Phantom of the Opera

It's an ok read, but I suggest seeing the stage play instead.

I find it impossible to separate the audiobook from the Andrew Lloyd Webber musical. The novel, naturally, has more detail than the musical, but Webber did such a fantastic job of staying close to the original source material that even if I got busy and only half paid attention to the audiobook, I was never lost. If you are a fan of the musical, you will definitely enjoy this.

Very enjoyable as an audiobook.

Ok classic book

Very exciting!

Love triangle with a ghost. Kept me occupied

“I want to have a wife like everybody else and to take her out on Sundays. I have invented a mask that makes me look like anybody. People will not even turn round in the streets. You will be the happiest of women. And we will sing, all by ourselves, till we swoon away with delight. You are crying! You are afraid of me! And yet I am not really wicked. Love me and you shall see! All I wanted was to be loved for myself. If you loved me I should be as gentle as a lamb; and you could do anything with me that you pleased.”

Poor, unhappy Erik.

As many people know, the Phantom of the Opera's plot is like the fairytale Beauty and the Beast with tragic ending instead of a happy one. The beast, the Opera Ghost, named Erik lived under a Opera House. He haunted it with his craftsmanship of trickery and illusions. Christine Daae, on the other hand, was an opera singer who were lured by the Opera Ghost; she believed that Erik was the Angel of Music. Raoul de Chagny was her lover.

The author succeeded in interlocking his story to the real facts and events in real life. At the beginning, for a moment there, I was beginning to believe the story was real. But, I remember this book is under fiction. haha. I had a lull moment in the middle part which caused me to do something else and not finish this book at once. I picked the momentum again by reading ChapterXX (That's why I do not easily give up on books). I like the part of the Persian until the end of the book.

I had always been a big fan of The Phantom of the Opera (both the play and the movies) hadn't read the book until recently. I thought I knew everything there was to know, but the book blew me away. Nothing like I expected, and I loved every moment. I loved the story before, and I grew to love it even more.

I didn't know the musical was based on a true story. It's the original true crime novel.

My prior exposure to The Phantom of the Opera is almost exclusively tied to the Broadway musical (or the movie musical adaptation of the Broadway play). Apart from that, all I knew about the Phantom came from random references in Scooby Doo or other peripherally related media. Thus I wasn't at all surprised to find the book have significant differences from what I know of the Phantom. Still, I felt a general sense of familiarity to the story and could envision many of the scenes…probably my biggest struggle was to stop internally singing songs from the play as I read the book.As was the case of many of the novels of the time, this book includes significant commentary from the author as he emphasizes that this is a true story that he has happened upon and researched over time. The author assures us that he has personally vetted out the claims of the research materials he has used and that he has personally investigated the locations of the story. This technique always strikes me as a little interesting and makes me laugh a little at the mindset of novelists and readers of a century ago. In spite of the fact that this story is certainly a work of fiction, it is very evident that Leroux conducted at least a moderate degree of research. At the very least, he had a great knowledge of the layout, look and feel of the Paris Opera House. The edition I read included an article in the appendix from a historian who commented on the attention to detail and accuracy. The article commented on the nature of the descriptions of the Opera House in the book as compared with reality. It indicated that there was certain literary license in some areas of the description (particularly with regards to some of the secret passages and such), but for the most part the book presented a true and accurate representation of the Opera House and could serve as a valid reference.Apart from the accuracy of the descriptions, I found the descriptive nature of the text very engaging but not overly so. I wasn't distracted from the descriptions, but I felt like I had a vivid feel for the Opera House (and other locales) and could truly envision the scenes presented. The characters felt a little stereotypical and predictable to me…though part of that could be due to my knowledge of the story as well as the fact that this story is a century old and perhaps when it initially came out, the characters were more unique than they are today.For those who have seen or are familiar with the Broadway play, you'll be familiar with a lot of the general aspects of the story. I can't speak to other film versions of the story. There are quite a few significant differences in the story as well. Probably the biggest difference is that there are many more scenes that happen away from the Opera House. In the play, we go up on the roof at one point and I believe the graveyard scene is supposed to happen away from the Opera House (it's been a while since I saw the play…and my memory is unclear). In the book, we find out where Raul and his brother live. We find out where Christine grew up and lives away from the Opera House. We wander the streets around the city. There's more backstory given to Christine as well as to her earlier interaction with Raul. We hear the folk story around the "Angel of Music" and understand even more why he is so enticing to her. All of these elements helped enrich the book and will certainly throw some interesting light on the play.Where things got a little weird for me in the book was in the character of the Phantom as well as a character not in the play…the Persian. We get an interesting back story on the Phantom's life prior to coming to the Paris Opera House. This story is intriguing though I think a lot of my interest was more in the way the story was laid out. Rather than giving you the whole story at once, which could have been done easily enough, we get hints and allegations throughout that allude to the Phantom having previously "haunted" another large building in similar ways. This was an interesting revelation to me. What was fun though was not only learning more and more about the Phantom (who is given a name in the book…but I'll leave readers to find that out as they read on their own) but also learning about the kingdom he'd built in the Opera House. As a contractor helping work on the construction of the Opera House, he had full access to all the nooks and crannies of the building and was able to make his own modifications as well. Once the construction was finished, he simply stayed behind and continued building his fortress. In addition to the trap doors and secret passageways, the Phantom was a sort of technological illusionist and had built a number of very complex rooms and areas with devious intent. There's a scene near the end of the book where we learn of a room called the Torture Chamber. We stumble into the room (along with other characters) in the dark and it's a while before we fully learn the workings of the room. Initially I envisioned a room with Medieval torture devices…a Rack, a Wheel, an Iron Maiden, Knee Splitters, Cats Paws, and others. Instead the room was a sort of "Sensory Illusion" or "Sensory Overload" chamber. By using light, mirrors, sound recordings, image projection, environmental control (hot/cold/etc) and quickly changing "set pieces" moving in and out, the Phantom used the room to conduct psychological torture on his victims by sending them "virtually" into a variety of locations specially organized to drive a person insane. The concept of this actually being torturous seemed laughable as I read it. However, as you think back to the late 19th and early 20th century when this sort of "magic" was inconceivable, I suppose it is more likely to consider that a person may be driven insane by creative manipulation of their environment. After all, there are reports of audience members being terrified as they watched an early "movie" of a train barreling towards the screen…many jumped out of the way. So even though we know/imagine these effects aren't 100% realistic, when we consider no other basis for evaluation, it could have been terrifying.The Phantom is one of those paradoxical characters…we are made to both pity him and to fear him. He is a misshapen, grotesque misunderstood human being who has been shunned and despised all his life and as a result turned into a recluse. On the flip side, he also took advantage of his reclusive moments to frighten, torture and murder people who got too close to his personal kingdom. While he's very smart, his moral logic was very young and fraught with the childish snap judgements and vengeful ideas that you might hear in a playground argument. When it becomes evident to him that Christine will not likely opt to love him and be his bride, his moral logic gets all the more desperate and he turns to a "if I can't have her, nobody will" mentality. The Phantom gives Christine two choices, in the figures of a scorpion and a grasshopper. He explains that she must either choose to love him, or she and everyone else will die. Turning the scorpion or the grasshopper invokes one of the Phantoms inventions. Once again, the confrontation in this moment felt a little silly but the mechanisms involved did create serious tension…especially when it became clear that either choice has catastrophic consequences in Christine's life (the extent of the "good" choice also being bad isn't crystal clear to her but as a reader, we can quickly deduce what will happen with each choice…in either case, someone is meant to die).As the story draws to its conclusion, the Phantom grows more and more pitiable but never forgivable (since he never exhibits any true remorse or responsibility for his actions). I think in these final chapters/pages, we are meant to be drawn in by his anguish and feel some sort of compassion on him. I can say that I did feel bad about his situation, but he still was certainly not a lovable character. By the same token, I didn't feel that much love for the other love interest (Raul) as he felt like a stereotypical hero…rather flat and predictable. Still, he had redeemable qualities.Overall, I'm glad to have read this classic novel. It's an interesting view into literature and life in the late 19th and early 20th century. The scenes, characters, and descriptions are all well-crafted and very vivid. There are a number of scenes that were a little dry and more boring than informative, but they were easy enough to skim by. I didn't feel the sense of horror and fear that this book may have created when first released, but if I put on the mystical goggles of the early 20th century, I can appreciate the form and function of the plot devices and see how this could have been terrifying to readers. In some way, this story and the way it's presented reminds me of some of the crime dramas on TV these days…insofar as we are not only told the story of kidnapping and murder in a prominent location, but that we also get to see the psychological element of the Phantom and how he became what he is.While it seems to hold up generally over time, the sometimes slower pace and the outrageous plot devices may be a little hard to swallow for many modern readers. But if you have interest in "classic literature" at all, or in the workings of early 1900s Paris, this will likely be an interesting read for you. Otherwise, you may want to stick with the Broadway play or movie.****3.5 out of 5 stars

This is the one and only time you will hear me say 'I liked the movie/play better' Because I did. Its still an enjoyable book, very creepy and romantic but I miss the music. Maybe if I listen to the soundtrack while I read it?

Delightful. I was a fan of the play first, of course, but the book adds so much more dimension to a story that is already beautiful and tragic. I loved learning more about Eric (the phantom), where he came from and how terrifyingly clever he was. Much more frightening than the musical. I'm trying to re-read it in French, but I keep getting side-tracked.

I found this hilariously over the top, for the most part, helped by the fact that in one of the versions I read, all emphasis was done by capitalisation. It just made me think of Erik as a troll on the internet, honestly...

It's interesting how much more popular I'm told the musical is, than the book. And the book did badly originally, if I remember that rightly. There is something very dramatic about the book that might be best dealt with on the stage. And, of course, you can't hear the enchantment of Erik's singing, in the book.

It's also interesting how devoid of a hero this book is, at least from my perspective. Christine is central, in that it's her that Erik fixates on, and who Raoul loves. Erik is central, in that he's probably the most fascinating figure of the book, but he's also self-centered and murderous and more like a villain. Raoul is important, but doesn't take much action. The Persian, with his ideas of saving Christine, is perhaps the most heroic, but rather in the background for most of the book. There's not much to hang onto and care about, in terms of characters.

I was really enjoying this, and then I found out the translation I am reading is inaccurate and abridged! :(

I guess I'll just have to read it again later. I think I'll wait until the new Mireille Ribière translation comes out in March.

I felt this book was a little disappointing. I wasn't really interested in any of the characters until the end of the novel and even at that point I only really liked Raoul and the Persian. Christine was just so stupid and the Phantom was so annoying with his whole "I'm ugly; pity me!" There wasn't any point in the book where I really wanted to read it until the end as it was building up towards the climax. Then just I was starting to feel like this book was actually going to be great, Gaston Leroux gave it an awful ending. I'm only going to give this book 3.5 stars and I would only recommend to fans of Gothic Literature or movie.

I was obsessed with The Phantom of the Opera in the sixth grade, after our otherwise useless music teacher taught a unit on the actual opera. I then read the book for a reading project in regular class.

perhaps the reader. i couldn't focus well. maybe the writing style. tom liked this but he read it. so different from the musical!

I thought this was good in most parts yet at times I found it either dull or confusing. But the good outweighs the bad.I think the third-person narrator swapping over to first person - allowing the Persian character to take over - was a mistake. I would rather have 'seen' what was going on with the heroine and the villain, rather than 'listening' to what the Persian and the hero could hear. The novel features as much humour as it does Gothic horror, which I enjoyed. I had to smile at the amount of times the hero bursts into tears through his passionate love for the heroine - she seldom cries yet he's easily set off!

What is interesting about this novel in light of the Andrew Lloyd Webber musical, is that the novel seems devoid of a hero. Erik, the Phantom, is a murderous psychopath. His muse, Christine, is a fragile wreck, and her lover Raoul is described as childish and whiny by the author. Yet, the gothic tale is very suspenseful, and we almost don't know who to root for. Erik's background is fascinating, and his genius almost overshadows his murderous rampages. The decent beneath the Opera House is very compelling in its mystery and suspense. Leroux's strength is in his scenic descriptions. It is through flashbacks that we best sympathize with the characters, as the author's dialogue does his characters no favors. For fans of the musical, much more is explained between the relationship between Madame Giry and the Phantom, how Christine came to the Opera, and, best of all, how the Phantom constructed his underground lair. His description of the impressive hideaway blows the Broadway scenery right out of the water.

I appreciate the Opera of the Phantom MANY times more now that the holes in the storyline of the opera are patched up. This is an intriguing mystery, a complex story about human frailty, but mostly, it is a lovely love story.

Have you been mystified and enchanted by Andrew Lloyd Weber's "The Phantom of the Opera"? Did you know that the musical was based on a book? Gaston Leroux's "The Phantom of the Opera" is an excellent read for anyone who loves the musical or anyone who loves detective novels. The novel is written almost as a documentary, with the author trying to figure out if the Phantom of the Paris Opera was ideed real or not. He recounts the strange events attributed to the Phantom, and claims that they are all real events because the Phantom is a real man. He was not a ghost or ghoul, but a real man with real emotions.This book is very similar to the musical, but offers more insight into the thoughts of Christine, Raoul, and Erik (the Phantom). It also introduces a few new characters who help smooth out some of the rough/confusing parts of the musical.This novel proved to be an excellent example of our "who's the hero" theme. Raoul is a daring, physical hero who risks life and limb to save the love of his life. Christine is the selfless, internal hero who gives up all of her happiness for the happiness of others. It could be said that Erik is a hero as well, due to his undying love and selfless acts at the end of the novel. There are several heroes in this book, and all are special in their own unique way. It was interesting to see how they faced their various moral dilemmas.I really liked this book. Personally, I had just seen Phantom of the Opera on Broadway in November. I had never known the storyline before then. I was slightly confused about some of the things that happened in the play, so reading this book really cleared things up. The detective/mystery style layout of this book made the book really fun and easy to read. I really enjoyed it and I recommend it to anyone who loves the Phantom or just a good mystery!

My daughter made me read this before we could go see Andrew Lloyd Webber's movie. I have wanted to see it for a long time because of the music, but never knew more than the outline of the plot. It was a good story. Very readable and a page turner. Anything lacking in style is probably due to translation difficulties. Like Frankenstein, it is the story of a great man who cannot be accepted because of his utter ugliness and is driven mad because of it.

I consider The Phantom of the Opera to be a retelling of the "Beauty and the Beast" fairy tale. The phantom in this version is kind of a creepy stalker guy. We get depth in some aspects missing in the musical (although we do not have the depth of feeling that the musical conveys), but really, if you want a good retelling of this story, read Susan Kay's Phantom. Leroux gets credit for the story line, but his writing is just as boring as that of other authors whose works have been turned into really awesome musicals- Victor Hugo and Charles Dickens. Were men of that general period just completely incapable of writing?

Ohhh this is one of the best books i have ever read. i love how the phantom is so madly inlove wiht christe that he will do anything and nothing will stop him from loving the beautiful melodies that spring out of Christine Daae's voice. not even Roul will stop him

sat unread for years.this translation ( or prose style ) is not the easiest or most engaging to read. but after slogging it through it's a little bit better than expected/anticipated

I borrowed this book from a friend because I really loved the soundtrack about two years ago when I first heard it. Unfortunately, I never got the chance to read the actual book. I read it in the span of a day while traveling on vacation (in the car and on the train). It was a pretty good book, though I felt it was dragged on a bit and I got a bit bored sometimes. But I loved the suspense and I kept wanting to read. I love mysteries about history, so I thought this was a pretty good book.

This book gives us an insight into the depravities and, conversly the beauties of humanity. The ugliness of the phantom is contrasted with the beauty of his music and understandably, Christine feels an undeniably pity for him, whereas the naive Raoul only feels anger towards him. One of the best characters that was left out of the musical version was the Persian, who presents important background into the phantom's life. This book totally made me cry at the end!

A movie. Based on an opera. Based on a novel. Based on what may or may not be slightly true events. Always interesting. And it involves music, another passion of mine. Just a painfully beautiful book about the masks we all wear.

I loved this book. It is more a melodramatic love story than the horror story it is made out to be and it's neither the musical nor the black and white silent so it should not be judged based on them. It is dark and passionate and surprisingly very funny.

I thoroughly enjoyed this book. I had no idea what to expect as I wasn\'t familiar with any of Leroux\'s other novels and I hadn\'t heard anything about it from anybody else who\'d read it. I fell in love with it from the start. It\'s the perfect Gothic novel. It\'s ingenious, beautiful, and dark. I love it.