Printable View
You are very harsh. I don't think you read this book for all it was worth. Its not about the actual story. This book is about the possibility of the Opera Ghosts existence. Leroux wants to create a proof of this monstrosity. The book wants you to think that maybe this lonely guy existed. And the book also shows you that everyone needs to be loved for themselves and that appearances don't make a person. Maybe if you cared about finding the deeper message you would enjoy the book more.
I agree! It's not so much how well or how badly it was written, but what is below the surface. You have to look past the facade into the truth of what Leroux was getting at. Yes, Erik was... dare I say "deranged"?... but, even he had his good points. We are led to wonder if, perhaps, had he been loved as a child and not shunned by his peers and even his own mother, he would still have grown-up to have such utter revile for humanity. After all, even the most disfigured need love and kindness. In addition, it shows us that genius is not necessarily happiness. Next time you read something, try reading between the lines, not just the lines themselves.
Not all stories have to be realistic sometimes read for fun.
I agree with both of them. I mean... the guy wasn't brought up properly.. it's amazing he even stayed THAT sane throughout his life. UNrealistic characters? Dude, this was probably liek romours of some guy during that period... balh blah blah... Leroux pciked up from that to write the story. Um.. melodaramtic characters?? One... he lived in an opera house. Two, carlotta was and opera singer... she was NATURALLY dramatic. And lastly, leroux actually stays kinda reallly central in the story, giving a VERY narrative text kind of thing. Thus it's up to the reader to decide. People liek me would sympathise with Erik, people liek you will jsut take him for a monster, a murderer etc. Tis up to the individual. But you shoudl not try to like ask people NOT to read it, they have to if they want to dtermine for themselves
Judging by your comments, I assume that you are blind and did not realli read the wonderful book<br>
<br>*blink* Oh... you did NOT just say that...<br><br>Hm... what crawled up your butt and died?<br><br>^__________^<br><br>HOW can you say that?! Unrealistic characters? I can imagine you as one of those people who burst the little dream bubbles of small children and one who hates love stories, always saying "oh it isn't realistic enough. This is stupid." Well...<br><br>The other reviewer is right: look at the poor man's childhood! Of course he is going to be a bit... edgy. *sniff* Poor Erik. He never experienced love in his childhood! His mother, his father - they didn't care. He was denied the one thing every human being needs. I mean he says at one point, "My mother, daroga, my poor, unhappy mother would never ...let me kiss her....She used to run away...and throw me my mask! ...Nor any other woman...ever, ever!"<br><br>You need to relax, consider that all people have feelings, and read between the lines.
No offense to the person who posted the comment but:<br><br> HOW CAN YOU SAY THAT!?!?!?!!?!?!? L'Fantome de Opera, the Phantom of the Opera, is the BEST book ever written, and the play, by Andrew Lloyd Webber, is divine. Though it lacks the intricacies of the plot in the book, it is still a marvelous rendition. <br> As for the book, "unrealistic characters" is not the phrase to describe the people Gaston Leroux brought to life in this book. It does not matter if they are not realistic. Honestly, some of the greatest pieces of literature had unrealistic characters. What of Romeo and Juliet? How unrealistic are they? Still their story is fantastic. <br> But "unrealistic characters"!?!? They are realistic if you look at them in a specific sense. Christine Daae was a Swedish opera-singer, always considered beneath La Carlotta, Spanish diva, according to Gaston Leroux. Theater is always like that. Every lovely talent shall have a rival who desires nothing but to suppress it. Christine acted according to her education, which was minimal, and according to her father's myths, which were a strange mix of ethereal and Christian. Christine's world was crashed in when her father died, and in her immense grief at losing the only person she had in the world, she most likely adopted his tales as a type of 'divine memory.' He had, after all, promised her the "Angel of Music." Christine also acted as any girl who loved enough would, when ransoming herself, so to speak, for Raoul, Vicomte de Chagny. <br> Vicomte Raoul de Chagny was the young, sheltered brother of Comte Phillipe de Chagny. He was brought up in a world where the rich ruled all, but even the rich had a type of definite moral. As a young child, Raoul rushed into the sea to fetch Christine's lost scarf. As a young gentleman, Raoul acted as he thought best- which is how many men would think if they were in his position. Jealous, angry, and worried about his lover, it is no wonder Raoul acted as he did. <br> Erik, the Phantom of the Opera, acclaimed 'Opera Ghost,' and the heavenly 'Angel of Music,' was a disfigured man who wanted only what the world had forbidden him. He was born with a mutilated face. His mother gave him a mask so as not to look at him, and his father never looked at him. Society despised him because of his complexion. It is no surprise bitterness swelled high within him. Later, he was able to secure an occupation working on the Paris Opera House. He begged to stay and live there, after adding many trap-doors and a secret domain in which he would never suffer the jeers of man again. He was allowed to. In this time, Erik nurtured amazing vocal, musical, and compositional talent. His life's work, Don Juan Triumphant, boasted of music never heard before, and of the title character doing the following; I quote Erik: 'I could play you Mozart, but it would only make you sad. My Don Juan, it burns, though it has never been struck by the fires of heaven.' When he met Christine, Erik was inclined to believe he loved. He desired love just as any other man would. What man can live without love? None, not even the wily Opera Ghost. So his past was revealed eventually and we come to slowly understand the rather complex and mystical character of Erik. <br> "Melodramatic plots" was your next declaration. If you think about it, many books tend to have a dramatic air about them. It is what makes a story truly interesting. Because such drama usually does not occur in our lives, it is quite interesting to read about those instances happening to a series of unique characters. Of course, there is also the fact the plots are very elaborate and obscure. Many readers, who wish for nothing but a direct book, deem L'Fantome de Opera silly and stupid. There is no direct answer to your questions right away, and this sometimes allows readers who do not want a highly advanced book the excuse of calling it dense. The complicated plots are really what make this story quite unlike any other- there is, in reality, one enormous plot, but it is surrounded by a thousand smaller ones, and all those are clicking around like dozens of little watches, before the large one strikes twelve, so to speak. These keep your mind instantly at edge and serve the purpose of making you think nothing but awe while reading. But finally, perhaps none should be too quick to judge a book. Especially a book they do not understand. <br> "A murderer who the reader is supposed to feel sorry for," is your next complaint. First of all, Erik is not wholly and frankly a simple murderer, whom you can condemn so easily and then forget. Bitterness can drive men to do rash actions, and it is clear that Erik was very bitter. The death we are immediately introducted to, of Joseph Buquet, was not really a murder by Erik. Erik had long said that none should follow him into his house, and though the staff of the Paris Opera House never really heard the words declared in that form, they all feared the 'ghost' and knew enough not to go near him. Joseph Buquet had previously seen Erik. It was he who gave the description to the corps de ballet. He knew Erik was the ghost, and proclaimed him to be. It would make sense to stay away from him then. It was Joseph Buquet's own fault he died. He followed Erik, strayed into the torture chamber, and fell under its effects. Erik had murdered in the 'rosy hours of Mazendaran,' but only by order of the 'little sultana.' Erik could very well have lost his own life if he did not entertain her. Those deaths were to keep his own life continuing. After all, most were condemned to die anyway. I am not defending Erik. In some respects, he was a murderer. But I am pointing out things you failed to notice. <br> To finalize my comment, I respond to "pathetic book." Pathetic. Is it truly pathetic? Or are you simply labeling it pathetic? According to my above specifications, you did not really understand the book and discarded it as 'crummy' because it was not realistic or direct. I do say this: it is not pathetic. It is, to be blunt, a myth of literature that astounds the mind, surrounds it with plots, and is far advanced above your typical, ordinary, book. <br> I hope this has given some understanding to '!!!!,' and to all who label L'Fantome de Opera as stupid. In reality, I doubt you even understood it. <br> Oh yes: do not listen to !!!! when he says not to read it. It is your decision to define it as a 'waste of your time' or a wonderful book. Though it is truly a wonderful book, I will not bias your opinion. <br>
This is a pathetic book. Unrealistic characters, melodramatic plots, and a murderer who the reader is supposed to feel sorry for make it a very bad piece of literature. Anyone planning to read it- take my advice- do something better with your time.
First of all, to express your distaste with a piece of literature is one thing, we are all allowed our own opinions, however one gains nothing if not exposed.
You may have thought it was a terrible book, it is all over the place in terms of the writing, that aside, the story is truly magnificent and wonderful. What you did not pick up is that it is the triumph and failures of the human spirit. In terms of realism, at the time this book was written, the characters seemed very realistic. There were sharp divisions of classes, most were uncomfortable and afraid of the unknown and what they did not understand. Moreover, chivalry so-to-speak, was at it's height, when young men were ready to die for the one they loved. All that may seem unrealistic now, because we live in a society where romance is pratically dead, and the population is desensitized in so many ways.
I suggest you reread this book with an open mind. Perhaps do a little research in the century in which it was written, particularly French history, perhaps then you will see it is much more than you delcared it to be.
I feel sorry for you, that you did not get more out of this wonderful work of literature.
I would like to tell one of the members "Vicomtesse Christine De Chagny" I read your very long thread which u have posted and AGREE with what you say.
I watched the movie in which Gerard Butler acts as the phantom.
I feel that the Phantom wanted to be loved because it was something he did not get as a child and by all respects he was a gentman who loved Christine a lot.
He was her musical guru and Phantom taught Christine all about music and made her a singing superstar.
Whenever we do so much for a person and make them get recognition obviously we expect that the person should show gratitude in return.
The Phantom wanted the gratitude to be returned in the form of affection and he must have felt deeply hurt when Christine just ignored him and turned to Raol. THis is the reason that the Phantom became angry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kts
Of course he was angry. However, in the book, we must remember he had only been teaching Christine for three months. That wasn't nearly long enough to have a complete claim over her.
Also, Christine did not just "ignore" him. Why did she stay to sing Faust for him? Why did she refuse to flee with Raoul the night of the Ball Masque? She felt admiration and pity for Erik - not love.
Another thing that really ticks me off is the way people think they can control Christine's actions, such as, "She was such an idiot to leave with Raoul! She should have stayed with Erik!"
When were Christine's actions in any of your power? She was a frightened child who acted to the best of her abilities. It is not for you to criticize her. I admire her for her stamina and courage, and heartily glare at those who think her an immature brat who ran off with "the rich boy."
I agree with the ones who liked it and don't with the ones that didn't. I'm not going to go into this here. This is a great book and I am very sorry that those that didn't like it just didn't like it.
P.G.7.