How I Learned... #2: To Be Objective

Leave the Fan!Crazy Behind

OR

Objectivism in Fandom

OR

How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Crappy Phantom Sequel (Musical) (Mostly)

Note: There are spoilers in this post! For all things Phantom! Spoilers spoilers spoilers!

About a month ago, I had the chance to almost briefly discuss The Phantom of the Opera and a love of all things related. I say 'almost' because we were total strangers to one another and 'briefly' because my new acquaintance was in the middle of preparing for the holiday party that I'd been abruptly invited to by the friend of a friend.

But I was doing my best not to be unsociable, and as her living room was fairly decorated in Phantom paraphernalia, I saw an opportunity during a lull in the wine-mulling and asked what she thought of the new 'sequel' musical. "Ugh," she said in my paraphrased version. "I liked the book better."

For those not in the know, a quick tutorial:

• 1911: Le Fantôme de l'Opéra published.

• 1986: Andrew Lloyd Webber's Phantom of the Opera premieres. Also the premiere of the phangasm.

• 1999: Frederick Forsyth's 'sequel to the musical' novel The Phantom of Manhattan published, and is almost universally reviled.

• 2010: Andrew Lloyd Webber's 'sequel to the musical' musical Love Never Dies, sort of based on Forsyth's book, premiere. The response is a resounding "...wait, what?"

I have to point out that long ago in my imprudent youth (which continues to this day) I, like many hormonal and 'misunderstood' teenage girls (and boys, for all I know), once had a very intense obsession with this story. I collected editions and merchandise, I listened to the soundtracks until I drove my mother insane, I wrote fan fiction, and dressed up as the Phantom for more Halloweens (and not-Halloweens) than is wise to confess to. I wrote my college entrance essay on Phantom of the Opera. I once presented a paper on the subject at an academic conference, which was even reviewed *gasp* online:

"...one paper in particular, which drew a connection between C.S. Lewis' Til We Have Faces and Gaston Leroux's The Phantom of the Opera, drew literal gasps from the audience." (linky)

I've always thought those gasps were actually politely-concealed yawns, myself.

My point being, I was once a nutty nutty phan and I still have a pretty decent grasp of what makes Phantom Phantom. And like many phans, I loathe the Forsyth book with a passion usually reserved for evil chemistry teachers.

So when I got the soundtrack (the actual show is not yet being performed in the US), I was fully prepared to hate Love Never Dies. And I did!

...at first. Then I had to step back and look at why I hated it. And when I did that, to my surprise, my opinion changed.

I have to repeat: I have not seen the show. It's not yet being performed on Broadway, and I'm currently lacking in funds to travel to London solely for the purpose of seeing a musical. (Stupid government salary...). What I have done is listened to the 2-disc soundtrack several times (4x in the first day), a soundtrack that basically contains THE ENTIRE SHOW in audio. So even though I haven't seen it, I was still able to focus on the story.

It's very, very similar to Forsyth's book, except the focus is on the main characters rather than having a bunch of peripherals tell the story. In fact, none of the new characters that Forsyth introduced appear in the musical, for whatever reason (legal or story). But I don't care. I approve. For me, the story was always about the relationships between the characters.

I felt that the triangle, not just a love triangle but the triangle of mind, body and soul, that was formed in the original story between The Phantom, Raoul and Christine, was the central point of the story. It did not appear as such in The Phantom of Manhattan. In fact, Raoul was barely present at all. And although eleven years ago I couldn't articulate why I felt the book was horrible, I realize now that it was this lack of interplay between the three main characters.

The phenomenon of Phantom of the Opera is intensely personal for thousands (possibly millions) of people, and everyone put their own interpretations on the characters and what motivates them and what's out-of-character and what's not. And that's perfectly fine. It's that huge gap between author intention and audience reaction. I'm not out to attack anybody's thesis as any more or less valid than anyone else's (except Dario Argentino's film version. Messed. Up.).

But I've grown old older in the service of this gothic version of Beauty and the Beast, and become very disillusioned by the fact that, hey, the Phantom wasn't really the romantic hero the last twenty years have made him out to be, so I'd like to think that I'm wiser than I was, to the point where I'm able to say, "I don't personally like how Love Never Dies unfolded or how it ended, but it still works and is actually not that bad."

No, it's nothing like Phantom of the Opera, but it isn't meant to be. Phantom of the Opera was a fairy tale. Love Never Dies is a completely adult story. The characters have grown up, and all the veils and masks are gone. There is no place left for anyone to hide. Everything and everyone is ugly, vulgar, sordid, and uncompromising, and everyone is exactly what they appear, even the Phantom. Phantom of the Opera is a story about impossible romance. Love Never Dies is a story about the things we do for love and for the people we love; a quiet, tragic and incredibly painful story.

And I had to stop being a die-hard phan to realize it.