You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.46 AVERAGE
3.46 AVERAGE
adventurous
mysterious
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
Content Warnings
Graphic: Death, Gun violence, Blood, Grief, Murder, Injury/Injury detail
Moderate: Emotional abuse, Stalking
Minor: Pregnancy
mysterious
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Diverse cast of characters:
No
As a lover of the mystery genre, I'm happy to have read this early example of a closed-room mystery story. I can see its influence on Agatha Christie and on the genre itself. That said, since Hercule Poirot himself calls this story "very nearly" unfair, "but not quite" (see The Clocks), I think I will go ahead and just call it unfair.
Can the reader suspect the correct person, given the clues? Yes, at least for a few minutes. But can the reader have any inkling who this person actually is, what his motives might be, how many layers of history the story has? No, not until our resident Boy Wonder spouts the whole thing in the final act. I realize the Expositional Big Reveal is often part of early mystery stories, and maybe I'd mind less if I didn't so strongly dislike amateur detective Rouletabille (for being such a ridiculously special genius) and narrator buddy Sainclair (for being so pointless and useless I forgot his name).
Conclusion: it's a solid story told less-than-fairly, a really smart mystery populated with flat characters.
Can the reader suspect the correct person, given the clues? Yes, at least for a few minutes. But can the reader have any inkling who this person actually is, what his motives might be, how many layers of history the story has? No, not until our resident Boy Wonder spouts the whole thing in the final act. I realize the Expositional Big Reveal is often part of early mystery stories, and maybe I'd mind less if I didn't so strongly dislike amateur detective Rouletabille (for being such a ridiculously special genius) and narrator buddy Sainclair (for being so pointless and useless I forgot his name).
Conclusion: it's a solid story told less-than-fairly, a really smart mystery populated with flat characters.
Segunda lectura del libro después de más de 10 años.
Lo recordaba mejor de lo que me he encontrado, porque aquí lo que he visto es un personaje principal repelente, prácticamente restregando al resto su inteligencia, pero de una manera aún menos soportable que la del Holmes original. Además, la resolución final del caso parece depender de demasiados datos desconocidos por el lector, o bien mencionados de pasada y como relleno del resto de la narración.
Lo recordaba mejor de lo que me he encontrado, porque aquí lo que he visto es un personaje principal repelente, prácticamente restregando al resto su inteligencia, pero de una manera aún menos soportable que la del Holmes original. Además, la resolución final del caso parece depender de demasiados datos desconocidos por el lector, o bien mencionados de pasada y como relleno del resto de la narración.
adventurous
mysterious
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
I was intrigued by the synopsis so I dived into it. I have never read Gaston Leroux but I didn't want Phantom of the Opera to be the one book by him that I read. This book is praised as being a great detective novel and a top notch locked room mystery. I can honestly say that I didn't not see the book playing out as it did; I had no idea who the murderer was or how they got out of the Yellow Room. I was probably as shocked as the courtroom at the time of the big reveal. While the story did its job stumping me, I thought the characters were insufferable. In the right story, this is a good quality of characters, but in this case, the characters felt very unbelievable, annoying, arrogant, and stupid.
Overall, this story could have been told in half the time with much less dialogue and would have been fantastic. I wish I had read Phantom first because now I am unsure if I will even attempt another Leroux novel in the foreseeable future.
Overall, this story could have been told in half the time with much less dialogue and would have been fantastic. I wish I had read Phantom first because now I am unsure if I will even attempt another Leroux novel in the foreseeable future.
medium-paced
Toujours aussi bon e lire et reredécouvrir ce roman qui est devenu un classique du policier à la française.
J'ai beau connaître l'histoire et l'avoir lu plusieurs fois, je tombe toujours dans le panneau. C'est le seul roman dont je n'arrive jamais à retenir le dénouement et surtout le résultat de l'intrigue. Un classique qu'il faut lire et avoir lu.
J'ai beau connaître l'histoire et l'avoir lu plusieurs fois, je tombe toujours dans le panneau. C'est le seul roman dont je n'arrive jamais à retenir le dénouement et surtout le résultat de l'intrigue. Un classique qu'il faut lire et avoir lu.
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
mysterious
medium-paced
Pretty difficult to read. Kinda leaves the reader confused at parts, not much to develop your own theories.