Final Review

Nicholas Sparks is known for his well voiced romance novels with a tragic twist at the end and The Lucky One is no exception. When a person is tossed into a lethal warzone, everything is thrown into a deadly tailspin with people dying all around. It would be easy to be taken under if you don’t have anything to hold onto. For Logan Thibault, the thing keeping him grounded and safe from the horrors of war was a torn photograph of a mysterious women. Upon his discharge from the military Thibault embarks in a cross country journey to find the women in the photograph. When he finds her, Thibault finds himself falling in love, that is, until secrets, a mysterious past, and a jealous ex threatens to tear them apart. This is the premise that Nicholas Spark’s latest romance novel The Lucky One is built on.

The Lucky One is a chocolate chip cookie of a book, it’s comfortable and homey, something to be enjoyed, but at the end of the day it’s unremarkable and something we’ve all experienced. There’s no arguing the fact that Sparks writes with excellent voice. It’s something that’s present in The Lucky One as it is in all of his novels. The voice, the writing style, is what makes this book such a readable one but at some points Sparks relies too heavily on that voice, using over flourished style to hide the lack of original plot and characters. The plot is the chocolate chips on the cookie; it’s the one thing that you can find consistently in every recipe. Sparks chocolate chips could be interchanged with any number of romance plots and the story would still remain unchanged for the most part. A man looks for a women not knowing what he wants, falls in love with her, and a hidden past threatens to pull them apart; but don’t fret, because love prevails in the end. As if we all didn’t see that one coming. It’s as predictable as chocolate chips in a cookie.

If the plot is chocolate chips, then the characters could only be compared to the baking time. No matter how great your recipe is, if you mess up the cooking time you’re either going to end up with an under baked mushy mess (underdeveloped and fickle characters), or an equally unappealing burnt and crunchy monstrosity (over concentrated unchanging characters). In the case of Sparks, his cookies are burnt to a crisp. Every character encountered in this novel is totally one dimensional. They are all static. There is no change that takes place in any of them, and if there is, it’s so miniscule that it goes unnoticed. In fact, the biggest change that takes place is in the minor part played by the dog in the story. His loyalties slightly shift by the end of the story from his owner to a child who needs him. The protagonist is immediately liked from the beginning and the reader’s opinion of him doesn’t waiver for a second throughout the novel. There’s no reason for it to because Sparks only paints him in the shining light of a struggling hero. There is not one bad decision or dark shadow clouding this character or giving him any dimension. The same is true for the antagonist of the story. From the very start he is depicted as a heartless creep who doesn’t care about anything but what’s in his own best interest and this holds true through the end. Never is there a point where you think this man may have some redeeming quality, if only you give it a chance. He is villain through and through. This lack of dimension is seen over and over again in the novel making it predictable and burnt past salvation. And we all know there’s nothing worse than a burnt cookie.

Though this may sound like a never ending rant, there are things I believe Sparks does well. After all, no chocolate chip cookie can be all bad, right? This is where the homey feeling comes in. The reason you can’t put this book down despite all of its failings, is your desperate hope for a good ending. The struggling burnt hero I mentioned before? Well you can’t help but falling in love with him. You find yourself rooting for him because just once you want the good guy to win. Thibault fights for what’s good and constantly tries to do the right thing despite the cost to him and for that reason, you want him to win. You want to put this book down with the warm fuzzies of knowing that everything worked out, and despite the death at the end of the novel, you do. In fact, the death ties up some lose ends and ensures our hero and his love interest will live happily ever after. Though we see this coming from a hundred pages away, it’s safe and comforting none the less. At the end of the day a cookie is still a cookie.

That being said, this cookie cutter novel gets a 5.5/10 stars. The feel good happy ending is overshadowed by the generic chocolate chips of a plot and crunchy, over baked, characters. This is a typical Spark’s novel and leaves much to be desired when you’re finished. There are certainly worse books out there, but why choke down a burnt and generic cookie when you could have a unique well baked one instead?

Genre v. Literary Fiction

Like most high school students, I prefer genre fiction to literary fiction any day, but that being said, I don’t think genre fiction has a place in the school curriculum the way literary fiction does. Genre fiction is often written much more simply in order to reach a wider audience. They don’t contain concepts that are more difficult to grasp, a higher vocabulary, or the level of symbolism that is seen in literary fiction. To Kill a Mockingbird, for example, is heavy on symbolism which gives several launch points for class discussion. Genre fiction novels simply don’t do this and often dead end in discussion. That, of course goes for most, though not all, genre fiction novels. Hunger Games for example, provides symbolism. In fact, the entire series is based off the symbol of the mockingjay. The problem with the symbolism in these novels is that you’re hit over the head with it. There is no way you could miss the symbol and you’re told point blank what it means and what it stands for at several instances. This requires no outside thinking making it still inadequate for classroom teaching.

I do agree with the argument in Readicide and how our school system is overanalyzing and killing reading for students, but I don’t think we can change the system. How do you justify removing Of Mice and Men or Macbeth from the curriculum? How can you honestly argue that students will be ready for further education without exposure and understanding of those key texts? The fact is, we wouldn’t be. Without sufficient literary background students won’t be ready to further their education and would be harmed in the long run because of it. Even though we won’t always like it and perhaps will always prefer the simpler and more entertaining texts of genre fiction, the analysis of literary fiction is vital to our school development.

Adapting the Book

There are several scenes in Catch me if you Can that are vital for a print to screen adaptation. One of those scenes is the scene in which Frank first becomes a pilot. I think it is important that this be kept because it is the start of Frank’s career. The rush of being a pilot is what gets him addicted to conning people. It establishes his confidence in his particular art, and it is vital to the overall story. I also think the scene where Frank has to impersonate an FBI agent to retrieve his check should be in the film. For the most part this is important because it shows that Frank is still a kid. He makes stupid mistakes like writing his real name and address on checks, but it also shows how bold and determined he is to not get caught. He knew impersonating an FBI agent would make the search for him personal with the real FBI agents. This should be kept in the film. Finally, the scene when Frank is finally caught and forced to spend 6 months in the French prison should be kept. His cruel and unusual punishments in the French jail system added to his desperation to never be caught again and also shaped his personality. You don’t spend six months void of human contact, sleeping in your own filth in a dark hole, without it having some effect on how you see the world.

When adapting the book I would cut the scenes where Frank is living comfortably for some time in a small French village. He doesn’t really do much there but meander around and waste time. This part of the book is not important to the film. I would also cut Franks many flings with women out of the film. Most of his exploits with the women were shallow and would do nothing but up the rating of the film and eliminate a potential target audience. The longer flings should be included however. The girl he intended to marry played an important role in Franks life as did Monique and he father, therefor they should be kept.

What is a Book?

To me, a book is an island. It’s totally secluded and it can be relaxing or it can be a great adventure. It can make you fall in love with things you never thought you would, and it can break your heart. That’s the thing with books, they take you to places you’ve never been and make you feel things you’ve never felt before. My honest opinion is that it doesn’t matter how you read a book, it just matters that you do. I love reading on my Nook. I still get transported to that island, I still fall in love, I still feel the rush of adventure. That doesn’t go away no matter what medium you get the story from. Meno is right, the same message is still there. Story telling has changed and it’s still survived. Things change and evolve but that doesn’t mean one way is leaving something behind. Sure the e-reader is different than a book but you still get the most vital thing, you still get that island.

That being said, I also agree with Sales. I don’t know what I’d do without my copies of 66 Love Letters or Open with their torn up pages, the underlined and highlighted text, and the scribbled notes in the margins. I love those books. They are two of my favorites, but they wouldn’t be the same to me without all of their notes and rips. Sure I could get another copy of Open, but it wouldn’t have the same effect on me if it was missing my coffee stain on the last four pages. It just wouldn’t be my copy without my favorite quote underlined in blue pen and covered in pink highlighter. I would still get transported to that island no matter what copy of that book I read, but with my hard copy, I go to the island that I feel is mine in every way. 

Why I Read

There are a million different reasons I read but in the end it really all comes down to just one. I read to escape. I am the goalie for the lacrosse team and am a four year varsity starter. That sounds great, and believe me it is, but it's also so much pressure. Being goalie, I not only have to play for myself but I have to play for everyone around me too. I am the one person on the field that if I have a bad game, it will result in a loss every time. If I'm off my game for one day, sometimes for just one play, everyone pays for it. Don't get me wrong, I love what I do. I love it so much, but it is a lot to handle and so I read for the moments when it all gets overwhelming. On those few days I have a bad practice, I go home and I read. When I read, I don't worry about practice, or that game, or holding my team up. I get to think about someone else. I get to worry about the problems Jodi Picoult or Chris Crutcher create and then they solve them for me. I get to look through someone else's eyes and see what is important to them. I get a totally different look at life that I might not ever get otherwise. When I read I can feel the tension leaving my muscles. I can feel the stress leave my body and when that happens, my head clears. It's amazing how many times I've picked up a book with a seemingly impossible problem in front of me and put down the book with a solution. I read because it's important to me. I read because it shows me that there are other things in this life that are more important than me and there are other problems much bigger than my own. I read to be a more compassionate and less selfish person, I read to relieve stress and to let go of the day, but most importantly, I read because I love to read.