For the most part, I will not review classics on this blog. Long story short, a few ill-done literature classes in middle school and high school discouraged me from reading them as the teachers made a habit of praising stories while choosing very boring sections to read. Not the whole story. Not even an author’s best work. Just his most famous work and a boring section from it. I came out of those classes thinking I did not like classics (nice broad paint strokes there), except Shakespeare and mythology that is, and have only in the past few years began working on increasing my classics reading list. Furthermore, there are instances like The Man Who was Thrusday where I think a single read through inadequate to discuss the text with any justice.
That said, for Gaston Leroux’s The Phantom of the Opera, I have no inhibitions. I don’t understand why this book is a classic. Can I see why it has lasted till now? Well… considering the popularity of series like Twilight, yes, I can. For those who read my post transcribing a letter draft, you may remember my summary of Phantom, where I likened this book’s issues to some main ones I’ve heard said of Twilight: two guys in love with a black-slate female, boring main characters, and an ending without consequences.
Because I thought my initial reaction too emotionally charged and wished to provide a more objective viewpoint on Phantom, I decided to reread the story in preparation for this post. My verdict: same issues, but not as horrible book as I first concluded. Don’t get me wrong; it’s not a great book, not even a good book, but it’s not terrible. I’ll even reword my main complaints into (1) a bad love story and (2) wasted potential. Now, while I wish to address these two points, I will be largely sidestepping them in this post, especially the first, as next week’s topic more directly addresses both. As such, this post will instead cover a few other issues I had, such as semantics and word choice.
Speaking of which, I really struggle with the style of my copy of Phantom, published and presumably translated by Puffin Classics. Now, I can’t comment upon the style of the original text, as I cannot read French, where it perhaps sounds better. Nor can I say how well my copy is translated. As a (very) amateur translator myself and frequent reader of foreign material, I understand the translator’s dilemma when trying to fit a square paragraph in a round language. Translations often can’t be verbatim or capture a word or phrase quite right. I’m willing to be merciful, as I cannot compare the original text to my copy. However, there are a few hiccups that really bothered me. First off, Puffin Classics decided to translate “fantôme” as “ghost,” despite “phantom” being in the title and the most well-known title of character. Why the change? It also sounds clumsier to call him “the Opera Ghost.” Linguistically speaking, “phantom” has a more ominous, mysterious feel to it. I just don’t understand the translation decision. Another issue comes in some of Puffin’s other word choices. For instance, I can’t say how accurate a translation it may be, but they have the Phantom call someone a “great booby.” Seriously? This is our villain? Poor word choice breaks the threatening atmosphere, Puffin. But I suppose these points sound like nitpicks of the more linguistically minded, as a physicist might be bothered by describing the speed of light as “very fast.” Still, I think a translation, so long as it is accurate, should attempt to present its content in a fitting manner.
Moving on, I will now touch the plot and writing of the story. Here is where the idea of “wasted potential” comes out. Again, I will not cover everything under this heading, but a few points deserve mention. To begin, the story should not have been told from Raoul’s point of view. More will be said next week on why, but know my opinion is that, as in all the adaptations of which I currently know, the story should have been told from the Phantom’s view point. There’s also the whole ending thing, which I will cover next week as well.
Related, though not wholly dependent upon, the concept of telling the story from the Phantom’s eyes is Leroux’s problem of constantly breaking tension. I give Leroux credit for his outline. The progression of events makes sense, and under a different storytelling style, the tension would have built until its culmination and resolution. There are even a few scenes executed well that drew me in and made me feel the atmosphere. Too bad he couldn’t have done that consistently.
If you have read my letter transcription, I describe one scene in which Christine and Raoul are speaking on the opera rooftop and constantly think they hear some sort of exclamation, fearing the Phantom may be listening. Now, conceptually, this scene could be tense and exciting… except Leroux states from the beginning of the scene that the Phantom has followed them and also provides quotations of what the Phantom is crying out. From the very start of the scene and all throughout, Leroux tosses suspicion and tension from the roof of the opera house, letting it smash to pieces upon the street below. This happens time and again, even in the prologue where Leroux spoils his own story due to his framing it as if he were reporting on a true event. What makes this broken tension worse, though, is how Leroux shows that he can write tension and write it well during the Persian’s narrative. This section, the climax of the story, is so good, with atmosphere and tension. Why couldn’t the rest of the story have been told so well?
Also, why couldn’t the main characters be as good as the side-character Persian, who only shows up in the climax? Seriously. The Persian is my favorite, summarized in three Cs: compassionate, clever, and courageous. Out of compassion he helps the Phantom in the past and then Raoul in the story’s climax, he displays intelligence and foresight in his actions, and he shows his courage in confronting the Phantom despite knowing the dangers. The Persian is the best character. I would much rather read the story of his and the Phantom’s meeting, interactions, and eventual arrival to France than the story we got. Instead, we have a shallow love story about a greater and a lesser stalker falling into a triangle of twisted love with a singer and then trying to kill the other so he can take the trophy. Okay, I’ll admit that description to be a bit mean-spirited, though I do think it pretty accurate (more on that next week).
Back to characters, the main characters are disappointing. I’m not someone who thinks you need fully realized characters to have a great story. However, in a story like this, a 300-page novel where the romance and relationships between characters is supposed to be the driving aspect of the story, someone to cheer for would be nice. Unfortunately, neither of the character of Christine or Raoul is engaging, the Phantom is interesting but hardly present, and the “romance” is horrible. In addition, apparently both Raoul and Christine are idiots, as shown in the rooftop scene described earlier. If you can hear full phrases like “Because I had seen him!” so clearly as to record them for Leroux to later find and included in his “true” story, then there is probably someone behind you.1 So, yeah, the main couple are stupid and have barely any relationship. What is there I do not think romantic, nor is it interesting without the Phantom, and this is coming from someone who generally loathes love triangles.
For all that, though, the story isn’t horrible and, I think, still worthy of consideration and discuss. Yes, it has some horrible things, such as some of the writing choices, broken tension, bland main characters, and bad romance (next week), but Phantom does have some good moments. The last third of the book containing the Persian is fun and well executed, and there are points where Leroux shows he does know how to write. It’s just he isn’t consistent and apparently chose the wrong story to tell. Still, it’s not dreadful. I can understand why people would like the book. Actually, the second read through I found much more enjoyable than the first. I attribute this to entering into the story with dashed expectations. The Phantom of the Opera shouldn’t be a classic, nor should it be approached as one. If you strip off the “classic” label and read it simply as a book, then perhaps you might be pleasantly surprised, and you can certain get some good conversations out of it, and maybe even a blog.
1Leroux, Gaston. The Phantom of the Opera. London: Penguin Group. 2008. 137. Print.
All works mentioned in this post (c) their respective owners
No comments:
Post a Comment