Sommer 1997: Nach seinem Schulabschluss hat es Charles Lewis nicht leicht. Seine Eltern haben sich getrennt. Der Teenager lebt nun mit seinem depressiven, arbeitslosen und alkoholkranken Vater. Als er zufällig in die Proben zu einer Theateraufführung von „Romeo und Julia" hineinstolpert, will er nicht bleiben. Doch Fran Fisher, die im Stück die Julia spielt, überredet ihn. Sie macht es zur Bedingung für weitere Treffen, dass er sich mit ihr der Laientheatergruppe anschließt. Mit Fran macht er die schönsten, peinlichsten und aufregendsten Erfahrungen seines Lebens. 20 Jahre später steht Charlie vor der Entscheidung, ob er seine erste große Liebe wiedersehen will.

„Sweet Sorrow“ ist ein Roman von David Nicholls.

Meine Meinung:
Der Roman besteht aus vier Teilen, die wiederum in mehrere Kapitel mit einer angenehmen Länge und kurzen Überschriften untergliedert sind. Erzählt wird in der Ich-Perspektive aus der Sicht von Charlie. Die Wechsel zwischen Vergangenheit und Gegenwart werden leider nicht gekennzeichnet.

Der Schreibstil ist anschaulich und dank viel wörtlicher Rede lebhaft. Sprachlich ist der Roman dem Alter der Protagonisten angepasst. Der Einstieg fiel mir leicht. Allerdings nimmt die Geschichte nur langsam Fahrt auf.

Die Charaktere und ihr Verhalten erscheinen durchweg authentisch. Mit Charlie steht ein besonderer und interessanter Protagonist im Fokus des Romans. Allerdings muss ich zugeben, ich wurde nicht sofort mit ihm warm.

Thematisch steht natürlich die Liebe im Vordergrund. Dem Autor gelingt es jedoch, nicht ins Kitschige und Überdramatische abzudriften. Stattdessen stecken viel Witz und Tiefgründigkeit in der Geschichte, was zum Nachdenken und Mitfühlen anregt.

Mit mehr als 500 Seiten ist der Roman recht umfangreich. Zwar kann die Geschichte größtenteils unterhalten, aber es gibt auch einige Längen.

Die Gestaltung der deutschen Hardcover-Ausgabe, die in zwei farblich unterschiedlichen Versionen erhältlich ist, wirkt zwar sehr verspielt und ohne direkten Bezug zum Inhalt. Dennoch gefällt mir die Optik sehr gut. Der passende Titel wurde vom Original übernommen.

Mein Fazit:
Mit „Sweet Sorrow“ konnte mich David Nicholls gut unterhalten. Der Roman sorgt für schöne Lesestunden. An sein bereits verfilmtes Buch „Zwei an einem Tag“, das mich fesseln und begeistern konnte, kommt sein neuestes Werk aber leider bei Weitem nicht heran.

Ok, so the romance sub-plot got a little worse ending up in a love triangle tetrahedron before it was kind of resolved, or at least left aside (for a later book no doubt).

Pheww!! 

And we are still trying to catch out the killer.

There have been various references to Tey's work and her contemporaries that have been delightful, even tho they just cannot make up for the ridiculous romance sub-plot, and this is one that really made me smile as it refers to both a favourite Christie and makes me want to re-read A Shilling for Candles, which to date is my favourite Tey mystery:

She disappeared into the crowd and Josephine fought her way reluctantly across the room to smile for Tatler.

‘Nice to see you back in London, Miss Tey,’ called one of the reporters. ‘You’ve got a new Inspector Grant book out soon, we hear.’

‘Yes – early next year. It’s called A Shilling for Candles.’

‘Let’s hope it raises a bit more than a shilling, eh? You’re donating the proceeds to charity, aren’t you?’

‘That’s right, to a cancer hospital.’

‘And is there a personal reason for that?’

He must have seen the look on her face, because he added quickly: ‘I’m not trying to pry, but it’ll make a nice little story to go alongside the Cowdray Club piece. It all helps to get the public on side, doesn’t it?’

It was a cheap trick, but Josephine felt obliged to answer, as he had known she would. Remembering why she hated the press, and why she never gave interviews, she said:

‘My mother died of breast cancer twelve years ago.’

‘That must have been a sad time for you.’

She didn’t even dignify that with a response: in truth, her mother’s death had devastated her, but she wasn’t about to share that with the world, not even in the name of charity. Smiling politely, she tried to excuse herself, but the reporter hadn’t finished.

‘A lot of people say that one of the characters in Mrs Christie’s new book is based on you,’ he said with a sly grin. ‘Muriel Wills – the woman who writes plays as Anthony Astor. Is there any truth in that, do you think?’

‘I wouldn’t know. I don’t often read Mrs Christie.’

It was the best snub she could think of at short notice; she had, in fact, bought the book as soon as she heard the rumour, and had been furious to discover a ghastly creation who simpered and giggled and cluttered her home with nick-nacks; the fact that the playwright was observant and deadly with a pen did nothing to soften her anger.

‘No harm in a bit of friendly rivalry, though, is there?’ the reporter continued.

‘I just wondered if we might find a little cameo in your new book for Mrs Christie?’

‘What?’

Josephine was distracted by a commotion at the door.

‘A cameo for Mrs Christie? I couldn’t possibly say. If you look carefully, though, you’ll find a tramp with a very similar sense of humour. Now, if you’ll excuse me, there are some people I have to talk to.’

Oh, no, no, no, no....

The ridiculous romance sub-plot has taken over. :(

As much as I am enjoying the book, there are a few things that I could do without:

- Upson telling us constantly how someone is feeling

- the pushing of a social issues agenda. As much as I may agree with it, I really didn't come here for a discussion of prison reform or adoption, etc.

- the romance angle. I hope it does not develop further. I've already had as much gushing cheesiness as I can reasonably deal with.

- Upson's decision to interpret something into Tey's bio, which, according to her biographer,  is not evidenced. This is not entirely jarring, but it is a bit odd. 

Overall, I'm enjoying the mid-30s London theatrical setting, tho, and I am really keen to find out how the mystery is resolved and what happens to all of the characters. Yes, I actually care about the majority of the characters, which is something that has not happened a lot last week.

Oh, and I loved this scene:

‘I’ll go and make the calls,’ Archie said, grimacing at the chaos. ‘See you back here in a minute.’

She found the girls in a spacious room leading off the foyer which was usually used for private meetings.

‘I take back everything I said about this place being deathly dull,’ Ronnie said, dropping the bale she was carrying and coming over to give Josephine a hug. ‘The first thing we heard about when we got here was the fight in the foyer, and we half-wondered if we’d have to slap each other as some sort of induction ritual.’

‘What fight? What on earth are you talking about?’

‘Oh, Geraldine Ashby and the Bannerman woman decided to recreate the Battle of Bosworth in the foyer. The lunchtime queues were getting a bit restless, apparently, so they staged a distraction all of their own.’

‘She’s exaggerating,’ said Lettice, ‘but there was a bit of bother. Geraldine slapped Celia because of something she said, and it was all very public.’

‘Yes, the skeletons are all so firmly out of the closet that we’ll probably end up dressing them for the gala as well,’ Ronnie added cynically, hauling another tailor’s dummy in from the foyer. ‘And if that was lunch, I think I’ll book myself in for dinner now. Which is the best table?’

‘God, I think that might be all my fault,’ Josephine said, and both sisters turned to look quizzically at her.

Most of the book is not about violence, so the murder scene caught me off guard just before bedtime last night. It was particularly was gory and gross. 

The ensuing investigation has been gripping, tho, and now the different stories seem to come together. 

I have a hunch about the murderer. It's a strong hunch.