Reviews for Das Phantom Von Manhattan (The Phantom of Manhattan)

The average rating for Das Phantom Von Manhattan (The Phantom of Manhattan) based on 2 reviews is 1.5 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2008-06-19 00:00:00 Stacy L Simmons A book that would have been readable had it not tried to be a sequel to Phantom of the Opera; a book that would have been readable had it not been for the arrogant, conceited preface in which the author has the gall to insist that Gaston Leroux did not understand his own characters and that Andrew Lloyd Webber corrected these errors. The preface is truly the only remarkable prose in this novel as it is completely unnecessary and is riddled with fallacies in logic in the author's attempts to justify the novel's existence, and ultimately can be described in a few short words as making a big stink about nothing. With the high expectations the author demands from the book in mind, one marvels at how mediocre the story is, how ignorant, crude, and beyond salvation the characterization is; and how forced, clumsy, and tasteless the historical allusions are. It is my belief that just because a story is written doesn't mean it should ever be published, and this is a perfect example. Its only saving grace is its length: it's a short, slim volume that can serve in myriad of useful functions after reading such as an expensive drink coaster, a prop to fix wiggly tables, door stop, etc. Incidentally, as of 2007, I am sad to report that Andrew Lloyd Webber's ego was so effectively inflated by Forsythe's toadying in the preface that a musical based on the novel's premise is now on its way to West End.

Review # 2 was written on 2010-03-09 00:00:00 Stephen Dellapenna I'm not entirely sure what to think of this novel still. I heard so many terrible things about it that it actually wasn't as bad as I imagined it to be. In fact, I'd probably say it is no worse than Susan Kaye's "Phantom." Some of the things it has going for it The characters aren't too terribly out of character. Christine is a heck of a lot more mature than I remember her to be in the original novel, but this is ten years and one child later. Raoul doesn't really play much of a part, but he seems to be portrayed as the gentleman he should be. The Phantom is recognizable, at least. The first half of the preface, where Forsyth talks about the history of the Paris Opera and the life of Gaston Leroux, is actually pretty fascinating. It might be the best part of the whole book. Some bad parts The introduction The audacity of the last part of the introduction is infuriating. He goes off on a rant about Gaston Leroux, criticizing him for saying that everything in "Phantom of the Opera" was true and claiming that he was then entitled to get every last fact right or face the wrath of readers. (It's as if Forsyth is completely unaware of other famous authors who have used the "This fictional story is completely true" statement as a literary device.) He criticizes Leroux for various things, including getting the weight of the chandelier wrong, giving the Phantom's real name but not explaining how he learned it, and not telling the exact dates the story takes place. (It's a novel, for Pete's sake, not a police report!) Forsyth then decides he'll "correct" Leroux's errors. One of these is the identity of Madame Giry, who Forsyth claims was not a cleaner, but the mistress of the chorus and ballet. For a man critical of Leroux for not citing sources, Forsyth never says how he came by this information. He says that Leroux, upon claiming the story is true, should have stuck to the absolute, verifiable truth for EVERY SINGLE event, or made sure that the untrue things that happened were impossible to be refuted. And yet, when Forsyth tells the story, there are so many reporters and important historical figures involved, it would be the easiest thing in the world to research and find out the whole thing is fiction. Why the double standard? At some point in the introduction, he even calls Leroux's novel "implausible." . . . Ok, no. I won't go there. It's too easy. Forsyth also, when he is talking about all the things Leroux got wrong (in his own novel!), says that Leroux was terribly unjust when he took the Persian's word for things and painted the Phantom as a murderer, sociopath, etc. Eric didn't kill anyone. Heaven's, no! That man who was hanged? Why, it's well known he suffered from depression. And that other death? That was just an accident! (And we'll just forget entirely the death of Raoul's brother. Never happened.) I'm surprised he didn't ask for Leroux to be posthumously sued for libel. I swear, the entire introduction is nothing but justification for trying to rewrite someone else's work. Someone seriously needs to hide all other beloved works of fiction from this man (and Andrew Lloyd Webber, for that matter). Next, he'll have taken the "Princess Bride" and written a sequel to it, with an introduction talking about all the ways Goldman got it wrong. It could start with a forward detailing the true histories of Florin and Guilder, the true number of hats the princess of Guilder owned, and all the reasons the Count was the real Dread Pirate Roberts and Wesley was a liar who blemished the good Prince's name and kidnapped Buttercup. Then it could pick up five years later when the Prince has taken up life in a monastery and Buttercup returns to him only to be brutally murdered by Fezzik, who fathered her child. Writing It wasn't the worst writing I've ever read, but it was certainly weak. Take this passage, near the beginning: "Erik's father, without a job, drank himself to death. His mother ran away to become a servant in nearby Strasbourg. Running out of money for booze, his father sold him to the master of a passing freak show." Ah-ha! Forsyth's history is clearly incorrect! Either that or Erik's father became a zombie or some other undead creature. There's one chapter that is nothing but 13 pages of pure dialogue between three people we've just met. And I do mean nothing but dialogue. In the entire chapter, there is not one descriptive paragraph, not one sentence about any action going on, or one case of quote attribution. For some reason, Forsyth goes on for pages about the entire life history of one of the secondary characters. I was bored and frustrated when I read it, but assumed it would be vital information later. It wasn't. Most of the story is told by minor characters: a reporter, a shop owner, a priest, etc. I, for one, would have preferred to read it through the eyes of the original characters. The ending After I finished with the introduction, the ending was the first thing that really made me stop and think, "What is WRONG with this guy??" Everything between was lackluster and not entirely interesting, but okay. The ending, on the other hand, I thought was terrible. If you don't want to read SPOILERS, don't read on. SPOILER WARNING So the premise of the story is that, 12 years after the first novel takes place, Eric is living in New York City, where he has built a huge fortune. Christine is still married to Raoul, and they have a son. Only it's actually Eric's son, because Christine had sex with him at some point. Oh yeah, and Raoul can't have any children because when he was young, he heroically tried to help someone and was shot in a rather unfortunate place. (One a side note, his equipment still works well enough for him to feel desire and lust and all that, but not well enough for him to actually have intercourse with anyone ever. Some writers vent their hatred of Raoul by turning him into a completely out-of-character jerk. Not Forsyth. Nope. Forsyth keeps Raoul in character, but makes his life miserable.) Eric gets Christine to come to America to sing at an opera house he's just built, and her son and Raoul come along too. While in the city, she meets Eric. Due to earlier events, he knows the boy is his son and not Raoul's. Since she won't stay with him, he asks her to leave his son instead. She says she will in five years, when the boy is grown. On the day she is to sail back to France, Erik asks her to bring his son to say goodbye. She does, but tragedy strikes and someone tries to murder the boy. Christine is shot instead. As the 12-year-old boy is watching his mother bleed to death, Christine tells him that Eric is his real father. Raoul, who happens to be right there, confirms this, and tells the boy he has to decide whether to go back to France or stay with Eric. The boy takes off Eric's mask, sees how horribly deformed he is, and decides to stay. WHAT??? WTH No. 1: Is the moment a young boy is watching his mother bleed to death in front of him really the time to tell him his father is not his real father?? WTH No. 2: Furthermore, is it really the time to tell him to decide whether to stay with his father or go off with a perfect stranger who is his biological father? WTH NO. 3: The characters talk more than once about how kind Raoul is and how good he is to his family. What kid, after losing his mother forever, would willingly leave the only father he's ever known - a GOOD father who has raised him as his own - to live with a man he's never met before? WTH No. 4 and personal gripe: Raoul tells his son, about Eric, "He loved her too, in a way I never could." Seriously? Yeah. I mean, Raoul never kidnapped Christine, or lied to her, or manipulated her, or threatened to kill those she loved, so I guess the Phantom did love her in an entirely different way. More of a Creepy Obsessive Stalkery sort of way. I wouldn't necessarily say that's a good thing. Or maybe he means in a physical way, since Forsyth made sure Raoul couldn't do any of that? Bah. I'm just frustrated now. Can't these authors leave other people's characters alone and go write their OWN stories?