Irmo Branch Library - Multimedia Book Club discussion

Here are a few more questions about "The Phantom of the Opera" by Gaston Leroux and the adaptations you may have watched. It's the end of October, so spoilers are now fair game!

1) What did you think of the ending of the book? While the adaptations are to various degrees inspired by the novel, the 1986 musical especially veers away from the events of the book to a more dramatic plotline and an ambiguous ending. The 1925 film, as well, although in many ways faithful, sends the antihero to a much more dramatic end than in the original novel. Which ending do you prefer and why? Do the changes in the adaptations help or hinder your interest in the story?

2) Toward the end of the novel, the narrator (presumably the author, but perhaps not exactly) asserts that we should pity the Erik. "He asked only to be 'some one,' like everyone else. But he was too ugly! And he had to hide his genius or use it to play tricks with, when , with an ordinary face, he would have been one of the most distinguished of mankind!" Do you agree or disagree with this?

3) Let's talk about the separation between fact and fiction in this story. With both the Prologue and Epilogue, Leroux takes an narrative voice in which he speaks as the author of the book, detailing his research and his belief that the story is true. One might read this as a clever fictional turn, with a nod to the fact that some plot points are based on real events, but with the understanding that the story is meant to be read as fiction only. However, legend has it that Leroux, until his death, insisted that the story of the Opera Ghost was true! How would it change your reading of this book if you entertained the idea that it may be more truth than fiction? I'll post some more links in the comments to expand on this discussion point!

The Truth About the Phantom of the Opera: https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/6...

Classical music bloggers muse on the real events that inspired the dramatic crashing of the chandelier over the audience: http://blog.feinviolins.com/2012/05/p...

About that underground lake... https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/t...

More about the Paris Opera House: https://www.operadeparis.fr/en/

Here are my thoughts on the above discussion questions!

1) I'm on the fence about the ending of the book. It seems slightly unbelievable to me that, after going to all the trouble of arranging to blow up a massive building and kill hundreds if not thousands of people to force Christine to chose him, Erik would just let her go because he suddenly "gets it" that she doesn't love him and is furthermore sated by the one act of affection she shows him. And dying of a broken heart is just a little convenient, don't you think? In that sense, I guess I do like how the musical develops this kind of conclusion a little more. In this version, the stakes are a little lower (only Raoul's life is on the line, really), and Christine makes an important point to Erik that it's not his mask or his physical appearance that scares her, but the darkness she sees inside him. This gives him more incentive to make such a leap of internal change as to let her go with the man she loves. The silent movie ending is its own thing, though! I've heard it was common for older movies to make sure the villain got what was coming to him, and Erik definitely gets his due in the silent film as everyone mobs him and chases him to his death. While the Erik in the book also probably deserves this kind of end, I do feel the book's ending is more elegant and meaningful than this complex character being simply run off by an angry mob. Leroux leaves us with the understanding of Erik as a human, not just a monster.

2) To this point, Leroux/Narrator argues that Erik should have our pity despite his despicable acts because the experience of being so ugly essentially warped his nature from good to evil. Had he been normal-looking or beautiful, he asserts, Erik may have been considered an extraordinary talent with much to contribute. I am familiar with the old theory that physical ugliness can lead a person to become internally evil, but I don't think this is universally true. Nor do I think that it absolves a person of their responsibility for who they choose to be. Some people are beautiful and charismatic and still use that to nefarious ends. Some people are born with significant deviations from "normal" and still choose to engage with the world in a healthy and meaningful way. I just don't buy the jump from "he was born ugly" to being able to pity Erik. He delighted in torturing others and fostered the darkness within himself. I think its regretful that this meant his talents would never be known by the world, and he should be pitied for how he was treated as a child, but he had a hand in his own isolation as an adult. The fact that he knew how to woo Christine, that he had an ally in the Persian man, that he knew how to create beautiful music, these things show he knew deep down how to be more human than monster.

3) I love the idea of this book being based on a true story. It was really fun reading with that possibility in mind. I definitely believe that the cellars of the Paris Opera House were that creepy and full of uncanny characters back then, so that heightened my enjoyment of the book as a scary story. If someone like Erik did once live in the cellars of the Opera, I think my feelings about the events and the people involved would be both more sympathetic and much more horrified! The novel does a good job of holding the story in a space where you can suspend your disbelief and let yourself wonder, what if... part of what makes it so much fun.