Welcome to Gaia! ::

But there's the problem between the Christine and Erik relationship. Just as you said, they have to feel love. In the Leroux version (which is the version I stick to) Christine did not feel love toward Erik. She was both intrigued and repulsed by him. Even pitied him to an extent. But she did not love him. Which is why such a relationship would not have worked between the two.

I agree with you about that, in the Leroux version smile At the same time, while I don't see real love in the sense of romantic, true unconditionalized love between Erik and Christine, I am highly suspicious that the proclaimed love between Raoul and Christine isn't exactly true either. Because you see all of what happened between Erik and Christine- how it was said; She was scared of him, she pitied him, she felt obligated to him and at the same time wanted to run away... so, obviously, Raoul was who she ran to. I'm not content that there is true love between them.

If Christine was freaked to her wits so much, and "ran to cling" to a willing, familiar Raoul- or if he went to her to save her, to covince her to go off with him; Is there question that her feelings for Raoul, or Raoul for Christine even... could possibly be falsely enforced by feeling vulnerable, feeling scared, being confused and terrified? That saying "I love you" or feeling "in love" helps one to feel more secure in the midst of chaos, knowing you have someone there, something stable, someone to chase all shadows and phantoms away... but does not mean there is true love? But, perhaps it does, in some people's eyes.

I am aware that there are lingering feelings from childhood between them- but was that an infatuation, or real love? I am inclined the think feelings of romance between children are infatuation- I'm not sure that true, romantic love can come about and be understood until you are more self-actualized as an individual human being. Hmm... makes me think.

It's all in what you see and what your opinions are. Love is a very debatable subject. There are many different kinds, many different reasons that it might happen between two individuals. . . There probably are as many kinds and reasons as there have been, and are, people on Earth. sweatdrop

But Christine first realizes she loves Raoul and seeks a connection with him well before she finds out the truth about Erik. In fact, it's her falling in love with Raoul that triggers Erik revealing himself. So why would she need someone to save her when she wasn't in danger yet?
She even invites Raoul along with her to Perros and eagerly confides the secret of the 'Angel of Music' in him, something she had done only with Mama Valerius. I can't believe she would do that if she felt nothing for him at the time.
And then Raoul has to all but force her to tell him the truth when she eventually does find herself in a bad situation. (IIRC, she keeps telling him basically to keep his nose out of her business.) So I can't really see Christine only going with Raoul because he was safe.

And as for Christine being traumatised by her father's death... I think she was depressed, certainly, and she probably missed him so much that she would have been willing to do anything for a single bit of contact with him again, but I wouldn't go so far as to consider her totally childlike in her mentality, or a 'child in a woman's body'. That concept seems to come more from Webber and Kay, and their portrayal of her as naive and inept.
In Leroux t's only when she's connected to her father again in some way (through the Angel of Music or when playing games with Raoul) that she acts like a little girl, possibly in a subconcious effort to revert to the happier days of her childhood. The rest of the time she shows herself a mature and capable young woman.

Mm, I have been inspired to mark-up my Phantom novel with circles and underlines of questionnable and enlightening passages! Or perhaps I will just get the free e-book and digitally mark that copy up instead of my book ^^;

PhantomoftheFox, you bring up many good points that I will take some time to contemplate during my next reading and "note taking" of POTO. Perhaps I will find some of my opinions have been a little 'baseless.'

Utakan- Yes... and there are 7 different kinds of love according to the Triangular Theory of Love developed by Psychologist Robert Sternberg. He proposes that true "Consumate" love is made up of 3 parts: Intimacy, Committment, and Passion. The 6 other kinds are made up of pairs of these 3 components.

Here is a link to the wikipedia entry on the Triangular Theory of Love, with a table and Visual Aid.

1) Liking. Liking is likened to Friendship. It's only component is Intimacy. The feelings found under liking are those which friends normally have for one another, feeling close and bonded. Not necessarily phsyical attraction for, or committing to.

2) Infatuated Love. Infautation's only component is Passion. There is no intimacy or committment to sustain it, and if they don't develop in time, the feelings of physical attraction will fizzle out.

3) Empty Love. This is made up of only Committment. There are no feelings of passion or intimacy. They have either died, or never were present. This would be "obligated" love, in other words. Do you agree?

4) Romantic Love. This kind of love is proposed only to posses qualities of Passion and Intimacy, but lacking in committment. There is physical attraction and closeness/liking, but not the committment to keep the couple together for their lifetime.

5) Companionate Love. This is made up of Intimacy and Committment. As the example gives on wikipedia, this is likened to a sustaining marriage wherein the passion has been drowned out or never existed. The couple is emotionally bonded, and are committed to one another, but do not feel physical attraction. This could also represent the feelings that Family members and close friends have for one another.

6) Fatuous Love. Fatuous love is comprised of Passion and Committment.
It "can be exemplified by a whirlwind courtship and marriage in which a commitment is motivated largely by passion, without the stabilizing influence of intimacy." (I wasn't sure of how to word it).

7) Consumate Love. The grand-daddy of all Love. This is the ideal, true love that people usually mean when they refer to romantic love. This is comprised of all three components of Intimacy, Passion, and Committment. In other words, emotional bondage/liking, physical attraction, and committment to the partner and relationship. Over time, however, Consumate Love can fade into any of the other kinds if one or more counterparts receeds. Other kinds of love may also grow into being Consumate, should they develop the quality(s) they lack. While this kind of love is sought after, it is hard to maintain because it requires constant awareness of expression.

It is interesting, no? But as it's said, it is a Theory. I just thought I would share it with you all, now that I remembered to pull it up.

Hnn, yes it is indeed. Very strange.

Silver...

Yes, and the 5 jillion other fangirls. rolleyes
Just because you look like someone, doesn't exactly mean you're them.
No offense (cuz it's your friend and all), but that made me laugh.

I'm an E/C shipper, but I know it will only happen in fanfics (which are pretty wonky anyway). In reality, Christine belongs to Raoul.