Technically my rating for this book is a 3.5, but you can't do half stars on here.
I ended up liking this book more than I thought I would when I starTechnically my rating for this book is a 3.5, but you can't do half stars on here.
I ended up liking this book more than I thought I would when I started reading, and really the saving grace of it for me is that it is told from Erik's point of view. Not literally via the first person, but by the characterisation and the way events unfold. I got the impression that the author understands and sympathises with him as a character more than any of the others. I like that. It's also told in what would be a more realistic and believable way than some of the other sequels I've read.
There are niggles though. I like Anna, but at times she seems a bit too 'perfect' in a novel that manages to deal with the more unflattering sides of people; new and previously established characters alike - Raoul ends up being frustratingly stubbon and somewhat arrogant, Christine spoiled and selfish in her refusal to choose properly between them and be done with it, and the real villian of the piece is so thoroughly unlikeable he's practically two-dimensional. It is however, a book that I would encourage all 'phans' to read at least once. I've yet to find the perfect PotO novel for me (though Susan Kay's Phantom comes pretty close), but this is a step in the right direction. I'll be interested in reading the following volumes and perhaps trying some of Linforth's other work. ...more
Overall the thing I enjoyed most about this was that I found it a believable alternative due to the way the author writes the characters (most of the Overall the thing I enjoyed most about this was that I found it a believable alternative due to the way the author writes the characters (most of the time anyway). However, I found the writing style a little simplistic and aside from fantasy fulfilment for a lot of Erik/Christine fans there wasn't much real drive to the plot. It's a sweet novel but I didn't find it hugely compelling. ...more
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 thinFirst 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. ...more
While this book takes elements and characters from the original Phantom of the Opera, the Erik of this book is more Lloyd Webber's than Leroux. For a While this book takes elements and characters from the original Phantom of the Opera, the Erik of this book is more Lloyd Webber's than Leroux. For a start, only half his face is deformed. Colette Gale then manages to take almost everything that was attractive to some women about the Phantom, that made him so seductive and intriguing, and make him into a cliched angst ridden hero. In honesty, I preferred the dangerous maniac Erik to this one, and was more attracted to Raoul (portrayed as almost insanely obsessed and in love with Christine). However as an 'erotic' novel, it does what it says: retelling the story (with changes) through a string of sexual encounters. If you're a fan of the classic novel or of Susan Kay's novel you may well not like this at all, as I didn't....more
After reading The Vampire Tapestry and not really liking it that much I wasn't sure whether to give the author another chance. However I had already bAfter reading The Vampire Tapestry and not really liking it that much I wasn't sure whether to give the author another chance. However I had already bought this collection, and I was very glad that I did. Aside from the essay which I wasn't that interested in, the short stories collected are excellent. Unicorn Tapestry was what I considered the best chapter/section of Vampire Tapestry, and her own take on the Phantom of the Opera story (merged with Beauty and the Beast) was my favourite overall. Peregrines and Boobs are also skilful and highly entertaining....more
