Bell: Sparks meeting a joy but ‘Nights’ more depessing than poigniant

By TRACY BELL
For the Stafford County Sun
Published: October 9, 2008

Before anything else, I have to institute a spoiler alert. If you have not seen “Nights in Rodanthe,” or think you might want to, maybe you shouldn’t read any farther just now. After all, I don’t want to ruin the movie for you.

Not that it isn’t spoiled already.

Sorry Nicholas Sparks. I enjoyed meeting you Sunday, which was in fact, my birthday, and it made for a very nice day. But later, when I saw the movie, “Nights in Rodanthe,” I was a little disappointed at the outcome.

Has anyone seen this?

Backing up, let’s start with the good news. Nicholas Sparks appeared at a Borders store in Richmond on Sunday, and was happy to sign books for and take photos with the hundreds of fans that turned out.

You see, I can only say good things about “The Notebook..”

I admit, I have not scoured through all of his books like a super fan, but I can appreciate when something stands out. The movie was what first drew my attention, prior to the books, and it couldn’t have been better.

For fans, it was likely exciting to meet Sparks, even just for a moment, as he scrawled his autograph across the books.

Mostly women came to the event, where lines twisted back and forth through the aisles of books. A few men were dragged along to the bookstore, I suspect, by their girlfriends or wives.

Behind me, a woman in her late 20s or early 30s stood with one of the men.

“Can we go to Hooters after this?” he asked her.

He was serious.

Maybe for him, that would make up for the trip to a Sparks signing. Come on men, it’s not all that bad. Taking women to a chick flick isn’t either. I find it hard to believe that more men cannot appreciate these types of stories, or maybe they do but just don’t want to admit it.

Aren’t they sick of seeing things blow up yet?

Back to “Nights in Rodanthe,” which sort of made me depressed. If you have seen this movie, you know exactly what I am talking about. Yearning for a happy ending, all I was left with was mild depression upon leaving the theater.

I know Richard Gere isn’t really dead, but why did they have to kill off his character? Was it really necessary? Couldn’t he have escaped the mudslide in Ecuador for the sake of the audience?
Ridiculous. I don’t know what Nicholas was thinking.

On his Web site, when someone asked him why “Paul” had to die, Sparks gives a well-thought-out lengthy answer, including things like: There had to be a reason for Adrienne (Diane Lane) to tell the story to her daughter (who started out a bit bratty), there had to be a reason Adrienne could sympathize with Amanda (the daughter) and Adrienne needed to learn that it’s possible to move on.

He spoke of the themes of love and sacrifice, and said that he writes tragedies — I guess I will remember this for the next time, and expect the main character to fall off of a cliff or meet some other horrible doom. Sparks said he thought of the story as possibly having a different ending, but kept coming back to the same problems of it lacking an emotional poignancy without the death.

Sparks wrote on his Web site: All great love stories — in novels or in life — must, by definition, end in tragedy.

Tracy Bell is managing editor of the Stafford County Sun. Reach her at .