Customer Reviews

The Phantom of the Opera: The Original Novel

5 star:		(266)
4 star:		(69)
3 star:		(28)
2 star:		(7)
1 star:		(6)

 

 

Before the Andrew Lloyd Webber's musical, there was Gaston Leroux's original novel "The Phantom of the Opera". I have never seen the production stage, and I knew only a few things of the story, so when I reached the middle of the narrative I was surprised because it is totally different from what I expected. And it was a great surprise.

More than a love story, "The Phantom of the Opera" is a gothic tale of obsession --leading to madness. The Paris Opera House and its hidden rooms, and underground are perfect place to develop a horror story. Leroux noticed this potential. His descriptions of the place are creepy and in the end we start wondering if it is not a true story indeed.

Leroux was very smart, writing a novel like he was only reporting something --and not creating a work of fiction. Therefore there are police reports, newspapers' scraps, witness interviews. More than a narrator, the person who is telling the story is only gathering useful information for the reader.

His characters are real human beings --even the `ghost', than throughout the narrative we realize that he is the one with most human characteristics. Sometimes, Christine is a little stereotypical, mostly when she says she wants to be `the mistress of her faith' or something like it. And so is Raoul --but that doesn't diminish the qualities of this engaging novel.

All in all, this is a French classic that I highly recommend --however one must be patient because the narrative is a little confusing and slow sometimes, but never boring.

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.

French is a beautiful and romantic language and English translations of the Phantom of the Opera haven't always come through quite as beautifully and often times they sound military. This translation flows very well. I was very surprised when I found it. I had read about three or four versions of the book in English from different translators when I stumbled onto this one by accident at the local library. I prefer books in hardcover and searched for this translation in that format but was not able to find it. Now, I have only one classic French book in paperback. This is really the best translation of this book. It flows easily although not as perfectly as the French does. Who knew Bantam could pull this off successfully?

Everyone at one point in their lives has heard of the story of The Phantom of the Opera whether it is the oringal novel version or Andrew Lyod Webber's musical. However this is where it all began with the publication of Leroux's original novel.

I must admit that at first glance the book seems very dry and written more or less from a reporter or journalist's perspective. More or less it reminded me of Bram Stoker's novel Dracula in the fact that many of the areas of the book are written though the point of others. But once you get past seemingly the dry exterior you find an immeasurable cornucopia of amazing characters, events and one of the best literary love's and gothic work of fiction. IT personally took me a good 20 pages before I became completely absorbed in Leroux's rich world of amazing detail.

The story mainly revolves around the Vicomte Raoul de Chagny who has fallen in love with the beautiful Christine Daae who is being haunted by a mysterious "ghost" in her dressing room. The plot moves as anyone would suspect when Christine begins to return the feelings of the Vicomte but then he soon comes to realize that Christine's ghost is real and has a thing or three to say about their relationship.

I found this novel amazing, I read it in one day from the moment I picked it up and nearly had it confiscated when I was reading it in class when I should have been taking notes. There is just so much raw emotion, mystery and love in this amazing story. I could not help but be swept up in it like a tidal wave. The book gives the character of the Phantom, or Erik, so much more depth and emotions than what the ALW version even began to scratch the surface of. No matter who you are, whether or not you support Erik or not, you cannot help but be moved at his attempts to woe Christine and how shallow, yet dangerously innocent she is.

Erik has earned, on my shelf, the award of being one of the best literary characters. His love for Christine is just simply so pure that your sympathy for him is great. This book actually had me moved to tears. Luckily I was in the shelter of my room with the door safely closed so I could cry in peace at the ending. Under normal circumstances, many people see myself as the stone cold person who never cries in movies or books, but this book is the only one that has ever brought tears to my eyes.

I have read it over and over, never once have I ever regreated my purchess in any way, shape, manor or fashion. I highly recomend this to every soul on earth.

THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA is as much a story of the Paris Opera House as it is the tale of that misfigured creature known as the ghost, or the phantom. Without the architectural peculiarities of the real opera house, which have been put to good use in this novel, there could have been no phantom. There is a real subterranean lake in the nether regions of the opera house. There is an interconnected maze of corridors, stairways, chutes, ladders, and lifts of such great complexity that it is easy to get lost. To put this in perspective, over 2,500 doors have been counted and there are certainly more. Many of the corridors remain in almost perpetual darkness. This setting could certainly provide a home for the vast, almost subhuman culture of door-closers and other creatures of darkness that inhabit Leroux's opera house.

The phantom, as depicted by Gaston Leroux, is definitely not the rather benign Michael Crawford of the Broadway Musical. Leroux's phantom is a monster, blackmailer, kidnapper and murderer. In looks, he is more like the Lon Chaney of the silent movie.

During one of his frequent visits to the Paris Opera, Leroux came across a legend of a mysterious ghost who was supposed to have lived in the lower reaches of the theater and to have been responsible for several murders. It took him less than three months in 1911 to convert this story into THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA. The book was not a success. Only because, in the mid 1920's, Universal Studios was looking for a new role for Lon Chaney and decided that this was perfect, did PHANTOM get a new life.

The plot is rather simple. Beautiful Girl is a member of the opera chorus. Phantom, very knowledgeable in these things, recognizes a great voice and a career that needs a bit of help. Phantom contrives an accident that gives Beautiful Girl the opportunity to sing a lead role. Phantom falls in love with Beautiful Girl, kidnaps her, and holds her captive in his subterranean hideaway. Beautiful girl has some feelings for Phantom, but, particularly after seeing his face, cannot reciprocate his love. Protagonist tries to rescue Beautiful Girl but is caught in Phantom's deadly booby trap. At the last possible moment, Beautiful Girl helps Protagonist escape. Phantom dies. Beautiful Girl empathises with Phantom after his death but lives happily ever after with Protagonist.

The above is an obvious simplification. To get the real sense of the terror and the eerie atmosphere of the story, and of the opera house, itself, one must read the book. The characterizations are a bit flat, but hold up well enough when compared to much of the genre fiction written today.

I've noticed that more than a few of the readers who have previously reviewed PHANTOM OF THE OPERA have stated that this is "the best book I've ever read," or in one case that it is "the best book ever written." I'd like to caution against that sort of statement. Whan calling any book the best, you are saying something about yourself. The first thing that a thoughtful person might conclude is that you're probably not very well read. What about the books of Tolstoy, or Dostoevsky, or any of hundreds, or perhaps thousands, of other excellent authors. There really are an awful lot of outstanding authors out there. Alternately, our hypothetical thoughtful person might conclude that you're just not a very good judge of literary quality. A review in your own words that leaves out the superlatives might prove much more valuable to the person seeking guidance in selecting a book.

One other comment: If a student in a class that I were teaching told me that this book is "Classic Leroux," I would probably ask him or her what makes it typical of Leroux's body of work, for that's what a classic example is. Then, because it is common knowledge that no other examples of his work are readily available, I would have to conclude that the author of this statement had no basis for this judgement.

Now, what would be my recommendation to a potential reader? If you're looking for some light reading, or if you'd like to read the book that started the whole PHANTOM tradition and, additionally, was the source of the whole horror movie genre, I would recommend it. It is of historical significance for the movie and play goers of today.

What I enjoyed most about this book was the simplicity of language and the direct truth of human needs. Erik was physically deformed and sickly. Mostly, he was unloved and cast out from society; he was bigger than just the Opera Ghost. He was society's shame -- a shame they felt that should be hidden and not acknowledged (either out of fear or because of it... you choose). That lack of positive acknowledgement is what makes this book so sad and frustrating. He had love to give, but it was not wanted; he was deemed a creature of horror. But it was really the general attitude of society that was the horror -- not him. The book really echoes the truth that it is what is on the inside that matters, for that is what lasts the longest, and that people should be more open-minded to the mental and physical flaws that either God or Nature or both created. Erik is a symbol not of darkness and the gothic motif, but of light and life and living. If anyone liked this book, they should read Susan Kay's Phantom; it is a good precursor to Leroux's The Phantom of the Opera.

I am one of the many people whose first encounter with Phantom of the Opera was the Andrew Lloyd Webber musical. It was the most inspiring production I have ever seen, and I fell in love with Phantom immediately. At first, I was mainly interested in this original novel because of the play, sort of as "research" into the background of the stage production I loved so much. My interst was not in the book itself. In the end, however, I found out that it was a great work of literature by itself, truly worthy of being called a classic, and deserving higher recognition.

In the book, much more than in the musical and other adaptions, Erik the Phantom, is someone the reader can, at first, truly loath. His more tender side isn't shown until the very end, making you almost guilty that you ever passed him off as a sadistic murderer. All he ever wanted was to be normal: to have a normal life, a normal home, and a wife, like an ordinary man. Moreover, he could have become a quite a distinguished figure in society for his architectural and musical acheivements, if he were anything close to "normal". And yet this would never happen: his face was so deformed that he couldn't be anything other than a social outcast, hiding in the underground labyrinths of the Paris Opera House.

When Erik falls in love with a young and beautiful singer, Christine Daae, he is driven mad by the fact that she could never love him because of his face, and resorts to insane methods to make her "love" him. Unfortunately for Erik, she already has a lover, the young Raoul de Chagny,who is generally clueless as to the degree of Erik's passion, and his utter, dangerous genius. Much of the story revolves around this bizarre love triangle. Then there is a whole sub-plot involving the (somewhat humorous)dealings of the Opera managers and the Ghost, and the latter's pranks against them and their business.

If you read this novel, prepare to be drawn into a whole new and complex world--that of the Paris Opera house. When I read it, I was struck by the vivid descriptions of the building itself--its enormous size and rich architecture. It creates this sort of cut-off-from-the-world feeling. It is partly this feeling that makes the story so appealing.

Phantom of the Opera is written in a very matter-of-fact manner, almost like a newspaper article, with 'interviews' and 'narratives'. The author starts the story by stating that "The Opera Ghost really existed". By the end, you are left wondering if perhaps this IS a true story, or at least if Gaston Leroux really believed it was. This is another of the book's appealing qualities. Of course, it is also quite well written, exciting (although it would be wrong to call it constant flat-out action)and just...classic. In short, everyone should read Phantom of the Opera before they die...and prepare to be enchanted by the rich plot and unique characters.

Just as an aside, I also strongly recommend the 2004 movie(with Emmy Rossum as Christine and Gerard Butler as the Phantom). It is a well filmed, well acted, and really quite heartbreaking representation of the musical. It never fails to make me cry at the end!

Fiddling one day with some shared music files, I came across a somewhat ghastly musical. But it invoked in me a desperate need to find out more about this story, which I remembered having loved as a small child.
The 1940's film version of The Phantom of the Opera was a defining part of my thoughts back then, and the story intrigued me. There is something wonderfully dangerous and captivating about an opera house with five cellars replendant with secret passageways and "ghosts." So I read the book, which took me all of one day.
It's rare to come across a book that spoils all others for a time, but this is one. Despite a confusing beginning with numerous undefined names and settings, the book takes off. The story takes a more emotional slant than any other adaptation. Since reading it I went to the recent film-musical, which lost the brilliance of inventions and only focused on his madness.
There is enough science and illusion to attract any sci-fi fans, enough stress on music to invite musical fans, and enough story and character and dreamland for everybody else.
I read Phantom two weks ago and have read it four times since, and the wonder has not yet worn off.
The book begins as the Paris Opera is hosting a gala in honor of a change in management. From the first scene, the Opera Ghost is foremost in the theater as a superstition of young girls and joke, although many of the partons and workers of the vast building tacitly accept the truth of his being.
As the story progresses, we come into the aquaintance of Christine Daae, a ballet and chorus girl who assumes the leading role as La Carlotta is unable to. After taking the audience by storm, it is revealed that she has been tutored by a mysterious voice in her dressing room, whom she beleives to be the "Angel of Music" her father promised to send her while on his death bed. In reality, the angel is the same mischevious Opera Ghost who demands an exorbitant monthly salary and haunts box five. And the "O.G." is Erik, the severely disfigured and un-socialized (I am still unclear over whether or not he even possessed a nose) architectural, musical genius who traveled all over the world building and inventing novelties to entertain royalty and peasantry.
Erik is in turn alluded to as one might to an irresponsible child, as a monster, as a madman, but mostly as a deeply emotional and misunderstood man.
The Phantom of the Opera is a mystery, a romance, and a beautiful sketch of events.
It is up to you which box to turn: the scorpion, or the grasshopper.

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.

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.