blog.sparetomato.com

With all the rumours flying around that Andrew Lloyd Webber is once again pushing to make a sequel to his phenomenally successful “The Phantom of The Opera”, I decided to read the book upon which the sequel will supposedly be based.

The Phantom of Manhattan was written by Frederick Forsyth (Day of the Jackal, The Fourth Protocol) and is a complete departure in theme from his previous work. Written in 1999 in consultation with Lloyd Webber, the book continues on from the end of the Musical. That point is important – Forsyth makes it quite clear that he does not see the original 1909 book as the definitive version of events, rather that the musical is the true tale.

This, in itself could be seen as a rather conceited move and one that has been jumped on by many of the ‘Phans’. However, even if we take that as the truth the novella is so terrible we can ignore the direction the Author has decided to take.

The Story picks up in 1906, with Madame Giry (the ballet mistress and the Phantom’s only friend at the start of the original tale) on her deathbed. She is explaining the reasons behind writing a letter to Erik, the Phantom, who is now living in New York as the highly secretive head of a major corporation.

The story is told through the thoughts of several narrators, newspaper articles and journal entries, giving it a rather disjointed style, but an interesting form of narrative, in that we get to see different people’s perspectives of the same event. However, this is wasted, as there are only really two places where the same scene overlaps, and the alternative perspectives are mainly limited to one person noticing a shadowy figure with a mask covering half his face.

The biggest problem is the plot, however. Forsyth completely ignores the fact that at the end of the musical (as this is his reference piece) the Phantom is redeemed. Realising that Christine would never love him the way she loved Raoul, and that he cannot force her to love him he finds that he has become the monster his detractors had labelled him because of his face.

In the Phantom of Manhattan, Erik lures Christine back into his life for the most ludicrous of reasons. Forsyth alleges that in the scene by the lake, where Christine is overcome and faints, the pair actually conceived a child. Giry’s letter explains all this when it is revealed about half way through the book. There are two major points ignored by this: 1. The Phantom would have raped Christine – something his character would never have done (that is the point of him – he is not a monster, but a kind and caring man). 2. Act two of the musical is set some six months after act one. If Christine was pregnant, surely it would have been noticable by the Phantom as he captures her. The book suggests that he has no idea that he has a son.

Forsyth peppers the novella with historical references to turn-of-the century New York, but it is as subtle as a brick. In one article a newspaper reporter tells of a young jewish pianist that she doesn’t think will make anything of their career, finishing with “good luck Irving Berlin!”. Amusing, but only from the point that you’re laughing at the way Forsyth had the gall to put something like that in – not the intended effect of laughing at the irony.

This is a book worth looking at, but only as an example of how NOT to write.