Scan barcode
pete55's review
dark
emotional
mysterious
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0
cilie's review against another edition
medium-paced
3.0
En interesant opsætning jeg virkelig godt kunne lide; fortællingen kommer frem gennem en række "vidneudsagn" eks. en rapporter der fortæller en god historie på en bar, en sladderspalte, dagbogsuddrag. I en nyere udgave ville det grafiske udtryk (måske) have reflekteret dette - det gjorde den desværre ikke i denne udgave.
Fortællingen er rigtig god, men der var også elementer jeg ikke var så vild med eks. at bønner er dialoger mellem en person og en guddom. Den formåede heller ikke rigtig at gribe mig og fordi jeg havde læst forordet (hvor handlingen fra den oprindelige "phantom of the opera", samt Adrew lloyd Webbers version), blev noget af starten lidt repetitiv.
Fortællingen er rigtig god, men der var også elementer jeg ikke var så vild med eks. at bønner er dialoger mellem en person og en guddom. Den formåede heller ikke rigtig at gribe mig og fordi jeg havde læst forordet (hvor handlingen fra den oprindelige "phantom of the opera", samt Adrew lloyd Webbers version), blev noget af starten lidt repetitiv.
pratiksha95's review against another edition
adventurous
dark
mysterious
tense
fast-paced
2.5
**SPOILERS**
This book builds on the epic phantom of the opera, and explains a bit of the background in the preface. (I couldn't make it through the whole thing, it's too factual to be interesting). The plot revolves around a disfigured man in Manhatten- our 'phantom', who is living his life driven by a hate for humanity. But one day, he receives a letter with news of his old love, which sets him on another path.
I like the concept of building on the epic and creating a story connected to that/ more modern day- it is beyond this that all problems begin. My main issue is with how incredulous the phantom's success is (I almost felt jealous). It makes no sense how he makes money, and how he manages to be this elusive in Manhattan- even in a world without social media. Another thing the book leaves unexplained is his helper's god of money- is that a person or are these imagined conversations? I also found it quite unfathomable how the child agrees to go with our hero despite him having no bond with him.
All in all, okay for a quick one time read, but please do not spend more time or thought on this. There are far too many better books that await!
This book builds on the epic phantom of the opera, and explains a bit of the background in the preface. (I couldn't make it through the whole thing, it's too factual to be interesting). The plot revolves around a disfigured man in Manhatten- our 'phantom', who is living his life driven by a hate for humanity. But one day, he receives a letter with news of his old love, which sets him on another path.
I like the concept of building on the epic and creating a story connected to that/ more modern day- it is beyond this that all problems begin. My main issue is with how incredulous the phantom's success is (I almost felt jealous). It makes no sense how he makes money, and how he manages to be this elusive in Manhattan- even in a world without social media. Another thing the book leaves unexplained is his helper's god of money- is that a person or are these imagined conversations? I also found it quite unfathomable how the child agrees to go with our hero despite him having no bond with him.
All in all, okay for a quick one time read, but please do not spend more time or thought on this. There are far too many better books that await!
a_strix_named_strix's review against another edition
1.0
This is a strong contender for the worst book of 2022 for me, or at least it would be but Circe exists.
laura250's review against another edition
I read this book with a friend and it reminds both of us of a poorly written Fanfiction…
ashtheaudiomancer's review against another edition
adventurous
emotional
mysterious
reflective
sad
tense
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.5
Oooh, so this is where "Love Never Dies" came from. Yeah, this is "Phantom of the Opera" fanfiction. I enjoyed it, but I wouldn't recommend it to anyone but hardcore fans of the original story and/or musical. I actually just printed and bound a friend's "Phantom" fanfiction; maybe I'll throw this into her care package as a bonus.
cjgwilliams's review against another edition
1.0
I was completely disappointed by this book. I'm in love with the original and the musical so I was super excited to read this. I was absolutely disappointed. I thought it was not true to the characters I loved from the book and the musical. The original leads you to believe that Christine, traumatized by everything that happened, is happy to marry Raoul and retire to quiet life in the country.
This book turns that all on its head. I absolutely hated the thought that Raoul became some bitter man who couldn't have kids (where did THAT come from?). I also really super hated that their son was actually the Phantom's son. Only in the original book is that even possible in the timeline. In the musical, of which this is supposedly the sequel, that would be utterly impossible! And, please explain to me how the son, having lived his entire life believing Raoul is his father, will simply abandon him after Christine's death and stay with the Phantom, whom he's only met for, like, five minutes?!?!
Oh and don't get me stared on Christine's death, really.
Don't get me wrong, I love the idea that Erik has a happy ending but this is just not it! Erik, as tragically wonderful a character as he is, is deeply flawed. He's and obsessive stalker who is willing to commit murder to have what he wanted. How could Christine have loved and pined for that for nearly 20 years? Really?
This book turns that all on its head. I absolutely hated the thought that Raoul became some bitter man who couldn't have kids (where did THAT come from?). I also really super hated that their son was actually the Phantom's son. Only in the original book is that even possible in the timeline. In the musical, of which this is supposedly the sequel, that would be utterly impossible! And, please explain to me how the son, having lived his entire life believing Raoul is his father, will simply abandon him after Christine's death and stay with the Phantom, whom he's only met for, like, five minutes?!?!
Oh and don't get me stared on Christine's death, really.
Don't get me wrong, I love the idea that Erik has a happy ending but this is just not it! Erik, as tragically wonderful a character as he is, is deeply flawed. He's and obsessive stalker who is willing to commit murder to have what he wanted. How could Christine have loved and pined for that for nearly 20 years? Really?
mrjack's review against another edition
2.0
Ouch.
The critically reviled sequel to Andrew Lloyd Webber’s THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA, entitled LOVE NEVER DIES, premiered on West End in 2010. It draws loose inspiration from this wee novella, itself the product of collaboration between Webber and author Frederick Forsyth. It serves as a sequel to both Webber’s megamusical and (to a lesser extent) Gaston Leroux’s 1910 novel. And it’s real bad.
YouTuber Lindsay Ellis described PHANTOM as a uniquely complete story. There is nowhere for it to go after its emotional culmination. And she’s right. THE PHANTOM OF MANHATTAN is a delightful trash fire that sneaks a few remixes in of the original story’s greatest hits.
I don’t know why this novella exists. Its structure doesn’t lend itself well to musical adaptation (and LOVE NEVER DIES utilizes very little of this story). Christine and the phantom (and Raoul, I guess) have minimal screentime. The narrative is dominated by first-person accounts from a variety of narrators, ranging from journalists to Madame Giry to the Phantom to a Persian fanatic steeped in 1990s orientalism. This constant shifts in narrators and the context in which they write (journals, lectures, newspaper articles) warrants constant reintroduction to characters and plot context of which the reader is already aware. It’s incredibly tiresome. It also gives the story a detached air, a far cry from the emotional melodrama of the musical. The climax of the novella is described by a journalist who barely knows anyone involved.
The narrative itself can be positively insane—when it’s not boring. The phantom worships a god of gold and greed who seems to be canonically real. A Catholic priest literally talks to Jesus. Raoul can’t have children because his **** got shot off before the events of the musical. When it’s not bonkers, it’s dull, often for the reasons listed in the previous paragraph.
The book also features a preface in which Forsyth absolutely trashes original PHANTOM author Leroux, which feels mean-spirited. Which is weird, considering the first-person style is partially borrowed from Leroux himself.
Read this one if you dare. It’s my worst read of 2021.
The critically reviled sequel to Andrew Lloyd Webber’s THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA, entitled LOVE NEVER DIES, premiered on West End in 2010. It draws loose inspiration from this wee novella, itself the product of collaboration between Webber and author Frederick Forsyth. It serves as a sequel to both Webber’s megamusical and (to a lesser extent) Gaston Leroux’s 1910 novel. And it’s real bad.
YouTuber Lindsay Ellis described PHANTOM as a uniquely complete story. There is nowhere for it to go after its emotional culmination. And she’s right. THE PHANTOM OF MANHATTAN is a delightful trash fire that sneaks a few remixes in of the original story’s greatest hits.
I don’t know why this novella exists. Its structure doesn’t lend itself well to musical adaptation (and LOVE NEVER DIES utilizes very little of this story). Christine and the phantom (and Raoul, I guess) have minimal screentime. The narrative is dominated by first-person accounts from a variety of narrators, ranging from journalists to Madame Giry to the Phantom to a Persian fanatic steeped in 1990s orientalism. This constant shifts in narrators and the context in which they write (journals, lectures, newspaper articles) warrants constant reintroduction to characters and plot context of which the reader is already aware. It’s incredibly tiresome. It also gives the story a detached air, a far cry from the emotional melodrama of the musical. The climax of the novella is described by a journalist who barely knows anyone involved.
The narrative itself can be positively insane—when it’s not boring. The phantom worships a god of gold and greed who seems to be canonically real. A Catholic priest literally talks to Jesus. Raoul can’t have children because his **** got shot off before the events of the musical. When it’s not bonkers, it’s dull, often for the reasons listed in the previous paragraph.
The book also features a preface in which Forsyth absolutely trashes original PHANTOM author Leroux, which feels mean-spirited. Which is weird, considering the first-person style is partially borrowed from Leroux himself.
Read this one if you dare. It’s my worst read of 2021.
colorfulleo92's review against another edition
2.0
I read it back in 2017 and I had hoped I would enjoy it more now as Phantom of the opera is one of my favorite classics/musicals. However I did not enjoy it even a little bit
sundragonheartt's review against another edition
I’m going to hate read this at some point. It simply seems too awful to ignore.