The Erik vs. Raoul debate
Dec. 11th, 2018 08:21 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
betweensunandmoon posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
vicomte_de_chagnyBut you wouldn't expect [the 2004 movie] to be the film that was responsible for so many teenage girls declaring that they hated Raoul and couldn't stand the thought of R/C, given the amount of extra heroism they went around adding in to Raoul's character... presumably it's the attractions of the youthed-up Phantom as played by Gerard Butler that are to blame :-p
~igenlode in a comment on my journal
This is, no doubt, a correct assumption where many Phantom fangirls are concerned, but I believe there's a bit more to it than that. Though it pained me to do so, I sat down and listed every reason I could think of for the average adolescent female who had only seen the 2004 movie and was unfamiliar with any of the other versions to adore Erik and despise Raoul. I intend to explain those reasons in this post.
Disclaimer: I realize that Raoul-hatred is as old as The Phantom of the Opera itself. I acknowledge that there are legitimate reasons to dislike Raoul, as there are for any fictional character. I chose to focus on the 2004 movie because of the Gerik fangirls and subsequent Raoul-bashing it left in its wake. I am not a psychologist, so anything I say here has a significant chance of being complete bullshit. I do not mean to imply that every movie fan only liked it for superficial reasons. I condemn no one for lusting after Gerard Butler.
Anything else I need to disclaim? No? Good. Let us begin. This will take a while.
Part I: Manliness vs. (perceived) effeminacy
The first thing that anyone notices about a movie character, before they say or do anything, is how they look. And there's no way around it: Erik, as played by the imposing, muscular, and rugged Gerard Butler, fits the definition of a "manly man" far better than Patrick Wilson's more feminine-looking Raoul does. (The long hair doesn't help matters, either.)
It is a tradition as ancient as life itself for the females of any given species to choose the healthiest, strongest, and most capable mates; survival of the fittest, and all that. A man who looks like a woman, regardless of his character, is subconsciously perceived as weak. He won't be able to protect her. He won't fulfill her sexual needs. He won't give her healthy offspring. This is obviously not true of every woman, but from an instinctual standpoint, manly men win out over pretty boys every time.
There's also the matter of how they dress. Erik is costumed in a way clearly meant to cater to female fantasies, particularly during the "Masquerade" sequence, while Raoul is not. The only notable instance of Raoul being sexualized is the Final Lair scene, where he's wearing a soaked-through white shirt and tied to a portcullis. Raoul may look great in a long leather coat, but he's not the source of fanservice that Erik is.
But appearances are only skin deep, and it's how Erik and Raoul behave, particularly toward Christine, that cements audience perception of them as "manly" and "effeminate" respectively. When a man wants something, he is expected to take it. Erik and Raoul both want Christine, but Erik tries to force Christine to love him, whereas Raoul is willing to let her decide for herself which man her heart belongs to. Raoul's strategy is without question the nobler one, but it renders him less of a man in society's eyes.
I don't believe that there is any one true definition of "manly" because manliness constitutes various qualities. For some, it's strength, leadership and aggression. For others, it's empathy, humour and creativity. Generally speaking, however, masculinity is often linked to the ideological concept of dominance. This has created alarming social issues that continue to permeate contemporary culture, mostly those having to do with discriminatory gender hierarchies. Because masculinity has been so uniquely defined, both men and women are expected to take on specific roles thought to be fundamentally "natural" to their respective sexes. In the case of men, they are expected to be unapologetically non-sentimental (yet still romantic if only for the sake of the woman), logical, methodical, strong, domineering (in a positive sense), aggressive (in a protective manner) and capable.
~provocateur_og, "Mr. Leroux and General Definitions of Manliness" (lerouxists.livejournal.com/9046.html) (contrasting Leroux!Erik with Kay!Erik, but I believe her words apply here as well)
Raoul does not dominate Christine, nor does he try to. Erik attempts to control Christine emotionally and mentally. He tricks her into believing that he is a spirit of divine guidance sent to her by her dead father, flat-out tells her that she belongs to him, and threatens to murder her lover if she doesn't consent to spend the rest of her life in his underground lair. Erik embodies masculinity in the extreme, the kind that does no one any favors, but is still held up as the ideal. It is an ideal that Raoul, despite his heroism, falls very short of.
(This might explain a lot about the use of the f-word. What is the fandom's insult of choice for Raoul? Fop. What is a fop? A man who is overly concerned with his own appearance, like a stereotypical woman. So there you go.)
Part II: Bad boy vs. knight in shining armor
Erik and Raoul personify two opposing tropes. Raoul is a knight in shining armor. TV Tropes even lists him as such on its character page (tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Characters/ThePhantomOfTheOpera). He appeals to a woman who longs for a man to sweep her off her feet, declare his devotion to her, and shield her from all harm, even at the cost of his life. He represents romance, safety, and selfless love.
Erik, on the other hand, is a bad boy. And the knight in shining armor doesn't stand a chance next to the bad boy.
There is no greater temptation for a woman than a broken man. He might be emotionally troubled, do as he pleases with little regard for conventional morality, or both. He appeals to a woman who wants to heal the pain in his heart or to ignore all those pesky rules and act without fear of judgement or punishment. Either way, she wants him to need her and her alone, and he does. He represents passion, danger, and jealousy.
For a knight in shining armor, the love of a good woman is a very nice thing to have, but it's not necessary. If he needs saving, it is always from some external danger, never from himself. A bad boy desperately needs someone to love him, care for him, and protect him from his own inner demons. And doesn't everyone, deep down, want to feel needed?
The girl doesn't just want the bad boy to need her, though. She wants to be the only one who's ever touched his heart, the one who fixed all his emotional damage, the one who understands him like no one else can. The special one. It's an ego-trip, plain and simple.
But although it is entirely possible for the bad boy's allure to be strictly emotional or intellectual, there is frequently a physical component to consider as well, especially where young women experiencing their first glimmers of sexuality are concerned.
A knight's love for his lady is chaste. He won't take her to bed without putting a ring on her finger first. A bad boy will make his desire known, which the girl, if she finds him sexually attractive, will be eager to reciprocate. It's all guilt-free on her part, too. If he seduces her and takes her virginity, she won't have to admit that she lusts after him. Female sexuality has historically been condemned as unladylike and immoral, a misogynistic view that is sadly still widespread today.
There's also something to be said regarding both tropes on the specific fantasies of domination and submission. The knight in shining armor could be seen as submitting to his true love ("I'd do anything for you"), and the bad boy could be seen as dominating the object of his fixation ("you will do as I say"). Raoul surrenders his power to Christine when he begs her to let him die rather than relinquish her future. Erik seeks to wield absolute power over Christine, even if it means taking away all her chances of happiness.
Regardless of whether the movie-watching teenage girl actually wishes to play out either of these fantasies in real life, Erik probably entices her more than Raoul does.
Part III: Outsider vs. noble
Raoul has things Erik never will: a normal face, the respect of others, and a place in society. He could have any girl he wanted, but he just happens to love the one Erik is obsessed with. In the eyes of the fandom, Christine is the key to Erik's happiness, and Raoul is an obstacle to that happiness. Raoul takes Christine away and prevents their beloved Phantom from ever finding the love he has been denied his whole life. bardintraining also suggested there may be a bit of class bias involved, because one of Andrew Lloyd Webber's reasons for making the movie was hearing people tell him they couldn't afford tickets to the musical (phanwank.livejournal.com/693688.html).
When the fangirls look at Erik, they do not see a pitiable but dangerous man. They see a tortured and misunderstood outcast, someone who needs Christine far more than Raoul does. Someone they can project themselves onto, as teenagers are wont to do.
I'm not sure how you get devoted to a character to the degree that you ignore most of his original conception (smells of rotten flesh; laughs insanely; blackmails people for outrageously large sums of money; designs and installs torture chambers for fun; intends to blow up a full theatre during a performance; randomly pretends to be a ghost) and impose on him your own self-identification of the helpless unloved outsider... or at least, that's my best guess at the psychology behind it. I feel that people think of *themselves* as the poor Phantom whom everybody hates unreasonably, and whose cause they can passionately espouse, and transfer that into wanting to force Christine to love him as a reward for his sufferings.
~igenlode, "Collected thoughts on Erik and fanfiction" (igenlode.dreamwidth.org/129888.html)
Loneliness and self-pity are unfortunate side effects of adolescence. Anyone who says otherwise either doesn't remember their teenage years or is lying. There aren't many fictional characters who are more isolated or have more reasons to feel sorry for themselves than the Phantom of the Opera. He's someone the fangirls probably find easier to relate to than Raoul.
Raoul, as far as the movie shows, is content with himself and his place in the world. The only thing he really wants is Christine's love, which he doesn't deserve as far as the fandom is concerned. After all, Erik taught Christine to sing and got her an awesome opera career! What's Raoul ever done for Christine? Be her childhood friend? Not good enough! Who does Raoul think he is, anyway, swanning back into Christine's life after not seeing her for years and stealing her right out from under her Angel of Music's nose? Doesn't he know that Christine owes Erik her heart in return for his generosity?
(...And I promised myself I wouldn't be sarcastic. Sorry.)
The odds are not in Raoul's favor. Unlike Erik, he is not a tragic character with a past full of rejection and mistreatment. Unlike Erik, he ends up with Christine. Unlike Erik, he is a normal person.
And that, in the eyes of the fandom, is unforgivable.
Concluding thoughts
I hate myself for writing all that. I really do. I pretty much spent the whole post describing why Erik is superior to Raoul (which, as you know, I don't believe). It breaks my heart to admit it, but as long as Raoul gets the girl, 95% of this fandom will hate him no matter how he looks or acts. His only crime is loving Christine, a crime the Erik fangirls will never stop punishing him for.
It takes a lot of strength to like an unpopular character, since you know you'll get disagreed with at nearly every turn. More than once, Raoul-bashing has nearly driven me to quit the fandom altogether. But I still love my Vicomte, and I'll defend him no matter what. I know you all will, too. Thanks for reading.
~igenlode in a comment on my journal
This is, no doubt, a correct assumption where many Phantom fangirls are concerned, but I believe there's a bit more to it than that. Though it pained me to do so, I sat down and listed every reason I could think of for the average adolescent female who had only seen the 2004 movie and was unfamiliar with any of the other versions to adore Erik and despise Raoul. I intend to explain those reasons in this post.
Disclaimer: I realize that Raoul-hatred is as old as The Phantom of the Opera itself. I acknowledge that there are legitimate reasons to dislike Raoul, as there are for any fictional character. I chose to focus on the 2004 movie because of the Gerik fangirls and subsequent Raoul-bashing it left in its wake. I am not a psychologist, so anything I say here has a significant chance of being complete bullshit. I do not mean to imply that every movie fan only liked it for superficial reasons. I condemn no one for lusting after Gerard Butler.
Anything else I need to disclaim? No? Good. Let us begin. This will take a while.
Part I: Manliness vs. (perceived) effeminacy
The first thing that anyone notices about a movie character, before they say or do anything, is how they look. And there's no way around it: Erik, as played by the imposing, muscular, and rugged Gerard Butler, fits the definition of a "manly man" far better than Patrick Wilson's more feminine-looking Raoul does. (The long hair doesn't help matters, either.)
It is a tradition as ancient as life itself for the females of any given species to choose the healthiest, strongest, and most capable mates; survival of the fittest, and all that. A man who looks like a woman, regardless of his character, is subconsciously perceived as weak. He won't be able to protect her. He won't fulfill her sexual needs. He won't give her healthy offspring. This is obviously not true of every woman, but from an instinctual standpoint, manly men win out over pretty boys every time.
There's also the matter of how they dress. Erik is costumed in a way clearly meant to cater to female fantasies, particularly during the "Masquerade" sequence, while Raoul is not. The only notable instance of Raoul being sexualized is the Final Lair scene, where he's wearing a soaked-through white shirt and tied to a portcullis. Raoul may look great in a long leather coat, but he's not the source of fanservice that Erik is.
But appearances are only skin deep, and it's how Erik and Raoul behave, particularly toward Christine, that cements audience perception of them as "manly" and "effeminate" respectively. When a man wants something, he is expected to take it. Erik and Raoul both want Christine, but Erik tries to force Christine to love him, whereas Raoul is willing to let her decide for herself which man her heart belongs to. Raoul's strategy is without question the nobler one, but it renders him less of a man in society's eyes.
I don't believe that there is any one true definition of "manly" because manliness constitutes various qualities. For some, it's strength, leadership and aggression. For others, it's empathy, humour and creativity. Generally speaking, however, masculinity is often linked to the ideological concept of dominance. This has created alarming social issues that continue to permeate contemporary culture, mostly those having to do with discriminatory gender hierarchies. Because masculinity has been so uniquely defined, both men and women are expected to take on specific roles thought to be fundamentally "natural" to their respective sexes. In the case of men, they are expected to be unapologetically non-sentimental (yet still romantic if only for the sake of the woman), logical, methodical, strong, domineering (in a positive sense), aggressive (in a protective manner) and capable.
~provocateur_og, "Mr. Leroux and General Definitions of Manliness" (lerouxists.livejournal.com/9046.html) (contrasting Leroux!Erik with Kay!Erik, but I believe her words apply here as well)
Raoul does not dominate Christine, nor does he try to. Erik attempts to control Christine emotionally and mentally. He tricks her into believing that he is a spirit of divine guidance sent to her by her dead father, flat-out tells her that she belongs to him, and threatens to murder her lover if she doesn't consent to spend the rest of her life in his underground lair. Erik embodies masculinity in the extreme, the kind that does no one any favors, but is still held up as the ideal. It is an ideal that Raoul, despite his heroism, falls very short of.
(This might explain a lot about the use of the f-word. What is the fandom's insult of choice for Raoul? Fop. What is a fop? A man who is overly concerned with his own appearance, like a stereotypical woman. So there you go.)
Part II: Bad boy vs. knight in shining armor
Erik and Raoul personify two opposing tropes. Raoul is a knight in shining armor. TV Tropes even lists him as such on its character page (tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Characters/ThePhantomOfTheOpera). He appeals to a woman who longs for a man to sweep her off her feet, declare his devotion to her, and shield her from all harm, even at the cost of his life. He represents romance, safety, and selfless love.
Erik, on the other hand, is a bad boy. And the knight in shining armor doesn't stand a chance next to the bad boy.
There is no greater temptation for a woman than a broken man. He might be emotionally troubled, do as he pleases with little regard for conventional morality, or both. He appeals to a woman who wants to heal the pain in his heart or to ignore all those pesky rules and act without fear of judgement or punishment. Either way, she wants him to need her and her alone, and he does. He represents passion, danger, and jealousy.
For a knight in shining armor, the love of a good woman is a very nice thing to have, but it's not necessary. If he needs saving, it is always from some external danger, never from himself. A bad boy desperately needs someone to love him, care for him, and protect him from his own inner demons. And doesn't everyone, deep down, want to feel needed?
The girl doesn't just want the bad boy to need her, though. She wants to be the only one who's ever touched his heart, the one who fixed all his emotional damage, the one who understands him like no one else can. The special one. It's an ego-trip, plain and simple.
But although it is entirely possible for the bad boy's allure to be strictly emotional or intellectual, there is frequently a physical component to consider as well, especially where young women experiencing their first glimmers of sexuality are concerned.
A knight's love for his lady is chaste. He won't take her to bed without putting a ring on her finger first. A bad boy will make his desire known, which the girl, if she finds him sexually attractive, will be eager to reciprocate. It's all guilt-free on her part, too. If he seduces her and takes her virginity, she won't have to admit that she lusts after him. Female sexuality has historically been condemned as unladylike and immoral, a misogynistic view that is sadly still widespread today.
There's also something to be said regarding both tropes on the specific fantasies of domination and submission. The knight in shining armor could be seen as submitting to his true love ("I'd do anything for you"), and the bad boy could be seen as dominating the object of his fixation ("you will do as I say"). Raoul surrenders his power to Christine when he begs her to let him die rather than relinquish her future. Erik seeks to wield absolute power over Christine, even if it means taking away all her chances of happiness.
Regardless of whether the movie-watching teenage girl actually wishes to play out either of these fantasies in real life, Erik probably entices her more than Raoul does.
Part III: Outsider vs. noble
Raoul has things Erik never will: a normal face, the respect of others, and a place in society. He could have any girl he wanted, but he just happens to love the one Erik is obsessed with. In the eyes of the fandom, Christine is the key to Erik's happiness, and Raoul is an obstacle to that happiness. Raoul takes Christine away and prevents their beloved Phantom from ever finding the love he has been denied his whole life. bardintraining also suggested there may be a bit of class bias involved, because one of Andrew Lloyd Webber's reasons for making the movie was hearing people tell him they couldn't afford tickets to the musical (phanwank.livejournal.com/693688.html).
When the fangirls look at Erik, they do not see a pitiable but dangerous man. They see a tortured and misunderstood outcast, someone who needs Christine far more than Raoul does. Someone they can project themselves onto, as teenagers are wont to do.
I'm not sure how you get devoted to a character to the degree that you ignore most of his original conception (smells of rotten flesh; laughs insanely; blackmails people for outrageously large sums of money; designs and installs torture chambers for fun; intends to blow up a full theatre during a performance; randomly pretends to be a ghost) and impose on him your own self-identification of the helpless unloved outsider... or at least, that's my best guess at the psychology behind it. I feel that people think of *themselves* as the poor Phantom whom everybody hates unreasonably, and whose cause they can passionately espouse, and transfer that into wanting to force Christine to love him as a reward for his sufferings.
~igenlode, "Collected thoughts on Erik and fanfiction" (igenlode.dreamwidth.org/129888.html)
Loneliness and self-pity are unfortunate side effects of adolescence. Anyone who says otherwise either doesn't remember their teenage years or is lying. There aren't many fictional characters who are more isolated or have more reasons to feel sorry for themselves than the Phantom of the Opera. He's someone the fangirls probably find easier to relate to than Raoul.
Raoul, as far as the movie shows, is content with himself and his place in the world. The only thing he really wants is Christine's love, which he doesn't deserve as far as the fandom is concerned. After all, Erik taught Christine to sing and got her an awesome opera career! What's Raoul ever done for Christine? Be her childhood friend? Not good enough! Who does Raoul think he is, anyway, swanning back into Christine's life after not seeing her for years and stealing her right out from under her Angel of Music's nose? Doesn't he know that Christine owes Erik her heart in return for his generosity?
(...And I promised myself I wouldn't be sarcastic. Sorry.)
The odds are not in Raoul's favor. Unlike Erik, he is not a tragic character with a past full of rejection and mistreatment. Unlike Erik, he ends up with Christine. Unlike Erik, he is a normal person.
And that, in the eyes of the fandom, is unforgivable.
Concluding thoughts
I hate myself for writing all that. I really do. I pretty much spent the whole post describing why Erik is superior to Raoul (which, as you know, I don't believe). It breaks my heart to admit it, but as long as Raoul gets the girl, 95% of this fandom will hate him no matter how he looks or acts. His only crime is loving Christine, a crime the Erik fangirls will never stop punishing him for.
It takes a lot of strength to like an unpopular character, since you know you'll get disagreed with at nearly every turn. More than once, Raoul-bashing has nearly driven me to quit the fandom altogether. But I still love my Vicomte, and I'll defend him no matter what. I know you all will, too. Thanks for reading.
(no subject)
Date: 2018-12-18 10:45 pm (UTC)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...)
(no subject)
Date: 2018-12-19 12:16 am (UTC)Sometimes phanwank really did make me laugh out loud :-p
(And let's face it, that's a lot more honest than the standard line of "Erik killed Piangi, therefore Piangi must have been an evil rapist!")
(no subject)
Date: 2018-12-20 05:52 pm (UTC)I'm amused by the idea that being tied to a portcullis makes a man more attractive ;-)
What can I say? I like it when guys get tied up.
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?)
Pretty much. :P
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...)
That sounds kinky. I approve!Unfortunately, after everything I've heard about Kay!Erik, all I can think of when I try to picture him is a cross between a romance novel hero and James Cagney's character in White Heat. No thanks.
*giggles* "Masterful virgin" will never get old!
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!'
Why, thank you!
Ironically, I personally find knights in shining armor much sexier than bad boys...(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!)
Well, there's certainly no shame in that. I've felt similar things myself.
The fangirls presumably don't identify with LND!Raoul because he brought his problems on himself, whereas Erik couldn't help being born deformed. Why do you think you don't identify with the Phantom?
(no subject)
Date: 2018-12-20 05:53 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2018-12-26 05:51 am (UTC)The fangirls presumably don't identify with LND!Raoul because he brought his problems on himself, whereas Erik couldn't help being born deformed. Why do you think you don't identify with the Phantom?
I've presumably pointed you at my original LND musings already: https://igenlode.dreamwidth.org/24649.html
(Mind you, that didn't stop me writing fanfic in which Handsome Williams ends up on the run with Nora instead of mistakenly sacrificing himself... but then she *does* love him. She just thinks he looks like someone else -- poor Dan who loves her himself but who has never exchanged two words with her -- and once she has worked out which features belong to which voice I doubt she's likely to be swayed by appearance. Being blind anyway!)
I'm really not sure why I don't identify with the Phantom, though; it would be very difficult for me now because I've been exposed to so much pro-Phantom-at-all-costs fan-fiction which has understandably jaundiced me on the character, but I never did, even before I had any especial interest in Raoul other than as a plot mechanic (which, in the context of the musical, he basically is :-p)
I think part of my problem is that he isn't really a character; we never get to see his inner life separate from Christine, and the closest we get to seeing his inner life at all is in his ravings after she takes his mask. We don't get to see his life going well, going badly or doing anything at all other than where it intersects with Christine -- he is a force that acts on her. If we only ever saw Tracy Belmanoir in the moments when he was actually interacting duplicitously with the heroine, I don't think he would be a very well-rounded character; it's because we see him off-guard and cynical in a state of half-war, half-affection with his friends and family (relationships of which she knows nothing at all) that he becomes an entertaining and not entirely unsympathetic anti-hero rather than just the arbitrary villain of the piece.
(The fact that he is clearly head and shoulders the most intelligent character in the book doesn't hurt, either :-p)
I think another part of my problem empathizing with the Phantom is that he is bonkers. I mean seriously peals-of-insane-laughter bonkers, and he shows no guilt or even comprehension that what he is doing is wrong. It's not wilful defiance of society but just a giant dose of self-pity, which isn't an attractive trait; LND-Raoul is ridden by guilt over his own conduct, not by 'oh, my wife is so unfair to me and doesn't appreciate all that I do for her...
(no subject)
Date: 2018-12-26 05:59 am (UTC)