Q & A ABOUT PHANTOM & TRIVIA

Those were hard to answer, just for the fact that they are opinion based, not factually based. Every person will read/see something different than others. I know for me, it took how long to realize that the trap door the Red Death goes down in an Raoul followed, was the same idea as the torture chamber (or any of those hall of mirror things.

I don't have any questions right now, but I'll take a look either tonight (doubt it, I only got 4 hours of sleep last night, and my eyes are going cross -eyed and my fingers are doing what my brain is telling them too But I'll get them up probably later in the day!

And I just noticed you called me the Phantom Guru! That rocks Just thank goodness I haven't completely my reread, cause each chapter I write down anything that I don't understand or want to talk about. Right now there's not much structure in my life, so doing this insanely anal "book report" should amuse me

Ok, I thought of something. I wasn't sure where to put it, but I'll send it out here. Fay, I know you're a writer, and that there are many authors in these poems. I'm curious to know how an author can take from Leroux, but go ahead and change the names and all stuff. I'm not pointing this out because it pisses me off, but I'm just curious. I did short stories when I was much younger, but the last decade or so, it's always poetry, and I seldom use names. Like I said, I just wanted to get some insight on this! I hall return

I can't speak for everyone, but it is a gift to be able to create a new story around characters already established by someone else. Personally, I have always been able to see a new story from an idea given to me by someone, or from characters of an already published work. For me, there is always a story waiting or calling out to be written no matter where the idea comes from. The trick is making the story your own.

Keeping the voice of the original characters can be sticky, should one decided to use the characters created by someone else. However, if I've the read the story or book a couple of times, I can pretty much capture it, because I have to put myself in place of the character.

I wrote a one-shot which I will put up here that is done from Erik's POV, however, it was most difficult, as he was dying. I could feel the pain and emotions that nearly overwhelmed me. Very depressing, yet effective.

This goes for poetry as well. You have to see and feel it to write it. This comes from inspiration. For instance, you see a photo and it reminds you of something, a special occasion, a memorable person, or perhaps a personal fantasy, all of which can spawn a poem or story.

Hope this helps.

I know exactly what you are talking about, for the most part. As I said, I've done short stories, but they have been completely from my mind. I've never tried to write on pre-existing characters, maybe I will. The name changes still throw a bit though. But you are obviously a poet as well, because you couldn't have put it any better:

This goes for poetry as well. You have to see and feel it to write it. This comes from inspiration. For instance, you see a photo and it reminds you of something, a special occasion, a memorable person, or perhaps a personal fantasy, all of which can spawn a poem or story.

This is how my poetry gets written. And I have a Phantom poem floating around in my head waiting for me to capture it, but I can't right now. My therapist actually is trying to keep me writing, more than just my journalling. She made me generate a list of 20 words. I then had to look at the list and choose 5 words that stuck out, and write my poetry about that. It's amazing how well it worked. I have reached out on facebook for peoples help, and I was in such a zone, that before I actually chose my words, just reading the list for the first time, the poem would come to me. Maybe it's time I tried to make another list

Writing is an excellent way of expressing you feelings. Artist do it in paintings and sketches, others in poetry and short stories. We all need someone to talk to or an outlet to communicate our emotions and thoughts in a quiet, humane way. I say this, because may use less quiet, or less humane ways of expression.

Sometimes music helps. Perhaps the soundtrack of Phantom. Turn on your favorite music and close your eyes. Envision the story and then see if this inspires you.

I've written poetry, but nothing like my mother. She never had formal training in writing, yet her emotions and thoughts flowed like a delicate brook murmuring on a spring morn.

This is why some turn to yoga and meditation. Something like meditation forces you to make yourself be at ease, and clear the mind of all which troubles you.

For me, since I am very religious, I pray and read the scriptures all the time. In my hour of need, my Heavenly Father comforts and inspires me. Without him, I could write nothing.

You and I actually have an awful lot in common. Music is a big part of my life. I started taking piano lessons at 5, and once and awhile I just sit down and play, no sheet music, just whatever comes to mind (that outlet is a little broken, it's way out of tune since I moved In the last 2 months, I've listened to nothing but Phantom, between the movie soundtrack and the Canadian cast recording. I've had no training, though I was always strong in English. And I don't know where I get it from. Mom still has some of the little stories I used to write as a child, and they're quite good, considering the source. Today, I enjoy yoga and meditation (yoga sometimes get put on hold when my back flares up), as well as prayer and scripture reading. Now mind you, I don't do this stuff as often as I would like, some days I just sit like a frog on a rock staring into space, but I try to keep certain things going.

Ok, back to Q&A about Phantom (I don't even remember writing that last post

Q. The managers continue to ignore O.G.'s request to have box 5 reserved for him. One night, two gentleman have rented the box and cause a large rukus, eventually being removed from the opera. The Supervisor is called upon for both the event and to give witness to the managers. What exactly is the Supervisor's position? Is he like head of security, just making sure everything runs smoothly?

Q. Mr Remy mentions that he is aware he could be dismissed at anytime without compensation from the administration. Who are the administration, and what is the hierarchy ladder for the Opera?

Well, you've got me on these two questions. I don't recall a supervisor coming to Box 5 at the time of the ruckus or anything about the administration to which Mr. Remy refers.

You have the floor. What are the answers?

Lol....I don't know, that's why I asked Both questions were found in Chapter 4. The managers had decided not to follow O.G.'s rules about leaving box 5 free for him. 2 gentleman filled the box, and pretty well from the get go they were causing a scene, laughing and disturbing the other attendees. The supervisor was called to see what the problem was. He eventually retrieved a police officer to have the two men ejected from the opera. The next day the managers call for the supervisor to come and give details of the night before. I don't know if he is ever named further on in the book, but I just finished Chapter 4

As for Mr Remy, same chapter. It speaks about how he is basically the lock on the managers door. He does everything he can for them, makes 2400 francs per year, but could be dismissed at a moments notice without compensation as he was not recognized by the administration. I assume that means he was hired by the managers themselves, and not the "administration", but like I said, I don't know what the ladder would look like from the managers up to the administrators.

Maybe I'm nitpicking, I don't know. But as I read each chapter, if I don't know something, I'm going to ask, cause how else will I learn? Lol

Those are valid questions. There are so many details about Phantom that have gone unexplained.

Now that you've sited the chapter, I shall look again and reply.

In the meantime, here's another one to think about. Erik made a name for himself throughout the opera house as a 'ghost'. He played upon the superstition of the cast and crew by allowing a chosen few to see his death's head and get a glimpse of his shadow clinging to forgotten corners and darkened corridors. Why? Do you think he enjoyed scaring them?

I'm over tired, and should step away from the keyboard, but this struck a chord with me that I just can't leave until tomorrow. Leroux always paints Erik as a very powerful, very in control man. We see what he did in Persia, rubbing shoulders with the best of the best. But, there would always have been a part of him that no matter how hard he tried to hide it, he was beaten down. Specifically what I think about are two lines in the scene that follows when Christine removes his mask in the Lair (by the way, the look on his face are she's touching him.....just makes you ache to hold him :S Anyway, he sings to her "This loathesome gargoyle
Who burns in hell, But secretly yearns for heaven. Secretly, secretly... " and "This repulsive carcass. Who seems a beast but secretly dreams of beauty, Secretly, secretly... ". Regardless of the power he exudes over others, he is still broken inside. That's where I think the "ghost" part comes in. This terrifying fantasy that he has everyone believe gives him power. He can later laugh at how silly they all are. I really do think he enjoys it, but I also think there's more to it than him just enjoying freaking people out.

You are speaking of the film and I the novel. In the film we don't see him as a prankster who loves to make sport of others, but in the novel we do. The notes at times poked fun at the managers. Taking the money from them and then replacing it; the old safety pin routine, another joke.

I know I meshed some of the novel and some of the movie together. I just wanted those quotes in there because I'm pretty sure that Erik of the novel had these thoughts as well. It is true that in the novel he is much more of a prankster, enjoying little things that he can pull on people. In the movie, not so much but you're right, he does have a little fun with the managers in Notes. As for the novel, I know we've spoken about the money and the safety pin and such. I also know that I need to reread it, because I'm not sure I understand it. I get that he expects 240,000 francs per year from the managers (does anyone know how much this would have been? I was in France in '99, and a franc was roughly a quarter, but in the 1880's, I'm sure it was a heck of a lot of money). I understand the envelopes in the box and Mme Giry's role etc. What I'm not clear on (and you don't have to explain it, cause eventually I will get to that part) is why he starts giving the money back to them. I know he doesn't need it, and again, it's his prankster side coming through, but I don't really get why.

Why does he enjoy pulling pranks on others? Who wouldn't living in a dark, dank cellar, no tv, no radio (maybe a radio), very little human contact? Sure, he has his music, and I know that's a large part of his world, but come on....who wouldn't want to play around with some people and know you can get away with it! That's another part of the novel that's played down....the prankster and the magician. The only part of the movie that seems "magic" to me, is during "Phantom of the Opera", as he's leading her to his lair. The corridor from the mirror is lit by plenty of candles, but when Meg goes down shortly after, it's like a dirty cellar hallway. This is why I'm anxious to see the other films. I know a lot of people are recommending the 1925 version, and that's likely the next one I'll see when I can get my hands on it.

Something is wrong in the forum. Everything posted Sunday is gone and I didn't feel like spending another day posting all I had on that day.

I don't recall what I said before, but to make it quick since I'm back to work, no film shows any of his pranks. Erik needed amusement and he was not without a sense of humor. This showed his control over them. Money he didn't need. It all had to do with power.

**********************

Regarding the supervisor and Mr. Remy: I only see the Supervisor called in once. I don't know anymore than you on this one. I assume they had to have someone in authority to oversee things during performances.

I still don't see anything about the administration concerning Mr. Remy. I understood the chapter to say that he could be fired at any time by the managers. But then I don't know how their rank and order was at that time and I'm not that well.

Your turn.

I do see the joke side of Phantom a bit when he's going through the notes, especially when you see him playing with his "doll set" in his lair. I suppose when it comes down to it, it's really not as important as some of the rest of the stuff, mind you, the movie shows little of the Phantom save for his love for Christine, music, and his distaste for some.

As for the supervisor and Mr Remy....I'm just splitting arrows. There gets to be a point where it seems everyone and their dog are in and around the opera house trying to figure things out. I couldn't keep them seperate. Mr Remy to me must have been hired by the new managers, and he is their employee, not the Opera house's employee. Maybe that's what is meant by not being recognized by the administration. I don't know

I've had a headache for two days, so I can't get to into things, but I do have a question

Q - In both Leroux's novel and the 2004 movie, Christine seems to think that she can escape the phantom by fleeing to the roof. Not to sound rude, but is she that dumb? You would think by then she would have realized that the Phantom/Erik is everywhere. What would she have been thinking?

Christine and roof, huh? Well the novel said the same. In her haste and fear, she figured anything below the ground belonged to the Phantom. This would everything topside free. But as you pointed out, not so. Everything in the opera house became the Phantom's business and no one escaped.

Leroux's description of her made her seem unstable and headed for a nervous breakdown as it were. The movie showed her fear, but not as melodramatic.

*****************************************************

Leroux always depicted Erik as a gentleman, insane at times, angry and at times docile as a lamb, but nevertheless, a gentleman.

Leroux makes us believe that Christine was pure as the driven snow, so do you think Erik and Christine ever had a real romance? We all know what the book said, but could it have been possible?

Interesting. I have a harder time picturing the book still, cause their ages are different, and , well, lets face it, Erik is not Gerard Butler!

Christine was often referred to as virtuous, or similar descriptions of purity and virginity. But at 21, in that time period, most women her age would have been married with children at that point. I don't know if it was her isolation that led to her naivety. I can't remember in the book, but in the movie there are older dancers who stay at the opera house who are much more "advanced" than Christine would have been, so she would at least know of the goings on behind closed doors.

You're right. Erik is a gentleman, through and through. I do believe they could have had a real relationship, and partly because of the gentleman that Erik is. He would have been patient with her, would not have rushed her. He would have handled her like a delicate flower, introducing her to an adult relationship in such a way as not to overwhelm or scare her.

In the novel, we see after the Persian and Raoul are rescued, she is very subdued, and Erik calls her his wife (I think that's the word he used). Seems strange that he would use a term like that cause I'm pretty sure then didn't marry. It's harder to make a clean cut decision in the novel. Movie....easy.....Phantom all the way In the book, I'm still leaning towards Erik, because he would have treated her like a queen. Raoul is kind of whiny and drives me nuts now and then. The problem is, we know in the the novel that Erik is maybe a little more off his rocker than we see in the movie.

There will never be, as far as I'm concerned, another character as complex and as fascinating as Erik/the Phantom. You love to hate him, you hate to love him!

True they married young in those days, but as I mentioned before, young unmarried women without guardians or parents were easily claimed by a man, as Erik did Christine.

Yes, Erik called Christine his wife, but another strange thing at that time, some couples did call themselves married even if there were no ceremony. In his eyes, she was his wife; his living bride. Some of that has spilled over into modern times. Many people claim to be married where in reality there as not been a ceremony.

This is why is good to discuss a novel such as this, since the customs and traditions of the time are different from today.

In my opinion, Leroux's Erik didn't have a chance with Christine, unless he kept her in his thrall, which is why the Persian reprimanded him. Erik possessed more skills and abilities than any Phan fic or film as ever given him credit for. He has been likened to Svengali, who was noted for his hypnotic control over young women.

*****************************

Speaking of Svengali and Trilby, do you think these stories influenced Leroux in writing his famed story or do you think they were mere coincidence?

I'll try to get this to make as much sense as it does in my head. The last question first...Trilby. I've never read the book, but I did do some research on it to understand it a bit. I was quite surprised at the similarities between it and Leroux's novel. Correct me if I'm wrong, because I have never read it, and reviews can sometimes be misleading. Svengali was known as an "irresistable hypnotist" (wkipedia). Trilby was tone deaf, but with Svengali's guidance, she became a diva (using his skills as a hypnotist). So far, pretty Phantom like. It said that one night he had a heart attack and couldn't control Trilby, so she had a horrible performance. According to wiki, the story line of Trilby and Svengali is only a short part of the novel.

So, both novels are set in the 1800's....1850 for Trilby and 1880's for Leroux (in the movie it's 1870, but I honestly can never remember the year from the book). Both novels had very powerful male leads, who were able to cast spells over the young women they were "tutoring" to become better singers. One slight difference that I noticed was that Svengali hypnotized the tone deaf Trilby to perform, whereas Erik teaches Christine to sing. The novel describes Erik as having an amazing voice. I may be wrong, but I thought that was a good chunk of what put Christine in the trance. I keep thinking back to the scene in the graveyard. We know that Erik is very skilled in many areas. We know he is a very talented ventriloquist, magician, prankster. But no where did I see Leroux mention he could hypnotise. There's not much else I can say without reading the book.

One thing that kind of stuck out about your question was whether or not Leroux based his novel on Trilby. If that were so, it would weigh more heavily that this is a work of fiction. I know no one knows for sure, and us phans hope that it's real. But if Leroux based his novel on another novel, it's not exactly the fact-driven novel we like to believe it is.

I see you're point on Erik and Christine in a relationship. I see both sides, yes they could have a relationship, and no they couldn't. I still believe that Erik would treat Christine like a queen. But, like you mentioned, would he continue to in his thrall (stole that from you, such a cool term)? I still see Erik as having low self esteem and being insecure. He may believe that the only way Christine would stay with him is to put her in this trance. He may be so scared that if he didn't, she'd walk right out. I would hope that, though I'm not a big phan of some of Christine's actions in the novel, that she is kind-hearted enough to see through the outward appearance, and love him for who he was. Who knows what could have happened.

I'm not going to give a question right now, cause I'm interested on your views on the relationship possibility, as well as more on Trilby, as I can assume that you have read it!

Countless discussions and thoughts have been bounced around on whether or not Leroux based his famed novel on Trilby and/or Beauty and the Beast. I feel that no matter where you look, we will always find a similar story and by no means discredits the validity of Phantom. These happen to be popular stories of the time which had strong similar points.

Even if Leroux wrote Phantom in the fashion of a investigative reporter, the emotion and true essence of Erik is strongly felt. The love this man had for Christine, regardless of her true last name, has never been more powerful then shown in this story. This is what we feel when we read the original novel. This is what all film versions, episodic or otherwise, stories, cartoons, stage productions or fics is laced with; the power of true, unconditional love coming from a man who had never been loved.

Svengali used traditional hypnosis, but Erik's voice was hypnotic in and of itself as you've noted. This held Christine and bound her to him. The odd way she acted as you noted is melodramatic, commonly exhibited in stories and films of the late 19th Century. Not very logical, but common.

The thought of never again to hear that magnificent voice of Erik was what made the young woman hesitate in leaving. When not in his thrall, she tried to kill herself by banging her head against the wall or having to deal with the confusion of what she felt. This was the power of Erik.

After all this, he knew if she stayed with him, she would forever be in torment of the entrancement of his voice laced with pity and the life she might have had with her childhood sweetheart, the Vicomte de Chagny. For this reason, he let her go. This story can never be matched; neither by Svengali for Trilby, the Beast for Beauty, or any other May/December romance we've ever heard of.

No matter what others say, The Phantom of the Opera is an original story based on true events. There will never be a more pitiful, fearful, yet loving creature as poor unhappy Erik.

Wow! You explained that well (this is one of those moments at night where I could have a crapload of typing and grammatical errors. I you see some, no need to do them yourself, I'll just have to wait until I can actually read the screen and keyboard). Wikipedia said that the story of Svegali and Trilby is only part of the book , but obvioulsy this part seems to be the most important. People seem to be drawn to the darkness some books possess. I will definately be getting this book as soon and I'm done rereading Phantom. And I have your story to read as well. Its been a rough week, so I didn't read much, if anything, it think I'm still on chapter. I'm just being to stubborn rereading it. It's like an advanced english assignment (I'd say book report, but I thought I let those in hight school. First I skim through the new chapters for names....If a already have the name, I move on to see if there is a new character(s). The I do a synopsis on the chapter, and my discussion section. That's usually how I get many of the quetions.

I did have a thought in mind for a question, but at nearly 5am, it escapes me

Here's another interesting thought. Leroux could have read the Persian's account and then tell it, instead, he chose to print it as is, in the Persian's own words. Why?

If he had retold the account, would have made a difference in the way we see that part of the book?

Maybe Leroux felt that since the Daroga was dying, he should honor his work and not claim it as his own. Leroux was probably also afraid of hell and the possiablity of the persian coming back from the dead to haunt him

There's a thought. That's a possibility. Then we'd have a Persian Opera Ghost... Okay, that was bad.

I guess I was thinking that he may have thought it was more meaningful. Do you think it would have mattered, other than the fear of being haunted?

I don't know if this is going to make sense at all, but here's what I'm thinking. Many of us phans believe to some degree that the story of the Phantom of the Opera is real. Leroux writes in a style more suited for journalism than of a novel. For that reason, I believe that Leroux did as most journalists would do, and that would be to interview someone, then do a write up of that interview for others to see. To me he's still playing up that this is a true story, and what he finds out the more he investigates it.