<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: A very great disapointment, and and not meant for the kids
Review: Being a Phantom of the Opera phan I thought that my collection of phantom-related books would not be complete without this book. I was very wrong.If you like Freud, then you might like this book, but I was very disapointed in it. The majority of this books is made up of Hogle's personal veiws on what he believes the story and it's characters to represent, rather than having solid evidence on their meanings or roles, and Hogle's ideas on each character's sexually driven psychology. Hogle seems to believe in fact, and voices throughout this book that the Phantom story is about nothing more than sexual themes and sexual repression, often discribing characters in a highly adult-minded light. I am an adult and even I found myself quite shocked and at times even disgusted at the way Hogle turns the deeply moving story of love into something dirty. Not a book suitable for even teenage readers.
Rating: 
Summary: Not easily accessible
Review: Hogle's book is written in dense professorial language. Readers will need an outstanding education and exceptional literary sensitivity to understand what the good professor is trying to exposit. One professional reviewer mentioned that the author's approach to his subject was "strenuous and original". I couldn't agree more. "Strenuous" completely describes not only this work but also the process of deciphering what it is that Hogle has to say. While it is an in depth and intensely researched look at the implications of this story for western society throughout the past century, it trades psychological insight into the cultural phenomenon for a more contextual social analysis. The personal psychological impact of the story for readers is something he seems to approach only distantly. Also, Hogle can be repetitive with themes during the course of his analysis of the subject. I have praise only for his commentary on the original Leroux novel, which is insightful and meaningful. His commentary on the remainder of re-adaptations of the original novel ranges from good to weak. This is nowhere more apparent than in his discussion of what he calls, "the most important... renovelization of the original book" referring to the novel by Susan Kay. Here he attempts to prove, in less than four pages, a thesis that is both absurd and ill supported, despite the importance he himself has attributed to this work. Overall, his book is something that those persons enraptured with the story should avoid and that literary scholars should approach with appropriate discernment.
Rating:
Summary: Not easily accessible
Review: Hogle's book is written using dense professorial obsurantism. Readers will need an outstanding education and exceptional literary sensitivity to understand what the good professor is trying to exposit. One professional reviewer stated that the author's approach to his subject was "strenuous and original". I couldn't agree more. "Strenuous" completely describes not only this work but also the process of deciphering what it is that Hogle has to say. While it is an in depth and intensely researched look at the implications of this story for western society throughout the past century, it trades psychological insight into the cultural phenomenon for a more contextual social analysis. The personal psychological impact of the story for readers is something he seems to approach only distantly. Unfortunate, because this would give greater insight into the larger social ramifications. Also, Hogle can be repetitive with themes during the course of his analysis of the subject. I have praise only for his commentary on the original Leroux novel, which is insightful and meaningful. His commentary on the remainder of re-adaptations of the original novel ranges from good to weak. This is nowhere more apparent than in his discussion of what he calls, "the most important... renovelization of the original book" referring to the novel by Susan Kay. Here he attempts to prove, in less than four pages, a thesis that is both absurd and ill supported, despite the importance he himself has attributed to the work. Overall, his book is something that those persons enraptured with the story should avoid and that literary scholars should approach with appropriate discernment.
<< 1 >>
| 
