I am really enjoying this book so far. It provides a lot of background depth to the characters, and it is a lot of fun for me to read. For example, Leroux goes in depth about Raoul's family, while in the musical you hear no mention of any sort of family. Of course in a limited time you must eliminate things that don't add substance to the main plot, so reading this book gives a wonderful background to the characters. Phillipe, his older brother was given the primogenture as "His two sisters and brother, Raoul,... waived their claim to their shares"(19). This establishes Raoul very quickly as either a very passive character, or a very caring one. In fact only a few pages later the latter is confirmed as he asks after Christine has fainted that "Don't you think. .. that those gentlemen had better cleared the room?"(22). In the musical you don't see more of his personality, only really how he feels towards Christine. However you do recognize where the musical got the characterization as one of my favorite lines so far comes from Raoul "One idea alone filled Raoul's burning brain: of course, Daaè wished to be left alone for him! "(24). I think it's funny that he is at first portrayed as a caring young boy, and so his thoughts turn to himself that of course Christine was waiting for him, since he thinks himself amazing. This tends to be a problem with nobility, and I think Leroux did a very good job portraying pompous nobility.
Anna Marie- Are there any other characters that are similar to Raoul in the book? Not just directly the same, but also a character that seems one way only to have their whole character expanded by one line.
Tuesday, December 27, 2016
Phantom of the Opera
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hey Patsy,
ReplyDeleteI too find it an interesting read, and I enjoy comparing the musical to the book. The character development is something in particularly that I enjoy. I am also finding that I like learning about the other characters that exist only in the book, such as Sorelli and Raoul's brother. I also find the description of Raoul an interesting contrast to his musical-self. He seems to be more of a boy than man, who is foolish in his youth, rather than the protector he is in the movie. Raoul's description includes: "He was a little over twenty-one years of age and looked eighteen. He had a small, fair mustache, beautiful eyes and a complexion like a girls" (page 11). I have always loved the contrast between the Phantom and Raoul, but now it seems there characters are changing. It is interesting learning about the phantom's character slowly. I find myself unable to trust what I know about Phantom from the musical because of the difference in character that there is for so many others. I am excited to learn more about Christine as well. In the musical, I did not like her very much as a character, yet she is the protagonist and the audience is supposed to side with her. Yet in the book I am finding her an even more disagreeable character. It will be interesting to see if my preference about her character changes, and if I will like her in the end.
Patsy- Raoul’s character reminds me of some of the people I have met in real life. Sort of the, overly-confident pretty boy type. Thus far, what has surprised you the most in differences from musical to book?
Anna Marie,
ReplyDeleteOne thing that really struck me was how annoying all of the characters got. They were all very human, but it got on my nerves. Raoul especially. They decided together to "a secret engagement... we are engaged, dear, for a month!"(106) yet on the next page Raoul decides to break that and say "I shan't go to the north pole!"(107). I think this really plays into how selfish Raoul is. He strikes me as a very male character. Using some of the lenses we just learned about, I see so many times where Raoul thinks all of Christine's actions revolve around and in response to him. He thinks he's the center of the universe, when he's really not as important as he thinks he is. I think Christine has some internalized misogyny, as she allows her mother to correct her own anxieties saying "I was much too simple a girl to give the devil a hold on me" (116). She seems to be very passive in her own fate and choices. She allows her mamma and the Angel (Erik) to make choices for her. Even when Raoul keeps pushing himself on her, Christine can't find it in herself to say no to him in any capacity. This mirrors the time period when women were simply pawns to their husbands, and so by wearing the golden ring Erik gave her, she is in a way already wedded to her.
To answer your question, Anna Marie, the biggest difference is how unseen the Phantom/Angel is. He seems only interested in Christine, and her progress. He does not seem to interfere as directly or interact with anybody outside of Christine. All we have learned about the Angel has been from her.
Your question is- What lense would you use to look at the novel? The easiest to me was feminist and historical, was that the same for you?
Patsy,
ReplyDeleteTo answer your question, I think I would use historical, more so than feminist. Of course I view the treatment of Christine as not great because she's a woman, but its hard for me to view things without a historical lens in the first place, even if I am just listening to a song or something from ten years ago.
What strikes me as interesting in the reading is the portrayal of Raoul. He is the most interesting, annoying, yet relatable character thus far. What I find to be interesting is the portrayal of his love for Christine. He seems to be more obsessed with her than Phantom, and whats worse is that he has no idea how to control his emotions, or figure things out (which is the relatable part.) But he is more giddy about Christine than I would expect a young man to be about his first love. The book states, “Raoul’s fingers clutched at his flesh, above his jealous heart” (36). This was after he found out that Christine was riding around with Erik (The Angel of Music). I expected the book to focus more on Christine and Phantom than Raoul, and the inclusion of his brother also still surprises me. I sometimes forget about him, and then he is mentioned again— the cool, collected, typical older brother. I also am intrigued by Christine’s feelings. I was annoyed at her in the movie but even more so in the book. She needs to figure herself out.
Patsy, how would you describe Christine’s feelings toward Erik in the book, and how/do they differ from those in the musical?
Anna Marie
ReplyDeleteI feel like they have a very codependent relationship. It does not feel romantic at all, but Erik might have feeling for Christine. We know Christine cares and pities him, but I don't think that she loves him.
I thought this section was very action packed. We had Raoul who is trying to save Christine from Erik. He had received the advice from the Persian to keep his gun raised, which reminded me of the line to "keep you hand at the level of your eye". It was very subtle, but now I realized it was because Erik had a perchance for strangling people with a noose. I really apprecaite Leroux's attention to details. He does an excellent job making sure that every fact is squared away, without making the story long-winded or boring. All the facts are important, rather than just something to fill page space.
The perspective in the books is completely different than I imagined. I anticipated a story from Christine's point of view, the same as the musical. However, looking at it through Raoul's eyes removes us one step from the Phantom and his actions. Christine always was very close to the Phantom, yet in the book the relationship feels far more familial than in the musical. My question for you this time is anything so radically different from the musical that you don't like it? Do you think the musical was an accurate adaptation?
Patsy-
DeleteI have to say I like the musical better, because I like the complex characterization of Phantom contrasted with that of Raoul who is more static. Both are conducive to the changes in Christine’s character, depending on who she is with. Christine was more static in the musical, and more complex in the book. I think it is opposite for Raoul and Phantom, meaning Raoul is more complex in the book and Phantom is more static in the book. I agree that Christine does not love Phantom, but it is interesting to picture her interaction with Erik. In the book, Christine’s relationship with Erik is very peculiar, and developed over a long period of time. Her own view of the world turns dark after being with him for so long. In the movie, there is less depth to this darkness, and in the musical it seems to be better alluded to, however still not as much as in the book. Another difference from the movie and book is Raoul’s willingness to admit Erik’s existance. Even when Christine herself was denying it, Raoul believed there was a man, and I think this adds depth to his character in the book. His jealousy is better shaped by the prevalence of his paranoia. He acknowledges the power Erik has over Christine, saying “I will remove you from his power, Christine, I sear it. And you shall not think of him any more (44).” This contrasts with the line in the song “Why Have You Brought Me Here,” when Raoul says “There is no Phantom of the Opera.”
Another thing I would like to discuss with you is the difference in Raoul’s character, and his development throughout the book. I think we see a change, from the beginning when he is overcome with jealousy that leads to self pity, which changes to jealousy that leads to an act of courage, in rescuing Christine.
My question for you is, how has your opinion of Erik/Phantom changed from the Musical version to the Book version?
Dear Anna Marie,
ReplyDeleteTo answer your question, I find him much less likable now. In the play they really builf sympathy for him and his fate. While in the book, they highlight the fact that he "acquired an incredible skill in the art of strangulation" (210). This makes him far more of an antagonist. In the play there is an argument to be made for Christine to end up with Raoul or with the Phantom, but here you honestly want her to end up with Raoul because Erik is just such a sadistic human. You expect him to only want her because she is pretty and no other reason.
I really appreciate how Leroux changes the point of view in the narrative. It really provides authenticity to his way of attempting to portray an interview style novel. Not many authors can successfully change perspective without it being hammy, or clunky, disrupting the flow of the story. The urgency built by Persian's knowledge of Erik's evil builds suspense and creates a creepier atmosphere where you fear for Christine's safety.
However, the end of the novel is really the culmination of all of this. The Persian explains the torture room and it does not seem probable in real life. It is only in their final moment before death that they find an exit, to the cellar. They think they find water, but they actually find how the Phantom will bury everybody. This extra layer Leroux adds really builds the tension at the end, showing how important Raoul's actions are. Yet then all of his actions are made irrelevant. The agency returns to Christine that she hadn't had the rest of the play.
The epilogue neatly wraps up the story with Leroux's words "I have now told the singular, but veracious story of the Opera ghost" (252). I really enjoyed the book, and it thoroughly changed the way I viewed the Phantom. However, I didn't appreciate the infodump at the end. It felt a little lazy to me, and the epilogue felt unecessary. What do you think, did the ending clarify the story better or did it bog it down?
Dear Patsy-
DeleteIndeed there was a lot in this reading, only because there was so much information, and everything seemed to move so quickly. Patsy, I agree that after the ending the epilogue seemed pointless, and I certainly wasn't as interested at that point, however I felt like it tied up some loose ends, and paralleled the prologue, ending in the same speaker/pov that it began.
As for these chapters, so much was revealed to us in the Persian’s narrative. It provided greater insight into Erik’s character. We stop seeing him as a mystical being and more as a man… and not even a great man. The Persian says, “Erik… is also, in certain respects, a regular child, vain and self-conceited, and there is nothing he loves so much, after astonishing people, as to prove all the really miraculous ingenuity of his mind.” In the end, we see the obsession that Erik has with proving his greatness. It is interesting that vanity is so important to a man whom one would think would have learned to accept himself by then. I like the Persian’s description of Erik— a child. He indeed seemed childlike, in the way he spoke, especially in his last conversation with daroga. His broken speech and the syntax throughout his description of what happened between him, Christine, and Raoul adds to the building of emotion and tension in the book. The last chapter is quite a whirlwind, however does calm down once it reaches the epilogue. Patsy, I have really enjoyed reading this book with you! Thank you for being my partner again.