|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2005 7:21 pm
In the Leroux novel what took him away from real life was his music and his architectural (sp?) knowledge. He wouldn't have needed drugs while he was spending hours, days, even weeks on his Don Juan Triumphant. I mean, if he was not so into music, or mechanics and architecture, I could see him doing drugs. But he seemed so wrapped up in those things that he simply doesn't strike me as a druggie. That was his escape. I actually expect that through all he's gone through he is a very cynical person. I mean, I would be too (well, moreso than I already am, anyway) if I were him. I haven't gotten to the part with Raoul yet, but I do like it when Raoul is a bit more three-dimensional. I do not like him in the least, just because he is the kind of person who rubs me the wrong way. But having him being totally good or totally ridiculable are both unrealistic, and makes him seem like a throwaway character. So I think the book will be good, I just have some issues with certain aspects of it. Just my opinion.
(Off topic but...eh. I kinda feel like I'm stalking you, Utakan. We seem to always converge in topics and discuss stuff, wherever. It's kinda strange. Hehe.)
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2005 7:46 pm
(Stalk me as you wish. I seem to have grown a following) Well, I think Don Juan was more a product of his insanity due to drugs more than anything (and I believe is mentioned so in Kay's book but do not quote me because I haven't picked up my copy to re-read it yet) and while yes I'm sure music and masonry were his escapes for some things, his mind can still work and revert back to reality whenever it wishes. Being under and drug's influence curbs rational thought and gives hallucinatory images and occurances that often calm them down. Though I'm entirely sure he wasn't a heavy addict, it is possible for him to use them as a relaxant when things got rough or he wanted to forget for a while. I never understood why phans bring themselves to dislike Raoul. I actually liked him the first time I read Leroux's book. He was the general good guy going to save his love from an evil, deprived man with the face similar to the result of a frying pan smacking (okay, not really. I'm making a joke). While these days I'm sure Raoul would be more of a "playa" or a guy who wouldn't put all that effort into getting Christine as anything, back then due to many things (diseases, duels, life in general) people died young commonly. So it was common that if you fell in love, you better damn well snatch her and get married to have kids before the Grim Reaper knocks you over. That and (I've said this soooo many times) Raoul is an innocent. His mother died giving birth to him, his father died when he was about thirteen which left him in the care of his brother and his sisters who later all married off. This left him very pampered, effeminate, and not in touch with the gritty reality that surrounded him. And that more or less gives him the makings of the good guy and the pure innocent that can relate with Christine and continue her childish ways of thinking and living. Because after all, Christine is not mature (she had to be about 17 novel wise) and I'm sure her life all was shot to hell after her father died. She stayed a child mentally. And I quote from another phan forum: Quote: Why do people hate Raoul? B/c he's Erik's opposition. He's not manly. He's not cool. He's not a genius. Shrug. He "took" Christine away. Why do people like Raoul? maybe they've gotten over some of those things and see that his character wasn't as horrible as made out to be. Which is generally a true statement. Raoul is perceived as a flat character because the story (however you put it) surrounds the Opera House and Erik, the Phantom of the titled story. Raoul is a side character who is Erik's rival (not so much, but more an obsticle) for Christine's affections if she could at all love him. It's more common to hate him because of his not-so-rounded out nature, but we have to give the man credit where credit is due.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2005 8:02 pm
I can see your point about him using drugs, but somehow I myself can't imagine that Erik would. Just doesn't seem to fit his personality, at least not in my eyes.
And, if I can clarify, I do not hate Raoul I recognize his good points (caring, devoted, brave) as well as his bad ones (childish jealousy, not awfully bright.) I also see Erik's good points (very loving, loyal, very intelligent) and bad ones (cold unfeeling personality, sociopath, violent tendencies.) Raoul annoys me. It has nothing to do with me liking Erik because everybody else does. Erik just appeals to me more than Raoul. I can accept his bad points more than I can accept Raoul's. I've known people like Raoul, and while they were okay as people, they just annoyed the hell out of me, especially with their jealousy. I don't hate him, I just really don't like his personality. I'd be more likely to try to get along with Erik.
I actually found the "evil, deprived man with the face similar to the result of a frying pan smacking" comment funny. Heh.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2005 8:20 pm
Well as a friend of mine said once, every phan has their own interpretation of Erik because he does not belong to anyone in particular. He belongs to all the phans who love him and to all the authors who tell his story. There really is no right or wrong, despite the purists that say otherwise.
And while I understand Raoul is just the type of guy you'd be annoyed with for whatever reason, he has his validation points. Honestly, more phans just need to give the guy a chance. I'm not saying every Phan has to love him, but at least bring up valid reason for disliking him beyond the petty and rather innacurate excuse of "he's a fop".
Yes Erik has his bad points, but he isn't meant to be the winner of this "dual". The man was meant originally to be the evil villain we all end up going "aw" to at the end because he's generally this mentally unstable pitiful ugly little bug on the windshield of life's car. But what most people don't get is he's not supposed to be this pathetic little whiny-a** who's even remotely attractive in any physival sense.
But I could sit here all night and explain the reality of Erik's personality, but I'm pretty sure that isn't what anyone cares to read.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2005 8:35 pm
I totally agree that he's not supposed to be whiny and oh-so-tragic a character. That is what I blame ALW for making him into. I too, would write forever about Erik's real personality, and I may do so yet, but right now, I do not have the time, nor the patience. He does cry in the book, but mostly out of desperation for human interaction and companionship, and then, for overwhelming happiness and sadness at the same time. ALW made him seem like a baby when he cried, like "Oh no! Nobody loves me! I'm gonna cry now!" Erik is supposed to be very repulsive, but at the same time, he's also had such a hard, horrible life that he's hard not to feel sorry for. I don't think he'd want anyone feeling sorry for him though. He does not feel sorry for himself in the Leroux!version. Gerik, on the other hand, does. I, myself find that I would be living in fear of Erik, both for his personality and his looks. But I would still...like him, y'know? I actually knew somebody who reminded me a lot of Erik. He hadn't actually killed anybody though, but he thought about it. And he wasn't deformed. But I was half in love with him. He was a little messed-up in the head, and that part bothered me, but he just had such a bad life that I couldn't help but like him. So, I like Erik for what he's meant to be, a repulsive, deranged person, who, under all that is actually quite likeable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 27, 2005 11:50 am
I just finishes reading "Maskerade" - Terry Pratchett - it was pretty good. Very amusing, I would recommend it to other phans. MUCH more enjoyable then Phantom of Manhattan! smile
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 27, 2005 3:42 pm
I enjoyed Maskerade. Even though I read it out of the series Pratchett had going, I understood enough to laugh and find the book enjoyable. I didn't even know it was a PotO paroy of sorts until I began reading it. I just thought the back description sounded like an ironic coincidence. X3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 28, 2005 4:03 pm
Utakan Kity_Bloodstone Has anyone read "The Phantom of Manhattan" by Frederick Forsyth? It is a great book detailing what might have happened after that faithful night down in Erik's lair... it is sad in the end but a must read (I think) and is really good! I personally don't care for the book. Mr. Forsyth really ruined my opinion of him personally with his opinions on how much of "and idiot Leroux was" and praising Mister Webber instead. The book itself had many weak points and things that I'm sure would've been better left out of the book. I believe a lot of the characters are rather OOC and you barely get to see Raoul which I think is stupid because he is married to Christine. My opinion in a nutshell is I don't care for the book, but others might.
What amuses me is that people fail to realize that without Leroux, there would be no Webber musical.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 28, 2005 8:04 pm
Some people think ALW created Phantom of the Opera. Hell, some people don't even know what PotO is. The ignorance of some people is mind-boggling.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 29, 2005 4:30 pm
I can''t find Susan Kay''s version crying
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 29, 2005 8:49 pm
Koneko Tsukino I can''t find Susan Kay''s version crying They are reprinting it in september sometime
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 27, 2005 7:38 pm
I haven't got to read any of them except Gaston Leroux's, which I really like!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 2:11 pm
Well Phans, we can add another embarrassment to the pile of published phanfics.
I have recently discovered the book "You are Not Alone: A Modern Story of Erik and Christine" by Lauren. R. Binkley. There's some mess surrounding this recently (just mid-september) published book. Some have been saying the book idea was stolen from a fanfiction on ff.net, but I have yet to see the proofing fic and therefore bought it just a few days ago, praying it was not a failure.
My prayers have gone half-answered at best.
First off, Christine and her father (never mentioned as anything but Jacob, even by Christine) lived in Colorado. Odd setting personally, but I see the slight referance to the original Daae heritage. Christine is not blonde, but the musical's version of a curly-haired brunette. Her father is not a musician and Christine has never sung.
Raoul's parents still live and he has no siblings. They live in New York (Raoul in Manhatten in a fancy apartment suite, his parents in Long Island) and have been family friends to the Daaes since the parents were all in Highschool. Raoul and Christine are not in love. In fact, they bicker near constantly. Raoul's age is upped to 27, though he keeps the blonde girlish looks Leroux dubbed him.
Erik is a famous opera-writer for the Met, who is deformed on only one side of his face and with dashing godly looks at the age of 33 (Christine is 16 at the start but it progresses later, with more drama, when she is "legal", or 18 ) and for all accounts sounds like a Gerard Butler cough-up clone.
Just by sheer chance, Raoul lives in the same building as Erik (Erik's room number is 666; how lame and cliche) and persuades the hunky mogle to teach Christine to sing for a school winter play.
If you're still reading by this point, then you'll now know that despite its tendency to aggrivate me as I read, I never put it down. There is drama at every corner and OOCs everywhere (even poor Mme. Giry and Meg!) and it makes me sad, but I'm reading it still.
Why? For a phanfic, it's mediocre. For a book, it seems shoved best at young adults for all the nonsense within. Now, I'm finding it more tolerable than what Forsyth shat out and making half the sense of Kay's. None the less, it is not the best, but it's one to rent from a library if you enjoy sexual tension, drama, and 1st/3rd person crossovers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 6:42 pm
Eheh. That's pretty weird. The part about Erik being a 33-year-old hottie and living in room 666 sounds really dumb. Something I'd want to hit the author for writing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2005 4:24 pm
Well, the Erik in this version is the real rip-off of poor Gerry Butler. In the story, he was born in Scotland, lived in an orphanage, and was ugly only because his mother did some (nonexistant) drug.
There are many things wrong with the book and it aggrivates me when I read it, but I want to finish it just for the sake of finishing the book. After all, I paid twenty bucks for the thing. Might as well get a little bit of my money's worth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
