The Phantom of the Opera Review

I was trying to figure out what I wanted to read; it seemed like there was something in all of the books I've recently had that just made me...zone...out. After a time, I downloaded The Phantom of the Opera, and from the first page I knew that I was going to have a good time with it.

The book takes place in the Paris Opera house. I expected a traditional novel, but the story is instead written as if the author is reporting on a case from thirty years in the past, a mystery that involves death, and a supposed "Opera Ghost". Most people are probably familiar with the long standing play that's been on Broadway for ten thousand years, or the movie that was based on the play. I've seen most of the movie, and I've yet to see the play, but from what I know, there are a lot of differences and things that just could not have translated on stage easily.

When I started reading it, I was expecting something with incredibly difficult language or really crazy paragraphs (ex: Hunchback), but it's a very approachable story. It's a bit archaic, but not so much that you have to do a ton of work looking up definitions. Because the book is written as an article of sorts, there are footnotes, but they're not functioning in the digital copy. Maybe in a hard copy the footnotes are actually at the foot of the page.

From the moment I read the description of Christine Daae, I was worried I was running in to another stupid female character, I was pleasantly surprised to find that she had a brain in her head. She's a bit naive, but she didn't have the best education, something that is repeated a few times. The character that I had the biggest issue with was her love interest Raoul. I can't quite remember how he was in the play, but in the book, he thinks that she is cheating, and is most worried over whether she is a victim or a two timing floozy. He bounces back and forth between loving and pitying her to thinking she's spreading her pussy around to the Angel of Music. He even directly asks her guardian at one point "if she is still a good girl" translation: "has she given that cherry to anyone but me". That pissed me off; he really wouldn't have had anything to do with her if she had somehow fucked someone, then again, the characters were young and not the most worldly.

Unlike in the play, where the Opera Ghost is known as the Phantom, and see wearing that weird Africa shaped mask over half his face, the book has someone that has to wear a full face mask. Once when I was in elementary school, I read a child's adaptation of the book; it spoke a bit about the origin of the Opera Ghost, and they gave him a less tragic life. He is an incredibly tragic character. When Christine Daae describes meeting him, and how he was, I cried. I felt such a pain in my heart for what he went through. He wasn't just a creep who could sing that lived in the walls of the opera, he was a brilliant mind that was cursed to have a hideous face. Actually, I'm not sure that hideous is the right word for how he looked; I don't know if this counts as a spoiler (sorry if it is), but the Opera Ghost apparently looked like a living corpse. The only thing attractive about him (besides his talents and brilliants) was his voice. He had an amazing voice, and he treated others kindly, as long as they treated him kindly.

Although he is clearly the antagonist of the story, he's one of the most sympathetic antagonists that I've ever come across. He's batshit, yes, but one can't help but feel for him and his plight. He only wanted love, and that makes me want to cry even whilst typing. I felt a connection to him, as I do many tortured outcast artist characters.

The copy of the book that I have is a free download for Kindle users. Apparently it's the digital version of the original copy. There are little inserts that say a drawing should be there, but the drawing isn't there, a bit of a disappointment, but I lived. There weren't too many words I didn't know, and the ones that didn't have a definition in my dictionary had a definition given to it by the author.

From a little bit of research I just did, the book isn't that popular, and has been out of print before. There are quite a few movie and stage adaptations, but one of the most faithful stars Lon Cheny Sr as the Phantom, and from what I can tell, he has a face rather similar to how the phantom is supposed to have look. The 1925 version is also considered the one that is most true to the book. It's probably available to watch on YouTube or somewhere else online.

All in all, I think this is a wonderful book. It's one that if you're a teacher, I think you could get students in to. One of the most fascinating points of the book, is that the descriptions of the Paris Opera House are accurate, and just seeing some pictures I'm flabbergasted and want to visit. I think someone with a middle school or higher reading level could have fun with this, especially if it's a digital copy where you can look up the definitions of words that you don't know. I really think a lot of people, especially those that like romance novels, tragedies, and somewhat gothic literature will have fun with it. I took me three days of easy reading to get through it, then again, I was distracted by all the stuff on my kindle. I can't give this book anything but an amazing review, it was an amazing novel.

Draula: Not What I Expected

I finally decided to read Dracula, although I had downloaded it on to my Kindle more than a year ago. I'm not sure what I was expecting, maybe something like the movies I had seen, or possibly a crazy look into the vampire that seems to be the basis for all other vampiric works in modern history.

The first thing that was different than I expected, is that the book is written entirely in diary entries of the main characters, and other written works. For the first part, the diary of Jonathan Harker, it's a lovely diary, but I do have to admit, when I was at the halfway point of the book, many of the other characters annoyed the hell out of me.

As a cynical, hard New Yorker, I found it hard to believe that many of the characters could be that sweet, or wordy. I wanted to slap the female protagonists when they spoke at how "undeserving" women are of the love of men, or how they were incredibly "obedient" to their menfolk. As I continued to read, and did a bit of research into British people, I realized that the character's were intentionally written as sweet, and that British people really are that wordy and formal, And then I realized that the characters were being genuine, and all the niceness was intentional.

It seemed like religion, specifically Christianity, plays a huge part in this book. Faith is the driving point for most of the characters when they're at their lowest. I wonder how this book would have been were it written by a person of another faith, or an atheist.

I think the biggest misconception that people have when coming across this book is that they expect vampires to be handsome. Dracula is not traditionally handsome, in fact, he's only described as cruel and sensual, with, isn't necessarily a compliment considering how Stoker feels about sensuality. Vampires, vampire women, are seen as incredibly sensual, oozing it to the point where one of the main characters knew it was no longer the love of his life, just a hot demon in her place. Also, vampires aren't sexier after drinking. Jonathan Harker describes Dracula:

"Even the deep burning eyes seemed set amongst swollen flesh, for the lids and pouches underneath were bloated. It seemed as if the whole awful creature were simply gorged with blood. He lay like a filthy leech, exhausted with his repletion."

That certainly stands in stark contrast to hotties like Lestat and Louis in Anne Rice novels, and as the antithesis of Stephanie Meyer's sparkling marble people. I don't know how many people understand, there isn't supposed to be anything sexy and beautiful about vampires, according to this book. They're disgusting, unholy creatures from the deepest pits of Hell. For your loved one to become a vampire is a curse of the highest order; they may never dwell with God, and will forever walk in darkness.

Another thing, people seem to think that Dracula is seen as the original vampire of all vampires. The book does not support that claim. They call him "the king of vampires", but I think that's more because of his royal standing, and his position in Europe. Dr. Van Helsing (whose an old man, not Hugh Jackman) mentions that there are types of vampires in the lore of all people, not just in Europe, although this book is Eurocentric. Dracula is not given credit as the originator of all vampires, something that people give him too much credit for.

Every cinematic interpretation of the book has taken liberties with it, making Dracula into something more desirable, and building upon him a legend more fantastic than the count gives himself. It is interesting that Dracula's three females speak of him not having loved, but there is a sadness in the Count when he speaks of love, something one of the movie versions, the one with Keanu Reeves is in, where Mina is seen as a reincarnation of his beloved one. That's totally not true, the Count only wished to take from him everything that they had.

All in all, this book is a bit of a hard read. If you're anything like me, you'll want to quit when you're halfway through, when things are just building, but I assure you, if you trek to the end, it's worth it. It's a good book, but I don't think I'll read it again any time soon.

Also, I have a book list that I'm working on. Not something particularly long, but some things that have been recommended to me that I'm going to work through this month. Up next, is "Behold a Pale Horse", which I'm starting right now. I've read interesting things about it, and I'm not sure what I'm getting myself into.

The Hunchback of Notre Dame or Disney's Biggest Classic to Movie Failure

I have finally finished reading The Hunchback of Notre Dame!

WARNING: No one makes it to the end of the book happy, except one character.

Yes, it is officially done, and it was an amazing experience, in a good and bad way.

The first copy of Hunchback that I had was a PDF, and that was the worst thing I could possibly do to help with reading it. This book not only has difficult regular vocabulary, but it also has many phrases in Latin, and in (what I'm guessing is) archaic French. Then I finally stopped being a cheap ass and bought a copy for my kindle.

The first thing that I must say is that this book is not a book that you should go into lightly, unless you're like a super genius or something, and you're well-versed in ancient writing. If you are, you're probably not even reading a review from a plebian such as myself.

Now, the book should not have had the title The Hunchback of Notre Dame, because the book isn't about Quasimodo, although he is one of the main characters. That would be like me calling a book The Black Girl of Greenwich Village, when the book is about the entire neighborhood.

If I really had to choose a main character of the book, I would choose the cathedral itself. I don't know how many pages are spent describing it, and describing all the historical people that helped create it. There are times, when you get these really magnificent images that are built upon for pages and pages. That's nice, but then you forget that there is something else going on that you lost track a while ago. Besides the crazy historical things that he goes in to. Only a fraction of the people he mentioned actually had an entry in my Kindle's dictionary.

Victor Hugo is an amazing author, and he has a real talent of weaving together ten different character's stories, and ending them seamlessly. There were a few characters that I was like "dafuq do I care about this dude?", and later on, I was like "ooooooh, wooooow". I have to admit, you probably will have a problem in the first few books keeping the names and character's straight, except Claude Frollo and Quasimodo, and of course Esmerelda. After a while, you begin to associate the name with the actions, and you really get the drift of them, not to mention, the characters have distinct speaking styles, at least, a lot of them do.

This book is not for children, even if the language was simplified. People talk about his Quasimodo being a demon that should be burnt or drowned. Not only that, there's also some Antisemitism.

A lot of people of my generation might come to the table with their prescribed idea of the characters from what Disney told up in their movie. Some might come to it after watching Lon Chaney Sr.'s brilliant (and I do mean brilliant) performance, or a host of other cinematic depictions of the book.

Rather than starting on my basic breakdown of characters (the ones that are in both the book and the movie, because a lot were omitted), considering how people are familiar with the "gist" or what they think if the gist.

Quasimodo:

In the Disney movie, he's a kind of squat, red-headed dude with a hunched back, wart-hooded eye, kind of piggy nose, uneven (but adorable) front toothed misshapen loner. He sings, he dances, he talks to gargoyles and generally has a sweet demeanor.Disney was able to take a character that didn't have many lines in the novel, was deaf and half blind, and make him something cuddily. 

The real Quasimodo was hunchbacked, bandy legged,with teeth that stuck out like tusks, a ridiculous amount of strength, and an inner pain that made him cruel to most people, since they were cruel to him. Hugo says "One would have pronounced him a giant who had been broken and badly put together again."  There was no singing on his part, except an incredibly sad song he sung near the last part of the book. He didn't have gargoyles talking back to them, but he did have a connection with the cathedral and one gargoyle that he felt kindred to. He did talk to the bells however, and he had their names, and referred to them as his loves. Quasimodo didn't do much wrong in his life, and unlike the movie, he is incredibly stoic, to the point where being shot with an arrow doesn't even make him blink. He's honestly the character that I have the most pity for in the entire book, because his whole world crumbles around him. He's honestly the most pitiful character I've read, in a dead heat with Victor Frankenstein's Creation. If there was anything that I can say he had, was unwavering faithfulness, which made him so much more tragic.

Dom Frollo:

He seems made to be evil. Tall, long and gaunt, with bags under his eyes as if he's one thousand years old. He is an asshole of the highest category, from the way that he talks to Quasimodo and puts him down, to the general fuckery and judgmental manners.

In the book he was the only person that wanted to take Quasimodo in, and he NEVER mentioned to Quasi how disfigured. Frollo also had a younger brother that he loved and cared for (I can't remember if he was in the Disney one), and he was only 30 years old. Granted he was prematurely aged, and he was bald atop, and his hair was gray, but that was because he was so studious, and passionate about everything that he studied. If someone says that I have a thirst for knowledge, Frollo had an entirely unquenchable thirst, something that made him pretty crazy. If there's anything I can say about Frollo, he drove himself crazy.

Phoebus:

In the movie, he is a typical Disney hot dude that saves the day type. He is caring and "falls in love" with Esmerelda. He is injured and all, and they live happily ever after. -_-

I wish they had kept him true to character, because I think the Phoebus in the book is so much more realistic as to how those hot dudes are. To put it shortly, is an asshole playah. He has no real feeling for Esmerelda, he can't even say her name right, and he only wants the pussy. He is the unequivocal love interest, but he doesn't deserve to be the love interest. I can't think of an asshole that I dislike more than this fuckwad, as far as characters. Hell, "The Grandmother" from Flowers in the Attic is a more decent character than this scumwad.

Esmerelda:

Beautiful, dark-skinned, with eyes that glimmered like the emerald she is "named" after. She is intelligent, caring, sees past Quasimodo's outside, and falls in love with a handsome man and lives happily ever after. And she has Djali, her beautiful little goat.

A sixteen-year old, tanned (not nearly as dark as the character in the movie), ridiculously beautiful, dark eyed, naive girl. She does have a moment when she has sympathy and shows kindness to Quasimodo, something he never forgets. But more than anything... she is a stupid character. She is one of the most ridiculously stupid little girls (for she is more girl than woman) in my literature history. I was sick of her after half the book, because she was just so stupid and naive. I'd have imagined, living with a band of thieves her entire life, she'd have learned more than how to work a dagger, and teach her little goat. She becomes absolutely smitten with Phoebus, and that's all she cares about. Quite literally. She never takes the time to find the inner beauty of Quasimodo, although she understands that he's kind, and always brings her  vittles, and she knows he is utterly devoted. She never gets comfortable enough to look at him for long, and doesn't seem to understand anything other than what her heart becomes fixated on.

The Outcasts:

In the movie, they are Travelers that are outcasts because they aren't like the others. These are people God probably should help.

The Outcasts are a group of thieves, con artists, prostitutes, and vagabonds of all natures. They're not people that are outcast because society is full of douche bags, these are people outcast mostly by their own choice, because they don't want to live under the constraints of French society. These are not people God will help, because they (for the most part) don't want to be helped. They enjoy their place on the fringe of society.

If I am to end this review of the novel with anything, it would be that people should give it a chance. If you get really confused, take some time away from it, or skip over the extra wordy sections, because Hugo does have ways of letting you know important things are about to start back up. This is an amazing book, and a classic for a reason. I will say that if you're a sap, this will be a hard read. I was PMSing when I was finishing th estory, and I was crying almost constantly the last six or seven pages.

Were I to be a teacher, I would definitely want to teach this book to my students, whilst first watching the movie. It's wordy, and hard and difficult, but I think I could teach people to fall in love with it. I mean, c'mon, it has attempted rape, murder, attempted murder, sexual assualt, and lots of death and gore. If I jazz up those parts, I'll get even the most non literature liking person to enjoy it, especially if I find some graphic pictures to go with the teaching.

My Bondage and My Freedom: A Review

The first book I decided to read for Black History Month, is My Bondage and My Freedom, Frederick Douglass' account of his life as a slave, and how he achieved freedom.

From the first page, I can see how powerfully he used his words. This is the first full length narrative of someone who was enslaved that I've read, and it's definitely the most detailed. The picture he paints is a life of sadness, heartache, and dehumanization of both slave and master.

He was an incredibly intelligent child, one that felt the full burden of his life as a slave, and what it means. When I watch things like Roots, I see how historically inaccurate they are, compared to what Douglass reports. Even Django is inaccurate in ways, although it has a bit more of a ring of truth (as far as the treatment of the slaves).

Douglass' has a very unique writing style. When I'm reading, I feel as if he's literally narrating the story to me. He doesn't use plush language often, and he doesn't go into horrific detail about the horrific moments. During the most brutal period of his slavery, he only elaborates on one beating, and tells the reader (he really talks to us and calls us "reader") that the only proceeding were just as horrible as the first. He also elaborates on particular slaves, their lot, personality, and how they were to him. There were some slaves, belonging to other people, that were treated horrifically.

There are a lot of differences between the treatment of house slaves and field slaves; just as there are differences between city slaves and slaves on large plantations. Douglass experienced all parts, including some kindness, which makes him the perfect teller of this tale.

To me, the most scandalous theme of the story, the part that I know was definitely scandalous during the time it was published, is that he uses the real names of people. Considering this is the time of "tell-all" books, this is like the original. And he definitely isn't Super Head. I wonder if there are people that read this book, who are related to the people that are being put on blast. I've never read something where so many details and government names are being used, and the true character of people are put on display.

Because this is a review, I'm not going to get into specific parts, and how they affected me, or anything like that; that's more appropriate for an essay. I don't want to spoil it for potential readers, but I will say one thing that I found incredibly interesting. Out of all the slaves on his original owners plantation, hell, in the whole county, his mother was the only one that could read. She was a field hand; many people seem to want to credit his intelligence to the bit of European in his blood, but he gives the credit to her. By some miracle, she was granted knowledge, something that Douglass stresses is the key to freedom. If only such a mindset still existed amongst our people.

As for the copy of the book (downloaded free on my Kindle), it's very good. There is this weird habit Douglass has of outlining a chapter at the beginning, in bold. I almost feel as if he's writing it while I'm reading, making sure that all the points are gone over. There are some links, and footnotes that are one click, and the e-book copy is good for most of the difficult language.

This book is definitely for someone with a high school reading level or above, because the words have become somewhat archaic, and he uses words that I had to look up. Some words I looked up, but I didn't find definitions for, just like what happened when I read the slave narratives. All in all, I think every American should read this book; hell, everyone in the world should read this book, it's amazing.