Scan barcode
zoerose02's review against another edition
Content Warnings
Graphic: Violence
Moderate: Racial slurs and Rape
Minor: Animal death and Child abuse
siglerbooknook's review against another edition
adventurous
challenging
dark
emotional
mysterious
reflective
sad
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.75
Phantom by Susan Kay is a must read for anyone obsessed with the story of the opera ghost.
I adored this book start to finish. It is gut wrenching and sad, hopeful and beautiful. Every scene is painted so vividly I felt like I was watching a movie.
I loved the glimpse into Erik's past and what made him the mad genius we know from the original novel by Gaston Leroux. Kay does a beautiful job weaving the little facts we learned originally into her tale in a convincing way that makes me feel like I only knew half the story before finding this book.
There are a few points of violence which became rather uncomfortable for me and several typos later in the book that made me read a sentence two or three times before I understood it and pulled me out of the story for a moment which is the only reason this isn't a perfect 5 star novel in my opinion.
I adored this book start to finish. It is gut wrenching and sad, hopeful and beautiful. Every scene is painted so vividly I felt like I was watching a movie.
I loved the glimpse into Erik's past and what made him the mad genius we know from the original novel by Gaston Leroux. Kay does a beautiful job weaving the little facts we learned originally into her tale in a convincing way that makes me feel like I only knew half the story before finding this book.
There are a few points of violence which became rather uncomfortable for me and several typos later in the book that made me read a sentence two or three times before I understood it and pulled me out of the story for a moment which is the only reason this isn't a perfect 5 star novel in my opinion.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Child abuse, Drug use, Addiction, Emotional abuse, Physical abuse, Grief, Murder, Abandonment, Body horror, and Body shaming
Moderate: Death, Mental illness, Pregnancy, Child death, Death of parent, Sexual assault, Rape, and Confinement
Minor: Animal death, Slavery, Toxic relationship, Torture, Terminal illness, Pedophilia, Suicidal thoughts, Suicide attempt, and Animal cruelty
kianiz's review
dark
emotional
sad
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
4.0
I recently went to NYC to catch the show before it closes and it sent me down my PotO obsession once again. I read this book years ago and loved it and I have to say it still holds up for me.
Book is fantastically written. There’s so much insight into Erik and Kay does a great job of making him both human and monstrous. He can be very disturbing at times, but that’s kind of the point of his character, right?
I do still hate the ending. As sad as it might be, I’m still a big fan of the Phantom being left behind and disappearing. I feel like that’s what makes it so heart wrenching. That there’s no true happy ending. That is whyChristine coming back to have sex with Erik before her wedding then marrying Raoul and being okay with bringing a child into their marriage that wasn’t his was outrageously ridiculous. And the fact that Raoul KNOWS it’s not his kid and still stays with Christine and raises the child like the most loving father with no anger or sense of betrayal or anything close to that is just plain unbelievable, not to mention weird as fuck.
Then again, everyone has their own interpretation and headcanon, so I just pretend Raoul’s POV doesn’t exist. That being said, I still think it’s a fantastic book and the writing is almost poetic.
Book is fantastically written. There’s so much insight into Erik and Kay does a great job of making him both human and monstrous. He can be very disturbing at times, but that’s kind of the point of his character, right?
I do still hate the ending. As sad as it might be, I’m still a big fan of the Phantom being left behind and disappearing. I feel like that’s what makes it so heart wrenching. That there’s no true happy ending. That is why
Then again, everyone has their own interpretation and headcanon, so I just pretend Raoul’s POV doesn’t exist. That being said, I still think it’s a fantastic book and the writing is almost poetic.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Animal death, Violence, Emotional abuse, Child death, and Murder
Moderate: Suicidal thoughts, Child abuse, and Drug use
Minor: Death of parent, Rape, and Sexual assault
nymnphi's review against another edition
dark
mysterious
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
1.0
honestly i’m not sure if this book deserves a full star.
to begin, i did actually quite like the writing. if you told me this book was ghostwritten by leroux, i would probably believe you at certain points. it mimicked his voice and style well, and was overall decent in terms of prose. besides the appearance of the word “awesome” about once a chapter, the style of writing was well-done and the reason behind the full star.
the story itself though….it’s a racist, misguided, and dangerously sexist mess of inconsistencies, annoyances, and grossness.
i have always been a proponent of the fact that christine and erik’s relationship is nothing more than abusive. the reason she stays is, in my opinion, due to a mix of fear, manipulation, and pity for not just erik but for herself. christine believes that because of the death of her father and her believed “lack of talent” that she is broken and undeserving of love. erik represents that self-loathing side of her. meanwhile, raoul represents healing and light and self-love. christine chooses him not because he is the better choice but because he makes her happy. she chooses to be happy rather than wallow in pain with erik. so when i see many a phanfiction authors make the mistake of making christine and erik the one true pair, i cringe inside. you guys completely miss the mark with this one lol. stop pairing women with the abusive “tortured bad boy,” it’s just unhealthy.
the racism…ugh. i know this book was written in the 80’s, but even then some common sense and an open mind could have seen that this was avoided. the romani people/caravan erik stays with as a teenager are portrayed as not only exotic witches (a common stereotype), but as human traffickers, slavers, and rapists. not to mention that erik is almost raped by the only canon gay/bisexual character during this time, making gay people (once again!) the pedophiles of the story.
erik’s time in persia is no better (he at one point says, “fuck your culture” LMAO).
it may or may not be intentional, but this book really makes it seem like erik’s time in non-white cultures fucked him up the most, and i’m not sure how i feel about it.
as mentioned previously, the entire POTO retelling is pure garbage. it’s littered with a variety of plot holes, misunderstandings, and false information that contradicts the original novel. at one point, erik goes into graphic detail about how he wants to “rape [Christine] with music.” ew ew ew ew.
this book was my first introduction to the world of phanfiction, and damn did it make me want to keep the genre at a safe six feet of distance for the sake of my well-being. phantom fans…ESPECIALLY those who prefer/love the novel…spare yourselves.
to begin, i did actually quite like the writing. if you told me this book was ghostwritten by leroux, i would probably believe you at certain points. it mimicked his voice and style well, and was overall decent in terms of prose. besides the appearance of the word “awesome” about once a chapter, the style of writing was well-done and the reason behind the full star.
the story itself though….it’s a racist, misguided, and dangerously sexist mess of inconsistencies, annoyances, and grossness.
i have always been a proponent of the fact that christine and erik’s relationship is nothing more than abusive. the reason she stays is, in my opinion, due to a mix of fear, manipulation, and pity for not just erik but for herself. christine believes that because of the death of her father and her believed “lack of talent” that she is broken and undeserving of love. erik represents that self-loathing side of her. meanwhile, raoul represents healing and light and self-love. christine chooses him not because he is the better choice but because he makes her happy. she chooses to be happy rather than wallow in pain with erik. so when i see many a phanfiction authors make the mistake of making christine and erik the one true pair, i cringe inside. you guys completely miss the mark with this one lol. stop pairing women with the abusive “tortured bad boy,” it’s just unhealthy.
the racism…ugh. i know this book was written in the 80’s, but even then some common sense and an open mind could have seen that this was avoided. the romani people/caravan erik stays with as a teenager are portrayed as not only exotic witches (a common stereotype), but as human traffickers, slavers, and rapists. not to mention that erik is almost raped by the only canon gay/bisexual character during this time, making gay people (once again!) the pedophiles of the story.
erik’s time in persia is no better (he at one point says, “fuck your culture” LMAO).
it may or may not be intentional, but this book really makes it seem like erik’s time in non-white cultures fucked him up the most, and i’m not sure how i feel about it.
as mentioned previously, the entire POTO retelling is pure garbage. it’s littered with a variety of plot holes, misunderstandings, and false information that contradicts the original novel. at one point, erik goes into graphic detail about how he wants to “rape [Christine] with music.” ew ew ew ew.
this book was my first introduction to the world of phanfiction, and damn did it make me want to keep the genre at a safe six feet of distance for the sake of my well-being. phantom fans…ESPECIALLY those who prefer/love the novel…spare yourselves.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Child abuse, Toxic relationship, Drug use, Drug abuse, Murder, Rape, Sexual assault, Xenophobia, Racial slurs, Trafficking, and Abandonment
Moderate: Child death, Biphobia, Antisemitism, Torture, Slavery, Sexual harassment, Sexism, Addiction, and Adult/minor relationship
Minor: Animal death, Cancer, and Death of parent
directorpurry's review
1.5
Actual rating: 1.5 stars (but not malicious stars; I'm really sad to be writing this review, tbh!)
CW: child abuse, death of an animal, death of a child, racism/slurs (specifically against Romani people), attempted rape, drug abuse
I, unlike many, many people, had more than a couple of issues with this book. It shows its age, certainly, being read 30 years later, but it also attempts to cater to both fans of the original novel and fans of the musical at the same time - and, personally, I felt it did neither one justice. Simply because there are so many glowing reviews of this novel, I'm going to break this down into categories to be as thorough as possible, since clearly the average star rating can take it!
Adaptation: This book tries to include elements of both the staged musical and the original novel, [b:The Phantom of the Opera|480204|The Phantom of the Opera|Gaston Leroux|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1327867727l/480204._SY75_.jpg|2259720] by Gaston Leroux, and does both rather poorly. There are elements not included in the musical, or elements only present in the musical but not the book, that were all included alongside each other. I expect those who only knew the musical coming in were surprised to meet the Persian or to learn about the torture chamber. I was really disappointed in the way the Rosy Hours of Mazanderan were presented; it didn't completely line up with the description in the original novel - rather than the "little sultana," we had a grown woman (Frequently attempting to seduce Erik for some reason?). Also, WHERE was the graveyard? Where was the resurrection of Lazarus scene?? That part is so poignant in the original novel and it was entirely cut without even a single mention in this book. It also failed spectacularly at creating the relationship between Raoul and Christine. Just... bad. In the original novel, she clearly has a preference for Raoul, while in the musical her love is more torn - but in Phantom, she's in love with Erik and seems only to use Raoul to make Erik jealous. She picks Raoul over Erik because he's the safe, less scary choice, not because she loves him.
I do have a sneaking suspicion the circus/cage scene included in part two inspired the circus present in the 2004 musical film, also based on the stage musical.
Not only were there scenes from the book that I expected but could not find, it also created a number of problems with the timeline...
Timeline: About halfway through the novel, Phantom meets up with the actual events of The Phantom of the Opera. But by trying to follow both diverging timelines of the novel and the musical, the story finds itself muddled up. Joseph Buquet dies too early, the chandelier falls too late. The manager's gala and the New Year's masquerade ball are entirely cut and Christine and Raoul's romance is completely sideways. Phantom fails to include a significant number of scenes from the original novel, and some of the scenes that were included rewrote the original dialogue for no good reason, making it read particularly stilted and not at all following the original pace and plot beats of the story.
There was also an abject failure to complete the Chekhov's Gun prerogative! SpoilerErik obtains a large amount of gun powder from radicals during the days of the Paris commune. He briefly mentions that if the opera house is ever slated for demolition, he will use the gunpowder to destroy it himself. In the original novel, Erik asks Christine to marry him and if she refuses the engagement, he will blow up the entire opera house via a basement full of gunpowder - the obtaining of which was never explicitly explained. However, this is one of the scenes that suffered the cuts of Phantom. So, he has a basement full of gun powder which he never references again!
Narration: I think this novel made a misstep in having such a wide swath of narrators. While most of the novel was narrated by others, three sections were narrated by Erik. I think it would have been more successful if the entire book was narrated by Erik or it was completely narrated by others. In the original novel, Erik is, while not a minor character by any means, not on the page for more than a third of the book. He's built up as and then torn down from this mystical, powerful, mysterious creature. He's far more powerful as a character when so much is left to the imagination; in Phantom it's all laid bare.
Language and Vernacular: Multiple times during the story, I noticed inconsistent use of language. For example, Erik is French. He is very French. He was born in France and lived all over Europe - but never in England. Despite this, he frequently uses very British turns of phrase, like "bloody." Later in the book, Meg Giry calls her mother "Ma" rather than "Mama," which would be more appropriate for a French-speaking character to do.
Earlier in the story, while Erik was living in Italy, one of the Italian characters referenced a "siesta," which is Spanish, when he should have called it a "riposo" instead. Later in the story, Erik tells the Persian he has his "wires crossed," a phrase that wasn't in print until 1891, but this scene was set in 1880.
White Savior-ism and Euro-centrism: Erik is clearly placed above those in Mezanderan because he is "rational" or perhaps more "civilized," despite whatever problems he has in his past. His way of thinking is placed above Persian society without qualm. He refuses to engage in customs - good or bad - and is seen as superior because of his choices. He goes on to speak of the architecture as ugly because it is extremely different from European architecture, and then the Persian goes on to noncommittally agree with him - which is frankly absurd because look at how breathtakingly gorgeous these buildings are. I don't even need to go on, because that's the most blatant example of Euro-centrism and superiority that I have seen in my entire life.
Romanticization and Veneration: Erik is thoroughly romanticized through this book. The reader is told how smart and strong and talented... how everything but handsome Erik is, despite his frequent lapses in temper and his increasing willingness to kill over time. We're supposed to see Erik as a good guy just because he doesn't rape women when he has the chance to. Personally, I found the frequent reiteration of this concept to be a bit absurd, considering the bar is so low as to make it the baseline for not being a POS human being.
Characters are much more powerful, especially morally gray ones, when they're presented plainly to the reader, and the reader is then allowed to form their own opinions. Erik is compared to angelic and Jesus figures to excess throughout the story in direct opposition to the way his character is broken down from Angel of Music to human man by the end of the original novel. He never moves beyond this loving portrayal to the detriment of the reader's ability to interpret the story.
Treatment of Female Characters: There was really a very distasteful edge to the way women were talked about in this book. They were either to be looked down upon and had no agency of their own or were malicious characters. Only the male characters seemed to be able to move with purpose through the story - even Raoul, who's portrayed terribly, has more active choice than Christine. All that she does is in response to her dead father, to Raoul, or to Erik.
Final thoughts: I realized as I was nearing the end of this book that many of the pieces left purposefully vague and mysterious in the original Phantom of the Opera were done so with good reason. Erik's strange mystery is far more alluring than the full explanation could ever be. His mystery is the reason so much of pop culture - and I include myself in this - has turned to romanticizing this particularly flawed but talented individual.
Whatever answers I was hoping for, I did not find in this book. It contains dated language and lackluster characterization that relies far too heavily on the reader's prior inclination to love, or at least be deeply interested, in Erik. Instead of a few answers and some more mystery, it struggles to lay everything bare, to the detriment of writing and storyline. By trying to include elements of both the novel and the musical, it fails to include important scenes and do justice to either version.
CW: child abuse, death of an animal, death of a child, racism/slurs (specifically against Romani people), attempted rape, drug abuse
I, unlike many, many people, had more than a couple of issues with this book. It shows its age, certainly, being read 30 years later, but it also attempts to cater to both fans of the original novel and fans of the musical at the same time - and, personally, I felt it did neither one justice. Simply because there are so many glowing reviews of this novel, I'm going to break this down into categories to be as thorough as possible, since clearly the average star rating can take it!
Adaptation: This book tries to include elements of both the staged musical and the original novel, [b:The Phantom of the Opera|480204|The Phantom of the Opera|Gaston Leroux|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1327867727l/480204._SY75_.jpg|2259720] by Gaston Leroux, and does both rather poorly. There are elements not included in the musical, or elements only present in the musical but not the book, that were all included alongside each other. I expect those who only knew the musical coming in were surprised to meet the Persian or to learn about the torture chamber. I was really disappointed in the way the Rosy Hours of Mazanderan were presented; it didn't completely line up with the description in the original novel - rather than the "little sultana," we had a grown woman (Frequently attempting to seduce Erik for some reason?). Also, WHERE was the graveyard? Where was the resurrection of Lazarus scene?? That part is so poignant in the original novel and it was entirely cut without even a single mention in this book. It also failed spectacularly at creating the relationship between Raoul and Christine. Just... bad. In the original novel, she clearly has a preference for Raoul, while in the musical her love is more torn - but in Phantom, she's in love with Erik and seems only to use Raoul to make Erik jealous. She picks Raoul over Erik because he's the safe, less scary choice, not because she loves him.
I do have a sneaking suspicion the circus/cage scene included in part two inspired the circus present in the 2004 musical film, also based on the stage musical.
Not only were there scenes from the book that I expected but could not find, it also created a number of problems with the timeline...
Timeline: About halfway through the novel, Phantom meets up with the actual events of The Phantom of the Opera. But by trying to follow both diverging timelines of the novel and the musical, the story finds itself muddled up. Joseph Buquet dies too early, the chandelier falls too late. The manager's gala and the New Year's masquerade ball are entirely cut and Christine and Raoul's romance is completely sideways. Phantom fails to include a significant number of scenes from the original novel, and some of the scenes that were included rewrote the original dialogue for no good reason, making it read particularly stilted and not at all following the original pace and plot beats of the story.
There was also an abject failure to complete the Chekhov's Gun prerogative! SpoilerErik obtains a large amount of gun powder from radicals during the days of the Paris commune. He briefly mentions that if the opera house is ever slated for demolition, he will use the gunpowder to destroy it himself. In the original novel, Erik asks Christine to marry him and if she refuses the engagement, he will blow up the entire opera house via a basement full of gunpowder - the obtaining of which was never explicitly explained. However, this is one of the scenes that suffered the cuts of Phantom. So, he has a basement full of gun powder which he never references again!
Narration: I think this novel made a misstep in having such a wide swath of narrators. While most of the novel was narrated by others, three sections were narrated by Erik. I think it would have been more successful if the entire book was narrated by Erik or it was completely narrated by others. In the original novel, Erik is, while not a minor character by any means, not on the page for more than a third of the book. He's built up as and then torn down from this mystical, powerful, mysterious creature. He's far more powerful as a character when so much is left to the imagination; in Phantom it's all laid bare.
Language and Vernacular: Multiple times during the story, I noticed inconsistent use of language. For example, Erik is French. He is very French. He was born in France and lived all over Europe - but never in England. Despite this, he frequently uses very British turns of phrase, like "bloody." Later in the book, Meg Giry calls her mother "Ma" rather than "Mama," which would be more appropriate for a French-speaking character to do.
Earlier in the story, while Erik was living in Italy, one of the Italian characters referenced a "siesta," which is Spanish, when he should have called it a "riposo" instead. Later in the story, Erik tells the Persian he has his "wires crossed," a phrase that wasn't in print until 1891, but this scene was set in 1880.
White Savior-ism and Euro-centrism: Erik is clearly placed above those in Mezanderan because he is "rational" or perhaps more "civilized," despite whatever problems he has in his past. His way of thinking is placed above Persian society without qualm. He refuses to engage in customs - good or bad - and is seen as superior because of his choices. He goes on to speak of the architecture as ugly because it is extremely different from European architecture, and then the Persian goes on to noncommittally agree with him - which is frankly absurd because look at how breathtakingly gorgeous these buildings are. I don't even need to go on, because that's the most blatant example of Euro-centrism and superiority that I have seen in my entire life.
Romanticization and Veneration: Erik is thoroughly romanticized through this book. The reader is told how smart and strong and talented... how everything but handsome Erik is, despite his frequent lapses in temper and his increasing willingness to kill over time. We're supposed to see Erik as a good guy just because he doesn't rape women when he has the chance to. Personally, I found the frequent reiteration of this concept to be a bit absurd, considering the bar is so low as to make it the baseline for not being a POS human being.
Characters are much more powerful, especially morally gray ones, when they're presented plainly to the reader, and the reader is then allowed to form their own opinions. Erik is compared to angelic and Jesus figures to excess throughout the story in direct opposition to the way his character is broken down from Angel of Music to human man by the end of the original novel. He never moves beyond this loving portrayal to the detriment of the reader's ability to interpret the story.
Treatment of Female Characters: There was really a very distasteful edge to the way women were talked about in this book. They were either to be looked down upon and had no agency of their own or were malicious characters. Only the male characters seemed to be able to move with purpose through the story - even Raoul, who's portrayed terribly, has more active choice than Christine. All that she does is in response to her dead father, to Raoul, or to Erik.
Final thoughts: I realized as I was nearing the end of this book that many of the pieces left purposefully vague and mysterious in the original Phantom of the Opera were done so with good reason. Erik's strange mystery is far more alluring than the full explanation could ever be. His mystery is the reason so much of pop culture - and I include myself in this - has turned to romanticizing this particularly flawed but talented individual.
Whatever answers I was hoping for, I did not find in this book. It contains dated language and lackluster characterization that relies far too heavily on the reader's prior inclination to love, or at least be deeply interested, in Erik. Instead of a few answers and some more mystery, it struggles to lay everything bare, to the detriment of writing and storyline. By trying to include elements of both the novel and the musical, it fails to include important scenes and do justice to either version.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Child abuse, Child death, Racism, Animal death, Racial slurs, Drug abuse, and Drug use
More...