted into a television series that aired on ABC) and SUZANNE'S DIARY FOR NICHOLAS, a memorable love story. SUNDAYS AT TIFFANY'S, co-authored with children's book writer Gabrielle Charbonnet, is the latest Patterson effort to have its audience buzzing. While reading, I theorized about which chapters were penned by which writer, or co-written and edited by both. The secret remains just that.

The gift of love is the basis upon which SUNDAYS AT TIFFANY'S develops a tender yet magical story. For anyone who has not experienced the wonder of an imaginary friend, the authors fill the pages with this real possibility. Imaginary friends appear and disappear, filling the needs of children who lack comfort and playful companionship. Jane Margaux, a lonely little eight-year-old girl, spends Sundays with her mother, Vivienne, window shopping at Tiffany's jewelry store. But Vivienne, a successful Broadway theater producer, fills her time with production and boyfriends rather than Jane's daily upbringing.

Michael --- who is in his 30s, witty, funny and handsome --- is Jane's diligent imaginary companion. He is steady, and a rock for her insecurities. Their favorite treat together is a scrumptious double-scooped coffee ice cream sundae, heaped with drizzles of hot fudge sauce. Michael's most painful day occurs when he has to bid the now-nine-year-old farewell and move forward to befriend another child.

According to the authors, children mature and forget about their past securities. Like the worn-out blanket dragged behind in "Peanuts" stories, the make-believe companion becomes a discarded memory. However, Jane carries Michael into her future when, at 31, she immortalizes his memory in her theatrical production Thank Heaven. The play is a smash hit and will be brought to the silver screen.

Hugh McGrath is a deliciously handsome actor with ambition to play Michael in the movie. He has wooed Jane and become her lover. Vivienne supports his landing the role, but Jane feels that she is being used by both her mother and Hugh. Her choice to deny Hugh the role destroys their future together, and this distraught young woman revisits the source of her childhood pleasure. Re-enter Michael. >From this point forward, the reader questions the hypothesis asked of him. Is Michael real, or merely a figment of Jane's imagination?

Collaboration in writing is a recent trend more commonplace than in years past. Alternating styles carry the tale forward in SUNDAYS AT TIFFANY'S. Michael is written in third person, while Jane is portrayed in the first. The action tracks Michael's journey from Jane's playful childhood companionship to a grown-up role in her adult life. Her struggle with self-discovery into maturity is well-written from her viewpoint. At crisis points in the book, the reader might find denial. By its conclusion, the combined writing styles produce satisfaction. Charbonnet's fantasy and Patterson's mystery prowess unite for an entertaining story.

Michael's diligence to Jane's protection is an obsession that transforms his character from pure fantasy to near-reality. Jane's unwillingness to forget Michael's place in her youth affects her realities as an adult. If he leaves her for a second time, will she have the strength to overcome her insecurities? SUNDAYS AT TIFFANY'S is unforgettable because Patterson's twist is "teddy bear" comfort at the conclusion.

--- Reviewed by Judy Gigstad

Very sweet, very touching, easy to relate to if you grew up a little lonely. Couldn't put it down. Gave it to my 13 year old to read when I was done and she loved it too!

Reviewed by Narayan Radhakrishnan for RebeccasReads (5/08)

If you are reading at least six books a year of any author, and that one fresh title each six months or so, I tell you, you are bound to be tired. Most authors are home in their own neat territory of style and suspense. How would you feel if you are forced to read a new legal thriller by Grisham, every two months or a horror thriller from Stephen King each fortnight? It's going to become tiresome. But tiresome is a word which you do not associate with James Patterson. I read "7th Heaven" in February, "Sail" a couple of weeks back, and now this one, "Sundays at Tiffany's." But the style, the writing nature, even the print format is so different it is difficult to believe that all were penned by the same author. "7th Heaven" is a murder-suspense story, "Sail" is an adventure thriller, while "Sundays at Tiffany's" is a feel-good romantic thriller, and each book is as different as chalk, salt and scissors.

Imaginary friends of children and their mysterious relationship is the topic of Patterson's new work. But what would happen if these friends are anything but imaginary and the child is really seeing them, talking with them, confiding in them? Michael is one such imaginary friend, and Jane Margaux adored him. But soon after she turned nine, the friend left her, though his thoughts still remained. Twenty-one years later Margaux is a sensational playwright and her drama about a little girl and her imaginary friend is a huge success... soon to be a major motion picture. But on the personal front, Jane is still lonely and when Michael returns to her life, things seem back to normal. But is Jane truly seeing and feeling Michael, or is he still a figment of her imagination?

The author toys with the reader until the very end, and without being a spoilsport let me say one thing: I felt really, really good and wonderful after reading "Sundays at Tiffany's." And wouldn't you agree that Brad Pitt would be a perfect Michael? Is Hollywood listening?

I normally love James Patterson's books. This one is so disappointing. I read the Maximum Ride books and was able to suspend my disbelief, enjoying the story. This book is so incredibly ridiculous, that I felt stupid reading it. If you absolutely must read it, get it from the library. It's not worth the money, considering the plot (a woman falls in love with her childhood imaginary friend- come on!) and the print of the book with wide margins. It took an hour to read and was a waste of the entire 60 minutes. I think it's time for Mr. Patterson to stop pumping out so many books a year and do fewer, better quality books with no co-authors.

I was so looking forward to getting this book. I tried very hard to like it. When my husband and I attend a movie that turns out to be mediocre, we just say, "it was a Saturday matinee." The translation being that it filled in time and was moderately entertaining if you don't ask too many questions. This book didn't even make the matinee rank. It was sophomoric, and held a promise that it reneged on in the end. No explanation for the "gimic" in the story, not even a hint. It just ended. Now I'll put up with awful dialogue, flat characters, even a pedestrian story line. But I draw the line at a zero ending. It's like the authors didn't have a clue how to explain their gimic, so just penned the end and went to lunch. I want my money back.

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.