What do you think?
Rate this book
Il fantasma di Manhattan
Erik è vivo. Fuggito dai sotterranei dell'Opéra di Parigi, il Fantasma dal volto orribilmente sfigurato ha trovato a New York rifugio e fortuna. Dall'alto di un grattacielo, in esilio dal mondo, tuona il suo odio nei confronti della società che l'ha bandito. Ma dietro la maschera che è costretto a portare brilla ancora una scintilla di umanità: è l'amore disperato per la cantante Christine de Chagny, in onore della quale Erik ha concepito un grandioso progetto. Perchè soltanto un sogno può salvarlo dalla sua tragica solitudine.
208 pages, Mass Market Paperback
First published June 1, 1996
141 people are currently reading
2095 people want to read
About the author
Frederick Forsyth
339 books4,294 followersFrederick Forsyth, CBE was a English author and occasional political commentator. He was best known for thrillers such as The Day of the Jackal, The Odessa File, The Fourth Protocol, The Dogs of War, The Devil's Alternative, The Fist of God, Icon, The Veteran, Avenger, The Afghan, and more recently, The Cobra and The Kill List.
The son of a furrier, he was born in Ashford, Kent, educated at Tonbridge School and later attended the University of Granada. He became one of the youngest pilots in the Royal Air Force at 19, where he served on National Service from 1956 to 1958. Becoming a journalist, he joined Reuters in 1961 and later the BBC in 1965, where he served as an assistant diplomatic correspondent. From July to September 1967, he served as a correspondent covering the Nigerian Civil War between the region of Biafra and Nigeria. He left the BBC in 1968 after controversy arose over his alleged bias towards the Biafran cause and accusations that he falsified segments of his reports. Returning to Biafra as a freelance reporter, Forsyth wrote his first book, The Biafra Story in 1969.
Forsyth decided to write a novel using similar research techniques to those used in journalism. His first full length novel, The Day of the Jackal, was published in 1971 and became an international bestseller and gained its author the Edgar Allan Poe Award for Best Novel. It was later made into a film of the same name.
The son of a furrier, he was born in Ashford, Kent, educated at Tonbridge School and later attended the University of Granada. He became one of the youngest pilots in the Royal Air Force at 19, where he served on National Service from 1956 to 1958. Becoming a journalist, he joined Reuters in 1961 and later the BBC in 1965, where he served as an assistant diplomatic correspondent. From July to September 1967, he served as a correspondent covering the Nigerian Civil War between the region of Biafra and Nigeria. He left the BBC in 1968 after controversy arose over his alleged bias towards the Biafran cause and accusations that he falsified segments of his reports. Returning to Biafra as a freelance reporter, Forsyth wrote his first book, The Biafra Story in 1969.
Forsyth decided to write a novel using similar research techniques to those used in journalism. His first full length novel, The Day of the Jackal, was published in 1971 and became an international bestseller and gained its author the Edgar Allan Poe Award for Best Novel. It was later made into a film of the same name.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 423 reviews
April 14, 2010
A book that would have been readable had it not tried to be a sequel to Phantom of the Opera; a book that would have been readable had it not been for the arrogant, conceited preface in which the author has the gall to insist that Gaston Leroux did not understand his own characters and that Andrew Lloyd Webber corrected these errors. The preface is truly the only remarkable prose in this novel as it is completely unnecessary and is riddled with fallacies in logic in the author's attempts to justify the novel's existence, and ultimately can be described in a few short words as making a big stink about nothing.
With the high expectations the author demands from the book in mind, one marvels at how mediocre the story is, how ignorant, crude, and beyond salvation the characterization is; and how forced, clumsy, and tasteless the historical allusions are. It is my belief that just because a story is written doesn't mean it should ever be published, and this is a perfect example. Its only saving grace is its length: it's a short, slim volume that can serve in myriad of useful functions after reading such as an expensive drink coaster, a prop to fix wiggly tables, door stop, etc.
Incidentally, as of 2007, I am sad to report that Andrew Lloyd Webber's ego was so effectively inflated by Forsythe's toadying in the preface that a musical based on the novel's premise is now on its way to West End.
With the high expectations the author demands from the book in mind, one marvels at how mediocre the story is, how ignorant, crude, and beyond salvation the characterization is; and how forced, clumsy, and tasteless the historical allusions are. It is my belief that just because a story is written doesn't mean it should ever be published, and this is a perfect example. Its only saving grace is its length: it's a short, slim volume that can serve in myriad of useful functions after reading such as an expensive drink coaster, a prop to fix wiggly tables, door stop, etc.
Incidentally, as of 2007, I am sad to report that Andrew Lloyd Webber's ego was so effectively inflated by Forsythe's toadying in the preface that a musical based on the novel's premise is now on its way to West End.
June 6, 2010
I'm not entirely sure what to think of this novel still. I heard so many terrible things about it that it actually wasn't as bad as I imagined it to be. In fact, I'd probably say it is no worse than Susan Kaye's "Phantom."
Some of the things it has going for it
The characters aren't too terribly out of character. Christine is a heck of a lot more mature than I remember her to be in the original novel, but this is ten years and one child later. Raoul doesn't really play much of a part, but he seems to be portrayed as the gentleman he should be. The Phantom is recognizable, at least.
The first half of the preface, where Forsyth talks about the history of the Paris Opera and the life of Gaston Leroux, is actually pretty fascinating. It might be the best part of the whole book.
Some bad parts
The introduction
The audacity of the last part of the introduction is infuriating. He goes off on a rant about Gaston Leroux, criticizing him for saying that everything in "Phantom of the Opera" was true and claiming that he was then entitled to get every last fact right or face the wrath of readers. (It's as if Forsyth is completely unaware of other famous authors who have used the "This fictional story is completely true" statement as a literary device.)
He criticizes Leroux for various things, including getting the weight of the chandelier wrong, giving the Phantom's real name but not explaining how he learned it, and not telling the exact dates the story takes place. (It's a novel, for Pete's sake, not a police report!)
Forsyth then decides he'll "correct" Leroux's errors. One of these is the identity of Madame Giry, who Forsyth claims was not a cleaner, but the mistress of the chorus and ballet. For a man critical of Leroux for not citing sources, Forsyth never says how he came by this information.
He says that Leroux, upon claiming the story is true, should have stuck to the absolute, verifiable truth for EVERY SINGLE event, or made sure that the untrue things that happened were impossible to be refuted. And yet, when Forsyth tells the story, there are so many reporters and important historical figures involved, it would be the easiest thing in the world to research and find out the whole thing is fiction. Why the double standard?
At some point in the introduction, he even calls Leroux's novel "implausible." . . . Ok, no. I won't go there. It's too easy.
Forsyth also, when he is talking about all the things Leroux got wrong (in his own novel!), says that Leroux was terribly unjust when he took the Persian's word for things and painted the Phantom as a murderer, sociopath, etc. Eric didn't kill anyone. Heaven's, no! That man who was hanged? Why, it's well known he suffered from depression. And that other death? That was just an accident! (And we'll just forget entirely the death of Raoul's brother. Never happened.) I'm surprised he didn't ask for Leroux to be posthumously sued for libel.
I swear, the entire introduction is nothing but justification for trying to rewrite someone else's work. Someone seriously needs to hide all other beloved works of fiction from this man (and Andrew Lloyd Webber, for that matter). Next, he’ll have taken the "Princess Bride" and written a sequel to it, with an introduction talking about all the ways Goldman got it wrong. It could start with a forward detailing the true histories of Florin and Guilder, the true number of hats the princess of Guilder owned, and all the reasons the Count was the real Dread Pirate Roberts and Wesley was a liar who blemished the good Prince’s name and kidnapped Buttercup. Then it could pick up five years later when the Prince has taken up life in a monastery and Buttercup returns to him only to be brutally murdered by Fezzik, who fathered her child.
Writing
It wasn't the worst writing I've ever read, but it was certainly weak.
Take this passage, near the beginning:
“Erik’s father, without a job, drank himself to death. His mother ran away to become a servant in nearby Strasbourg. Running out of money for booze, his father sold him to the master of a passing freak show.”
Ah-ha! Forsyth’s history is clearly incorrect! Either that or Erik’s father became a zombie or some other undead creature.
There's one chapter that is nothing but 13 pages of pure dialogue between three people we've just met. And I do mean nothing but dialogue. In the entire chapter, there is not one descriptive paragraph, not one sentence about any action going on, or one case of quote attribution.
For some reason, Forsyth goes on for pages about the entire life history of one of the secondary characters. I was bored and frustrated when I read it, but assumed it would be vital information later. It wasn't.
Most of the story is told by minor characters: a reporter, a shop owner, a priest, etc. I, for one, would have preferred to read it through the eyes of the original characters.
The ending
After I finished with the introduction, the ending was the first thing that really made me stop and think, "What is WRONG with this guy??" Everything between was lackluster and not entirely interesting, but okay. The ending, on the other hand, I thought was terrible. If you don't want to read SPOILERS, don't read on.
SPOILER WARNING
So the premise of the story is that, 12 years after the first novel takes place, Eric is living in New York City, where he has built a huge fortune. Christine is still married to Raoul, and they have a son. Only it's actually Eric's son, because Christine had sex with him at some point. Oh yeah, and Raoul can't have any children because when he was young, he heroically tried to help someone and was shot in a rather unfortunate place. (One a side note, his equipment still works well enough for him to feel desire and lust and all that, but not well enough for him to actually have intercourse with anyone ever. Some writers vent their hatred of Raoul by turning him into a completely out-of-character jerk. Not Forsyth. Nope. Forsyth keeps Raoul in character, but makes his life miserable.)
Eric gets Christine to come to America to sing at an opera house he's just built, and her son and Raoul come along too. While in the city, she meets Eric. Due to earlier events, he knows the boy is his son and not Raoul's. Since she won't stay with him, he asks her to leave his son instead. She says she will in five years, when the boy is grown. On the day she is to sail back to France, Erik asks her to bring his son to say goodbye. She does, but tragedy strikes and someone tries to murder the boy. Christine is shot instead.
As the 12-year-old boy is watching his mother bleed to death, Christine tells him that Eric is his real father. Raoul, who happens to be right there, confirms this, and tells the boy he has to decide whether to go back to France or stay with Eric. The boy takes off Eric's mask, sees how horribly deformed he is, and decides to stay.
WHAT???
WTH No. 1:
Is the moment a young boy is watching his mother bleed to death in front of him really the time to tell him his father is not his real father??
WTH No. 2:
Furthermore, is it really the time to tell him to decide whether to stay with his father or go off with a perfect stranger who is his biological father?
WTH NO. 3:
The characters talk more than once about how kind Raoul is and how good he is to his family. What kid, after losing his mother forever, would willingly leave the only father he's ever known - a GOOD father who has raised him as his own - to live with a man he's never met before?
WTH No. 4 and personal gripe:
Raoul tells his son, about Eric, "He loved her too, in a way I never could." Seriously? Yeah. I mean, Raoul never kidnapped Christine, or lied to her, or manipulated her, or threatened to kill those she loved, so I guess the Phantom did love her in an entirely different way. More of a Creepy Obsessive Stalkery sort of way. I wouldn't necessarily say that's a good thing. Or maybe he means in a physical way, since Forsyth made sure Raoul couldn't do any of that?
Bah. I'm just frustrated now. Can't these authors leave other people's characters alone and go write their OWN stories?
Some of the things it has going for it
The characters aren't too terribly out of character. Christine is a heck of a lot more mature than I remember her to be in the original novel, but this is ten years and one child later. Raoul doesn't really play much of a part, but he seems to be portrayed as the gentleman he should be. The Phantom is recognizable, at least.
The first half of the preface, where Forsyth talks about the history of the Paris Opera and the life of Gaston Leroux, is actually pretty fascinating. It might be the best part of the whole book.
Some bad parts
The introduction
The audacity of the last part of the introduction is infuriating. He goes off on a rant about Gaston Leroux, criticizing him for saying that everything in "Phantom of the Opera" was true and claiming that he was then entitled to get every last fact right or face the wrath of readers. (It's as if Forsyth is completely unaware of other famous authors who have used the "This fictional story is completely true" statement as a literary device.)
He criticizes Leroux for various things, including getting the weight of the chandelier wrong, giving the Phantom's real name but not explaining how he learned it, and not telling the exact dates the story takes place. (It's a novel, for Pete's sake, not a police report!)
Forsyth then decides he'll "correct" Leroux's errors. One of these is the identity of Madame Giry, who Forsyth claims was not a cleaner, but the mistress of the chorus and ballet. For a man critical of Leroux for not citing sources, Forsyth never says how he came by this information.
He says that Leroux, upon claiming the story is true, should have stuck to the absolute, verifiable truth for EVERY SINGLE event, or made sure that the untrue things that happened were impossible to be refuted. And yet, when Forsyth tells the story, there are so many reporters and important historical figures involved, it would be the easiest thing in the world to research and find out the whole thing is fiction. Why the double standard?
At some point in the introduction, he even calls Leroux's novel "implausible." . . . Ok, no. I won't go there. It's too easy.
Forsyth also, when he is talking about all the things Leroux got wrong (in his own novel!), says that Leroux was terribly unjust when he took the Persian's word for things and painted the Phantom as a murderer, sociopath, etc. Eric didn't kill anyone. Heaven's, no! That man who was hanged? Why, it's well known he suffered from depression. And that other death? That was just an accident! (And we'll just forget entirely the death of Raoul's brother. Never happened.) I'm surprised he didn't ask for Leroux to be posthumously sued for libel.
I swear, the entire introduction is nothing but justification for trying to rewrite someone else's work. Someone seriously needs to hide all other beloved works of fiction from this man (and Andrew Lloyd Webber, for that matter). Next, he’ll have taken the "Princess Bride" and written a sequel to it, with an introduction talking about all the ways Goldman got it wrong. It could start with a forward detailing the true histories of Florin and Guilder, the true number of hats the princess of Guilder owned, and all the reasons the Count was the real Dread Pirate Roberts and Wesley was a liar who blemished the good Prince’s name and kidnapped Buttercup. Then it could pick up five years later when the Prince has taken up life in a monastery and Buttercup returns to him only to be brutally murdered by Fezzik, who fathered her child.
Writing
It wasn't the worst writing I've ever read, but it was certainly weak.
Take this passage, near the beginning:
“Erik’s father, without a job, drank himself to death. His mother ran away to become a servant in nearby Strasbourg. Running out of money for booze, his father sold him to the master of a passing freak show.”
Ah-ha! Forsyth’s history is clearly incorrect! Either that or Erik’s father became a zombie or some other undead creature.
There's one chapter that is nothing but 13 pages of pure dialogue between three people we've just met. And I do mean nothing but dialogue. In the entire chapter, there is not one descriptive paragraph, not one sentence about any action going on, or one case of quote attribution.
For some reason, Forsyth goes on for pages about the entire life history of one of the secondary characters. I was bored and frustrated when I read it, but assumed it would be vital information later. It wasn't.
Most of the story is told by minor characters: a reporter, a shop owner, a priest, etc. I, for one, would have preferred to read it through the eyes of the original characters.
The ending
After I finished with the introduction, the ending was the first thing that really made me stop and think, "What is WRONG with this guy??" Everything between was lackluster and not entirely interesting, but okay. The ending, on the other hand, I thought was terrible. If you don't want to read SPOILERS, don't read on.
SPOILER WARNING
So the premise of the story is that, 12 years after the first novel takes place, Eric is living in New York City, where he has built a huge fortune. Christine is still married to Raoul, and they have a son. Only it's actually Eric's son, because Christine had sex with him at some point. Oh yeah, and Raoul can't have any children because when he was young, he heroically tried to help someone and was shot in a rather unfortunate place. (One a side note, his equipment still works well enough for him to feel desire and lust and all that, but not well enough for him to actually have intercourse with anyone ever. Some writers vent their hatred of Raoul by turning him into a completely out-of-character jerk. Not Forsyth. Nope. Forsyth keeps Raoul in character, but makes his life miserable.)
Eric gets Christine to come to America to sing at an opera house he's just built, and her son and Raoul come along too. While in the city, she meets Eric. Due to earlier events, he knows the boy is his son and not Raoul's. Since she won't stay with him, he asks her to leave his son instead. She says she will in five years, when the boy is grown. On the day she is to sail back to France, Erik asks her to bring his son to say goodbye. She does, but tragedy strikes and someone tries to murder the boy. Christine is shot instead.
As the 12-year-old boy is watching his mother bleed to death, Christine tells him that Eric is his real father. Raoul, who happens to be right there, confirms this, and tells the boy he has to decide whether to go back to France or stay with Eric. The boy takes off Eric's mask, sees how horribly deformed he is, and decides to stay.
WHAT???
WTH No. 1:
Is the moment a young boy is watching his mother bleed to death in front of him really the time to tell him his father is not his real father??
WTH No. 2:
Furthermore, is it really the time to tell him to decide whether to stay with his father or go off with a perfect stranger who is his biological father?
WTH NO. 3:
The characters talk more than once about how kind Raoul is and how good he is to his family. What kid, after losing his mother forever, would willingly leave the only father he's ever known - a GOOD father who has raised him as his own - to live with a man he's never met before?
WTH No. 4 and personal gripe:
Raoul tells his son, about Eric, "He loved her too, in a way I never could." Seriously? Yeah. I mean, Raoul never kidnapped Christine, or lied to her, or manipulated her, or threatened to kill those she loved, so I guess the Phantom did love her in an entirely different way. More of a Creepy Obsessive Stalkery sort of way. I wouldn't necessarily say that's a good thing. Or maybe he means in a physical way, since Forsyth made sure Raoul couldn't do any of that?
Bah. I'm just frustrated now. Can't these authors leave other people's characters alone and go write their OWN stories?
November 28, 2008
Honestly, I think Frederick Forsyth should be ashamed of himself for writing such absolute tripe. He clearly is unfamiliar with Leroux's original novel and casts Erik in a humiliating light that the original character would never countenance. To be avoided at all costs.
September 24, 2010
If you began this book and only got as far as the preface, it would be forgivable. Forsyth begins by saying that Leroux's novel is garbage and he misunderstood the character of the Phantom and the Persian and he got his facts wrong and blah blah blah. This is all interesting except for the fact that Leroux CREATED the characters. Forsyth then goes on to say that Andrew Lloyd Webber's creation is the only one that gets it right and is the only one worth paying attention to. As a massive fan of the play, I do love Webber's interpretation. But for an author who is essentially writing FANFICTION, Forsyth should be careful of the ridiculous things that he says about the characters/author he is only copying.
The book doesn't get better than the preface. Never have I read a 175 page book that seemed as thought it would never end. The characters all read the same, Forsyth contradicts himself excessively, and each section of the book just reiterates what the last section said.
Morgan and I read this book as the first book in our Allcare Book Club. I think we enjoyed it only because we enjoyed tearing it apart.
The book doesn't get better than the preface. Never have I read a 175 page book that seemed as thought it would never end. The characters all read the same, Forsyth contradicts himself excessively, and each section of the book just reiterates what the last section said.
Morgan and I read this book as the first book in our Allcare Book Club. I think we enjoyed it only because we enjoyed tearing it apart.
February 25, 2022
I read it back in 2017 and I had hoped I would enjoy it more now as Phantom of the opera is one of my favorite classics/musicals. However I did not enjoy it even a little bit
January 21, 2021
Μια πολύ πρωτότυπη απόφαση να γραφεί η συνέχεια από το φάντασμα της Όπερας. Μου άρεσε.
February 15, 2011
Tweaking slightly because I felt like it...
So this is what regret feels like....
Against my better judgment and the advice of everyone I've heard mention this atrocity, I went to the library and borrowed The Phantom of Manhattan. Thank God I didn't actually waste money on buying it. I ended up reading it as fast as I could--not because it was any good at all, but just to get it over with as soon as possible. And I still have no clue how I managed to keep from throwing the stupid thing across the room in disgust. Unless I was paralyzed by aforesaid disgust...
I had some idea of what I was in for just by reading that arrogant, self-righteous, jumped-up preface. After a brief history of POTO in print, film, and stage (none of which is really necessary, but vaguely interesting), Forsyth actually has the nerve to insist that Gaston Leroux--without whom none of this would even exist--got his own story wrong! Oh, hell to the NO! He then proceeds to boost his own ego in regards to his work by picking on such trivial details from the original such as whether or not cutting the gas from the light system would result in instant darkness and the fact that Leroux never gives his narrative an exact date. If an author falls to belittling another person's work in such a manner, it's best to just drop the book and forget it completely. Sadly, my stubborn streak wouldn't let me off the hook so easily, and I kept reading.
Now onto the rest of the book. It's told in first person, and at first that seems like a good thing ("Hey, we'll get to see it from a more personal point of view!"). However, except for one chapter featuring Mme. Giry, who you'd think we'd see more of, based on the summary of the book, and two, just two, chapters narrated by Erik himself, we're held at arms length by reporters, lawyers, carnival workers, and the like. Who are these people to us? They're plot devices that keep us away from the characters we really care about. Top it all off with the fact that the writing itself is completely unremarkable, and you've got serious problems.
The plot is barely held together by all these faceless people! It just jumps from one seemingly random event to another! Forsyth makes a HUGE mistake with Erik's characterization! I'm not blind to the dear Phantom's faults and flaws, but I hardly think he would keep on in this insane obsession if he'd really learned his lesson in the original. And while the ending might--MIGHT--have been as tragic as it was intended, telling us about it in a college lecture has exactly the opposite effect. As I read it, the only thought in my head was "And why should I care about this?"
Quick side note before I wrap this up. I'm not Raoul's biggest fan, but was it necessary to go so far as to do that to the poor man? That's the worst case of Raoul-bashing I've ever heard of!
Bottom line: I honestly cannot recall ever hating a book outright, but this horrible! In addition to insulting Leroux, Forsyth botches the intended homage to his apparently idolized Andrew Lloyd Webber (and we wonder how Love Never Dies came into being?). No wonder the musical bombed in London, based off this garbage! But I will admit, I prefer a barely-there, much abused Raoul to the gambling alcoholic Webber gave us.
So this is what regret feels like....
Against my better judgment and the advice of everyone I've heard mention this atrocity, I went to the library and borrowed The Phantom of Manhattan. Thank God I didn't actually waste money on buying it. I ended up reading it as fast as I could--not because it was any good at all, but just to get it over with as soon as possible. And I still have no clue how I managed to keep from throwing the stupid thing across the room in disgust. Unless I was paralyzed by aforesaid disgust...
I had some idea of what I was in for just by reading that arrogant, self-righteous, jumped-up preface. After a brief history of POTO in print, film, and stage (none of which is really necessary, but vaguely interesting), Forsyth actually has the nerve to insist that Gaston Leroux--without whom none of this would even exist--got his own story wrong! Oh, hell to the NO! He then proceeds to boost his own ego in regards to his work by picking on such trivial details from the original such as whether or not cutting the gas from the light system would result in instant darkness and the fact that Leroux never gives his narrative an exact date. If an author falls to belittling another person's work in such a manner, it's best to just drop the book and forget it completely. Sadly, my stubborn streak wouldn't let me off the hook so easily, and I kept reading.
Now onto the rest of the book. It's told in first person, and at first that seems like a good thing ("Hey, we'll get to see it from a more personal point of view!"). However, except for one chapter featuring Mme. Giry, who you'd think we'd see more of, based on the summary of the book, and two, just two, chapters narrated by Erik himself, we're held at arms length by reporters, lawyers, carnival workers, and the like. Who are these people to us? They're plot devices that keep us away from the characters we really care about. Top it all off with the fact that the writing itself is completely unremarkable, and you've got serious problems.
The plot is barely held together by all these faceless people! It just jumps from one seemingly random event to another! Forsyth makes a HUGE mistake with Erik's characterization! I'm not blind to the dear Phantom's faults and flaws, but I hardly think he would keep on in this insane obsession if he'd really learned his lesson in the original. And while the ending might--MIGHT--have been as tragic as it was intended, telling us about it in a college lecture has exactly the opposite effect. As I read it, the only thought in my head was "And why should I care about this?"
Quick side note before I wrap this up. I'm not Raoul's biggest fan, but was it necessary to go so far as to do that to the poor man? That's the worst case of Raoul-bashing I've ever heard of!
Bottom line: I honestly cannot recall ever hating a book outright, but this horrible! In addition to insulting Leroux, Forsyth botches the intended homage to his apparently idolized Andrew Lloyd Webber (and we wonder how Love Never Dies came into being?). No wonder the musical bombed in London, based off this garbage! But I will admit, I prefer a barely-there, much abused Raoul to the gambling alcoholic Webber gave us.
April 12, 2011
A perfect example of someone who messed something he really should not have. This is one of the more ridiculous attempts at a Phantom Sequel which unfortunately spawned "Love Never Dies". Thankfully, ALW did NOT take a lot of the elements in this book into the stage version, but my views on the stage version are already documented on Facebook.
The first error the author made was a cheap shot at Rauol by having him castrated. This seems to be something so many phan phiction writers like to do to poor Rauol. Everyone seems to forget that although a tragic somewhat romantic character, the Phantom is a PSYCHO KILLER with some serious emotional issues. No need to pick on Raoul so much.
Second error was having most of the story told by other characters rather than the actual main characters. There was one scene where the Phantom confronts Christine in a maze of mirrors that actually had a LOT Of potential, but some random guy at the park ended up telling what he saw.
Do not waste your time nor your money on this piece of crap sequel.
The first error the author made was a cheap shot at Rauol by having him castrated. This seems to be something so many phan phiction writers like to do to poor Rauol. Everyone seems to forget that although a tragic somewhat romantic character, the Phantom is a PSYCHO KILLER with some serious emotional issues. No need to pick on Raoul so much.
Second error was having most of the story told by other characters rather than the actual main characters. There was one scene where the Phantom confronts Christine in a maze of mirrors that actually had a LOT Of potential, but some random guy at the park ended up telling what he saw.
Do not waste your time nor your money on this piece of crap sequel.
March 25, 2025
Leí este libro por primera vez allá por 1999-2000 y la verdad es que lo recordaba mejor. Son apenas 200 páginas y se lee fácil, pero la historia es bastante simple. Hay un narrador distinto casi por capítulo, y en algunos casos se repite narrador. El final me ha parecido algo precipitado, pasa todo muy rápido y creo que necesitaba un capítulo o dos más. En fin, si no te lo lees tampoco te pierdes gran cosa.
August 7, 2013
What a piece of utter rubbish.
(Apologies if this review seems like a rant because...well...it kind of is.)
I must confess that I didn't actually read through the entire book, but instead skimmed it because I had already heard various reviews on how miserable this book is. And that is all completely true.
Mr. Forsyth sets himself up for failure from page 1, with his pompous 'preface', where he insists on bashing the original Phantom of the Opera novel by Gaston Leroux.
Let me tell you. If you are about to write a sequel to a classic piece of work, you do not begin by criticizing the original. It doesn't matter how much the author disagrees with the original portrayal of the characters, or the story in general. You just DON'T do that. In addition, almost all of his points don't matter in any case, because the 'flaws' he points out in the original anyway are built around the fact that the story really existed. Excuse me, Forsyth, but how did you somehow miss out on the fact that the original story was...*gasp* fictional?
Anyway, moving on from that, the story itself is miserable. It is not well written, the dialogue is not very good, the plot line is pure ridiculousness, (Don't even get me start about Gustave and the 'big reveal' about his parents. That is so completely out of character for everyone involved.) and the whole thing generally reminds me of a bad, but typical fanfiction. Pass on this, unless you want to put yourself through the agony, or are a Leroux hater.
(Apologies if this review seems like a rant because...well...it kind of is.)
I must confess that I didn't actually read through the entire book, but instead skimmed it because I had already heard various reviews on how miserable this book is. And that is all completely true.
Mr. Forsyth sets himself up for failure from page 1, with his pompous 'preface', where he insists on bashing the original Phantom of the Opera novel by Gaston Leroux.
Let me tell you. If you are about to write a sequel to a classic piece of work, you do not begin by criticizing the original. It doesn't matter how much the author disagrees with the original portrayal of the characters, or the story in general. You just DON'T do that. In addition, almost all of his points don't matter in any case, because the 'flaws' he points out in the original anyway are built around the fact that the story really existed. Excuse me, Forsyth, but how did you somehow miss out on the fact that the original story was...*gasp* fictional?
Anyway, moving on from that, the story itself is miserable. It is not well written, the dialogue is not very good, the plot line is pure ridiculousness, (Don't even get me start about Gustave and the 'big reveal' about his parents. That is so completely out of character for everyone involved.) and the whole thing generally reminds me of a bad, but typical fanfiction. Pass on this, unless you want to put yourself through the agony, or are a Leroux hater.
May 3, 2012
First off, this is full of spoilers. If anything could really spoil this book more than actually reading it.
I had heard some absolutely scathing things about this book, which only made me want to read it more (word-of-mouth can work either way sometimes). To summarise; it really wasn't as bad as I had heard.
The thing that irritated me the most about the book was the preface, in particular the argument that Lloyd Webber's version of the story was "the only one to make sense". That I don't agree with -not because I'm in any way precious about Leroux's text (I'm not, I tend to skip to the bits I like when I occasionally re-read it)- but because I've read/seen other versions of the story which make just as much sense. One I'd mention as an example would be the Kopit and Yeston musical Phantom; the storyline is very different in places from the original but makes a self-contained sense. In order to back up his assertion Forsyth critiques various factual errors in Leroux story, which is fair enough I suppose. I am too lazy to check his work and quite frankly I don't care, since I always took the story for fiction regardless of what Leroux may have stated (and other authors have used the 'true story' trick before).
My real issue comes when he discounts the Persian's contribution to the original novel based on his own suppositions; particularly that if Erik had travelled as widely as the Persian states, he would have come to terms with his disfigurement. On what proof is that based? He doesn't give us any. I'm sure there are plenty of people today who have self-esteem issues who travel and yet still haven't come to terms with what makes them fell that way (in fact I know a few). If he wanted to base his book on the Lloyd Webber's musical instead of the original text, that was all he needed to say. The way he presents his reasons for doing so insinuates that it is the only book worth reading because it is based on the only 'logical' or 'true' version of accounts. If the book had stood up to that kind of logic then maybe we wouldn't be having such a lengthy discussion on it, but it didn't, so all Forsyth does is shoot himself in the foot, considering that a good section of his target audience are bound to be fans of the original novel or various other versions.
I also have problems with the whitewashing of Erik's character in the preface. Did Forsyth think that if Erik wasn't a murderer people would sympathise with him more? Well, considering the amount of dedicated fangirls Erik has I doubt that's even a problem. Also, considering he had asserted that Lloyd Webber's version was the best, he weakens his own argument by doing that, Erik still being a wilful murderer in that version (though perhaps not as much as in the original). The confusing thing is him being a murderer or not earlier in the timeline hardly makes any difference when you're reading the novel.
Enough of the preface, it's time to move on to the actual story. The ideas in it are on the whole quite intriguing, but the way its written removed any kind of interest I had in it. Some characters speak entirely in exposition - in one case repeating everything we had already read while doing so, most are completely two-dimensional (including the ones he borrowed), and the majority of the book is spent working up bit by bit to a climax which is more of a whimper than a bang. If he'd spent more time fleshing out things and/or been able to truly get inside the head of the characters it might have been a worthwhile read. I felt that the religious sideline really had no impact on the story, since Darius' attempt to kill Pierre could be outlined far more easily. In fact, it was pretty self-explanatory and all it needed were a few extra hints here and there rather than a chapter of hallucinatory dialogue.
Pierre's parentage is also a niggling issue. First off, Raoul's injury - if even medically possible - seems very convenient. Still, I would be willing to chalk that up to artistic license since at least Forsyth didn't turn him into an abusive husband like some other novels I could mention. The second and more confusing point, is when exactly Pierre was meant to have been conceived. Taking Lloyd Webber's musical as a basis for the past events (as Forsyth mainly does), it doesn't seem possible. If it was during the first abduction; Christine was either unconscious or mostly terrified, if the second time again she was terrified, and also they weren't down there for very long before Raoul and the mob showed up. This suggests something non-consensual, which is horrible. Even if you handwave it and say she was willing (which I would say is out of character at that point), during the second abduction it would have had to be quick work, if the first time then it seems unlikely that Erik would have let her go back so easily, or stay quiet for so long after the rooftop confession.
In short, I'm glad I didn't buy this book and I very much doubt I will ever want to read it again. I gave it an extra star for its potential alone because I'm feeling generous.
I had heard some absolutely scathing things about this book, which only made me want to read it more (word-of-mouth can work either way sometimes). To summarise; it really wasn't as bad as I had heard.
The thing that irritated me the most about the book was the preface, in particular the argument that Lloyd Webber's version of the story was "the only one to make sense". That I don't agree with -not because I'm in any way precious about Leroux's text (I'm not, I tend to skip to the bits I like when I occasionally re-read it)- but because I've read/seen other versions of the story which make just as much sense. One I'd mention as an example would be the Kopit and Yeston musical Phantom; the storyline is very different in places from the original but makes a self-contained sense. In order to back up his assertion Forsyth critiques various factual errors in Leroux story, which is fair enough I suppose. I am too lazy to check his work and quite frankly I don't care, since I always took the story for fiction regardless of what Leroux may have stated (and other authors have used the 'true story' trick before).
My real issue comes when he discounts the Persian's contribution to the original novel based on his own suppositions; particularly that if Erik had travelled as widely as the Persian states, he would have come to terms with his disfigurement. On what proof is that based? He doesn't give us any. I'm sure there are plenty of people today who have self-esteem issues who travel and yet still haven't come to terms with what makes them fell that way (in fact I know a few). If he wanted to base his book on the Lloyd Webber's musical instead of the original text, that was all he needed to say. The way he presents his reasons for doing so insinuates that it is the only book worth reading because it is based on the only 'logical' or 'true' version of accounts. If the book had stood up to that kind of logic then maybe we wouldn't be having such a lengthy discussion on it, but it didn't, so all Forsyth does is shoot himself in the foot, considering that a good section of his target audience are bound to be fans of the original novel or various other versions.
I also have problems with the whitewashing of Erik's character in the preface. Did Forsyth think that if Erik wasn't a murderer people would sympathise with him more? Well, considering the amount of dedicated fangirls Erik has I doubt that's even a problem. Also, considering he had asserted that Lloyd Webber's version was the best, he weakens his own argument by doing that, Erik still being a wilful murderer in that version (though perhaps not as much as in the original). The confusing thing is him being a murderer or not earlier in the timeline hardly makes any difference when you're reading the novel.
Enough of the preface, it's time to move on to the actual story. The ideas in it are on the whole quite intriguing, but the way its written removed any kind of interest I had in it. Some characters speak entirely in exposition - in one case repeating everything we had already read while doing so, most are completely two-dimensional (including the ones he borrowed), and the majority of the book is spent working up bit by bit to a climax which is more of a whimper than a bang. If he'd spent more time fleshing out things and/or been able to truly get inside the head of the characters it might have been a worthwhile read. I felt that the religious sideline really had no impact on the story, since Darius' attempt to kill Pierre could be outlined far more easily. In fact, it was pretty self-explanatory and all it needed were a few extra hints here and there rather than a chapter of hallucinatory dialogue.
Pierre's parentage is also a niggling issue. First off, Raoul's injury - if even medically possible - seems very convenient. Still, I would be willing to chalk that up to artistic license since at least Forsyth didn't turn him into an abusive husband like some other novels I could mention. The second and more confusing point, is when exactly Pierre was meant to have been conceived. Taking Lloyd Webber's musical as a basis for the past events (as Forsyth mainly does), it doesn't seem possible. If it was during the first abduction; Christine was either unconscious or mostly terrified, if the second time again she was terrified, and also they weren't down there for very long before Raoul and the mob showed up. This suggests something non-consensual, which is horrible. Even if you handwave it and say she was willing (which I would say is out of character at that point), during the second abduction it would have had to be quick work, if the first time then it seems unlikely that Erik would have let her go back so easily, or stay quiet for so long after the rooftop confession.
In short, I'm glad I didn't buy this book and I very much doubt I will ever want to read it again. I gave it an extra star for its potential alone because I'm feeling generous.
December 8, 2020
3,5 para esta historia que definiría como curiosa.
Hace años leí El fantasma de la ópera, de Gastón Leroux, y reconozco que me impresionó la historia de Erik. Es un personaje trágico por el que sientes pena al inicio, aunque luego, conforme avanza la historia, despierta sentimientos encontrados. Cuando leí la sinopsis de esta historia, me interesó, porque tenía curiosidad por saber qué había sido de Erik después de que desapareciese, pero la novela no fue lo que me esperaba. Confieso que casi me pareció más interesante la nota introductoria -con todo lo que cuenta sobre la historia de Leroux, de la construcción del edificio de la Ópera de París y otras cuestiones- que la historia en sí misma.
La ambientación nos sitúa en Nueva York en 1906, lugar al que llega Erik a finales del siglo XIX. No hay duda de la gran documentación que hay detrás de cada apunte histórico, sobre la isla de Coney Island, la Casa de Ópera de Manhattan, los periódicos de la época, los vestidos de las damas... Todo contribuye a trasladarnos a la época y meternos en el contexto de la historia, en el que resulta fácil que una persona muy rica pase como un socio inversor anónimo, convirtiéndose casi en una figura fantasma.
Quizás, lo que menos me haya gustado sea la forma de narrarlo. Se trata de una especie de memorias, en la que casi cada capítulo tiene una voz narrativa propia, presentándonos los acontecimientos desde múltiples puntos de vista mientras se va conformando el puzzle que es la trama. Es una narrativa con perspectiva histórica, con escasos diálogos y bastante introspección y monólogos psicológicos. Aunque es interesante lo que nos van contando, al final resulta un poco cansado cambiar tanto de narrador, y me ha dado la sensación de que algunos de ellos no aportaban absolutamente nada a la historia.
Por lo mismo que he dicho antes, no puedo señalar a Erik y a Christine como protagonistas de esta historia, porque cada narrador lo es a su modo. De cualquier forma, la historia sigue siendo suya, y, a pesar de eso, el final no terminó de gustarme. Erik parece un hombre destinado a sufrir eternamente, y la pequeña alegría que se le concede (a costa de la vida de otro) me resulta un poco forzada para pasar como real.
El estilo del autor es bueno, te mete en la historia (si te gustan, como a mí, los datos históricos), pero, a pesar de todo, no ha sido suficiente como para que esta novela mereciese mi aplauso emocional.
Hace años leí El fantasma de la ópera, de Gastón Leroux, y reconozco que me impresionó la historia de Erik. Es un personaje trágico por el que sientes pena al inicio, aunque luego, conforme avanza la historia, despierta sentimientos encontrados. Cuando leí la sinopsis de esta historia, me interesó, porque tenía curiosidad por saber qué había sido de Erik después de que desapareciese, pero la novela no fue lo que me esperaba. Confieso que casi me pareció más interesante la nota introductoria -con todo lo que cuenta sobre la historia de Leroux, de la construcción del edificio de la Ópera de París y otras cuestiones- que la historia en sí misma.
La ambientación nos sitúa en Nueva York en 1906, lugar al que llega Erik a finales del siglo XIX. No hay duda de la gran documentación que hay detrás de cada apunte histórico, sobre la isla de Coney Island, la Casa de Ópera de Manhattan, los periódicos de la época, los vestidos de las damas... Todo contribuye a trasladarnos a la época y meternos en el contexto de la historia, en el que resulta fácil que una persona muy rica pase como un socio inversor anónimo, convirtiéndose casi en una figura fantasma.
Quizás, lo que menos me haya gustado sea la forma de narrarlo. Se trata de una especie de memorias, en la que casi cada capítulo tiene una voz narrativa propia, presentándonos los acontecimientos desde múltiples puntos de vista mientras se va conformando el puzzle que es la trama. Es una narrativa con perspectiva histórica, con escasos diálogos y bastante introspección y monólogos psicológicos. Aunque es interesante lo que nos van contando, al final resulta un poco cansado cambiar tanto de narrador, y me ha dado la sensación de que algunos de ellos no aportaban absolutamente nada a la historia.
Por lo mismo que he dicho antes, no puedo señalar a Erik y a Christine como protagonistas de esta historia, porque cada narrador lo es a su modo. De cualquier forma, la historia sigue siendo suya, y, a pesar de eso, el final no terminó de gustarme. Erik parece un hombre destinado a sufrir eternamente, y la pequeña alegría que se le concede (a costa de la vida de otro) me resulta un poco forzada para pasar como real.
El estilo del autor es bueno, te mete en la historia (si te gustan, como a mí, los datos históricos), pero, a pesar de todo, no ha sido suficiente como para que esta novela mereciese mi aplauso emocional.
April 12, 2012
After Andrew Lloyd Webber announced he was making the sequel to “The Phantom of the Opera” based on Frederick Forsyth’s book “The Phantom of Manhattan”, I was very disappointed. I am a “PHANATIC” when it comes to Webber’s Phantom musical and Gaston Leroux’s book, and both had already perfect endings for the characters that are heart-breaking and true. Why do a sequel? How COULD you do a sequel?
Curiosity gave in and I got a hold of this book. I was disappointed before reading it, I was pissed after reading it, I was upset for the author writing it and I was furious Webber spawned “Love Never Dies” from it!
I knew from the moment I read the preface that it was all downhill for this tale: Forsyth begins by saying that Leroux's novel is garbage and that he misunderstood the character of the Phantom, getting his facts wrong. Leroux CREATED the characters! You don’t start a book that is supposed to be a sequel by saying the first was all wrong and how his character's were not who they were. It is a work of FICTION so how can the author get everything wrong when he is its creator?! For someone who is copying someone else’s work, he has a lot of nerve.
From there on, the author contradicts himself excessively, and each section of the book just reiterates what the last section said. I thought he was not true to the characters I loved from Leroux’s book and the POTO musical. The original leads you to believe that Christine, traumatized by everything that happened, is happy to marry Raoul and retire to quiet life in the country... until Erik is money obsessed and again Christine obsessed?! And how could Christine have loved and pined for Erik nearly 20 years after what she endured?! Erik, as tragically wonderful a character as he is, is deeply flawed. He's and obsessive stalker who is willing to commit murder to have what he wanted. He doesn’t deserve a happy ending! He is supposed to be dead at the end of the original too, but I guess our “lovely” author will go off the musical, which was (according to him) the "right" one.
Do not waste your time or money reading the pompous pages of this supposed sequel. I will not waste any on Andrew Lloyd Webber’s “Love Never Dies”!
Curiosity gave in and I got a hold of this book. I was disappointed before reading it, I was pissed after reading it, I was upset for the author writing it and I was furious Webber spawned “Love Never Dies” from it!
I knew from the moment I read the preface that it was all downhill for this tale: Forsyth begins by saying that Leroux's novel is garbage and that he misunderstood the character of the Phantom, getting his facts wrong. Leroux CREATED the characters! You don’t start a book that is supposed to be a sequel by saying the first was all wrong and how his character's were not who they were. It is a work of FICTION so how can the author get everything wrong when he is its creator?! For someone who is copying someone else’s work, he has a lot of nerve.
From there on, the author contradicts himself excessively, and each section of the book just reiterates what the last section said. I thought he was not true to the characters I loved from Leroux’s book and the POTO musical. The original leads you to believe that Christine, traumatized by everything that happened, is happy to marry Raoul and retire to quiet life in the country... until Erik is money obsessed and again Christine obsessed?! And how could Christine have loved and pined for Erik nearly 20 years after what she endured?! Erik, as tragically wonderful a character as he is, is deeply flawed. He's and obsessive stalker who is willing to commit murder to have what he wanted. He doesn’t deserve a happy ending! He is supposed to be dead at the end of the original too, but I guess our “lovely” author will go off the musical, which was (according to him) the "right" one.
Do not waste your time or money reading the pompous pages of this supposed sequel. I will not waste any on Andrew Lloyd Webber’s “Love Never Dies”!
June 9, 2009
As a litte girl I had an obsession with The Phantom of the Opera. From the time I was 4 years old I could sing the Original Toronto Cast Recording Soundtrack from beginning to end (and hit the notes too)! I dreamed of being Christine and was totally in love with the Phantom. To this day, an original copy of the soundtrack is still in my car and 20 years later, I'm still singing along and reciting random lines from the stage production. When I went to see the production again, when it returned to Toronto in 2007, I was in tears as the lights went down, before the first line had been said.
So, when my Nana gave me this book for Christmas a few years ago, I was immediately drawn in. It gave me the chance to return to that place that I had imagined as a child so many times. It was the ultimate book for me, and the ultimate ending/wrap up to a story that had been so important to me growing up, and is no less important to me now. It is very well written with a story line that was completely unpredictable.
An amazing read.... a story that I will cherish forever.
So, when my Nana gave me this book for Christmas a few years ago, I was immediately drawn in. It gave me the chance to return to that place that I had imagined as a child so many times. It was the ultimate book for me, and the ultimate ending/wrap up to a story that had been so important to me growing up, and is no less important to me now. It is very well written with a story line that was completely unpredictable.
An amazing read.... a story that I will cherish forever.
October 25, 2013
'Oh my God, I'm dying. I see a tunnel with light at the end. I feel my soul leaving my body.' Uff... not the best kind of writing. Most of the story is told through monologues with a minimum of dialogues and practically no narration - it is rather tell than show. Then at 40% we are treated to the detailed and IMHO superfluous infodump of a backstory of father Joe, camouflaged as a dialogue between father Joe and his ward, young Pierre de Chagny. Pierre interrogates him as if they haven't been knowing each other for 6 years and the kid is clearly there for the sole purpose that Joe can orate his long, winding story - a rather amateurish way of filling in the reader about the character. Also, why is this important? Ok, I'm only at 42% so it might turn out that father Joe is the true protagonist of the novel...
Although Christine has been mentioned only in passing I can already tell she is the annoyingly stupid Mary-Sue we all know and love.
Probably not gonna give the book more than three stars. Even less perhaps.
SPOILER: Erik (the Phantom) Muhlheim (what kind of bullshit name is that?) "I can look down from this high eyrie onto the heads of that human race I so loathe, but now I can say: you can spit on me, defile me; jeer at me, revile me; but nothing you can do will hurt me now. Through the filth and through the rain, through the tears and through the pain, my life's not been in vain; I HAVE A SON."
:snort: Oh dear!
Worst phanfic I've read in a while, it should come with a disclaimer 'for diehard PoTO fans only*, who don't mind the mushy melodrama, the lousy writing and the nonexistent characterization.' Lawd, I'll never get these 2 days back! It gets one star from me but only because it was mercifully short.
*You know what, not even for them. Poor Erik has been pretty much ruined by shit fanfic/art (if you can call it that) but this is the first instance where there is absolutely no tension/chemistry btw Christine and the Phantom. Like two sacks of potatoes plopped next to each other.
Although Christine has been mentioned only in passing I can already tell she is the annoyingly stupid Mary-Sue we all know and love.
Probably not gonna give the book more than three stars. Even less perhaps.
SPOILER: Erik (the Phantom) Muhlheim (what kind of bullshit name is that?) "I can look down from this high eyrie onto the heads of that human race I so loathe, but now I can say: you can spit on me, defile me; jeer at me, revile me; but nothing you can do will hurt me now. Through the filth and through the rain, through the tears and through the pain, my life's not been in vain; I HAVE A SON."
:snort: Oh dear!
Worst phanfic I've read in a while, it should come with a disclaimer 'for diehard PoTO fans only*, who don't mind the mushy melodrama, the lousy writing and the nonexistent characterization.' Lawd, I'll never get these 2 days back! It gets one star from me but only because it was mercifully short.
*You know what, not even for them. Poor Erik has been pretty much ruined by shit fanfic/art (if you can call it that) but this is the first instance where there is absolutely no tension/chemistry btw Christine and the Phantom. Like two sacks of potatoes plopped next to each other.
August 2, 2012
As the book was out-of-print, I read this on my Kindle (which I hardly ever do). Forsyth prefaces his novel with an analysis of Leroux's "The Phantom of the Opera" (which serves as the prequel to Forsyth's story). The analysis provides both a critical perspective on Leroux's text as well as an explanation for the rationale behind Forsyth's novel. It is worth the read.
As to the novel itself, it presents a somewhat unique narration in that the narrator changes from chapter to chapter. This technique creates an experience where one becomes an observer to all of the events contained within the novel and one begins playing detective insofar as one begins trying to piece together the seemingly separate narratives to form a cohesive story wherein all the details are revealed.
I enjoyed what Forsyth did with the characters; rather than simply recycling them from Leroux's (or, more accurately, Lloyd Webber's) story, Forsyth forces them to grow and evolve. No one begins the story where he or she ended the previous tale; they have all changed in meaningful ways during the interim.
Having seen Lloyd Webber's "Love Never Dies" (the Phantom sequel that, as of this writing, has yet to arrive on Broadway), I must say I enjoy Forsyth's ending much more than Lloyd Webber's. Perhaps it's because I have a certain nostalgia for certain characters or because I thought the character arcs were more believable in Forsyth's version, but the ending of "Love Never Dies" disappointed while the ending of "The Phantom of Manhattan" was much more palatable.
As to the novel itself, it presents a somewhat unique narration in that the narrator changes from chapter to chapter. This technique creates an experience where one becomes an observer to all of the events contained within the novel and one begins playing detective insofar as one begins trying to piece together the seemingly separate narratives to form a cohesive story wherein all the details are revealed.
I enjoyed what Forsyth did with the characters; rather than simply recycling them from Leroux's (or, more accurately, Lloyd Webber's) story, Forsyth forces them to grow and evolve. No one begins the story where he or she ended the previous tale; they have all changed in meaningful ways during the interim.
Having seen Lloyd Webber's "Love Never Dies" (the Phantom sequel that, as of this writing, has yet to arrive on Broadway), I must say I enjoy Forsyth's ending much more than Lloyd Webber's. Perhaps it's because I have a certain nostalgia for certain characters or because I thought the character arcs were more believable in Forsyth's version, but the ending of "Love Never Dies" disappointed while the ending of "The Phantom of Manhattan" was much more palatable.
August 2, 2021
why are you dragging m. leroux about not telling the true events and then you have a warlock demon guy and two gods having dialogue lines, huh?
anyway this book isn't /good/ but it's a better more in character interpretation of the characters than 'love never dies' what the hell is going on there,, literally everybody from the original book is sympathetic in this it's quick to read and fun idk
anyway this book isn't /good/ but it's a better more in character interpretation of the characters than 'love never dies' what the hell is going on there,, literally everybody from the original book is sympathetic in this it's quick to read and fun idk
February 4, 2020
WELL, YOU'RE A HOT MESS AND I'M FALLING FOR YOU / AND I'M LIKE, HOT DAMN LET ME MAKE YOU MY BOO
Great googly moogly this was not great. Right from the get-go with the condescending preface about how much holier than the source material this is. Y e e s h.
I've heard it oft-repeated that this novel lent some inspiration for Love Never Dies, but in all honesty it only lifts some very basic elements (the setting, Erik's successful business, . Otherwise I didn't think the two are very similar. LND is a cakewalk when compared to the sheer frustration I felt every time this book had some random side character you definitely don't care about stop and talk about themselves, detracting from the titular Phantom's story.
It takes darn near a hundred pages for the de Chagny family (minus Raoul who might as well be a side character for how much he gets mentioned, I think the poor guy only has two bits of dialogue) to even set foot on American soil.
Easily the best scene is when it's just a stripped down script of Erik and Christine talking back and forth for a couple of pages. I don't know that that's saying much, but there you go. (There's another scene later that's just the two of them talking that's also very good. If this book had just... you know... been about their relationship... the thing everyone cares about... but alas.)
I do have one issue with that bit, though:
And just to ramble about the end for a bit--
And now for what was REALLY good:
Charles "Cholly" Bloom is the one narrator character original to the story that I actually liked. I found myself laughing at his arguably cliche but no less charming New York reporter antics. Saying "mon-sewer" to a Frenchman in an effort to be polite really got me. Unlike the other characters that made me want to fling myself from the Empire State every time they started navel-gazing about their backstories that never ended up mattering, I liked hearing him talking with his buddies. I also really liked having him as the last POV character in the deep dark drama at the end and the idea that he became a professor later in life. One additional star for Cholly.
Great googly moogly this was not great. Right from the get-go with the condescending preface about how much holier than the source material this is. Y e e s h.
I've heard it oft-repeated that this novel lent some inspiration for Love Never Dies, but in all honesty it only lifts some very basic elements (the setting, Erik's successful business, . Otherwise I didn't think the two are very similar. LND is a cakewalk when compared to the sheer frustration I felt every time this book had some random side character you definitely don't care about stop and talk about themselves, detracting from the titular Phantom's story.
It takes darn near a hundred pages for the de Chagny family (minus Raoul who might as well be a side character for how much he gets mentioned, I think the poor guy only has two bits of dialogue) to even set foot on American soil.
Easily the best scene is when it's just a stripped down script of Erik and Christine talking back and forth for a couple of pages. I don't know that that's saying much, but there you go. (There's another scene later that's just the two of them talking that's also very good. If this book had just... you know... been about their relationship... the thing everyone cares about... but alas.)
I do have one issue with that bit, though:
And just to ramble about the end for a bit--
And now for what was REALLY good:
Charles "Cholly" Bloom is the one narrator character original to the story that I actually liked. I found myself laughing at his arguably cliche but no less charming New York reporter antics. Saying "mon-sewer" to a Frenchman in an effort to be polite really got me. Unlike the other characters that made me want to fling myself from the Empire State every time they started navel-gazing about their backstories that never ended up mattering, I liked hearing him talking with his buddies. I also really liked having him as the last POV character in the deep dark drama at the end and the idea that he became a professor later in life. One additional star for Cholly.
August 5, 2012
Is there a way to edit the Goodreads synopsis? Because it says this is a sequel to Gaston Leroux's The Phantom of the Operabut it's not. Forsyth in his prologue/intro/whatever admits this is based on the musical by Andrew Lloyd Webber. This isn't a bad thing as so far, Webber's adaptation is one of the more faithful ones I've seen since the original silent film starring Lon Chaney. Many others I've seen eliminate Raoul or make the story an allusion to Faust. I'd rather those though than Forsyth, who claims Leroux got his own story wrong! It's almost to the level of Harmonians who make it sound like Ginny Weasley came to life and held a gun to J.K. Rowling's head to write a romance between Ginny and Harry rather than Hermione and Harry. At least Rowling has been successful; Leroux died in poverty and obscurity. It was honestly Lon Chaney's film that made the story popular.
It's been years since I've read the book, I'll admit. I took it out of the library and read it. But I have no intention of borrowing it again or buying it to own it. So this is won't be a proper review in my terms.
I like to call this book "bad fanfiction before I knew what bad fanfiction was" and that's what it is. You go into any fanfiction site with a section devoted to the Phantom of the Opera and similar stories abound--even from authors who haven't heard of this book. Making it so Christine and Erik get a happy ever after, bashing Raoul, etc. All common themes in phanfics. In fact, I don't blame Edward Cullen for girls and women everywhere thinking that stalking someone=OMG! TWU WUV! I blame the people who feel Erik is the perfect man, despite the fact that Christine is terrified of him throughout the course of the musical in which he hurls a chandelier at her after she professes her love to Raoul. . Edward Cullen and his ilk are just the natural progression from there.
It's been noted by others that this book inspired ALW's "Phantom of the Opera" sequel, "Love Never Dies." And it has--Forsyth even has a writing credit on the DVD of the Australian production. But compared to that production, "Phantom of Manhattan" makes more sense and is kinder to Raoul than the musical.
So if you do feel compelled to read it, I understand. Just be warned. If you don't, I don't encourage you to become so.
It's been years since I've read the book, I'll admit. I took it out of the library and read it. But I have no intention of borrowing it again or buying it to own it. So this is won't be a proper review in my terms.
I like to call this book "bad fanfiction before I knew what bad fanfiction was" and that's what it is. You go into any fanfiction site with a section devoted to the Phantom of the Opera and similar stories abound--even from authors who haven't heard of this book. Making it so Christine and Erik get a happy ever after, bashing Raoul, etc. All common themes in phanfics. In fact, I don't blame Edward Cullen for girls and women everywhere thinking that stalking someone=OMG! TWU WUV! I blame the people who feel Erik is the perfect man, despite the fact that Christine is terrified of him throughout the course of the musical in which he hurls a chandelier at her after she professes her love to Raoul. . Edward Cullen and his ilk are just the natural progression from there.
It's been noted by others that this book inspired ALW's "Phantom of the Opera" sequel, "Love Never Dies." And it has--Forsyth even has a writing credit on the DVD of the Australian production. But compared to that production, "Phantom of Manhattan" makes more sense and is kinder to Raoul than the musical.
So if you do feel compelled to read it, I understand. Just be warned. If you don't, I don't encourage you to become so.
July 31, 2011
I'm pretty sure enough people have trashed this story, so all I'm going to say is if this is what Andrew Lloyd Webber's sequel to his award winning hit will be based on, musical theatre is in trouble as we know it. Also, as a Creative Writing major, and one who hasn't had many works published yet, I feel like I already know a bit more than Mr. Forsyth as far as taking on a beloved story: it's all very well to continue the tale, but you do NOT bash the story nor the author that came before it! Such comes across as not only rude and pompous, but can possibly suggest the author knows his work is not good enough so he must resort to cheap tactics in order to magnify his story. Shame on you, Mr. Forsyth.
January 1, 2020
As a long-term Phantom fan, I've read many iterations of fan fiction and always enjoy the different spins on it. I liked Forsyth's take on putting Erik in Manhattan and the way it was told through multiple points of view was very original. It wasn't a page turner to me, but an important one to read, I think, for other Phans who can't get enough of the story.
July 9, 2010
The Phantom of the Opera, orignally written by Gaston Leroux, has been adapted innumerable times for broadway and the theatre. Each adaptation has been different in its own way and so has been the one by Andrew Lloyd Webber. Webber has taken the key elements of the Leroux's version and knitted his own tale of the The Phantom of the Opera in which he has removed the shady aspects of Leroux's phantom. Webber's phantom is devoid of the ruthless brutality and the demonic cunningness that were so integral a part of the orignal.
Forsyth's The Phantom of Manhattan is a continuation of the story as told by Webber. In Webber's version, the story begins in 1882 when Antoinette Giry, Maitresse du corps de ballet at the Opera, meets a caged, filthy, manacled creature in a carnival. Overcome by pity, she frees him and lets him find an abode in the underground cellars of the Opera. The creature eventually becomes the Phantom of the Opera, masking his deformed face but harboring a brilliant mind. He uses the years underground to build his house by the lake and visits library in the night to learn music. While secretly coaching a young talented singer, Christine Daae, he falls in love with her. However, Christine already has a suitor, Viscount Raoul De Chagne, who adores the singer. So, on the tragic night, when the Phantom kidnaps Christine from the stage, the entire mob of the Opera house along with the police start their descent into the underground labyrinth where the Phantom has taken his prisoner. Eventually when they reach the house by the lake, they find Christine shocked and sobbing in Raoul's arms. Pursued by the mob, the phantom disappears never to be seen again. Two months later, Christine is found with a baby and Raoul marries her, giving her his name, respect and title. Forsyth's tale continues from this point after the mysterious disappearance of the Phantom.
Forsyth's writing skills have always impressed me because he always mixes the truth and facts seamlessly into his fiction. The story has been narrated chronologically from the point of view of different characters. He (Forsyth) is able to capture the essence of the Phantom's character - his anger towards humanity that discarded him, his love for the only woman he ever loved and his hatred for his God, who gave him a hideously deformed face. The way Forsyth is able to continue the story is admirable for he not only continues the tale but he also keeps in mind the spirit of romantic heroism that was essential.
Readers of the The Phantom of the Opera and fans of Webber's screenplay will definitely find it a joy to read Forsyth's The Phantom of Manhattan.
Forsyth's The Phantom of Manhattan is a continuation of the story as told by Webber. In Webber's version, the story begins in 1882 when Antoinette Giry, Maitresse du corps de ballet at the Opera, meets a caged, filthy, manacled creature in a carnival. Overcome by pity, she frees him and lets him find an abode in the underground cellars of the Opera. The creature eventually becomes the Phantom of the Opera, masking his deformed face but harboring a brilliant mind. He uses the years underground to build his house by the lake and visits library in the night to learn music. While secretly coaching a young talented singer, Christine Daae, he falls in love with her. However, Christine already has a suitor, Viscount Raoul De Chagne, who adores the singer. So, on the tragic night, when the Phantom kidnaps Christine from the stage, the entire mob of the Opera house along with the police start their descent into the underground labyrinth where the Phantom has taken his prisoner. Eventually when they reach the house by the lake, they find Christine shocked and sobbing in Raoul's arms. Pursued by the mob, the phantom disappears never to be seen again. Two months later, Christine is found with a baby and Raoul marries her, giving her his name, respect and title. Forsyth's tale continues from this point after the mysterious disappearance of the Phantom.
Forsyth's writing skills have always impressed me because he always mixes the truth and facts seamlessly into his fiction. The story has been narrated chronologically from the point of view of different characters. He (Forsyth) is able to capture the essence of the Phantom's character - his anger towards humanity that discarded him, his love for the only woman he ever loved and his hatred for his God, who gave him a hideously deformed face. The way Forsyth is able to continue the story is admirable for he not only continues the tale but he also keeps in mind the spirit of romantic heroism that was essential.
Readers of the The Phantom of the Opera and fans of Webber's screenplay will definitely find it a joy to read Forsyth's The Phantom of Manhattan.
August 17, 2012
The plus side of this book is that it's terribly short, so if you do feel a need to read this then it won't take too much of your time. The positives pretty much end there. I knew that POM has not been well received in the Phan community before I picked this up, but I adored Love Never Dies so much that I wanted to give this a go. Unfortunately, the charm and passion from LND is nowhere to be found, and instead replaced with horrible pacing, predictable story and lackluster writing. The fact that Forsyth writes so negatively about Leroux's original novel also irks me. According to him Leroux's piece is a good try but not good quality wise. Rubbish!
Since this book is considered a sequel to ALW's original musical I was very disappointed to see what felt like a majority of it dedicated to new characters and very little to Eric, Christine or even Raoul. I watched an interview with ALW once where he said he was having difficulties creating what would come to be known as Love Never Dies until someone pointed out to him that he introduced too many new characters. Since ALW and Forsyth collaborated in the beginning I am grateful that ALW ended up parting ways.
I will say that if Forsyth's goal was to offer an outsider's observation of the events of Christine's time in America then he made a good attempt but the story's quality is not good, and here lies the irony in his bashing of Leroux's work. If the story was fleshed out and actually read as a true novel and not as a summary then perhaps the new characters would add a richness to it that would make it bearable. If he actually delved into Eric and Christine's psyche half the amount he did with the assistant, reporter or priest (the three new main characters) then just maybe the events in this book would be justified and make much more sense. Unfortunately, Forsyth, a man who called Leroux's piece a "slim little book", gives us barely 177 pages (although, it reads like roughly 100) of a story that has little to do with the characters that so many know and love and even less to do with Leroux's great work. Perhaps if Forsyth replaced the names of Eric, Christine and all the other original characters with his own creation then this book would be a decent read, but he did not and instead chose to publish this as "The continuation of the timeless classic The Phantom of the Opera.
Since this book is considered a sequel to ALW's original musical I was very disappointed to see what felt like a majority of it dedicated to new characters and very little to Eric, Christine or even Raoul. I watched an interview with ALW once where he said he was having difficulties creating what would come to be known as Love Never Dies until someone pointed out to him that he introduced too many new characters. Since ALW and Forsyth collaborated in the beginning I am grateful that ALW ended up parting ways.
I will say that if Forsyth's goal was to offer an outsider's observation of the events of Christine's time in America then he made a good attempt but the story's quality is not good, and here lies the irony in his bashing of Leroux's work. If the story was fleshed out and actually read as a true novel and not as a summary then perhaps the new characters would add a richness to it that would make it bearable. If he actually delved into Eric and Christine's psyche half the amount he did with the assistant, reporter or priest (the three new main characters) then just maybe the events in this book would be justified and make much more sense. Unfortunately, Forsyth, a man who called Leroux's piece a "slim little book", gives us barely 177 pages (although, it reads like roughly 100) of a story that has little to do with the characters that so many know and love and even less to do with Leroux's great work. Perhaps if Forsyth replaced the names of Eric, Christine and all the other original characters with his own creation then this book would be a decent read, but he did not and instead chose to publish this as "The continuation of the timeless classic The Phantom of the Opera.
June 22, 2021
Why, Andrew Lloyd Weber, Why?
So, he wanted to write a sequel to Phantom of the Opera the musical. So, he commissioned Frederick Forsyth to write a sequel to it for him to adapt to a musical. This is a sequel to the musical, mind, not to Gaston Leroux's old, strange classic. The forward involves a lot of bashing of the novel and praising of ALW and the changes that were made between book and musical. Because of course it is. Cue, the new book.
This book seeks to redeem Madame Giry from what Leroux's book made her by putting her on her deathbed and penning a letter to Erik. A letter that will ideally find him safe and sound in Manhattan, the place that she sent him off to after the finale of the musical. Because she did save his life, after all, being the clever woman she is who knew he was a good man. There's news he needs, after all.
The letter finds Erik having risen to the very top of the ranks of the Manhattan elite through the worship of... Mammon. Yes. Somehow that is part of the book. Darius, his Persian partner in crime is apparently the part of the Persian but also not? They never really acknowledge what the hell is going on there. Also, Erik is building an opera house to have Christine and Raoul and little Gustave to come and perform there. Gustave being Raoul's son - or is he? Dun dun duuuun.
The trouble is Darius also worships Mammon and wants all of Erik's money when he dies. Yes. This is the entire plot.
No, it gets significantly worse. A lot worse.
This is a dumpster fire of a book that spends an entire chapter just ripping into Raoul and how terrible he is when he's... done... nothing wrong.
Love Never Dies indeed.
So, he wanted to write a sequel to Phantom of the Opera the musical. So, he commissioned Frederick Forsyth to write a sequel to it for him to adapt to a musical. This is a sequel to the musical, mind, not to Gaston Leroux's old, strange classic. The forward involves a lot of bashing of the novel and praising of ALW and the changes that were made between book and musical. Because of course it is. Cue, the new book.
This book seeks to redeem Madame Giry from what Leroux's book made her by putting her on her deathbed and penning a letter to Erik. A letter that will ideally find him safe and sound in Manhattan, the place that she sent him off to after the finale of the musical. Because she did save his life, after all, being the clever woman she is who knew he was a good man. There's news he needs, after all.
The letter finds Erik having risen to the very top of the ranks of the Manhattan elite through the worship of... Mammon. Yes. Somehow that is part of the book. Darius, his Persian partner in crime is apparently the part of the Persian but also not? They never really acknowledge what the hell is going on there. Also, Erik is building an opera house to have Christine and Raoul and little Gustave to come and perform there. Gustave being Raoul's son - or is he? Dun dun duuuun.
The trouble is Darius also worships Mammon and wants all of Erik's money when he dies. Yes. This is the entire plot.
No, it gets significantly worse. A lot worse.
This is a dumpster fire of a book that spends an entire chapter just ripping into Raoul and how terrible he is when he's... done... nothing wrong.
Love Never Dies indeed.
August 16, 2011
I was completely disappointed by this book. I'm in love with the original and the musical so I was super excited to read this. I was absolutely disappointed. I thought it was not true to the characters I loved from the book and the musical. The original leads you to believe that Christine, traumatized by everything that happened, is happy to marry Raoul and retire to quiet life in the country.
This book turns that all on its head. I absolutely hated the thought that Raoul became some bitter man who couldn't have kids (where did THAT come from?). I also really super hated that their son was actually the Phantom's son. Only in the original book is that even possible in the timeline. In the musical, of which this is supposedly the sequel, that would be utterly impossible! And, please explain to me how the son, having lived his entire life believing Raoul is his father, will simply abandon him after Christine's death and stay with the Phantom, whom he's only met for, like, five minutes?!?!
Oh and don't get me stared on Christine's death, really.
Don't get me wrong, I love the idea that Erik has a happy ending but this is just not it! Erik, as tragically wonderful a character as he is, is deeply flawed. He's and obsessive stalker who is willing to commit murder to have what he wanted. How could Christine have loved and pined for that for nearly 20 years? Really?
This book turns that all on its head. I absolutely hated the thought that Raoul became some bitter man who couldn't have kids (where did THAT come from?). I also really super hated that their son was actually the Phantom's son. Only in the original book is that even possible in the timeline. In the musical, of which this is supposedly the sequel, that would be utterly impossible! And, please explain to me how the son, having lived his entire life believing Raoul is his father, will simply abandon him after Christine's death and stay with the Phantom, whom he's only met for, like, five minutes?!?!
Oh and don't get me stared on Christine's death, really.
Don't get me wrong, I love the idea that Erik has a happy ending but this is just not it! Erik, as tragically wonderful a character as he is, is deeply flawed. He's and obsessive stalker who is willing to commit murder to have what he wanted. How could Christine have loved and pined for that for nearly 20 years? Really?
December 1, 2010
Well let's just say this is at the very bottom of my books now getting covered in dust, unlike the others it does not get taken back out and smiled at and opened, it just sits there.
Forsyth could not have started this book more horribly I swear. You cannot start a book that is supposed to be a sequel by saying the first was all wrong and how his character's were not who they were. It is a work of FICTION so how can the author get everything wrong when he is it's creator?
Also how every other chapter was pretty much an article for some newspaper that in my opinion was there to take up space. These parts were the worst in my opinion because it was just boring, I might have like it a tad bit better if it was through Christine's eyes, but maybe Fotsyth's would have screwed that up too.
On that note the characters... The worst Erik I have ever read. He is one supposed to be dead in the original, but I guess I will go off the musical which was the "right" one according to our "lovely" author. At the end Erik let's Christine go with Raoul and live happily ever after... Until Erik is money obbsessed and again Christine obbsessed?!
Now the plot. I could not really follow it and the writing style was horrible and just random at some points.
Thank you for reading!
Forsyth could not have started this book more horribly I swear. You cannot start a book that is supposed to be a sequel by saying the first was all wrong and how his character's were not who they were. It is a work of FICTION so how can the author get everything wrong when he is it's creator?
Also how every other chapter was pretty much an article for some newspaper that in my opinion was there to take up space. These parts were the worst in my opinion because it was just boring, I might have like it a tad bit better if it was through Christine's eyes, but maybe Fotsyth's would have screwed that up too.
On that note the characters... The worst Erik I have ever read. He is one supposed to be dead in the original, but I guess I will go off the musical which was the "right" one according to our "lovely" author. At the end Erik let's Christine go with Raoul and live happily ever after... Until Erik is money obbsessed and again Christine obbsessed?!
Now the plot. I could not really follow it and the writing style was horrible and just random at some points.
Thank you for reading!
November 7, 2011
This book took me less than a day to finish. Usually that means either it was a fantastic book that I couldn't put down, or it was so bad that I just rushed to get through it - I definitely found that it was the latter! This book just really didn't make sense to me. It was told by characters that I had never heard of in any of the previous versions of Phantom, and they were portrayed to be very weak and almost have no personality. Even Christine and the Phantom (who are dynamic and interesting characters) were merely mentioned in this book, and had very little to do with the overall story! I felt like it took about 3/4 of the way through the book before the story actually got going, and even then it was painfully slow. The writing style was awkward and hard for me to follow. I wouldn't have understood this book at all if I hadn't read the play "Love Never Dies," which was based off of this book, and which I loved! Phantom fans, I'm afraid you'll be bored and confused reading this book!
May 2, 2008
I read most of the susan kay novel of the phantom up to the point where he was with Christine in the last few chapters.I agree with most people today that this is a tragedy and not a horror. In this book you could see Eric's genius and how he put it to use to become wealthy. Characters from the phantom of the opera are talked about and brought into play like Cristine and Madame Giry. But I don't feel that Eric's emotional state was done as well as susan kay painted him. I read it mostly because I wanted a better ending to what happened to Eric b/c I never really liked Raul. So the four stars wouldn't really be on the writing but on the plot itself.
February 4, 2008
Most Phantom fans hated this book but me...but it was wrong to say that it is the sequel to the original novel by Gaston Leroux, it was the sequel to Andrew Loyld Webber's musical (thank you very much :D) I love the style it was written in like the original novel and the fact that it takes place in New York. Can't say much about this unless your a "phan" but don't judge a book by its cover if you haven't read it give it a shot and see what you think.
December 16, 2008
Who in their right mind would allow an author to pervert and trample a classic the way Forsyth has done with this sorry excuse for a "sequel"?
Serves me right, anyhow. I'm rarely impressed by sequels.
It seems to me that he [Forsyth] marketed this one to readers who are totally oblivious to the existance of Leroux's novel, and who have latched on to the idea that "the play" is where it all began.
Serves me right, anyhow. I'm rarely impressed by sequels.
It seems to me that he [Forsyth] marketed this one to readers who are totally oblivious to the existance of Leroux's novel, and who have latched on to the idea that "the play" is where it all began.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 423 reviews