Rating: 
Summary: Phantom of the Opera is THE BEST EVER!
Review: This book is the best I have ever read! I love how Leroux makes the book sound like it really is a true story through writing the book so well! I love the fact that the Phantom is just supposed to be a human being, instead of a corpse or a ghoul. He's just very talented and ugly. I have heard rumors that in the Broadway show, Erik shoots lasers out of his fingers at Raoul. What's that all about? The love triangle, the character developement, Erik's tricks, the writing style, the pacing, and basically everything else are incredible! READ THIS BOOK! By the way, see the Chaney movie as well.
Rating:
Summary: Phantom of the Opera
Review: This book is one of the most beautiful and chilling stories I have ever read. It draws you in with vivid descriptions and convincing characters. I was torn between the strong love of Raoul and Christine, and Erik's obsession for the love he never got. I still feel sorry for Erik, and the way he talked about Christine broke my heart. I never knew it was a true story, and I wish I knew what happened to characters such as Raoul and Christine afterwards. The Phantom of the Opera is an excellent book, it grips you and haughts you even after you finish reading it. But I would recommend it for older readers though.
Rating:
Summary: THE BEST!
Review: Gaston Leroux is a genius! Phantom of the Opera is and always will be the most beautiful story of all time! I couldn't put it down and at the end I sobbed for at least an hour. How can you not feel pity for the phantom? "Poor unhappy Erik! He only wanted to be someone like everyone else, but he was too ugly. He either had to hide his genius, or use it to play tricks with."(epilogue) I will always remember this book. It is, in my opinion, the best novel of all time. You should MOST CERTAINLY read this book! One thing is certain, Phantom of the Opera will always have a place in mine, and other fans hearts.
Rating: 
Summary: Yawn
Review: If you're looking for something special, keep looking, because you won't find it here. I suppose most people come to this book nowadays with Michael Crawford, Lon Chaney or Claude Rains in mind, the but story here is completely different. What it is is a fairly dull detective story, with no love story in it at all, and flatly unconvincing characters and a highly improbable plot. If you love the Lloyd-Weber opera like I do, don't expect to find anything sublte or beautiful here. This is one of the few cases when the films and musicals FAR outdo the original that they were based on.
Rating: 
Summary: Mainly of historical value
Review: If you are a fan of the Phantom on stage or on screen, then you really ought to read this book. Everyone should know the sources of the things they are interested in. With that said, compared to the sources of other legendary horror films (particularly the original Dracula and Frankenstein novels) this book does not hold up well as a piece of literary art. It is largely a melodrama, the equivalent of today's Grisham or Steele novel. Though it doubtless had entertainment value in its time, it is rather dated to modern eyes.
Rating:
Summary: funny, appealing, worth the while
Review: The Phantom of the Opera was cute. It wasn't a masterpiece, and there is nothing much to distinguish it. I say I would have liked it more if did not end with this beautiful "and they lived happily ever after" conclusion for Christine and Raoul. That is so common in literature, a tale of two lovers for whom all is well at the end. But that's quite besides the point. You see, it was a mystery thriller, not anything outstanding. It was entertaining, but not something one is likely to remember for the remainder of his life. In short it was not much different than the common mystery thriller, with maybe a touch of character (and that all with the behalf of the phantom), and I would suggest to first see the musical, otherwise the chances are slim to none that the book will leave any impression on you. See, when you read a classic (like say, Crime and Punishment) at the end you feel like you've just lived an other's life and have been through the deepest passions and the most impressionable feelings. You have a certain longing for human life (or for simply life) as you have just experienced. You feel like you have just been through a miracle simply from reading the book which is so radiant in expression. One doesn't achieve such a feeling with the Phantom of the Opera. What can I say, it's just another cheap thriller. It's not a classic. It's not a book to be contemplated, pondered, or analysed. I believe that the only feeling ever affected by this book came through its brake as a musical, which was a truly amasing composition. Its humour its pleasing, but I would not say it in the least profound or refined. The meaning of the book is vague, and I am inclined to think it has no meaning. It was certainly not what I expected. My reasoning is stated as follows; the book's two-dimensional. It holds no feeling, no meaning, no character, and is a stands weak, having none of that electrifying ingeneous of beauty or life for that matter. Whether considered a fantasy or a portrayal of some existing aspect, it fails in both fields, and, for once, the theatrical interpretation is actually better than the original itself. However it is not all that bad, and is quite apotheosised by the existence of a single character: Erik. This man holds about him a certain charisma that distinguishes him from all other ordinary people. His wit, good humour, and intelligence separates him from the mundane, superficial, sentimental, and above all hypocritical society amidst which his acumen is compelled to degrade to a lowly existence in the cellars of the Opera House, loathed and feared by all. But the impression of him, alone, is the solitary thing that makes this novel one to remember, for he is a character that is one almost supernatural and truely inexplicable. The memory of him is imperishable; he is one of those of remarkable stature, a trace of radiance that is so quickly vanishing in the hollow appearance of society.
Rating:
Summary: The man with a heart that could hold an empire
Review: I absolutely love this book. It is the story of a man, deformed since birth, with remarkable talents and who could have been respected by everyone. However, because of the deformity, he was feared and hated all his life and never knew love. Poor unhappy Erik! This is a truly tragic story that has romance, some suspense, and a touch of humor. Do yourself a favor and read this book--you won't regret it. I will admit that the writing is not perfect, but the content--plot and characters--more than make up for what the writing lacks. Oh, and just to warn you: if you like this book (or even if you don't) stay away from The Phantom of Manhattan, the so-called "sequel."
Rating:
Summary: The story I'd been looking for!
Review: This book is an absolute must have for both musical theatre and classic literature lovers! I am both. Gaston Leroux took a ghost story and turned it into the best love/horror story ever written. From it's beutiful and mysterious plot line to characters you wish were real, "Phantom" is a book you will never forget. If you've seen the Andrew Lloyd Webber musical, read the remarkable book that inspired it. By the way...Erik, if you're out there? I'm here and waiting!
Rating:
Summary: More Lon Chaney Than Michael Crawford
Review: THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA is as much a story of the Paris Opera House as it is the tale of that misfigured creature known as the ghost, or the phantom. Without the architectural peculiarities of the real opera house, which have been put to good use in this novel, there could have been no phantom. There is a real subterranean lake in the nether regions of the opera house. There is an interconnected maze of corridors, stairways, chutes, ladders, and lifts of such great complexity that it is easy to get lost. To put this in perspective, over 2,500 doors have been counted and there are certainly more. Many of the corridors remain in almost perpetual darkness. This setting could certainly provide a home for the vast, almost subhuman culture of door-closers and other creatures of darkness that inhabit Leroux's opera house. The phantom, as depicted by Gaston Leroux, is definitely not the rather benign Michael Crawford of the Broadway Musical. Leroux's phantom is a monster, blackmailer, kidnapper and murderer. In looks, he is more like the Lon Chaney of the silent movie. During one of his frequent visits to the Paris Opera, Leroux came across a legend of a mysterious ghost who was supposed to have lived in the lower reaches of the theater and to have been responsible for several murders. It took him less than three months in 1911 to convert this story into THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA. The book was not a success. Only because, in the mid 1920's, Universal Studios was looking for a new role for Lon Chaney and decided that this was perfect, did PHANTOM get a new life. The plot is rather simple. Beautiful Girl is a member of the opera chorus. Phantom, very knowledgeable in these things, recognizes a great voice and a career that needs a bit of help. Phantom contrives an accident that gives Beautiful Girl the opportunity to sing a lead role. Phantom falls in love with Beautiful Girl, kidnaps her, and holds her captive in his subterranean hideaway. Beautiful girl has some feelings for Phantom, but, particularly after seeing his face, cannot reciprocate his love. Protagonist tries to rescue Beautiful Girl but is caught in Phantom's deadly booby trap. At the last possible moment, Beautiful Girl helps Protagonist escape. Phantom dies. Beautiful Girl empathises with Phantom after his death but lives happily ever after with Protagonist. The above is an obvious simplification. To get the real sense of the terror and the eerie atmosphere of the story, and of the opera house, itself, one must read the book. The characterizations are a bit flat, but hold up well enough when compared to much of the genre fiction written today. I've noticed that more than a few of the readers who have previously reviewed PHANTOM OF THE OPERA have stated that this is "the best book I've ever read," or in one case that it is "the best book ever written." I'd like to caution against that sort of statement. Whan calling any book the best, you are saying something about yourself. The first thing that a thoughtful person might conclude is that you're probably not very well read. What about the books of Tolstoy, or Dostoevsky, or any of hundreds, or perhaps thousands, of other excellent authors. There really are an awful lot of outstanding authors out there. Alternately, our hypothetical thoughtful person might conclude that you're just not a very good judge of literary quality. A review in your own words that leaves out the superlatives might prove much more valuable to the person seeking guidance in selecting a book. One other comment: If a student in a class that I were teaching told me that this book is "Classic Leroux," I would probably ask him or her what makes it typical of Leroux's body of work, for that's what a classic example is. Then, because it is common knowledge that no other examples of his work are readily available, I would have to conclude that the author of this statement had no basis for this judgement. Now, what would be my recommendation to a potential reader? If you're looking for some light reading, or if you'd like to read the book that started the whole PHANTOM tradition and, additionally, was the source of the whole horror movie genre, I would recommend it. It is of historical significance for the movie and play goers of today.
Rating:
Summary: Tortured Soul's Redemption
Review: The reporter narrative is classic Leroux, as being a reporter was his trade. The narritive takes you through historic paris and the tortured life of Erik. His love unrequited, he seeks revenge (like most of us only dream of doing), but soon realizes it isn't meant to be...letting her free. In her freedom, he finds redemption. A beautiful story of a tortured man from the moment of birth until death.
|
