The set-up is interesting enough: a young woman falls in love with her imaginary friend Michael, a man who served as the only constant in her sad, lonely childhood. On her ninth birthday, Michael is forced to part with her . . . only to find her again two decades later in New York City, looking beautiful but just as lost as she was as a kid.
Jane is now a writer/movie producer thing (I couldn’t honestly tell you, I didn’t care) still under the thumb of her domineering, whimsical mother Vivienne — a character who is more of a caricature than an actual person. After a brutal break-up with actor Hugh, Jane goes out to treat herself to a diamond ring at Tiffany’s — and then finds herself gravitating to a restaurant she frequented as a kid. It’s there that she sees a man who looks remarkably like Michael, her childhood companion . . . only other people can see this guy, too. It takes a half-second of deliberation for her to march right up to him, and then this “whirlwind” romance begins.
Oh, this one crashed and burned for me. The complete lack of nuance immediately had me rolling my eyes — there was absolutely nothing to grasp between the lines. I felt like the characters had a giant metal bucket used to repeatedly beat me over the head with the horribly, horribly obvious plot. The writing was pedestrian, uninteresting; I was emotionally removed from the storyline.
What should have been romantic — or at least interesting — was made ridiculous by the poorly written conversations and so much telling and no showing. For instance, instead of telling us that Michael and Jane had these sparkling, life-changing conversations, why can’t we actually hear them? Why does everything have to be spelled out as though we’re a group of third graders, completely incapable of processing an emotionally fulfilling relationship? (And it would probably insult third graders, too.)
If Patterson’s name hadn’t been slapped across the top, I can’t imagine who in the world would have picked this one up for publishing, crying, “This is it! This is the one — our international bestseller!” Because, wow. No. I’m very sorry, but no.
Honestly, there isn’t much more to say. Terribly disappointing!
1.5 out of 5!
ISBN: 0385341245 ♥ Purchase from Amazon ♥ Author Website
write meg! 
Oh, I so agree! And didn’t you think that her adoration of Michael was a bit creepy? How did a childhood friend translate into real-life, later-in-life romance? Kinda ew, if you ask me.
LikeLike
You know, I totally agree — very creepy! I completely forgot to mention that ickness. But you’re so right!
LikeLike
I didn’t hate this one as much as you did, but I agree that it wasn’t good. The Patterson name sure does sell boooks, though.
LikeLike
I don’t think Patterson spends much time on the actual writing. You have to read his books for the story and not fine sentences or rich imagery. I read this one and didn’t hate it mainly because I thought it had potential. Until the end which I thought was total crap. (see how well I use imagery)
I am usually disappointed with Patterson books.
LikeLike
Yikes! I won this one so it’s in my TBR pile. I guess I won’t be in any hurry to read it.
LikeLike
You finally review an author whose name I know and you trash him?
LikeLike
What can I say, Dad… it wasn’t unwarranted!
LikeLike
I’ve read a couple of his books that are all right, but never have been a big fan. Thanks for the review, I won’t be adding it to my list.
I have an award for you: http://gofita.blogspot.com/2009/08/humane-award.html
LikeLike
Hmm I’ve always avoided James Patterson for some reason. I might have tried reading one of his books once, but then never got around to finishing it. This one sounds like a horrid let-down! (or maybe you didn’t expect much from it?)
LikeLike
lol…i picked this up (desperation, i tell you–my library has a laughable selection of audio books!) as an audio book…it was almost painful. sorry patterson fans, but this one didn’t do it for me! 🙂 meg, you’re always honest and keep me laughing.
LikeLike
Ugh, I so agree! I read this one and was just so confused because I usually LOVE Patterson. Honestly, since he is so popular now (and doesn’t even write his own books….for the most part) I think the quality has been slacking.
LikeLike
Fantastic review, Meg! Oh, how I love a good roast! Sounds like Patterson needs to stick to mystery-thrillers. (Although I do respect anyone’s attempt to branch out a bit, successfully or not.)
The setup sort of reminds me of a book I loved, loved, loved many years ago, when I was going through my Dean Koontz phase. Have you ever read Lightning? (I would be very surprised if that book didn’t in some small way inspire The Time-Traveler’s Wife.) It’s been a few years since I’ve read it, but it was one of those books I read and re-read many times over the decades.
I do find that the whole “girl meets man when she’s a kid and has sex with him when she grows up” thing a tad creepy, but I also think there’s also something sort of sweet about it. Does that make me a creepy person?
LikeLike
That’s terribly unfortunate. When you were describing the plot I thought the story might be charming and cute. But showing the reader too much is both insulting and disappointing. It’s getting lots in the scenes and conversations that really makes a book for me – when I can’t have that, I don’t want to read anymore.
Great review. I’m not a big Patterson fan anyway so I probably wouldn’t have picked this one up anyway.
LikeLike
You gave it about the same rating as I did! The only part I liked was the reference to the coffee ice cream with hot fudge sauce. At least he has good taste in dessert!!!
LikeLike
my friend gave the same comment..the book is badly-written and the plot is untinteresting and eerie. didnt expect something like that from patterson after reading is other romance book-suzanne’s diary for nicholas..
i’ll just read it for the sake of saying i’ve read it..
LikeLike
I picked it up because of the cover and also because the story sounded interesting. But I was also disappointed with this one:(
LikeLike
I just read this straight after reading ‘The Time-Travelers Wife’. Talk about chalk and cheese!
The first probably had a tad too much detail and conversation for my taste, and could have been a bit shorter, but this one, well, I totally agree with your assessment. The story line held promise, and had it been well written it had possibilities, but reads as if written by a love struck teen… and the end is just plain stupid. It felt a little creepy to me too. I have not read any other Patterson, but I won’t bother now.
LikeLike
Pingback: Books read in 2009 « write meg!
Pingback: Unfinished challenges in 2009 « write meg!
I am, of course, way late to the party, but I agree with you wholeheartedly. The only reason I wasn’t more scathing in my own review is because I expected exactly what I got. Someone once said to me not to expect too much from a book where the author’s name is in larger print than the title.
LikeLike
Pingback: Sundays at Tiffany’s, by James Patterson and Gabrielle Charbonnet « The Zen Leaf