The Phantom of the Opera by Gaston Leroux, Fiction, Classics Paperback – April 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.

conforme à ce que j'attendais

Le CD manquait, et le livre est plein de gribouillages.

This is the most compelling book ever written, I assure you. This is a masterpiece and a classic in my eyes; and yours if you take the time to read this story. However you came about looking up this novel here on Amazon, I suggest you buy it, and you buy it quick. Once you have it, you won't be able to put it down.Reading through this story, one can start to think its a 'Ghost-story.' But the author, as it turns out, dedicated a part of his life to this 'Opera-Ghost,' wanting to be sure of his existence - or non-existence. He has sources, archives, spoken to the people of the time and he tells their story, and he tells it well! When I was reading this story, the possibility of this 'Phantom' of ever existing was totally ruled out in my book. What was this author thinking in seriously believing? How can one be in walls, have a bodiless voice, be here and there, be everywhere? Truth be told, the author leaves you questioning of his existence, that the Phantoms 'supernatural' behaviour wasn't so 'supernatural,' just a genius ahead of his time. And what a pitiful genius he was! This is one book that keeps you thinking long after you have read it.If you know of Andrew Lloyd Webbers version, you will be impressed to learn that the book and the musical are very much different. Raoul in the musical seems brave and wise, in the book he strikes me as a pathetic love-sick puppy. A character which has no part in the musical has a dramatic effect on the real story; the Persian. Christine who seems to be a mad woman at the beginning turns into the pity stricken beauty towards the end as she is in the musical. Andre and Fermin are not so comical in the book as they are in the musical. The story is twisted and turned. So just because you have seen the musical, does not mean you know the story of the Phantom of the Opera!This book is a very smooth, easy read, being written in the early nineteen-hundreds. Its possible to get mixed up with names, but the characters that you do get mixed up with are extremely unimportant to the plot, so it doesn't really matter. The narrative keeps you reading and you will curse whatever it is from every day life that pulls you away from it.The character of the Phantom will stay with you forever, Compelling stuff. I can't recommend this masterpiece enough.

The Phantom of the Opera (Penguin Popular Classics) This is the original story on which the musical opera by Andrew Lloyd Weber ( still running in London after 25 years ) is based.It is clearly well translated from the original French version written byGaston Leroux,in some parts it's a bit hard going, but well worth persevering. It's a very original story, and if you have seen the stage show it very much brings the book too life. The Phantom of the Opera (Penguin Popular Classics)

Excellent read good flow and gives you the whole story of the opera house and box 5 and how the ghost moves around the theatre.I saw the stage show then read the book it's worth reading to know how beautiful & tragic the ghost is xx