Talk:The Notebook (novel)

Plot - book vs. film

I changed the title of that section to "plot of the film", because this is definitely what it describes and there are differences to the plot of the book. Actually (since there is only one Wikipedia entry) I think there should be one section called "plot" referring to that of the book, and another sections containing only what is different in the film, but I don't have the time to do it right now. Carmencantora (talk) 09:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Whataburger ???

Where is this information coming from? The plantation home of her family was filmed at Boone Hall, located in Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina. It's open for tours and the like, but never had a whataburger?

TRIVIA: A few years????

The film came out in 2004. How could they begin dating a few years after filming stopped??

---

Easy, they didn't start dating when the film came out, they began dating after FILMING. During the movie-making process, they still have to edit the movie in post-production (which can sometime take a long time). I don't know how long it did take, but since it's late 2005, it's plausable that filming ended sometime in 2003. Keep in mind I'm making a boatload of assumptions, but I'm just trying to justify the reasoning.

Movie misquote?

I just saw the movie on DVD, and I am almost certain the quotation "It's not about keeping your promises, it's about following your heart" is wrong (or are there two places with similar quotations?). The hero is yelling at Allie after she's come back to him and she's said she's made a promise to her fiance (to marry him), but he says it's about being free. I hope some-one who has a dvd system that allows moving through scenes can check this.

You're right. I just watched it. "This is/it's (kind of slurred) not about keeping your promise, and it's not about following your heart. It's about security." I removed the quote. If anyone thinks it's fitting, he/she can put the correct one back up. Bufflo 01:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

book or movie?

is this article about the book or the movie?

If movie (as I assume due to the film infobox, this line in the intro paragraph appears to be incorrect: "is instantly smitten with fifteen-year-old Allie Hamilton,"

Clarificaion before its changed? Stuph 05:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It's about the movie, no page exists for the novel. Bufflo 11:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I've reformatted and expanded the article so it can stand for both. Misterkillboy 10:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Who is...?!

M'kaay, whoever wrote/edited this article put a bunch of random names here, like "Karlie Mitchell" and "Kayleigh Ann" and whatever... If I'm not mistaken, there's nothing in the film credits that mention these people, haha. Just wanted to point that out.

Article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Notebook —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.198.29.104 (talk) 06:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

James_Francis_Durante

• < http://music.yahoo.com/track/21642689 >:
• I'll Be Seeing You.

---

• (10 February 1893 – 29 January 1980)

---

• Inka Dinka Doo
• Schnozzola
• schnoz

---

Although he is heard in the movie, I do not think that we would hear his review. His voice is quintessentially unique.

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 07:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Actor Names

The actor names should not be used in the narrative, as this was a book first. A brief paragraph indicating who filled each role is more appropriate. It reads like a junior high school girl's book report. Croquen (talk) 02:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. -71.104.94.236 (talk) 07:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Posternotebook.jpg

Image:Posternotebook.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

In popular culture

Needs an "In popular culture" section; it's been referenced a billion times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.222.131 (talk) 20:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Trivia - does not need.Parkwells (talk) 16:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Did the author intentionally draw ideas from the Great Gatsby? Quantalume Wanderer (talk) 19:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Titles

Earlier versions of this article showed Sparks' earlier works as The Passing and The Royal Murders. I'm reverting to this, as the current version looks like possible vandalism. Whoever has the facts on this please check and cite. Thanks. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 01:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit for book

Discussions of the film and its differences from the book should be in that article, not this one. The film was adapted from the book and came later. Need sourced material on the plot and characters, and reception of the book, in addition to its having been a bestseller.Parkwells (talk) 16:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 1

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was No valid consensus: the first IP gives no argument, the second repeats the nominator (note: that doesn't make it invalid, of course). The problem is that George Ho correctly points out that historical primacy does not determine which of the two should get the title. Now, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC outlines three possible types of evidence to help determine which should get it, but only one has been brought up in this discussion, the article traffic statistics. Ho may well be correct, but I think we should see some other evidence (from Google Books, Scholar--or maybe some other type of source and from "What Links Here" (the latter might give the edge to the film)). Gimli, it probably is a popularity contest. In short, there is not enough evidence here from enough contributors to change the status quo. Drmies (talk) 17:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)}}

The Notebook → The Notebook (novel) – It doesn't matter if this topic started first before the film. Film adaptations of A Walk to Remember and The Fox and the Hound are primary topics and more popular than their original counterparts. Back on topic, I don't see how WP:TWODABS would apply to less popular novel and more popular film adaptation. As for hatnotes, useful or not, it also helps people ignore the whole article if they want only the film. --George Ho (talk) 18:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support the novel should be moved, and a disambiguation should be emplaced. As we have a disambiguation page, the basic name should just be redirected to Notebook (disambiguation) -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 05:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose The book is the original source for the name and is still popular (23,000 hits a month is not obscure), therefore WP:TWODABS does apply. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 05:45, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • What about the fact that the novel has been viewed 700-800 times per day, while the movie is viewed five times that amount per day? Look at this before the revert. --George Ho (talk) 07:27, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Irrelevant, this is an encyclopaedia, not a popularity contest. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 07:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support – Per George Ho's reason. 68.44.51.49 (talk) 16:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Andrewa (talk) 17:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

---

The Notebook → The Notebook (novel) – Per previous discussion, the film is more popular than the novel. However, I did not prove other evidence per WP:PRIMARYTOPICS. To do so, here are ones from only the first pages. Both film and novel are on the same page in Web section. However, there are other unrelated books in Google Books. Even Google Scholar neither mentions film nor book. The current news mention the film and other unrelated topics with same name, but the archived news do not mention either. By the way, I did not add "film" or "novel" or similar terms. As for other articles that link to either one, here are ones to the novel and others to the film; a lot more link to film than novel. --George Ho (talk) 05:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support renaming the novel. The title "The Notebook" should redirect to the disambiguation page Notebook (disambiguation), as there's no primary topic. -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 07:09, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Dicklyon (talk) 19:09, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Quote is too long in plot

This section is supposed to be a summary, not a long quote from the book. Paraphrase please.Parkwells (talk) 18:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC)