Customer Reviews

The Phantom of Manhattan

5 star:		(27)
4 star:		(23)
3 star:		(16)
2 star:		(23)
1 star:		(113)

 

 

I was so excited to find this book, hoping for another like Phantom by Susan Kay. Oh, how I was sadly, sadly mistaken. Please, don't be fooled by the pretty cover of this book or by Andrew Lloyd Webber's review saying it "captures the spirit and style of Gaston Leroux's novel, and the romance and thrills." Ha! That's laughable, and one can only wonder was Mr. Webber serious? He did *read* the book, right?

The book is a disgrace, it's terrible. I am just so sorry that I wasted my money on this garbage. Are you getting the picture here? The book is beyond terrible.

First the insults in the preface and I quote "The way poor Gaston tells it is a mess." And he goes on and on about the mistakes that were made in the original novel. And all I can say is it is you Frederick Forsyth who made the mistakes, and turned the story of Erik, into a mess.

Where do I begin? The first chapter had me PO'd, as Antoinette Giry tells her tale of how she rescues Erik from a cage at the age of sixteen, and of the history behind Erik. The rest of the book goes on to describe Erik as a tycoon (for lack of a better word) money hungry, and hooks up with some other money hungry soul.

The book had no feeling, and absolutely no trace of the Phantom we have come to know and love. None at all. Let me make it clear again. None.

So if you are thinking of reading the book, buying it, getting it for someone else. Don't. Don't waste your time, your money, and save yourself the disappointment. You would be so much better off to read or reread Susan Kay's brilliant novel Phantom. In fact, I'm going back to my well worn copy just to repair the damage Mr. Forsyth caused.

Don't read this book. And if you still have the urge to read it, look at the other reviews. I don't think there is a positive one to be found.

Oh and Amazon, I really wish you would let is have 0 stars... That's what I would rate this one.

I would have given this 0 stars if Amazon.com would let me.

First of all, I would like to say that Forsyth's arrogance never ceases to amaze me. In writing a sequel to a classic book, perhaps he should have considered the debt he owed to the author of the original novel. Gaston Leroux has written not some obscure "slim little volume" (as Forsyth seems to think), but rather a wonderful and tragic story that has touched the hearts of millions of readers. There is no mention of Leroux in his acknowledgment section, and his preface is nothing but an explanation of why he (Forsyth) is correct and Leroux was wrong. An author of a fiction novel cannot be wrong, as these are his *own* characters. But Forsyth sits back and explains everything he finds to be incorrect in the Leroux during this preface. Erik (the Phantom) cannot have had a varied life, he explains, because surely he would have come to accept his deformity. Erik therefore must be younger...The list of things Forsyth thinks are wrong is absolutely endless and completely horrifying. He takes away everything that made Erik who he was in the Leroux and turns him into exactly what he claims he is not: a monster with no humanity. As for the book itself: The writing comes from several, unnecessary viewpoints and is often hard to follow. These characters, some who don't even play a major part in the book, really don't have any purpose in narrating this. There is too little of the story to go on. Put simply, this book was supposed to be about Erik, and there is very little of Erik in it. None, if you consider this isn't even the Erik most phans love, but rather some perversion of his character, one who only worships gold. Truly, this book is an awful read with no emotion attached. It's the first time I've ever read a book about Erik and not had tears brought to my eyes. If you want a good book about this wonderful man, read the original (The Phantom Of The Opera: Illustrated And Unabridged Edition), Susan Kay's Phantom, or An Wallace's Letters to Erik: The Ghost's Love Story. Those books, not Forsyth's, captured Erik's soul.

Do not waste your money on this book. If you want to read a more expanded version of the Phantom story, do yourself a favor and read, (or re-read) "Phantom" by Susan Kay. The "corrections" made by Forsyth are just plain maddening. (How can anyone have the nerve to correct fiction is just beyond me.) This is the proposed "sequel" to Phantom of the Opera? Where is Eric? Where is his passion, his pain? Who cares about this Phantom who lives in Manhattan? I certainly did not! This book is nothing more than bad melodrama. Save your money!

How do I review the work of a person who begins his novel by trashing the work of the man on whose famous work his novel is based? Gaston Leroux's classic novel "The Phantom of the Opera" has thrilled readers and movie/theater patrons who have seen the screen & stage adaptations of his work. Forsyth attempts to expand on Leroux's characters, while saying that Leroux was totally wrong in his creation of those same characters.

The Phantom of Manhattan is written from many different points of view, which makes it very confusing. The characters do not "live," they are not believable, more cardboard than living, breathing people. For those familiar with the Leroux Phantom or the Andrew Lloyd Webber musical, these characters bear little resemblance to any of those beloved characters. This story is neither romance, nor mystery. I would advise anyone who wants to read about the Phantom to read the original Leroux book, or the wonderful novel, Phantom by Susan Kaye.

The Phantom of Manhattan is an awful book in all regards. The foreword of the novel goes on about wanting to correct "poor Gaston's" mistakes in writing the novel, as well as making a long-winded argument about journalistic reporting. While the foreword manages to demean Gaston Leroux's classic The Phantom of the Opera, the main body Phantom of Manhattan fails to really do anything. Any psychological complexity from the original novel is completely gone, as is any vestige of the original characters; they are all mere shadows, simplistic and one-dimensional. Meanwhile, the plot is mildly reminiscent of the original while being nowhere near as engaging. The use of multiple narrators does nothing for the story; instead, it distances you from the story, because the point of view jumps around so much while never getting near any of the main characters. This is not anywhere near the quality of the original book; don't waste your time reading it.

Being a fan of Leroux's "Phantom of the Opera," and also of the Lloyd-Webber musical, I was delighted to find a sequel. Then I read the sequel. Now I know better. This pathetic excuse for a novel is not a sequel at all, but a poorly diguised piece of bad fanfiction. Frederick Forsyth's writing style is weak and dull. His characters have no depth or emotion. Furthermore, his plot resembles "Days of Our Lives" more than "Phantom of the Opera". I also disagree with the ending. Like the rest of this novel, it leaves much to be desired.

The novel begins about thirteen years after the events of the original story. Erik has somehow escaped from the armed mob that was clamoring for his blood the last time we saw him, and is now an extremely rich business tycoon living in New York City. Somehow, he now has no problem with walking through large crowds in broad daylight, and evidently his associates have never noticed that he goes around in a mask and cape.

Christine, now married to Raoul, has a twelve year old named Pierre. Eventually, we find out that Pierre is not really Raoul's son, but Erik's. Supposedly he was concieved when Christine fainted down in Erik's lair. Though I am not as obsessed with Erik as some of the Phantom Phans out there, I really don't think any of them want to see him portrayed as a rapist.

How did Erik find out about his son, you ask? Forsyth tells us that back when Raoul was a boy of sixteen, he was rescuing a friend of Mme. Giry's and recieved wounds that made him unable to have children. Thus, Mme. Giry knows that Pierre is Erik's and writes to him on her deathbed to tell him so. I think this is just one coincidence too many.

Upon recieving her letter, Erik starts stalking Christine and young Pierre. When he finally confronts her, he tells her to hand over the boy to him. So, in this novel, Erik has raped and stalked Christine, and then asked her to give up the only child she'll ever have. Doesn't that seem a little selfish of him, considering that the only reason Erik let her go in the first place was because he wanted her to be happy? Forsyth has taken away the Phantom's redemption, and turned him into a rather colorless shade of his original self.

What annoyed me about this book is that, in addition to butchering Gaston Leroux's work, Forsyth takes up quite a few pages at the beginning of the book insulting Leroux. He claims that "Poor Gaston" wrote the story wrong. Now, since Leroux was the one who created the wonderful characters Forsyth tries so pathetically to re-produce, how could he have written them "wrong"? He also claims that Leroux's writing style was a "mess". Well, before he starts bashing another author's style, he ought to take a good look at his own. Perhaps it is his lack of respect for the novel that caused him to stray so far from the spirit of the original story.

In short, this novel is not worthy of your time and money. If you feel you must read it out of morbid curiosity, then get it from your library. If you want a real "Phantom" sequel, try Susan Kay's Phantom. She knew what she was writing about.

Please do not waste your time and money on this book. If you want to read a book that captures every element of the phantom of the opera, read Phantom, by susan kay. It is better than the original novel. here, forsyth creates a pitiful soap opera where his characters are unemotional and one dimensional. The facts do not even come close to matching the original novel. He left out important characters and gave all the credit to Andrew Lloyd Weber for the original. I found the book a severe disappointment. some things are not meant to have a sequel. This book was written purely out of egotism and greed. There is no understanding of the story or what it means. Please, reread the original or susan kay's book before even thinking of buying this filth.

While this book was well written, it had none of the magic or mysetry of either the play or the original book. The phantom as a person who makes tons of money on the stock market? Come on! Only one part had any of the feeling of Phantom of the Opera, & that was only a few lines. And someone writing a sequel shouldn't have to have a huge introduction ripping on the original novel. Especially if the attempt at a sequel is as disgraceful as this one.

Not sure why the author felt like he had to move the time period, & then try to put every famous American alive during that time into the story somehow. I read incredulous as Roosevelt, famous boxers, Irving Berlin, & Wild Bill made brief appearances. It really tripped up the flow of the novel.

The story was interesting, but if you are a big fan of the musical, especially the romance between Raol & Christine you probably want to skip this book too. Some of the plot twists really put a damper on that.

And what's up with one character having conversations with God while another is conversing with the Devil?

While I had many complaints about this book I'm only going to mention one more. I am an avid reader & have never been "offended" by something in a book. But I really object to the notion that was repeatedly stated, that a child's "real" father is his biological father. The child abandons the good, loving man who had raised him for 13 years to go with a stranger simply because they were blood relation. And this is portrayed as noble & the right thing to do. Anyone who is raising step-children or adopted children may want to think twice before having this kind of message in their home library.

But if you are just dying to know what happens "after", don't expect any good mystery, & want to see the phantom become a boring money tycoon who eventually gets redeemed, go for it. I'm going to toss this book out & be glad I only spent $2 on it.

Being a Phantom of the Opera fan and enjoying Frederick Forsyth's books, I expected a lot more from this one. I found it tedious reading with a very thin plot. It did not keep my interest. It was written on request of Andrew Lloyd Webber who intended it as a sequal to his Broadway smash. However, it misses the mark completely.

The Phantom of Manhattan is, stated simply, an awful book. Don't buy it. First off, the foreword is incredibly insulting to the original author, Gaston Leroux. The author goes on about how 'poor Gaston' made mistakes in his work, especially with the characters, and he feels compelled to correct them. This was especially surprising to me, because I thought that because 'The Phantom of the Opera' was Gaston Leroux's work, all of the characters were his. He can't make mistakes with them; they're as he imagined them, as he created them. They're the characters, with their own established personalities and backstories; therefore, I didn't think you could 'fix' them. Also, the novel manages to contradict both the original and the musical. Moving past the foreword, the book inspires less outrage and more disgust/boredom. The characters have no relation or similarity to the established characters. The psychological complexity of the Phantom, especially, is gone; the other characters are merely cardboard cutouts. You don't care about them, or what's going to happen to them, and even if you hadn't read the original, the characters are still uninteresting. The same goes for the plot: It's just boring and poorly thought-out and executed. Meanwhile, the narration style keeps you out of the main characters' thoughts, adding to their one-dimensionality. It distances you from the story, and the jumping from narrator to narrator does nothing for the story. Even if you'd never seen the musical or read the original, this would still be a disappointing read. It's an awful story, plain and simple; in summary, the characters lack dimension, as does the plot. This book has no redeeming qualities that would make me ever recommend it. If you want a good Phantom book, pick up the original or Phantom, by Susan Kay. And if you're looking for a good read, look elsewhere; you won't find it here.