Welcome to Gaia! ::

I was wondering, although I've heard tell of them, I haven't actually noticed anyone here who was obviously a purist, or even someone who prefered the original book over the ALW version and the Susan Kay version.

I myself am not really a purist, although I do prefer the original novel, simply because I just love everything about Erik in that one. In the musical, Erik is a bit whiny, but even that I liked better than (please don't flame me) the Susan Kay version. Erik doesn't strike me as a druggie and I sincerely doubt that he would have impregnated Christine. And then Phantom of Manhatten was okay but ditto about the (SPOILER!) impregnating Christine issue. (END SPOILER!) The movie which seemed to best portray the book was the original.

So I decided to ask, does anyone here hate either or both the ALW and the Susan Kay versions? Are there those who *gasp!* don't prefer the half-mask concept? And do any of you who simply like the original novel the best, and are indifferent to the others versions?

I prefer Leroux. It's the original and in my opinion the best. Anything else, I don't consider true canon. I'm not an absolute purist, because I still accept most other things (except Phantom of Manhatten. Man that book is horrible.). And Erik does strike me as someone who would use drugs, especially while composing and stuff. But when I write fanfic or anything like that, I use Leroux, with only one exception.

I have things I like and dislike about all of them. What you say about Kay's novel hits right on the head of my annoyances with it, along with others, but the original has it's flaws as well. The musical, well... I'm no musician, but ALW's flaws as a composer are a little obvious at some points. I'm not familiar with the other versions, sadly.

I most prefer Kay's novel because reading is my main pleasure, and she writes in a fashion that just makes me fall in love. The story sucks me in, draws me into the action - I can see, feel, experience the story. Leroux's original novel is so clinical, so dry, I have to put myself into to experience it. (I once had a real good conversation on another novel that I thought was written the same way - House of Leaves - that brought up the same thing) While on one hand, I can understand how a writing style like this would let the reader put their own interpretations on the novel, I've always preferred the richly textured style of writing that just makes me feel like I'm there. Leroux didn't make me cry. ALW didn't make me cry. Kay made me cry. The whole last four chapters or so I couldn't stop crying, whereas the other two versions didn't do half so much to me.

So I much prefer Kay's storytelling ability, though in it's own way, I think that the musical is superb as well. You cannot tell a story about music without having music at all - I listened to music while reading the story, just because I had to have it there. And in truth, I really only feel that Raoul is an interesting character in the musical - he annoys the heck out of me in the other versions even after rereads, while upon multiple viewings of the movie, I found myself really thinking that Raoul had some redeeming features. Or, at least, wasn't a cheap plot device.

Leroux's story... well, the others wouldn't be there if not for it, right? And I think if not for Leroux's documentary-type-style of writing, the others wouldn't be originals, either. There wouldn't be room for making them different, for while I don't find Leroux's version anywhere near as pretty or as human as the others, it's got the backbone. Without the skeleton, a person is kinda... bad off. xD

i saw the 2004 -2005 movie first, so i love it the best. however, i love the g.l. book, because it explains certain things in the book. i haven't seen anyhting else. and i love the half mask...it adds mystery...and it's sexy...

I must admit that I didn't like all the stuff in Susan KAy's novel about the drugs. Another thing I didn't like in that book were the heart attacks she gave him. In LEroux's novel we are never given anything specific to tell us the cause of his death, but the coughing fit he has at the Persian's might indicate an infection of the lungs. That seems to be a more plausible explanation than a heart condition when one takes into account where Erik lives. He lives underground and next to a lake.

We never get to know enough about Leroux's Erik because we never really get to go inside Erik's mind, and because up until the last couple of chapters we are hearing about him from other people's point of view. The other characters talk about him from the way they perceive him. Never do we get anything from Erik's perception. I have to say that the original is still my preferred version.

ALW's is never given a name, which just annoys me. In the movie he was not deformed enough, but I've got to admit that I like the music. I don't like to read about music. I prefer hearing it, and ALW gives us that...Plus I like the half-mask.

I'm not overly familiar with other versions, but I've heard many bad things about Phantom of Manhatten.

I do not consider myself a purist, though often times, I find any books based on Erik's life to be...tedious. I feel that the only actually enjoyable piece of fiction about Erik's life is Phantom by Susan Kay. It was just different I suppose.

Like many here it seems, I like the original novel best as well. Although I was introduced to most other versions before the original written text, I fell in love with it soon after I began reading. My heart aches for Leroux's Erik, really and truly. Some versions turn him into such a heartless b*****d but in the original his love for Christine truly shines. The ending makes me sob every time I read it! I will admit though, sometimes Leroux's narratives were too much for me. If it wasn't about the love triangle, I would get bored. XD But that's just me.

However, I can't deny that I love the 2004 movie/musical. The music was beautiful and I can't get enough of it; I get on binges where it's all I listen to when I'm at home. Leroux's Erik and the Phantom were very different though, and that grates on my nerves. The Phantom wasn't deformed enough as far as I'm concerned. They talk about how his face is "hardly a face" and I'm just like ...riiiiight. I can't deny that Gerard Butler was nice to look at but still. XD

I would like to see a good movie version of PotO that isn't a musical, and is centric of Lexoux's novel. The Lon Chaney version is good yes but it's also in black&white and a silent film. XD It would be interesting to see the living corpse with the death's head that Leroux first told tales of. Oooh.

I predicted five months before that new PotO movies came out that there would be a large new gathering of phans after it's release. ...and I was right. All the new phans make me giddy whee Spread the love!

I prefer the the original musical myself. Somehow Gerard Butler just doesn't seem... right... for Erik. Now, Michael Crawford... that voice! EEE! *clings to his leg*