I'm amused by the idea that being tied to a portcullis makes a man more attractive ;-) (Although I'm instantly reminded of Ivor Novello, whose screen career consisted largely of suffering beautifully.)
Ouch, that article on Susan Kay's Erik is priceless (and all too tempting to quote, given that I haven't actually read Kay's novel).
Leroux!Erik cries. A lot. He cries because he is frustrated. He cries because he is angry. He cries because he is disappointed. He cries because he is moved. He dabs his eyes with a handkerchief while viewing long-distance phone commercials.
Rejecting an Erik who has evolved into a heroic badass with enormous testicles is punishable by great suffering.
(and doesn't that sum up a significant portion of fan-fiction right there?)
An interesting point is that Susan Kay's Erik is written by a woman to appeal to women (and the female-dominant relationship between Leroux's Raoul and Christine was written by a man, though not to depict some epitome of romance...)
I don't know entirely about "Raoul does not dominate Christine"; ALW-Raoul is definitely more assertive than Leroux-Raoul, in that his theme is "Christine must be protected" (by him, mostly). Leroux-Raoul would also like to protect Christine, of course, but his attempts tend to fail utterly or backfire. ALW-Raoul sees himself, I think, as the strong, sensible one who knows what to do, to whom Christine can run when she is in a panic (or being hypnotised by someone pretending to be her dead father, or having chandeliers dropped on her...) I think that's what the fans tend to read as 'domination', and it is of course the more typically masculine role than that of Leroux-Raoul, who is always desperately trying to keep up with events triggered by someone else (often Christine).
But yes, Erik is the Masterful Virgin One in the movie.
Nice analysis over the 'knight in shining armour' trope -- this is definitely in play, as witness all the comments of 'but Raoul doesn't need Christine the way that Erik does!' (And it does make me wonder if that's the appeal of LND-Raoul to me -- that he does need saving from himself. After all, I've analysed along the lines in the past of "Love Never Dies" flipping both men's roles... although it doesn't explain why the fangirls don't identify with LND-Raoul and I don't identify with the Phantom!)
If it's unforgiveable for Raoul to be normal, is it also unforgiveable for Christine and Meg to be normal, and Madame Giry, and indeed everyone else? (Presumably not an issue because they're not in direct competition with Erik...)
There appear to be a lot of adolescents who are gregarious, bubbly and self-confident -- dominant, even. This may be all a projected illusion covering abysses of misunderstanding and shyness, of course, but it's possible that the ones who spend their time online weeping over the wrongs of the Phantom are self-selecting :-p
His only crime is loving Christine, a crime the Erik fangirls will never stop punishing him for.
Pretty much. All the character assassination effectively operates in reverse -- I don't think they waste too much time wondering what the character is actually like in canon, they hate him on principle and then write him in a way that will justify the hate. (At least 90% of out-of-character Raouls are attempts to make the Phantom look like a better option in comparison... and given all his issues in canon, you have to make Raoul look pretty bad for that choice to be even reasonable. As witness "Love Never Dies", which still fails in that respect...)
no subject
I'm amused by the idea that being tied to a portcullis makes a man more attractive ;-)
(Although I'm instantly reminded of Ivor Novello, whose screen career consisted largely of suffering beautifully.)
Ouch, that article on Susan Kay's Erik is priceless (and all too tempting to quote, given that I haven't actually read Kay's novel).
(and doesn't that sum up a significant portion of fan-fiction right there?)
An interesting point is that Susan Kay's Erik is written by a woman to appeal to women (and the female-dominant relationship between Leroux's Raoul and Christine was written by a man, though not to depict some epitome of romance...)
I don't know entirely about "Raoul does not dominate Christine"; ALW-Raoul is definitely more assertive than Leroux-Raoul, in that his theme is "Christine must be protected" (by him, mostly). Leroux-Raoul would also like to protect Christine, of course, but his attempts tend to fail utterly or backfire. ALW-Raoul sees himself, I think, as the strong, sensible one who knows what to do, to whom Christine can run when she is in a panic (or being hypnotised by someone pretending to be her dead father, or having chandeliers dropped on her...) I think that's what the fans tend to read as 'domination', and it is of course the more typically masculine role than that of Leroux-Raoul, who is always desperately trying to keep up with events triggered by someone else (often Christine).
But yes, Erik is the Masterful
VirginOne in the movie.Nice analysis over the 'knight in shining armour' trope -- this is definitely in play, as witness all the comments of 'but Raoul doesn't need Christine the way that Erik does!'
(And it does make me wonder if that's the appeal of LND-Raoul to me -- that he does need saving from himself. After all, I've analysed along the lines in the past of "Love Never Dies" flipping both men's roles... although it doesn't explain why the fangirls don't identify with LND-Raoul and I don't identify with the Phantom!)
If it's unforgiveable for Raoul to be normal, is it also unforgiveable for Christine and Meg to be normal, and Madame Giry, and indeed everyone else? (Presumably not an issue because they're not in direct competition with Erik...)
There appear to be a lot of adolescents who are gregarious, bubbly and self-confident -- dominant, even. This may be all a projected illusion covering abysses of misunderstanding and shyness, of course, but it's possible that the ones who spend their time online weeping over the wrongs of the Phantom are self-selecting :-p
Pretty much. All the character assassination effectively operates in reverse -- I don't think they waste too much time wondering what the character is actually like in canon, they hate him on principle and then write him in a way that will justify the hate. (At least 90% of out-of-character Raouls are attempts to make the Phantom look like a better option in comparison... and given all his issues in canon, you have to make Raoul look pretty bad for that choice to be even reasonable. As witness "Love Never Dies", which still fails in that respect...)