The Phantom of the Opera (Barnes & Noble Classics) Paperback – Illustrated, February 1, 2007

How ironic: I am reviewing a novel about a masked man who hides, at a time when wearing masks and staying indoors has become ordinary, even necessary. Gaston Leroux’s _The Phantom of the Opera_ (1910) had been in my mental list of books to read for years. I simplistically placed it in the Great French Novels category, thus setting myself up to compare it with such giants as Alexandre Dumas’ _The Count of Monte Cristo_ (1844) and Victor Hugo’s _Les Misérables_ (1862). It is not surprising, then, that my first reaction to Leroux’s novel was tepid at best. I needed to place myself in the proper context._The Phantom of the Opera_ is an incredibly simple story that focuses on a love triangle. At the center we have the singer Christine Daaé, who is loved by the aristocrat Raoul de Chagny and by a mysterious “ghost” commonly known as Erik who haunts the Paris Opera House. Erik’s motivation is a strong desire to be like everyone else. Because of his hideous appearance he must hide, but he figures he has everything he needs in his complex, labyrinthine dwelling in the underground levels of the Opera House, and all he needs is a wife. Can Christine develop feelings for him?At the most basic level, the novel will remind readers of “Beauty and the Beast,” as it deals with the possibility of love beyond physical appearance. We may, in addition, sympathize with the “villain,” as we understand his purpose even as we disapprove of his method. Under the surface, however, _The Phantom of the Opera_ is a completely different story. Leroux wrote it in three months, and his main narrative device is that of the cliffhanger, which should not come as a surprise when one considers that the novel was originally serialized. He begins by creating a mystery: who is this ghost, and how does he manage to appear and disappear so effectively? The story quickly goes from a mystery to a love story, with the appearance of Christine and Raoul. The next element is that of detective fiction, as crimes are investigated. The end of the story is narrated by a mysterious Persian who provides most of the answers concerning the ghost and his doings. By combining subgenres, Leroux varies the tone and the approach, and keeps us turning the pages.As I pointed out above, my initial reaction to the novel was quite lukewarm. I was not surprised to read that by the time the classic film (Rupert Julian, 1925) came out, the book was out of print. It had gone out of print yet again when, in the mid-eighties, Andrew Lloyd Webber decided to turn the story into a musical. I read Leroux’s novel primarily because I wanted to watch the original film, and I happen to be one of those people who must read the book first. Though not perfect, the film is a cinematic landmark the success of which inspired _Dracula_ (1931), _Frankenstein_ (1931), and countless other monster movies. The filmmakers changed the ending of the story, but the rest of the main elements are there. I have yet to hear the musical, but now that I’ve read the book I feel like that is the next logical step for me. To appreciate the novel, I reminded myself that Leroux was primarily a writer of entertainment fiction. Don’t look for explicit philosophical depth here. On the other hand, the writing is concise and engaging. _Les Misérables_ (please see my review in the appropriate place) is deep, stirring, and unforgettable, but it requires amounts of time and patience that not all readers have.To me, the central symbol here is Erik’s mask. So, what is the point of Erik hiding his face? His mask is simply more obvious than those worn by the other characters. Etymologically, the word “person” is of Etruscan origin and means “mask.” Ingmar Bergman plays with this idea in his masterpiece, _Persona_ (1966). (The great Swedish director, incidentally, once expressed the belief that cinema was primarily about the human face.) We think of a person as an individual, as “one,” but what the etymology of the word suggests is that one person wears different masks depending on the situation. Personality, in this sense, would be a multifaceted thing.We all literally wear masks now, but we wore them before too. Our current masks are frustrating because we cannot see much of the people we interact with, but also comfortable in the sense that they allow us to hide from others. I teach English at a local college, and under the current circumstances my classes meet in person only once a week. Students keep social distance and wear masks. I have never seen my students’ faces unless they have chosen to include a picture of themselves in our online platform. My classes used to be 100% interactive and collaborative; now students sit in the classroom looking straight ahead, and the vast majority of them do not participate. It has become very difficult to “read” them. On the positive side, the situation has forced me to do something I rarely did before, viz. to look people in the eyes when I talk to them. The eyes, they say, are the windows of the soul. Maybe by staring into them we can reveal the mystery. We have become, at least at the social level, “eyes without a face” (another highly recommended film). Where am I going with this? The moment in the 1925 film when Erik takes off his mask comes as a revelation and a shock. I believe the mask itself, any mask, is more terrifying than what is behind it. We are identified primarily by our facial features, and most of those are now hidden. We are now better prepared to understand Erik and see things from his perspective. Speaking of perspective, I cannot help but recall the “Eye of the Beholder” episode of The Twilight Zone, another excellent exploration of the importance of the human face.Had it not been for the film and the musical, _The Phantom of the Opera_ might well have disappeared from the shelves by now. There are many novels from the same time period that are more memorable and satisfying. This is, nevertheless, a quick, entertaining read that leaves you thinking about ever-relevant concepts such as beauty, individuality, shame, and the need for human connection. Bottom line: give it a try.Next on my list: _The Joy Luck Club_, by Amy Tan.Thanks for reading, and enjoy the book!

Very interesting read after watching the musical for years then comparing events. I would recommend this book to lovers of the musical.

This was a great story and the Oxford Edition, translated by David Coward, is very approachable for modern and non-French, English speakers.

This was far from being my first experience with Leroux's story, but it WAS my first time reading an unabridged English translation. For anyone unaware, the standard English translation (which is usually published without a translator's name) is abridged, but not labeled as such. That translation was what I was previously familiar with, but having been a fan of PotO for nearing a decade, I thought it was high time I read a different translation...And honestly, I'm not sure how good this one is. Given that Ribière is French herself, I assumed that her translation would be most faithful, but there were several points in the text where I found glaring errors (most notably in the epilogue, where a translation mishap sent the Samarkand merchant to fetch Erik from the fair, instead of the Daroga). But, as I'm not perfectly fluent in French (and don't have a copy of the French text handy to compare them, anyway), I can't speak adequately on the accuracy of this translation.I may be in the minority, but I have always vastly preferred Leroux to Lloyd-Webber's musical. The novel's atmosphere can't be matched, in my opinion. Written as detective fiction, Leroux's speaker is investigating (years after the events of the novel) the legend of the "Phantom of the Opera," a mysterious specter that wreaked havoc at the Palais Garnier in years past. During his investigation, he begins to suspect that there are ties between the Phantom, the murder of Count Philippe de Chagny, and the disappearances of his younger brother, Raoul, and an opera singer called Christine Daaé.Thus, Leroux takes the reader on a journey into the past, often referencing interviews with, and written documents by, several prominent figures at the opera at the time of the "de Chagny affair." Most of the fantastic tale is seen from the perspective of Raoul de Chagny, whose love for his childhood friend, Christine, seems to be thwarted by an unseen rival - a disembodied voice which has convinced the pious Christine that it belongs to the Angel of Music. Raoul and Christine soon find themselves trapped in a nightmare, as the love-sick "Angel" has no intentions of letting his beloved wed another.The narrative often shifts to the perspective of the opera's directors, who are at their wits' end with the Phantom's outrageous demands. Most of the latter section of the novel is told from the point-of-view of the Persian, a figure from the Phantom's past who is often left out of film and stage adaptations.In this day and age, most readers already know the plot to the story, so the strength in Leroux's writing lies less in the "mystery" of it all, and more in his beautiful language and imagery. It is all too easy to imagine the graveyard at Perros-Guirec, laden with snow and blood-red roses, littered with skulls, eerily silent under the full moon. The reader can understand Raoul's terror when he comes face-to-face with the "Death's head" in such a setting. Leroux's detailed descriptions of the opera house, too, lend a sense of realism to the story that leaves the reader wondering if the fantastic tale might not be, as Leroux claimed until his death, grounded in fact.Perhaps my favorite thing about the novel, however, is Leroux's use of music as symbolism. Every piece of music mentioned by name in the novel is symbolic of something in the plot. Gounod's Faust, which underscores the entire story, tells the tale of a man who sells his soul to the devil for the love of a beautiful woman - certainly a parallel to the doomed love the Phantom holds for Christine Daaé. Other musical selections act as foreshadow. For example, "Danse Macabre (Dance of Death)," played at the gala in the second chapter, seems to herald the arrival of the Red Death at the masquerade ball.All in all, Leroux's novel is, I would say, a masterpiece. With an ingenious story, tied together with beautiful descriptions, often witty dialogue, and sympathetic characters. It is perhaps one of the only "classic" novels I know which contains a morally grey antagonist whose victims pity, rather than despise, him. While "Le fantôme de l'opéra" didn't sell well upon publication and was, in fact, out of print for several years, the popularity of the story speaks to the brilliance of Leroux's vision. I would advise everyone, particularly fans of the musical, to give this novel a try.

I had no idea Andrew Lloyd Webber’s musical of the same name was based on a novel. When I found out, I thought I’d give it a read as I usually like the original material. The plot follows the similar plot of the musical. Young dancer, Christine Daae, an aspiring singer at the Paris Opera House with a beautiful voice is being tutored by a mysterious, passionate and cruel gentleman who she calls The Angel of Music. At the same time, there’s been an aggressive sinister presence in the opera house, the opera ghost otherwise known as O.G from his letters which scares all in its wake.I was expecting a deeply gothic, horrific and romantic tale but to my shock, the novel crossed many other genres - crime/detective and there were moments when Leroux would break out and address the reader, to convince them the events at the Opera House actually happened. After some research, I found that wasn’t true but Leroux was inspired by an event that actually happened at the Paris Opera House.Even though I enjoyed there were parts of the novel I enjoyed, overall I was disappointed. I thought I’d get more of a behind the scenes look at Erik, the mysterious Phantom. The dark heart of the story is the love Erik has for Christine. I was hoping the reader would be in the room with Christine and the Phantom but instead, we were told what happened between them from Raoul’s narrative and not shown. If I had to choose the original novel or the musical, sorry my heart is with Lloyd Webber’s take and his songs.

Most people, at some stage of their life, will have seen The Phantom of the Opera either on film or possibly on stage - so why bother to read the book? The answer is a simple one - because it is a fantastic book. Andrew Lloyd Webber's musical is only based on the book so expect lots (and I mean lots) of differences to the show. Phantom is easy to read and difficult to put down. I won't spoil the plot, go read it for yourself and thank me later... Remember - You don't know the story if you haven't read the book...

The story is a good one but this is an ordeal to get through on audiobook.I am so, so angry with the way products are chopped and changed on here.I always check who is doing the narrating and listen to the sample before buying any audiobook.European stories in the English language require an English speaker.The sample sounded very good.What I received was a recording performed by an American speaker which is the worst I have ever heard.It is so bad it has actually ruined the tale for me.Some American narrators are fantastic, William Roberts for example narrating H.P. Lovecraft tales set in New England is just perfect for these tales. He is the best there is for Lovecraft.But this man with his computerised sounding voice sounds like it is an auto response "press option 1" voice when trying to contact a business!!!It is also emotionless, just sounds like it has been put through a synthesizer.Awful, and so angry!

Heartbreaking is one of the many words to describe this novel (and of course Andrew Lloyd Webber’s interpretation). Leroux wrote a fantastic fictional account inspired (allegedly) by some true events (though, Leroux took great liberty with his writing).Erik is a genius, very skilled magician and Leroux’S characterisation of him was certainly ahead of his time. Yes, Erik may appear creepy and obsessive (plus a little murderous), but the reader still feels pity for this poor man who was simply a victim of society and prejudice for his looks. Poor Erik, he stood no hope against society.As for Christine, she was naive, deceived and a victim, but was still compassionate and kind to Erik, despite fearing him. I am glad she and Raoul got their happy ending, but it is still a shame Erik did not get his.Definitely worth a read.

I suspect this is not a very good translation. Somehow it doesn't seem to flow or bring out the drama. Perhaps it is supposed to ready like a newspaper article. The layout on my kindle was also very poor with chapters ending and starting without any space between. As far as the story is concerned, the knowledge the author has of the Paris Opera makes you feel this is history not a fabrication. It is interesting to see how the original story has been condensed and simplified in the musical version. However it also explains a great deal - like the early relationship between the lovers, the ghost's previous life, why there is a lake underground and how the ghost managed his stunts.