Build Phantom Sale

The Phantom of the Opera
Review by E. A Solinas "ea_solinas" : No one sees the angel

The mask, the music, the dark mysteries, and the tortured, deformed genius who just wants love. "The Phantom of the Opera" is so well known that its story needs no explanation.

But Gaston Leroux's novel is still a spellbinding experience, full of atmospheric horror, a sense of gothic mystery, and lushly evocative language. But its crown jewel is Erik: a magnificently tortured anti-hero who inspires more horror, pity and sympathy than the rather flat hero and heroine.

The Paris opera house is said to be haunted by a ghost with a "death's head," who demands a small salary and a reserved box. Despite the sightings and fears of ballerinas and stagehands, the new managers are determined to stamp out this ridiculous story -- despite threatening letters and increasing accidents that happen around them.

Meanwhile, budding diva Christine Daae is taking Paris by storm, although nobody quite knows who taught her how to sing. And when her childhood friend Viscount Raoul de Chagny pays her a visit, he hears a passionate exchange between her and a man -- but there's no man there. She credits her new vocal abilities to the Angel of Music, but of course, that self-same Angel is the opera ghost.

As the Phantom becomes even more attached to Christine, Raoul soon finds that the ghost is actually a half-mad, horribly deformed musical genius named Erik -- and that after Christine saw his true face, he made her become engaged to him. The young lovers plan to run away together, but the "Angel of Music" isn't about to allow his beloved Christine to leave him...

Apparently there actually were some odd events -- including rumours of an opera ghost -- happening when Gaston Leroux began writing "The Phantom of the Opera." And it's a credit to his imgination that he was able to spin a some odd facts into a harrowing, heartbreaking love triangle that's based on music, obsession, adoration, and a bit of pity. And, of course, a frighteningly sympathetic "villain."

Admittedly the style is very "penny dreadful": melodramatic and overloaded on prose. But Leroux's talent shines through -- he drapes the book in a haunted atmosphere, full of snowy graveyards, dark opera backstages and underground labyrinths, all with Erik's presence hovering over it. The plot is mostly a slow, satiny procession toward the inevitable blowup, but Leroux does tinge it with scenes of romantic drama, a feeling of dread, one shocking action scene, and even some quirky humour at times.

And Leroux's writing is simply astounding as he describes the corpselike appearance of Erik ("... tore his terrible dead flesh with my nails") and his "death's" head appearance at the party. But he also excels at the more poignant moments -- Erik's final, rambling monologue to Christine after she kisses him is heartbreakingly clumsy and saddening.

Though Christine and Raoul are the hero and heroine of the book, they're actually kind of flat. Erik is the real star -- an arrogant genius who is also pitifully lonely. And insane. Despite his crazed behavior -- which results in at least two deaths -- it's hard not to feel sympathy for someone cursed with such a ghastly appearance, and so starved for human contact that a single kiss changes his life ("... he tried to catch my eye, like a dog sitting by its master").

Despite being a bit overblown in the style of its time, "The Phantom of the Opera" is a triumph of atmosphere, horror, and one of the most memorably sympathetic "villains" that you can find on the shelves. Magnificent..........

The Phantom of the Opera
Review by Tango : Forget horror, this is humour!

I admit it, I'm a wimp. I hear the word Horror and run in the other direction, whimpering. Not for me the gory slasher Phantoms who disfigure their respective Christines. But give me angst, plot, character depth and I'm there. This book does more: it gives you all of that, and it makes it FUNNY!

I reluctantly picked up "Phantom", expecting horror, and was pleasantly surprised by its absence. Yes, there are creepy moments and "yikes!" jumpy scenes, but by and large, it's a wry, funny, fast-paced romantic thriller rather than any sort of gloomy Gothic blood-fest.

Leroux' dry humour is what keeps the pace cracking, and the story never flags. I don't know why anyone would think it slow: I was entranced from page 1 and had no problem reading all the way through. Like all good humour, it eventually leaves off the gags and leads us into a tender, poignant and unabashedly tragic finale. By the time you get there, you're completely hooked.

In addition to the humour, there is depth. Leroux' characters are quirky and fascinating, and not nearly as simplistic as they are often portrayed.

His Erik is a child prodigy spurned by everyone, who tries (somewhat unsuccessfully) to dissociate himself from humanity -- even as he yearns for someone to give him a reason to be normal, and to "love him as he is". His madness is not so much evil as tragic, and here Leroux is perhaps guilty of manipulating the reader a bit: sure, there are murders, but somehow Leroux makes them amusing rather than gruesome and the reader could be forgiven for thinking most of them entirely justified. There is nothing as confronting as the blood-curdling strangulation scene in the 2004 movie. Instead, we get an Erik who mostly kills only when cornered, who feels some compunction about his former life as an assassin, and who is in many ways a very sad, disturbed child.

Christine in Leroux' novel is also very different to how she is normally portrayed. Far from being a wilting flower, she's strong, cunning, and often seems to have her own agenda. Again, as with Erik, there are many possible interpretations of all her actions, and in some cases Leroux provides two conflicting versions of aspects of her story, with no way to tell which is true. She is certainly complex, and very difficult to pin down.

Finally, Leroux' Raoul is simply the "normal guy" providing our window into much of the story. It's difficult to either like or dislike him, he remains external to much of what happens, but even he gets some interesting characterisation, particularly involving his childhood with Christine.

On the whole, this is a highly enjoyable, playful, fun read, with surprising depth of character and plot. It entertains, thrills, touches your heart -- and leaves you with just enough questions to keep your mind ticking over for a long, long time...

The Phantom of the Opera
Review by JR Pinto : There is a monster in this novel...and it is us.

Gaston Leroux was a reporter who also wrote mystery novels. Thus, he places himself in the action of this story. He is a reporter who has uncovered the secret of a "true mystery" that terrified the Paris Opera House thirty years previous. He presents the events "factually" from the documents and interviews with living witnesses. It has much in common with other mystery novels - like The Hound of the Baskervilles - in which supernatural things seem to happen, but in reality there is a "logical" explanation. Thus, The Phantom of the Opera is part mystery, part horror, and part romance. It is also part journalism; Leroux's inspiration was the Paris Opera House itself - which exists exactly as he describes it. It even has a lake and everything. The story of the falling chandelier is partially true - a counter-weight once fell.

When he first discovered the magnificence of the Opera, he decided to write a plot-driven novel about a deformed genius who has taken up his residence on the shore of the lake that exists in the cellar. The book is definitely a page-turner - there are many great "set pieces": the falling chandelier, the masked ball, the journey to the rooftop, the voyage through the mirror into the labyrinth below.

The odd thing is, although Leroux started out to write a plot-driven novel, it is a character which remains with the reader: Erik, The Opera Ghost. What is unique about this, as a Gothic novel, is that the "monster" is the good guy. Like Frankenstein's Monster, Erik is not evil - his sin is that he was born ugly. He is described as looking like a "living corpse" without even a nose. He is clearly a genius and would greatly enrich the world if only the world would accept him. However, the world does not - his own mother forced him to wear a mask and would never kiss him. Unlike Frankenstein's Monster, there is inhuman about Erik - he is simply ugly - and because of that, the world doesn't want what he has to offer. So, he hides in the Paris Opera House to flee from persecution. He is NOT, as several reviewers misread, a "serial-killer." In the end, it is Society - not the Phantom - who is the monster. Erik's crime is that he refused to lie down and be victimized.

Of course, the real story is a love-triangle among Erik, Christine Daae - his young protégé - and Raoul, the Vicompte de Chagny. Although Raoul is supposed to be the "hero" of the tale, he ends up as a rather silly, ineffectual person. It is the Phantom who loves Christine more. He loves as Raoul cannot...unselfishly. I find it interesting that Leroux does not let us know whether or not the happy couple stays together. I believe that Christine comes to regret her decision.

Because the "monster" is actually the hero, almost all the Hollywood versions have failed. This is obvious because they re-cast the Phantom as someone who has acid thrown on his face, thereby exonerating Society of creating monsters. The Lon Chaney version WAS the only one that mostly stuck to the book - therefore the audience doesn't know why it should be rooting AGAINST the Phantom. Andrew Lloyd Weber is the only one who got it right. Any fan of the musical should definitely read the novel..