Sometimes authors get too big for their breeches.  Some take immense fame in stride.  Others heads inflate to dangerous proportions.  Nicholas Sparks needs to make use of a rather sharpened pin.  In a recent article from USA Today, Sparks and Miley Cyrus, the epitome of teen don’t, sat down with the interviewer to discuss the upcoming movie The Last Song, adapted from Sparks’s book and stars Cyrus (joy).

In this inglorious article, Sparks is adamant to claim that his stories aren’t romances.  Let’s look at the definition of romance, shall we?  From the Romance Writers of America website -

Two basic elements comprise every romance novel: a central love story and an emotionally-satisfying and optimistic ending.

A Central Love Story: The main plot centers around two individuals falling in love and struggling to make the relationship work. A writer can include as many subplots as he/she wants as long as the love story is the main focus of the novel.

An Emotionally-Satisfying and Optimistic Ending: In a romance, the lovers who risk and struggle for each other and their relationship are rewarded with emotional justice and unconditional love.

Romance novels may have any tone or style, be set in any place or time, and have varying levels of sensuality—ranging from sweet to extremely hot. These settings and distinctions of plot create specific subgenres within romance fiction.

Now, I admit I’ve never read any of Sparks’s books because, well, I don’t read romance.  Sorry, Sparks, but “love story” is synonymous.  While Sparks’s work may not be the romance novel of the Fabio variety, and while he not be getting published by Harlequin anytime soon, his works do fit the general definition of a romance pretty closely, I’d think.

He’s also quite adamant about his work not being melodramatic -

Sparks says: “I’m going to interrupt you there. There’s a difference between drama and melodrama; evoking genuine emotion, or manipulating emotion. It’s a very fine eye-of-the-needle to thread. And it’s very rare that it works. That’s why I tend to dominate this particular genre. There is this fine line. And I do not verge into melodrama. It’s all drama. I try to generate authentic emotional power.”

No, Nick.  You don’t write melodrama.  Because it actually takes a modicum of talent to effectively manipulate someone’s emotions through words.  You just hand them over on silver, tear-stained platters.  And I’m so glad you think you dominate.  Of what you dominate, we have differing opinions.

Then he meanders off into comparing himself against the likes of Euripides and Hemingway -

“I write in a genre that was not defined by me. The examples were not set out by me. They were set out 2,000 years ago by Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides. They were called the Greek tragedies.

. . .

“A Farewell to Arms, by Hemingway. Good stuff. That’s what I write,” he says, putting it back. “That’s what I write.”

Maybe someone should draw out some kind of circle chart comparing confidence with cockiness.  Is Hemingway crawling out of his grave yet?  But is he saying he writes good stuff in general or good stuff by the way of Hemingway?  Slap the man if it’s the latter.  The former is up for debate.  Maybe his debut was good but I wouldn’t say redundancies are the makings of “good stuff.”

And then he does the ultimate author no-no -

Cormac McCarthy? “Horrible,” he says, looking at Blood Meridian. “This is probably the most pulpy, overwrought, melodramatic cowboy vs. Indians story ever written.”

Even hearing a passage about a sunset in which “the mountains in their blue islands stood footless in the void like floating temples” doesn’t sway him.

Ironic, don’t you think?  Considering his work is comparable to the likes of The Bridges of Madison County, he should talk.

And, of course, his favorite youthful tale -

Sparks’ favorite tale of youth? “I think A Walk to Remember,” he says, citing his own novel. “That’s my version of a coming-of-age.” He pauses and adds: “You have to sayTo Kill a Mockingbird is an all-time classic.”

Maybe Sparks should expand his reading repertoire, don’t you think?  Again, cocky vs. confident.  Claiming one of your own pieces of work as your favorite novel  =  huge nut sack.

And nothing says asshole like writing hypocrite on your own forehead.

Any he thinks are overrated?

“I don’t like to say bad things about others.”

Except McCarthy? “He deserves it,” Spark says with a laugh.

Oh, Karma.  Where for art thou, Karma?  May you, Mr. Sparks, get everything your swollen head deserves.

And here, you can actually hear the air being pumped into Sparks’s dome -

Asked what he likes in his own genre, Sparks replies: “There are no authors in my genre. No one is doing what I do.”

When others (James Patterson?) are suggested to him, he keeps his lips pursed.

But lo!  One mustn’t prove Mr. Sparks wrong!  That’ll anger the the god of all non-romance love story tragedies!  For he is the only one that can pen such immaculate pieces and what will we all do should he fall?  Who else will there be to write tragic love stories?  He is the only one with that key!  Without him, all will be lost!  Chagrin.

The Amazon search function alone disagrees with you there, buddy.

Then he battles with romance vs. love story again -

“No, it’s the difference between Cinderella and Romeo and Juliet,” he says. “(Romances) are all essentially the same story: You’ve got a woman, she’s down on her luck, she meets the handsome stranger who falls desperately in love with her, but he’s got these quirks, she must change him, and they have their conflicts, and then they end up happily ever after.”

Can someone please introduce Mr. Sparks to the Brothers Grimm version of Cinderella?  Romeo and Juliet is a romance.  Again, while Romeo isn’t played by Fabio, the central plot of the story revolves around the romance of two teens who die for each other.  Some would consider that pretty fucking romantic.  Me, I consider it moronic but that’s just my opinion.

And is it me or is it laugh-out-loud ridiculous that Sparks considers all romances basically the same?  Alas, we are blind to our own faults.

And Sparks insists that you never know what you’re going to get from his books -

Some might say that’s the plot to Nights in Rodanthe, apart from the happy ending.

Sparks disagrees. “No, the themes in love stories are different. In mine, you never know if it’s going to be a happy ending, sad ending, bittersweet or tragic. You read a romance because you know what to expect. You read a love story because you don’t know what to expect.”

Um, when your work is as formulaic as a Betty Crocker recipe, it’s pretty easy to guess the plot, especially when you rehash the same goddamn thing in every single one of your books.  Boy meets girl.  Boy loves girl.  Romance ensues.  Tragedy happens but love prevails, with or without both parties involved.  The end.  Find me a Sparks novel that doesn’t fit some version of that formula and you get a gold star.  Remember, I’ve never read any of his books and I could only stand to sit through about half of The Notebook.

Because I’m not a fan of romance.