#would love to read a book with just christine exploring the opera in a timeline when phantom is already long gone

[womenenthusiast2]

drew this (my vesper and cirrus as christine and erik) alike 4 months ago after finishing the phantom of the opera, this was my peak art actually

[night-unfurls-its-splendour]

Susan Kay's 'Phantom' Read: Part VI (Erik-Christine Counterpoint)

Dear God.

I can now unequivocally say I hate this book. Some of you may have caught my vent post from earlier which I wrote in one of the many moments I had to put the book down and walk away for the good of my own health and sanity.

The badness of this book has now ceased to be amusing and is now just... bad. So bad in fact that I think it triggered my bronchial asthma and I had to get out of the bathtub and find my inhaler before I could finish this portion.

To sum up it really seems like Kay lost any and all interest in exploring Leroux's characters once she finished Erik’s back-story. Yes there were differences from Canon even there, but the story was still following Leroux's timeline and was by-and-large canon compliant.

This section, barring a few superficially similar details is virtually unrecognizable from the source material.

Yes Erik begins to teach Christine under the guise of the Angel of Music, and yes he takes her down under the Opera house for two weeks. And yes they go up for the masquerade and yes Christine and Raoul plan to run away on the rooftop, leading to Erik planning to blow up the Opera house out of desperation.

Carlotta croaks like a toad and the chandelier does indeed crash.

Yet all of these details seem like perfunctory afterthoughts. The intervening material is so wholly divorced from Leroux's story that when events from the canon are included, it felt almost jarring to me.

I hate the way Kay characterizes Christine, and Erik is just as bad if not worse.

Christine’s descent into the lair is clearly modeled off of the Musical/1925 movie, with Erik drawing her down into the tunnels in a trance. And Christine asks for the Angel to take her away! How convenient for Erik!

I would have been far more interested in seeing the abduction from the book as told from Erik's perspective.

This launches a self-indulgent two weeks of Christine essentially worshipping at Erik's feet, which is shattered only by a frankly ineffective unmasking scene (again based on the musical/1925 movie and less affecting than either).

This is no torrid, passionate, innately horrifying yet also emotionally heart-wrenching unmasking of Leroux. Christine simply snatches the mask and Erik has a heart attack(?) before he can fully choke her out.

Christine’s shock at discovering that her Angel is actually a man, and then her horror of his face is lacklustre, and completely insufficient to convince me that this is really a big enough stumbling block to prevent her from marrying him. She puts him on such a high pedestal and Erik does absolutely nothing to contradict her. He says he worships her, but in action, she is always deferential to him. He never prostrates himself before her, never treats her like a queen, like a goddess. He never follows her around like a faithful dog, as he does in Leroux. On the contrary, she follows him.

She's so obviously in love with Erik that her claims of confusion regarding her feelings for him come off as flaccid and disingenuous, and her obvious preference for Erik and her complacency with her situation sap any tension from the love story.

Don't misunderstand me, I like when a Christine has a preference for Erik. My problem is that Kay has completely lain all her cards on the table. Christine speaks freely and almost easily of Erik to Raoul who is basically a cardboard cut out. Kay's attempt at "exploring" whether Raoul's doubts in Christine's love for him are really founded in Christine secretly holding a candle for Erik is ultimately pointless because the READER already knows that she finds Raoul's love a pale comparison to what she feels with Erik! There's no mystery here!

(Its unfortunate that Kay wrote this before having access to Lowell Bair's translation, which provided us for the first time with Leroux's own answer to that Question: Why tempt fate, Raoul! Why ask me about things which I keep hidden in the back of my heart like a sin?"

It makes it feel even more incomprehensibly perfunctory when Christine decides to run away with Raoul when she knows that she could simply marry Erik for however long he has left (he's apparently not long for this world anyway) and then go on with her life. Gah!!

And then there's how Kay infantilizes Christine. While Leroux's Christine is eccentric and dreamy and credulous, she is not ignorant or "unstable". She's aware of the ways of the world

You would say that to me, Raoul? You, an old playfellow of my own! A friend of my father! You have changed since those days, Raoul. What can you be thinking of? I am an honest girl, M. le Vicomte de Chagny, and I don't lock myself in my dressing room with mens voices!"

Christine very clearly understands the implications here, and she's outraged and offended that Raoul would even imply that she would conduct herself with impropriety.

And it's not only Kay who infantilizes Christine, but Erik as well:

I'm beginning to realize just how much of a child she really is, how terrifyingly immature and vulnerable--even unstable. There's a fatal flaw running through her, like a hairline crack in a Ming dynasty vase, but that imperfection makes me love her with even greater tenderness. I don't suppose for one moment that that boy is aware of the never-ending care she'll need. Whoever marries Christine is going to have to play the father as well as the lover; if she lives to be eighty she may never be more than a child at heart, a lost and frightened little girl, bewildered by the demands of reality.

This is infuriating to me, because, as M. Grant Kellermeyer so astutely points out in his footnotes of the 2018 Old Style Tales Edition of the book:

"He confesses his cheat. He loves me! He lays an immense and tragic love at my feet... he has carried me off for love! He has imprisoned me with him underground, for love! But he respects me!*"

* - This, indeed, seems to be a unique experience in Christine's life: she is surrounded by people who despise her (Carlotta), dismiss her (the managers), idolize her (Raoul), infantilize her (Mama Valerius), and pity her (the opera workers)--Erik alone respects her. Erik alone sees in her the power and artistry that becomes increasingly obvious as her character grows in confidence and assertiveness. Erik fears her to an extent, and [...] it is likely that Christine is simply touched by Erik's belief in her, his confidence in her, and his devotion to her success.

And Kellermeyer's point about Christine growing in assertiveness is very very important. She wields power over both Erik and Raoul.

But Kay's Christine doesn't. Erik's treatment of her, both his actual treatment and his internal monologue is absolutely horrible, so again NOT AT ALL how Leroux's Erik treats her.

Let's start with the stretch where he's playing the Angel (Alexa play album "Playing the Angel" by Depeche Mode)

Christine says:

He's so stern and exacting in his demand for perfection; he never praises me, even when I know I have done well. He remains aloof and cold in his timeless imperishable wisdom, and I know that the worship of a mortal heart can mean nothing to him.

Kayrik said he wanted to be her angel who would make her feel confidence in herself at last, and yet none of his behaviour exhibits any desire to do that. I hate interpretations of Erik that take "stern" to mean cold or outright verbally abusive. That is terrible teaching method and never produces good results. Furthermore, in Leroux, Christine never mentions the Angel withholding praise, and when he is aloof following Raoul's reappearance in Christine's life, it even seems as though this is a departure from the norm.

Arguably one of the most iconic moments of the original novel is the scene where Christine is left alone in her dressing room after recovering from a fainting spell that saw her carried off the stage immediately after her triumph. Raoul, outside her room, hears Christine and Man's voice conversing and we are given some of the most iconic lines in the novel:

He had heard a man's voice in the dressing room, saying, in a curiously masterful tone:

"Christine, you must love me!"

And Christine's voice, infinitely sad and trembling as though accompanied by tears, replied:

"How can you say that to me? To me, when I sing only for you!"

[...]

The man's voice spoke again: "Are you very tired?"

"Oh, tonight I gave you my soul, and I am dead!"

"Your soul is a very beautiful thing, child," replied the grave man's voice, "and I thank you. No emperor ever recieved so fair a gift. The angels wept tonight."

Raoul heard nothing after that.

This important scene, deeply layered with romantic and sexual subtext, is completely absent from Phantom. Not only that Kay explicitly says that when Christine returned to her dressing room after her triumph, the voice wasn't there at all. He never congratulates her, never praises her. He's simply. Not. There. For her.

It's not just this that I hate though.

It's the number of times Erik calls her a "stupid child".

Funnily enough, Erik treats Christine with the exact same supercilious condescension that makes me hate Raoul in the musical.

Both Kayrik and Musical Raoul look at Christine and regard her as potentially mentally unstable, unable to trust her own senses or handle reality. To both of them she is a "scared little girl" and will never be anything more. Both of them look at that and say "No matter, let me wife that."

Interesting thing: Leroux Erik only calls Christine "Child" when he is in his guise as the Angel. Never does Erik, as Erik, refer to her that way.

Now I'll pause to say, there is one part of this episode I enjoyed and that is when Christine masturbates to Don Juan Triumphant.

And yet even this I have a problem with.

I've already covered the fact that though Leroux's Christine is innocent, she is not ignorant. She is very aware of the potential sexual danger Erik poses to her when he abducts her (though this, again was not a portion of the book available in English when Kay was writing). Nevertheless I still find it hateful and irritating that Kay's Christine is so ignorant that when Erik's music arouses her, she says she touched herself in a place "I had never known existed."

And the fact that Christine has remained insensible to her sexuality this far into her relationship with Erik is another thing that chaps my hide.

Both Leroux's Christine and Andrew Lloyd Webber's admit to fearing the effect that the Angel of Music and his tutelage have had on her. Leroux's Christine says "I hardly knew myself when I sang. I was even frightened." And Andrew Lloyd Webbers also says "He's with me even now, all around me--it frightens me" and in a short-lived alternative lyric used on the West End "I'm changing, Meg!"

And indeed, Erik's tutelage has changed Christine. Her singing under Erik's influence is not simply that of innocent euphoria. It referred to in deliberately orgasmic terms such as "Ecstasy" and "Rapture". And this so frightens her, because she is aware of what exactly these ecstasies are awakening in her. But Kay's Christine doesn't seem to be undergoing the same change. Instead of Erik's voice awakening her, Kay rather describes him as shrouding her in the fantastic, even shielding her from the very awareness and maturity that Leroux's Erik seems to be drawing out in her. Her final step into adult awareness is Erik revealing himself to her as a man, which seems to be something of a non-event here, not even of importance independent of the Unmasking. To Kay's Christine it simply is, while that simple fact is reacted to by ALW's Christine with undisguised attraction and by Leroux's with indignation.

Further sullying what is otherwise a very engaging (if somewhat short) scene of... self... discovery(?) Is Erik's perspective on the proceedings, an excerpt which prejudiced me against this book long before I undertook to read it:

I dared not think how near I had been to losing control, how terrifyingly easy it would have been in that moment to rape her. I'd raped her with music instead, and perhaps that crime was almost as bad as the one it had so narrowly prevented. Either way I'd violated her trust and destroyed a rare and precious innocence--soiled the delicate ambience that had lain between us all these weeks.

When I first ran afoul of this quote I had still been under the impression that this section of the book would be following Leroux's story and took this to be Kay's interpretation of the moment after the Unmasking when Erik, having lashed out in horrific fashion at Christine for exposing him, retreats to his room to express his anguish through music, and that music actually prevents Christine from taking her own life. In another travesty of censorship, though, the salient details of this moment (Christine's description of Erik's music) is yet another portion of the book Kay would have had no knowledge of or access to, yet is one of the most heart-wrenchingly beautiful pieces of prose ever put to print:

Troubled at the idea of the fate now awaiting me, and terrified of seeing the monster's uncovered face peering from the doorway to the room with the coffin, I had run to my own room and snatched up the scissors that could bring me freedom from this loathsome fate when I heard the sound of the organ.

At that instant I began to comprehend to Erik's strange rejection of what he termed "opera music". What I was now hearing was completely different from the music that had thrilled me up to that point. His "Don Juan Triumphant" (for I had no doubt that he was now losing himself in his Masterpiece to forget the horror of the moment) at first struck me as one long, dreadful, glorious lament into which he was pouring all of his bitter misery.

I visualized the manuscript with the blood red notes and easily imagined that they had been written in blood. His music carried me on a gut-wrenching journey through martyrdom and into the most hidden recesses of the pit which this hideous monster called home; it showed me Erik banging his poor, ugly head against the dreary walls of the hell where he took refuge from those whom he would otherwise frighten. I, listening, gulping for breath, besieged and pathetically broken by the Titanic cords which turned suffering divine: rising from the pit they suddenly rallied into a remarkable, menacing swarms, soaring up to heaven circling ever higher Like an Eagle toward the Sun. Listening to that Triumphant Symphony as it as it set the world of fire, I now understood that the work had achieved its apotheosis, and that the Beast soaring on the wings of love had dared to countenance Beauty.

Yet another iconic moment which Kay saw fit to axe from her work is Christine's visit to her father's grave at Perro-Guirec, where Erik plays for Christine unseen in the snowy graveyard at midnight, and after which Raoul comes face to face with Erik for the first time.

Kay weaves a frankly incoherent and disjointed tale that confounds in the original scenes and rushes through the ones that touch on canon.

But by far the most unforgivable omission

She cut out César, the White Horse from The Profeta.

See I was all set, back in part III to praise Kay's foreshadowing, because CLEARLY she put so much focus on Erik's affinity with his horses, having him tell Giovanni that he has no need to train them--they follow him because they want to, etc CLEARLY that was set-up for him carrying César off to transport Christine. RIGHT?

RIGHT?

RIGHT?

RIGHT?

Wrong.

As lovely as Erik's description of Christine's kiss is, by this point its so overshadowed by a cloud of shit, I couldn't really enjoy it.

Nearly finished now. I can't wait for this to be over...

Masterpost

[glassprism]

I know that there are MANY adaptations of Phantom, some acclaimed, some despised and others controversial. I wanted to ask what are some of your favorite BOOK interpretations of Phantom? Obviously, the original novel is sublime, but what are your opinions of the Susan Kay novel? Is it worth the read? I’ve heard mixed reviews on it and while I want to see a fresh take on the story, I don’t want to ruin Phantom for me. (1/2)

There's also supposedly a new Phantom book series that came out a few months ago, titled. "Nocturne: Guardian of the Opera" that's supposed to be a fresh take on the original story... Always enjoyed your blog! (2/2) 

To be completely honest, I have not read many Phantom novels. Partly because there’s so many, but also partly because I talk so much about it on here that I want to read about something different when I’m offline. I think I’ve only read Leroux’s novel, of course; Susan Kay’s, naturally; a children’s version of the novel, through sheer chance; Phantom of Manhattan, to my eternal regret; and to my great amusement, a novel called No Return, only I read it when it was posted on FanFiction.net.

Leroux is awesome, of course, and you can read about my thoughts on Susan Kay’s take here. Let’s just say “mixed reviews” is correct; plenty of stuff I love in it, but a lot that I hate. That’s a lot of the current fandom’s consensus on it, for which I’m glad, as there was a time when Kay’s novel was lauded as “better than Leroux!” and completely glossing over the more unpleasant aspects of her interpretation. I still say it’s worth the read, if only because it has had a strong influence on the phandom and if you want to understand why certain characters are named or characterized a certain way, reading Kay’s novel is the best way to go.

You can read more about Kate McMullan’s children’s version of The Phantom of the Opera here, but I enjoyed it. Of course, I was only a child myself when I read it, but I liked it then and would probably like it now. It takes the very interesting tack of writing the story entirely from Erik’s point-of-view, from his childhood to the events of the novel, so it’s not just a watered-down rehash of Leroux either. I should try and find a copy of it at some point.

Phantom of Manhattan sucked balls. It’s known now mainly for being a kind of prototype of Love Never Dies and inspiring several of its plot elements, such as Erik moving to Coney Island, him and Christine having sex and a love child, and Christine dying in the end and leaving her son with Erik. But somehow it is worse than LND, from Forsyth’s out-of-the-blue bashing of Leroux for not “writing the characters correctly”, to flat writing style, to the constant perspective hopping done with none of the skill of Leroux, to making Raoul infertile, to Erik and Christine’s “sex scene” that I’m not even going to talk about, to random conversations with gods... it’s awful. Not recommended.

I genuinely can’t believe I read No Return as a fanfic, it amuses me tremendously. You can read more about it here, and the fanfic version was exactly what is described in that link. To be honest, I liked it when I read it, but I was also a newbie teenage phan dead set on romanticizing the Phantom. Looking back on it now, yeah, there were a lot of tropes that were pretty iffy.

As for “ruining Phantom”, for me, that has never been a problem, mainly because I think of every adaptation or fic as its own thing, in its own canon. Whatever they do, whatever their existence, the other works still exist. I am also very much a fan of “make your own canon”, where whatever is “canon” is dependent on what I think not on the arbitrary decisions of their creators. So that’s why the worst fanfic can’t ruin Leroux for me, because it is its own thing and Leroux exists outside of it; LND does not ruin the ALW musical for me, because it is its own thing (with such a wonky timeline and characterizations that it’s very easy to think of as a weird AU and and not a sequel).

And I think if you take that attitude, exploring other versions is a lot less scary. You can apply it to other fandoms too. Game of Thrones does not ruin A Song of Ice and Fire because they are separate adaptations; remakes of horror movies do not ruin the original, because they are separate canons; terrible sequels to great movies do not ruin the original, because I just disregard them as canon. Makes for a much happier me!

(I say, as I attempt in vain to ignore The Rise of Skywalker so I can get my Star Wars love back. Oh well, maybe in another six months.)