Leroux vs. Kay & Why

I agree. It is sad

...I changed it.

That is really sad. I say kill Rauol. Noone likes him and in the Sara Brightman version I sware I think he had a chipped tooth.

le_mort_vivant wrote:...I changed it.

She meant mine, I believe.
---
And yes Raoul is a dirty swine

I say burn him! BURN HIM!

Wow...

Anger issues...

Read Kay and still thought Leroux won big time.
Cute but not completely Leroux based and that bugs me.

Again, Leroux's is good but still very confused.
Kay's is my favorite, by far. What is sadder than watch the story unfold through first person perspective of Erik?

le_mort_vivant wrote:Cute but not completely Leroux based and that bugs me.

Obviously not. It's her own interpretation of a fictional event. As I always have said, Leroux's was too confusing, and Kay really helped to make certain things clearer. Her's is more romantic, whereas Leroux's is a terrible combination of gothic horror/romance/thriller/mystery all together. Those are terrible together.

Definately Kay's.

LucyDeLeNoir wrote:Definately Kay's.

Yay!

Yeah, I agree with RD and LDLN, that kay's is the best out there.

Well the good thing about Leroux is every time you read again you learn more and understand. It opens up new doors and every time it hits you because alot of it isn't as predictable.
Kay is very good but my heart will always belong to Leroux though I admit to crying a little at the end due to the bedsite table and drawer. Still... the brunette hair kinda annoyed me but what are you going to do.
I understand Leroux is hard for some to read and boring but if you read it carefully it's incredibly sad nearing the end.

Some parts of Leroux, especially the prologue/introduction and beginning, are SO drawn out and boring. But a lot of Gothic literature was like that

kay gives him depth. In Leroux novel Erik was not given much of a chance to show how he truly is.Leroux novel mainly focus on the lover's triangle when the really intreguing element is Erik.Kay's shows what life has been for him given him.The original novel gives Erik a personia that does not go into detail. The book just gives hints not much to go by.With kay we see how far the blemishes of the world effects Erik and distorts his perspective. So much so that he needs morphine and drugs to distort and ease his pain and burden. Which I would think sounds like somthing Erik would eventually resort to. Though Kay did not put the Siren in as well as the grasshopper scene which I'm very dissapointed in that. Besides I would like to know how did Erik do that Siren trick.

There are TWO versions! Aw man! I'm having trouble finding the Gaston Leroux one, never mind Susan Kay.

yes there are you can just go to any book store and ask for phantom of the opera.Its a classic and constantly reprinted so you should not have any problems. Phantom by Kay is a different problem it is a rare book in the united states so you may have to check Ebay or somthing like that just to get a undamaged gook. If you live in England (which i have to say you area very lucky person)they re printed the book Phantom for the 2004 movie.I don't know though if it is still being reprinted or if it has stopped.

~OG

Printing of Kay's version has stopped.
It happened world-wide, not just in the UK.
It was from Llumina Press.
You had to preorder, and had the choice of paperback or hardcover.
I got one of each
And there was a huge contest for the cover design. I like the choices they selected.
SOMEWHERE on my computer I have a typed version of Phantom.
I'll look for it and put it in the Auction.

Kay's. It makes more sence

Ah, we have come to a draw ladies and gentlephantoms.

I say Leroux because it's simply classic. Kay's was written in the 90's so it doesn't grasp the real era of when Erik exsisted as Leroux does when he wrote it in 1911. That's understandable but I love authenticity.

Not the mention, I use Leroux references in my everyday life. When I want to say something phantomish, I whip out my handy-dandy library copy of Leroux (not that I carry it around or anything). Granted, I do use a lot of Kay quotes in discussions but that's only because it shares the characters' POVs instead of having an all-knowing narrotar. Last, though I don't treat it this way, Kay's book is a complete work of fiction (that hurt). With Leroux, it's an ever-going mystery of ''Could it be real?"

Kay is wonderful, but Leroux is well original.

I agree with that!

And that "(not that I carry it around or anything)" part made me chuckle because I used to do that! I'd always have my copy on hand just so I could peek in whenever I was bored.

I love Kay's version- it's very poignant and sad because it gets into the POV. However it seems a little too like Erik is just saying "World, pity me or I will forever hate you."

In Leroux's version, Erik is more portrayed as mad and unstable, with a mixture of holding resentment against the world.

However, Kay's has the best quotes, IMO!

I voted for Leroux. Not only because of whole 'classic' thing... I simply don't like when tale is told from beginning to end. Kay is great of course, especially Madeleine's and Giovanni's parts, but it is... finished. Just like Harry Potter. I was angry at myself for reading last book. You know, I just want to have a lot place for my twisted imagination.

Yes, I agree!
Kay's does not allow the use of much imagination.

how so?

For me, reading novel is traveling with author. With Leroux it was wandering, in the beginning I didn't know where characters came from, I could only imagine. When the book ended I still had a plenty of room for my own thoughts, as there was really no description of what was happened later. With Kay... it felt a little bit like stalking. Even if point of view was switching from one person to another, Erik was still in the center. I know, it's his story, but he didn't had secrets. It didn't fit Phantom, he should be mysterious. I felt like following his every step from birth to death. I've used bad word before - he wasn't Phantom, he was Erik. For me it should be like in Giovanni's tale - he came from darkness, in darkness he left. Nothing more, nothing less. The ending was like 'the play is done, the curtain's down' and, as the song I'm quoting - 'Dead Gardens' by Nightwish - follows 'All the tales are told, all the orchids gone'. Christine died, Erik died, Charles was too perfect, Raoul's time would also come soon - all orchids are dead, and what I care now about except those 'dead gardens'. There was nobody to follow later, to think his, or hers, history in my own imagination. It didn't live in me after I closed the book. It could be finished when Raoul and Christine left - it would still have many ways to end for reader. It could be finished even after Erik's death... but the last part was too much. Story was dragged, it didn't had any purpose then. Ended with Erik's death - it would suit whole thing. But miss Kay chose to finish it, not end. Bad idea, I think. Only movie with the 'from cradle to coffin' plot which I liked was 'Amadeus'. There were no books of that kind I remember I enjoyed after it's ending. It's a hard thing to do and I think that here it didn't work.

Uh, sorry, it's long and strange, but I don't know how to write what I wan't to tell.

you have good points, but Nadir Giovanni and the other people Erik incountered were still in the dark about mos of his past