Phantom, by Susan Kay

Ah, do you mean the part where Christine learns that Erik's music can be just as invasive and controlling as his voice? Yeah, it was a rather... unique way of showing it. I didn't have much of an issue with it. It served as a catalyst for having Christine turn back to the simpler, purer love of Raoul rather than have her simply vacillate between the two.

Oh, and it serves as a nice substitute for the book's lack of apple porn.

I, for one, love the book. I feel it fleshes out Leroux's title character in a way he couldn't due to the way his original story was structured, each of the three members of the love triangle are ALL screwed up when it comes to love (i.e. none of them are emotionally capable of handling it at the time), and Raoul is treated like a loving and devoted man -- who raises and loves his son as if he were his own, like any proper adoptive father would -- rather than an obstruction to the "tru wuv" of Erik and Christine that needs to be vilified in order to justify a plot.

R.

Alyssa wrote:Dear Susan Kay,

please stop over sexing everybody.

k thanks

Damn right on that. Oh, was looking through the bookstore the other day, though I didn't find 'Phantom', I did find her other book 'Legacy'. If I can recall, I own the book, and I also think there are some sex scenes in there too. But I can be wrong, I haven't flipped through it (or read it).

There is something I find sort of funny. Erik refuses to kill himself because it's a mortal sin and he has a fear of Hell, right? Or, at least at one point in the book, he feels that way. And yet he has no problem killing other people, sometimes at random, even though that is also a mortal sin.

Thoughts?

Amyable_Nature wrote:There is something I find sort of funny. Erik refuses to kill himself because it's a mortal sin and he has a fear of Hell, right? Or, at least at one point in the book, he feels that way. And yet he has no problem killing other people, sometimes at random, even though that is also a mortal sin.

Thoughts?

I feel like that was a convenient way of her being able to stick him in the worst situations without having to explain why he hasn't just ended his life. Being the genius that he's supposed to be, I don't think he would have felt at all threatened by "an invisible man in the sky" (to quote The Invention of Lying). In my opinion, despite all of the hardships he's endured, it doesn't seem like he ever felt weak enough to take away his own life. He's always intent upon having control in any given situation.

Aside from nuances like that, I do enjoy Phantom. I haven't read it in whole for about five years now, but I never had too many complaints with it. I think the biggest one is, as everyone else has agreed upon, the fact that Christine sleeps with Erik and then has Raoul raise the child. It's definitely too fanfic, and not in a good way.

I loved the book when I first read it, still do but now I see the flaws in a different light and also, much more clearly.
One thing I never liked was the way Kay treated Raoul in the epilogue (and this was when I was 14 and really was a completely Erik and Christine 4-ever and ever phangirl . I like Raoul and it didn't understand what the writer found it necessary to "punish" him for. That he ended up with Christine? I don't think that a R/C happy ending would have dismissed the love of E/C.

Lalilaloli wrote:I loved the book when I first read it, still do but now I see the flaws in a different light and also, much more clearly.
One thing I never liked was the way Kay treated Raoul in the epilogue (and this was when I was 14 and really was a completely Erik and Christine 4-ever and ever phangirl . I like Raoul and it didn't understand what the writer found it necessary to "punish" him for. That he ended up with Christine? I don't think that a R/C happy ending would have dismissed the love of E/C.

This. I just wanted Raoul to give up on Christine, the kid, and the cat.

Lalilaloli wrote:I loved the book when I first read it, still do but now I see the flaws in a different light and also, much more clearly.
One thing I never liked was the way Kay treated Raoul in the epilogue (and this was when I was 14 and really was a completely Erik and Christine 4-ever and ever phangirl . I like Raoul and it didn't understand what the writer found it necessary to "punish" him for. That he ended up with Christine? I don't think that a R/C happy ending would have dismissed the love of E/C.

Personally, I never felt that Kay treated Raoul poorly. Kay certainly emphasized the relationship between Erik and Christine in her version, but I felt that having Raoul love for Christine to be so strong as to accept the fact that the child wasn't his and still love both him and her regardless was a strong point in him.

TAFKaR

Raphael wrote:[
Personally, I never felt that Kay treated Raoul poorly. Kay certainly emphasized the relationship between Erik and Christine in her version, but I felt that having Raoul love for Christine to be so strong as to accept the fact that the child wasn't his and still love both him and her regardless was a strong point in him.

TAFKaR

I see your point and agree with it quite a lot It's not that she makes him an unsympathetic person or poorly written character, as a matter of fact it's the opposite I think. It's just that she treats him quite badly. He loves Christine (and later Charles) above everything on earth and only wants to see her happy, but he is always on second place in Christine's life, their marriage was only half and in the end of the book he describes himself as a worn and tired old man who is rather finished with life (and he's not even 40!).
I suppose that I just wanted to give Raoul an happy ending .

Lalilaloli wrote:

Raphael wrote:[
Personally, I never felt that Kay treated Raoul poorly. Kay certainly emphasized the relationship between Erik and Christine in her version, but I felt that having Raoul love for Christine to be so strong as to accept the fact that the child wasn't his and still love both him and her regardless was a strong point in him.

TAFKaR

I see your point and agree with it quite a lot It's not that she makes him an unsympathetic person or poorly written character, as a matter of fact it's the opposite I think. It's just that she treats him quite badly. He loves Christine (and later Charles) above everything on earth and only wants to see her happy, but he is always on second place in Christine's life, their marriage was only half and in the end of the book he describes himself as a worn and tired old man who is rather finished with life (and he's not even 40!).
I suppose that I just wanted to give Raoul an happy ending .

I actually agree with you. I felt that it was a marriage that was always 'overshadowed' by the presence of Erik, no matter what Raoul did. I wanted to give Raoul a happy ending, too.

ML6 wrote:

Lalilaloli wrote:
I see your point and agree with it quite a lot It's not that she makes him an unsympathetic person or poorly written character, as a matter of fact it's the opposite I think. It's just that she treats him quite badly. He loves Christine (and later Charles) above everything on earth and only wants to see her happy, but he is always on second place in Christine's life, their marriage was only half and in the end of the book he describes himself as a worn and tired old man who is rather finished with life (and he's not even 40!).
I suppose that I just wanted to give Raoul an happy ending .

I actually agree with you. I felt that it was a marriage that was always 'overshadowed' by the presence of Erik, no matter what Raoul did. I wanted to give Raoul a happy ending, too.

Must... resist... MUST... resist...

Maybe Kay should have ended the book with Raoul going to a massage parlor so he could get his "happy ending" there!

DOH!!!!

TAFKaR

Raphael wrote:

ML6 wrote:

Lalilaloli wrote:
I see your point and agree with it quite a lot It's not that she makes him an unsympathetic person or poorly written character, as a matter of fact it's the opposite I think. It's just that she treats him quite badly. He loves Christine (and later Charles) above everything on earth and only wants to see her happy, but he is always on second place in Christine's life, their marriage was only half and in the end of the book he describes himself as a worn and tired old man who is rather finished with life (and he's not even 40!).
I suppose that I just wanted to give Raoul an happy ending .

I actually agree with you. I felt that it was a marriage that was always 'overshadowed' by the presence of Erik, no matter what Raoul did. I wanted to give Raoul a happy ending, too.

Must... resist... MUST... resist...

Maybe Kay should have ended the book with Raoul going to a massage parlor so he could get his "happy ending" there!

DOH!!!!

TAFKaR

...
Suddenly got a flashback to the Dario Argento movie from -98
(Maybe that was the point ?)

To be honest I actually do love Kay's despite my complaints. As a matter of fact I have sometimes problems to remember that the parts which describes Erik's past actually isn't completely "cannon" according to Leroux ( the Persian's aka Nadirs name for example. I always make a double take when someone give him another name in a fanfic . Silly me...) .
Or at-least you can chose if you want to use Kay's writing as a cannon or invent one yourself.

Hmm...hope this wasn't too incoherent.

ML6 wrote:

This. I just wanted Raoul to give up on Christine, the kid, and the cat.

But the Raoul/Charles father and son relationship/interaction was very lovely wasn't? And Charles was actually a quite good character I think. Especially when you considerer that he was a "love child -character" and those seems to be rather hard to write, usually they are pretty annoying and unnecessary in the plot.

(Sorry for the double post but I didn't knew how to insert ML6's quote in my former message. I hope I didn't broke any rules in that case I deeply apologise.)

Lalilaloli wrote:

ML6 wrote:

This. I just wanted Raoul to give up on Christine, the kid, and the cat.

But the Raoul/Charles father and son relationship/interaction was very lovely wasn't? And Charles was actually a quite good character I think. Especially when you considerer that he was a "love child -character" and those seems to be rather hard to write, usually they are pretty annoying and unnecessary in the plot.

(Sorry for the double post but I didn't knew how to insert ML6's quote in my former message. I hope I didn't broke any rules in that case I deeply apologise.)

I have a huge thing against Charles, I always thought the kid was idolized like the second coming of Erik in Christine's eyes (or a way to be close to Erik without necessarily WITH him). I don't know, the kid drives me up the wall. So does the cat, and Christine, and everything else about the book... I am one of a few who honestly didn't care for the book. :/ Little things (miniscule things, mind you) I liked here and there, but... ugh.

ML6 wrote:

Lalilaloli wrote:

ML6 wrote:

This. I just wanted Raoul to give up on Christine, the kid, and the cat.

But the Raoul/Charles father and son relationship/interaction was very lovely wasn't? And Charles was actually a quite good character I think. Especially when you considerer that he was a "love child -character" and those seems to be rather hard to write, usually they are pretty annoying and unnecessary in the plot.

(Sorry for the double post but I didn't knew how to insert ML6's quote in my former message. I hope I didn't broke any rules in that case I deeply apologise.)

I have a huge thing against Charles, I always thought the kid was idolized like the second coming of Erik in Christine's eyes (or a way to be close to Erik without necessarily WITH him). I don't know, the kid drives me up the wall. So does the cat, and Christine, and everything else about the book... I am one of a few who honestly didn't care for the book. :/ Little things (miniscule things, mind you) I liked here and there, but... ugh.

I don't think that Christine saw him as Erik the second, at least I don't hope so. (Personally, I always found Erk and Charles very different sort of characters and would probably have been so even if Erik had a normal childhood/life/face...). But you make interesting points

I think that this book is one of those you either love or loath .
(Just for my curiosity's sake; what things do you approve of in the book?)

Lalilaloli wrote:

ML6 wrote:

Lalilaloli wrote:

ML6 wrote:

This. I just wanted Raoul to give up on Christine, the kid, and the cat.

But the Raoul/Charles father and son relationship/interaction was very lovely wasn't? And Charles was actually a quite good character I think. Especially when you considerer that he was a "love child -character" and those seems to be rather hard to write, usually they are pretty annoying and unnecessary in the plot.

(Sorry for the double post but I didn't knew how to insert ML6's quote in my former message. I hope I didn't broke any rules in that case I deeply apologise.)

I have a huge thing against Charles, I always thought the kid was idolized like the second coming of Erik in Christine's eyes (or a way to be close to Erik without necessarily WITH him). I don't know, the kid drives me up the wall. So does the cat, and Christine, and everything else about the book... I am one of a few who honestly didn't care for the book. :/ Little things (miniscule things, mind you) I liked here and there, but... ugh.

I don't think that Christine saw him as Erik the second, at least I don't hope so. (Personally, I always found Erk and Charles very different sort of characters and would probably have been so even if Erik had a normal childhood/life/face...). But you make interesting points

I think that this book is one of those you either love or loath .
(Just for my curiosity's sake; what things do you approve of in the book?)

Oh sure, I'll answer that.

At times, I didn't care how Erik was written (or that he was given a cat). I just couldn't see Erik injecting himself with morphine twenty-four-seven. I didn't care for him drinking tons of tea. I liked his dialogue, however. And, I liked how the story was meshed with Webber's influence. Its probably the best Webber influenced story I've read.

Lalilaloli wrote:

ML6 wrote:

Oh sure, I'll answer that.

At times, I didn't care how Erik was written (or that he was given a cat). I just couldn't see Erik injecting himself with morphine twenty-four-seven. I didn't care for him drinking tons of tea. I liked his dialogue, however. And, I liked how the story was meshed with Webber's influence. Its probably the best Webber influenced story I've read.

You know a never thought about it but it's true he does drink awful lot of tea Might be Kay's British heritage which have influenced her on that

Hello to you all,

Not too certain if this belongs here...

But I'll have you all know that I JUST the other day, found Susan Kay's "Phantom" at my local Salvation Army Thrift Store, paperback, with the original cover & get this, it had the original book mark that originally came with the book! The book is in fairly good to fairly great condition -- if you consider the bookmark detached, and was being used within the book.

I paid only 85 cents for my copy! I was so excited, considering that this book on certain websites (shch as Abe Books) sells it for aroound $45.00 in the condition that my copy that I found my book most certainly is! I have also seen certain copies of Kay's Phantom for much, much more than $45.00 for even the original paperback!

Just goes to show you all what you might find in thrift stores! You can ONLY IMAGINE how incredibly excided, and INCREDIBLY STOKED I most certainly was!

ChristineDaae1982 wrote:Hello to you all,

Not too certain if this belongs here...

But I'll have you all know that I JUST the other day, found Susan Kay's "Phantom" at my local Salvation Army Thrift Store, paperback, with the original cover & get this, it had the original book mark that originally came with the book! The book is in fairly good to fairly great condition -- if you consider the bookmark detached, and was being used within the book.

I paid only 85 cents for my copy! I was so excited, considering that this book on certain websites (shch as Abe Books) sells it for aroound $45.00 in the condition that my copy that I found my book most certainly is! I have also seen certain copies of Kay's Phantom for much, much more than $45.00 for even the original paperback!

Just goes to show you all what you might find in thrift stores! You can ONLY IMAGINE how incredibly excided, and INCREDIBLY STOKED I most certainly was!

Years ago, went to a garage sale where a woman had a blanket and dozens and dozens of books laid out on top of it. Found the original red hardcover with the gold mask on the front. Bought it for a dollar and sold it on ebay for 75.00. That was before the book was reprinted.

From the country that brought you the all-female staging of Y/K, we give you: an all-male staging of Kay. In two parts.

~LCD

So I recently bought a copy of Susan Kay's "Phantom" (have never read it, but looking forward to) I paid all of .01 for the book from and indy online used bookstore, with no picture and only knowing it was in good condt. I recieved it today, and it is a first printing of the hardcover with a red dust jacket and gold cracked mask, both book and dustjacket are in really good condition, is this a sought after version?

I believe that's the British edition, so I'd say you got a good deal on it.

R.

I absolutely adore this book. It was the first novel to ever make me cry and it always holds a special place in my heart.

Having said that, there are two things about the book that keep it from being in my top-ten all time favorite novels

1) Christine looking exactly like Madeline. Phantom reviewer said it best: "Why can't the phantom just love Christine, because he loves Christine?" Any time this happens in different phantom versions, it always takes away from the intensity of their relationship for me whether its romantic, stockholme-syndromey, or what have you. It becomes less about Erik and Christine than Erik and his mommy with Christine standing in her place.

2) Overall, women aren't portrayed really well in this book. Not that we're all angels, but it bothers me that the three most important female characters all seem like terrible misogynist caricatures. Madeline is selfish, the Shah's mother is psychotic, and Christine is infantile. I could have lived with the first two, if Christine had been a more well-rounded character and had a bit more agency or even a bit more maturity. I know Erik fell in love with her voice, but to me there has to be more to get him to come out of the shadows and risk himself the way he does.

But again, I did love this book. This was my bridge to phantom rather than Leroux and it'll always have a vaulted position on my bookshelf.

Morleigh wrote:I absolutely adore this book. It was the first novel to ever make me cry and it always holds a special place in my heart.

Having said that, there are two things about the book that keep it from being in my top-ten all time favorite novels

1) Christine looking exactly like Madeline. Phantom reviewer said it best: "Why can't the phantom just love Christine, because he loves Christine?" Any time this happens in different phantom versions, it always takes away from the intensity of their relationship for me whether its romantic, stockholme-syndromey, or what have you. It becomes less about Erik and Christine than Erik and his mommy with Christine standing in her place.

2) Overall, women aren't portrayed really well in this book. Not that we're all angels, but it bothers me that the three most important female characters all seem like terrible misogynist caricatures. Madeline is selfish, the Shah's mother is psychotic, and Christine is infantile. I could have lived with the first two, if Christine had been a more well-rounded character and had a bit more agency or even a bit more maturity. I know Erik fell in love with her voice, but to me there has to be more to get him to come out of the shadows and risk himself the way he does.

But again, I did love this book. This was my bridge to phantom rather than Leroux and it'll always have a vaulted position on my bookshelf.

I share some of these same feelings about Kay's book too, esp #1.
I *really* dislike the whole Oedipal (sp?) thing re: Christine looking like Erik's mother! The same thing was done in the Y/K Phantom stage musical and TV film starring Charles Dance. I just have to ask "WHY???" IMO it's unnecessary (and kinda nasty too).

ML6 wrote:Anyway, I really don't like this book.  It's Webber influenced, that I can say.  But I got so ANGRY at the end of the novel when Raoul had to put up with the kid (who acted TOO MUCH like Erik) and the damn cat.  Oh, if I was Raoul, I'd leave my zombie-eyed night of the living dead family and go find someone else who apparently cared about me.  Everyone was against Raoul and it made me so angry.  I think this was the turning point when I became a Raoul/Christine supporter.

I give her credit, because it IS well written.  But it's horribly well written, if that makes any sense.  Some of the scenes are ridiculous plot points, but they're well written that you can't believe she even bothered to write them in.

I recently read the book again after many years. I agree with most that it is very well written. I like the above statement about plot points because I believe the character of Raoul is a plot point. I really didn't see the need for him at all in this book.

Kay very clearly write the book with the focus on Erik with all peripheral characters emphasized or underwritten based on the amount of interaction with him. I felt the epilogue narrated by Raoul was to give Erik's life a sense of hope - that the end of his story wasn't simply that he let Christine go and died alone shortly thereafter, but instead that his genius lived on through a son. Having both Erik and Christine dead and in a sense "reunited" in death is very sentimentally romantic and in keeping with Kay's more romanticized tale, but in the down side it leaves Raoul holding the bag, as it were.

R.

Raphael wrote:Kay very clearly write the book with the focus on Erik with all peripheral characters emphasized or underwritten based on the amount of interaction with him. I felt the epilogue narrated by Raoul was to give Erik's life a sense of hope - that the end of his story wasn't simply that he let Christine go and died alone shortly thereafter, but instead that his genius lived on through a son. Having both Erik and Christine dead and in a sense "reunited" in death is very sentimentally romantic and in keeping with Kay's more romanticized tale, but in the down side it leaves Raoul holding the bag, as it were.

R.

On the other hand, why would Erik need a son?

Lalilaloli wrote:

 But the Raoul/Charles father and son relationship/interaction was very lovely wasn't? And Charles was actually a quite good character I think. Especially when you considerer that he was a "love child -character" and those seems to be rather hard to write, usually they are pretty annoying and unnecessary in the plot.

(Sorry for the double post but I didn't knew how to insert ML6's quote in my former message. I hope I didn't broke any rules in that case I deeply apologise.)

I can see where you'd view the Raoul/Charles relationship as a lovely one. But for me, Charles is such a good boy that he's almost not a believable character. Because he's so good, his relationship with Raoul is rather dull and uninteresting. When I read about him, I got the impression his character was written into the story to give Raoul something to do. That makes me wonder if Susan Kay might have been better off just ending the story with Erik and Christine's marriage and leaving the reader to speculate on what might have happened afterwards.

ya-chai 2 wrote:I can see where you'd view the Raoul/Charles relationship as a lovely one. But for me, Charles is such a good boy that he's almost not a believable character. Because he's so good, his relationship with Raoul is rather dull and uninteresting. When I read about him, I got the impression his character was written into the story to give Raoul something to do. That makes me wonder if Susan Kay might have been better off just ending the story with Erik and Christine's marriage and leaving the reader to speculate on what might have happened afterwards.

No matter what alterations she made to the spirit of some of the characters, Kay still respected Leroux's story and worked within the confines of its plot. Christine still had to be with Raoul, and Erik had to die.

ya-chai 2 wrote:On the other hand, why would Erik need a son?

He doesn't. He's dead and never even meets Charles. I believe Kay's purpose was to have Erik's talents live on through him. And given the fact Charles is not disfigured like his biological father, to let him experience the life - with all the fame and admiration his abilities would bring him - that Erik did not.

R.

Raphael wrote:No matter what alterations she made to the spirit of some of the characters, Kay still respected Leroux's story and worked within the confines of its plot. Christine still had to be with Raoul, and Erik had to die.

It's my opinion that Kay's interpretation of some of the characters is a complete 180 from Leroux's version. That's really all right though because I don't see this as a companion piece to Leroux. What I see in Kay's version is a story that stands on its own.  

ya-chai 2 wrote:On the other hand, why would Erik need a son?

Raphael wrote:He doesn't. He's dead and never even meets Charles. I believe Kay's purpose was to have Erik's talents live on through him. And given the fact Charles is not disfigured like his biological father, to let him experience the life - with all the fame and admiration his abilities would bring him - that Erik did not.

R.[/quote]

I often wonder why Erik would deliberately sleep with Christine to begin with. While he is practiced in the healing arts, his knowledge of his own disfigurement would be extremely limited. He wouldn't know if it was something that could be passed on to any of his children.

I could agree with your argument about Charles if Erik had wished for a non-disfigured son who could experience all that life had to offer. But he didn't. A nit I also have with regard to Charles is that all of the credit for his talent is given to Erik. Christine herself was very talented but is not credited with passing on her talent to her son.

I like the story, but would have considered it much better had it ended with Erik's death. I see no purpose in a talented son that his father doesn't even know about, or a zombie like Christine wandering around the house in some kind of post Erik haze. Even Raoul loses his purpose once Erik dies. In Kay's version that is. In Leroux, his purpose is much more emphasized.

ya-chai 2 wrote:

Raphael wrote:No matter what alterations she made to the spirit of some of the characters, Kay still respected Leroux's story and worked within the confines of its plot. Christine still had to be with Raoul, and Erik had to die.

It's my opinion that Kay's interpretation of some of the characters is a complete 180 from Leroux's version. That's really all right though because I don't see this as a companion piece to Leroux. What I see in Kay's version is a story that stands on its own.

That's why I said she respected the story and kept pretty close to the plot (i.e. the major events). Is Christine vastly different than Leroux's? Absolutely. But Kay's primary focus was Erik and her vision of the character. Anything that was skewed was because of that mindset.

ya-chai 2 wrote:
I often wonder why Erik would deliberately sleep with Christine to begin with. While he is practiced in the healing arts, his knowledge of his own disfigurement would be extremely limited. He wouldn't know if it was something that could be passed on to any of his children.

I could agree with your argument about Charles if Erik had wished for a non-disfigured son who could experience all that life had to offer. But he didn't. A nit I also have with regard to Charles is that all of the credit for his talent is given to Erik. Christine herself was very talented but is not credited with passing on her talent to her son.

I like the story, but would have considered it much better had it ended with Erik's death. I see no purpose in a talented son that his father doesn't even know about, or a zombie like Christine wandering around the house in some kind of post Erik haze. Even Raoul loses his purpose once Erik dies. In Kay's version that is. In Leroux, his purpose is much more emphasized.

It was my interpretation that Erik wasn't in a position health-wise to have much of a say in the matter. But again, look at it from Kay's point of view. She definitely had affection for Erik and has sympathy for him. Giving him a child is her way of giving the character a happy ending while still having him die at the end of the story. These choices all have to be seen through the eyes of the writer if you want to understand why she made the changes she did.

R.