Some critics see Erik as the unconscious, the Freudian superego. Do yuo believe this is what Leroux was truly writing about, or did he give his monster more depth?
NOTE: This is a question about the book by Gaston Leroux, not about the musical by Andrew Lloyd Webber.
2007-02-14 10:01:10 · 2 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Books & Authors
A lot of early critics gave Leroux a harsh time about this particular work of his. One thing that came up a lot was the character of Erik. Some saw him as a lonely misunderstood genius, some saw him as a bravado forceful composer, and some saw him as a source of pure evil. one thing they agreed on though, was that Erik started to lose his characterization once his mask was removed. It was said that "The Phantom ceased to be a phantom" because his character traits did not follow through. Would he really have let Christine leave with Raoul? Would he have not blown up the opera house? Etc. Regardless of these reviews, I think that Erik has more depth and personality than it is made out to be. I would say that he goes through a change of characterization rather than a lack of following through. I do not think that he was egoistic or evil, but more of a misconceived character that had a dent on his nature because of his lack of actual human contact. That is just my opinion, though.
2007-02-17 16:25:05 · answer #1 · answered by cdaae663 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
in my opinion Leroux was writing erik as a superego... or just simply he was just giving the imagery of the personallity more than the superfical look,,,
but how ever bad people looked at him i still would like erik
2007-02-15 00:09:26 · answer #2 · answered by ieja 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋