To me and the book and the movie bring two differnt things to the table. The movie consentrates on the events for towards the end of the book, if I remember correctly. And the book consentrates for on the relationship between the Phantom and Christine Diia. Of corse the music in the movie is great, but the book holds a sence of romance between the characters that the movie does not hold. -I don't think it to be a question of which one is better, it is just that each is like two parts of the same story, and you have to read/watch both to fully grasp what it is that is the essense of the story.

The Opera Ghost wasn't technically real, but there were rumors while the Opera was being built in the 1860s. There is a true story of a man who helped work on the Opera and insisted that he stay down in the basements after it was completed (from the sound of it, he was a little crazy). I don't know what happened to him eventually, but the other workers liked to joke to each other, "have you seen the Phantom?"

Leroux incorporated pieces of fact with fiction. A piece of the chandelier really did fall and kill a woman, and there really is a lake under the building. I think Leroux liked to blur the line of non-fiction and fiction, to cause his readers to think twice about the story, maybe believe that it is true.

If you ever get a chance to visit the Opera (I haven't), I'm sure you'll be amazed. Box Five is restricted from visitors, as people try to vandalize it and write on the infamous pillar that Erik supposedly hid in, and I'm sure going into the old auditorium will really take you back into the novel.

Isn't the whole Opera Ghost thing something that actually happened, though? That's the idea I got from the beginning of the book, but what you said, Broken Sword, is making me think otherwise. Was Leroux just pretending about talking to the Persian, etc.?

Anywho, I really enjoyed the book. I thought it was funny, because in the show, I liked Christine a lot more than I liked her in the book. However, I hated Raoul in the show but liked him in the book! It was interesting to get all the backstory that made parts of the musical easier to understand (i.e. "Little Lotte"), and which parts were changed.

Interesting, I didn't know he used to be a journalist. And you're right, it is an interesting way to write, but I guess it just never worked for me. I like books that have very vividly drawn characters, and, for me, that wasn't it. I am COMPLETELY obsessed with the musical and movie, though.

I LOVED Leroux's Phantom. It's one of my favorite books of all time. I read it before I saw the show and I became obsessed with the story (still am).

The reason it sort of reads like a newspaper article is because Leroux used to be a journalist. He intentionally wrote the story to make it sound like he had researched this and was publishing it for the world to see. I think it's quite interesting.

Yeah, I've read the book, and I really enjoyed it. But I can see what you mean about the whole emotion-less-ness, I guess I just always project my own emotions onto a vacuume, so the book really worked for me.

LOL, now I've got everyone reading the book. I didn't really like it, but, if you do, more power to you!

I've seen the film and the musical (which I loved) but never read the book.......I'll check it out.........

Alainna
xxxxx

Phantom of the Opera was a book?

*runs to library*

I've only seen the movie, which was an adaption of the musical, which in turn was an adaption of the book, so I can't really comment. All I can say is, you say 'Phantom of the Opera' you think musical. The book just never really appealed.

I loved the book! Then again, I tend to love