"This young man simply cannot get a break" sums up Leroux-Raoul pretty well :-)
And if the author *tells* us that his character is brave and intelligent but fails to give any indication of this in the actual story, then that's a flaw in the writing! I don't think Raoul comes across as outstandingly brave or brainy -- he is rash and impetuous, rather, jumping to conclusions and hurling himself into trouble -- but I don't think there's any doubt as to his physical courage, or to his intelligence, on those occasions when he bothers to think. It is his social awkwardness and inexperience that cause him to flinch and suffer agonies.
But from the author's perspective, as I've said elsewhere, Raoul is not actually supposed to be the 'hero' of the story; he is simply the viewpoint character via whose confused perceptions the audience are to be led up the garden path. His 'bad attributes' -- his impetuosity and jealousy -- exist in order to keep him apart from Christine and promote the mystery. Leroux was not writing a romance where Raoul is the perfect suitor (even if the musical version doesn't really have much more of an identity than that!), he was writing a mystery in which the love interest (like Bénédict's hopeless love for another Christine in Leroux's La Poupée Sanglante) exists as a plot mechanic.
Personally, I'd assume that the author's intent was for us to identify with Raoul, favour his suit, and be frustrated at Christine's refusal to divulge the truth... but then I don't think it had occurred to him for one moment that his readers would consider Erik the romantic lead of the book. "Erik still wins" in the sense that the readers are on his side.
no subject
And if the author *tells* us that his character is brave and intelligent but fails to give any indication of this in the actual story, then that's a flaw in the writing! I don't think Raoul comes across as outstandingly brave or brainy -- he is rash and impetuous, rather, jumping to conclusions and hurling himself into trouble -- but I don't think there's any doubt as to his physical courage, or to his intelligence, on those occasions when he bothers to think. It is his social awkwardness and inexperience that cause him to flinch and suffer agonies.
But from the author's perspective, as I've said elsewhere, Raoul is not actually supposed to be the 'hero' of the story; he is simply the viewpoint character via whose confused perceptions the audience are to be led up the garden path. His 'bad attributes' -- his impetuosity and jealousy -- exist in order to keep him apart from Christine and promote the mystery. Leroux was not writing a romance where Raoul is the perfect suitor (even if the musical version doesn't really have much more of an identity than that!), he was writing a mystery in which the love interest (like Bénédict's hopeless love for another Christine in Leroux's La Poupée Sanglante) exists as a plot mechanic.
Personally, I'd assume that the author's intent was for us to identify with Raoul, favour his suit, and be frustrated at Christine's refusal to divulge the truth... but then I don't think it had occurred to him for one moment that his readers would consider Erik the romantic lead of the book. "Erik still wins" in the sense that the readers are on his side.