The Filthy Truth about Sex & Love ~ In Fiction

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

PHANTOM of the OPERA ~ Great Movie! BAD PLOT!

The Phantom's Hidden Plotline

I LOVED the Phantom of the Opera movie! Gerard Butler kicked fucking ass! He was a joy to watch and a total pleasure to listen to. I already have this soundtrack. The Phantom should sing like a Manly Man – not like some one with their balls in a vice. (I will NEVER listen to that whiny tenor’s music again.)

The movie was FANTASTIC! I shall endeavor to watch it as many times as I can scrape up the cash to do so.

But the Plot-line for the 'Phantom of the Opera' - the actual STORY -- IS WRONG!!!

Somebody Fucked Up
the Author’s Original Plot!

My 'theory' is that 'The Phantom of the Opera' that we have come to know, from the original magazine published edition, (it was published as a book a year later,) is Not the story Leroux actually intended.

My guess is that the very first publisher made the Leroux Change the Story - so as not to offend anyone during the time when 'The Phantom of the Opera' was first published in France, in 1910.

Why would a Publisher CHANGE a Manuscript?
This Changing of Manuscripts is a COMMON occurrence. Publishers REGULARLY change whole stories – ripping them apart to suit what they think their reading audience will buy. It still happens. Ask any published author.

The 'Phantom of the Opera' was first released, as installments in a magazine, only four years before the start of WWI when tempers were running very hot. Whether or not Leroux's publisher paid his bills depended on the public liking the story enough to BUY his magazines. Additionally, he could not afford to piss off anyone with any real power to shut his publishing house down -- such as the MILITARY.
Before I go any further...
Let me make this crystal clear -- I am not a critic, and this is Not a Critique of the movie, the play, the published book that the movie and the play comes from, or what Leroux's publisher released in those long ago magazine installments. I am referring to what I 'suspect' was in the original manuscript that Leroux submitted to the publisher.

I am a FICTION AUTHOR following clues in a PLOTLINE using the latest movie/play as a model because THAT is the story most people are familiar with -- those are examples that can be followed.
To any fiction author, it’s as plain and livid as an open wound; this Story was Changed before it ever saw print.
 

What gave me this idea?
Traces of the CORRECT PLOT are still there
-- even in the current movie.

 

Let us begin by unraveling:
The CHARACTERS

The basic audience assumption:
Christine and Raoul were young and stupid.
They deserved each other.

Christine may have been young and stupid
– but Raoul definitely WASN’T.

Raoul was neither stupid – nor Young. Raoul was a lord, and lords were highly educated. Raoul was also stated as being a Captain fresh from the field. The amount of field experience it takes to reach captain is measured in gruelling battle-hardened Years. You did not survive to BE a field Captain without brains - and ruthlessness.

The character of Raoul could not have been younger than his early to mid 30s.

According to the story’s clues, the PHANTOM is actually Younger than Raoul! 

Poor Sweet Not-So-Innocent Christine…

The story begins with Christine as an Opera DANCER who later becomes an Opera Diva.

There was a REASON Raoul was pursuing Christine - and it wasn't LOVE. During this time period Lords like Raoul, pursued Opera Dancers for their mistresses.

Lords keeping Opera Dancers as mistresses, was not only common - it was EXPECTED, (even in 1910.) This is how the Opera Dancers made a living. An Opera Dancer was kept in her own little apartment - paid for by the lord, and rewarded with jewels and cash. The lords were called Patrons.

Opera Dancers BECAME Opera Dancers to Make Money - not from the Opera, but by being good enough to catch a Lord that would pay for everything: housing, clothes, jewels... Opera Dancers were members of the Demimonde - ladies of the Evening.

In this day and age, Opera Dancers are referred to as Exotic Dancers -- strippers.

The Diva Issue

Divas were professionally trained Artistes and often titled though impoverished, nobility. Christine was NEVER presented as being nobility. She was the daughter of a Musician - a violinist.

The Diva had damned good reason to be pissed with Christine. An Opera Dancer - a common-born untrained stripper - taking her place?

 

The Phantom - NOT your Common Psycho.

PHANTOM was not your ordinary weird guy hiding in the sewers. No ifs, ands, or, buts, about it. There was absolutely, positively Nothing common-born about the Phantom. EVERYTHING about him screamed: NOBILITY! His character, his dress, his ability to WRITE - never mind compose music and design an entire opera house!

PHANTOM was clearly a lost - or hiding - nobleman.

As a lost noble, Phantom would have had a STAFF to maintain him and that fancy cave. Lords of the 1800's couldn't do diddly-squat for themselves, so someone had to cook for him, clean his place, shop for food, sew, and tailor that neat-o keen wardrobe of his...etc. There are traces of a fanatically loyal staff in the original book, but they are gone by the time you get to the big productions. 

The REAL VILLAIN of the Piece – Raoul

Raoul was Not Young - and definitely Not Stupid. Nor was he in love. Raoul's pursuit of Christine began with her first leading performance and was very deliberate.

THINK: A 30-year-old handsome and experienced Lord chasing after a 17-year-old celebrity? Where's the Stupidity?

The Villainy was right there in front of everybody:
 -- Lords DID NOT MARRY Demimondes. EVER. 

Lords had their Family honor to protect - they did not marry whores. (How would you feel if your son announced that he was marrying an acclaimed Stripper -- or a Porn Star?)

The fact that Christine thought she might have a chance marrying Raoul, just shows how Stupid her character had become. The Diva, who was likely an impoverished noblewoman, had a better chance of marrying Raoul than Christine did.

Phantom was free to chase after Christine, because while he was noble, he was also dead to his family. It didn't matter who he married - his family's honor was being protected by someone else.

The Warped Plot

There's a rift in the plot about halfway through, when Christine visits her father's grave. THIS is when discrepancies begin to appear, and the plot goes awry.

It is at this point that the story no longer plays to the characters as they are actually presented: Raoul becomes heroic, Phantom becomes a murdering psycho and Christine becomes TSTL (too stupid to live.)

However, there are Still traces of the correct plot within the unfolding events themselves.

1) Christine visits her father's grave

This visit should have underlined the fact that Christine was a commoner, and Demimonde (a prostitute), verses what Raoul was -- Nobility. This should have snapped her out of her dream world and made her see Raoul for what he was -- a man pursuing an exciting and decorative mistress, and the Phantom as what he was -- someone who actually cared.

Phantom had watched over her and guarded her since childhood. He had seen that she had something of a noble's education and had even taught her some of the noble arts - MUSIC.

Of COURSE he loved her.

How did Phantom end up being Christine's guardian? All kinds of ways. Christine's father and the Phantom were both musicians; they may have been compositional associates. It was more likely that Christine's dad was part of the Phantom's personal staff. Nobles of that day cared for their staff as Family, so of course he would watch over his staff's child as well.

After realizing the truth of what Raoul was asking of her - sex - Christine would have come to the realization that it was the Phantom that actually loved her. Phantom had had a number of opportunites to seduce her - and had never used any of them.

2) Raoul's Purpose in the Graveyard

Raoul had been openly and blatantly STALKING Christine since her first performance. When Raoul showed up in the graveyard, it was quite obvious that he had followed Christine expecting to find her alone, and unprotected.

There was no question in anyone's mind what Raoul wanted. The duel happened because the Phantom was defending Christine against a rapist.

Once Raoul incapacitated Christine's only defender, Raoul would have taken immediate advantage of Christine's brand-new guilt towards the Phantom (he truly loved her - and now he was going to die for her) to pressure Christine into submitting and becoming his mistress. 

"I'll kill him right here, right now, if you don't come with me!"

This is also when the Phantom would have been unmasked for the first time -- by Raoul. Raoul would have been trying to force the point home: that Raoul was better because he was Prettier.

Prettier???

Physical Appearance was a HUGE issue back in the 1800's when this story was written. Ugliness was considered God's Punishment. If you were ugly, you MUST be Evil.

3) The Phantom’s Sword Wound

Raoul was a skilled and practiced swordsman. There is no way in Hell that the bookish and reclusive Phantom had enough sword-training to successfully duel with a battle-hardened captain.

At the same time, Raoul would have known better than to kill Christine's beloved guardian right before her eyes, but he was not about to let Christine's one defender live. By the time the duel stopped, Raoul would have made very sure that he had already delivered a mortal wound.

Note: A small sword cut in the armpits or in the juncture of the legs will pierce a major artery, causing massive amounts of blood-loss and DEATH in a very short period of time.

When Raoul forced Christine to submit to him - at the price of her guardian's life - Raoul was convinced that the Phantom was already dying.

4) That chandelier would still have fallen.

Phantom wasn’t a murdering psycho – he was PISSED OFF!

Recovering from the near-fatal duel is a more logical reason why the Phantom disappeared for so long from the opera. (He was gone for several months. It’s still there even in the plays!) He was obviously recovering from his wounds.

Once he regained his strength, Phantom would have been furious with Raoul - and in a panic to save Christine. Only now, he knew that there was no way he could take Raoul in a fair fight - because Raoul did not fight fair. The only way to beat Raoul was to get him with a sneak-attack.

Unfortunately Raoul was too much of a battle-seasoned survivor to catch that easily.

5) Raoul – the Real Psycho

Once Raoul got out of the way of the falling lighting fixture, the Captain would have gone out of his way to hunt down the young and idealistic Phantom to make he sure was well and truly dead. 

 

Why? Because as long as the Phantom lived, Christine could escape him at any time. 

 

Being a man's mistress had One Advantage over being his wife.  

A wife was legally owned by her husband, he could have her arrested and brought back. A mistress was legally outside his reach.

As long as Phantom lived - Christine could leave him.

What probably confused Raoul the most, was that Christine actually Would leave him -- and he knew it.

6) In the final Battle between Raoul and Phantom
-- Who Captured Who? REALLY?

Raoul was the better fighter, and the Phantom was STILL recovering from his last fight with Raoul. Logic points to the fact that the Phantom would have been captured, and threatened with death, rather than the other way around, as the current plot has it.

Raoul would have been the one to force Christine into choosing between them -- with the intent to kill her if she chose the Phantom over him.

7) Christine’s Actual Love Dilemma

The REAL pressure on Christine should have been:

• Go with the man she'd been sleeping with for the past few months and accept her role as whore.

 - or - 

• Die with the one man who proved time and again, that he loved her.

The original Author's obvious Ending? 

•  Christine left with Raoul to save the Phantom; breaking everyone’s heart, including her own. True Love as Sacrifice.

What the hell Happened
- to the REAL Love Story???

In 1910, with WWI looming, when this book was first penned, it was UNTHINKABLE that a handsome military man, and a lord would be represented as anything other than heroic while a man who was disfigured (cursed by God) could possibly be anything other than villainous.

The story HAD to be changed, for the sake of public proprieties. (Keep in mind, DRACULA, published in 1897 --only 13 years earlier-- caused a major uproar among the British nobility because the Vampire was a Noble.)

So Raoul got white-washed into a hero, Phantom got black-washed into a common basement-dwelling psycho, and Christine became TSTL (too stupid to live) when in fact she was a woman who sacrificed her honor and her life to save the man she loved.

CONCLUSION -
What am I trying to Prove?

The purpose in this article is to show that sometimes a deeper --and better-- story is present within a published work. As writers, it is our job to ferret out these hidden stories and bring them to light.

What am I trying to Say?

There are enough clues in 'The Phantom of the Opera' to construct an entirely different story. Anyone who writes fiction professionally can see exactly what I saw. The current story as presented is WRONG.

What was obviously a “love story” about sacrifice had been changed into a “descent into madness” story, with only a few cosmetic adjustments made to accommodate for those changes.

Somebody PLEASE do this story RIGHT, damn It!!! 

Because if "I" have to do it, I will write 'The Phantom of the Opera' as the true EROTIC HORROR it obviously should have been.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Documentation:
http://www.phantomoftheopera.info/history2.htm

Morgan Hawke
www.darkerotica.net
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I want to SEE the Story, Damn it! ~ A RANT! ~Put DESCRIPTION in your Fiction!

How would you write what is happening in this picture?
 

How would you convey the actions?
- The characters?
- The setting?
- The mood?
(Go ahead and jot something down.)

WARNING! INCOMING RANT!!!

I want to SEE the Story ~ Damn it!!!

 

Frustration is a BAD thing to generate in your readers. Books that frustrate; poor grammar, limp dialogue, wishy-washy action, weak description, over-blown description...etc. are tossed against a wall. 

 

The technical term is: Wall-Banger.

My BIGGEST Pet Peeve:
Description-less Fiction.

 

I utterly loathe reading a book where everything happens in a colorless vacuum. You don't know where they are, you don't know what they're doing, you don't know what the Characters look like! I despise a book where I can’t see anything, or worse can see only bits of what's going on.

How the heck am I supposed to imagine the scene like a movie in my head without knowing what stuff looks like?

In far too many Erotic Romance books it's worse. The sex is detailed but the rest of the story is barely sketched out. If they’re gonna go into that much detail in the sex they should do the same for the rest of the damned story!

For example, you get a nice juicy sex scene and some sprightly dialogue but then you get:

‘…she went into the kitchen and got a glass of water.’

Then the dialogue starts back up again without bothering to even mention that she came out of the damned kitchen! WITHOUT a SCENE BREAK! Right in the middle of the damned paragraph without skipping a beat! Hell, it's done right in the middle of the damned dialogue!

It's just ASSUMED that reader KNOWS that she’s not in the kitchen any more. Then once you figure out: "Oh wait, she's NOT in the kitchen any more...!" You have to GUESS how she did it!

HELLO!!!
If you have to GUESS How the character got
From position A ~ To position B
You've been TOLD - Not SHOWN.

SHOW ME - Damn It!

 

By the time I got to the end of that book, I knew she had a living room, a bedroom and a kitchen, but I still didn't know if she lived in a House a Condo or an Apartment! And I didn't know what was in her house other than a couch in the living room and a bed in the bedroom! 

 

I read it because the sex-scenes were good, but there was No Other Reason to read the damned book.

It was obvious from the sex scenes that the author knew how to write descriptive details, but it was like she decided to be lazy! That it didn't matter as long as the sex was good. 

 

Well, she was WRONG, and damn it, I felt CHEATED!

 

Sid from Toy Story

 

No Description = No CHARACTER!

 

When you were a kid, the first thing you did with a new friend was check out their bedroom.

Why?

Think a minute, seriously. Why did you want to check out the other kid's room?

To see what kinds of cool toys they had sure, but also, to find out what kind of kid you were playing with. The kinds of toys and pictures in their room told you what kind of personality they had, it gave away their base character.

In the movie Toy Story, think about the room the kid Sid had. 

 

How much of Sid's character was in his bedroom?
 

ALL OF IT.

Now, why would anyone leave such a gold-mine of character information --their Home, their Clothes, their Stuff-- out of the story?

I dunno, but it happens all the damned time.

There is way, way too much Telling instead of Showing going on in the fiction I’m reading.

 

Too many stories read like a TV show with the picture too snowy to see anything clearly. Where the heck are they? What are they doing? How are they doing it? Gimme some Details! Gimme some color and textures! Some sounds! Some flavors! Some aromas!

Gimme some DESCRIPTION! 

But...! But...! But...!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Descriptive detail, like any other element of fiction, should be present ONLY to develop character or advance plot. Too much leads to excessive wordiness, which in turn kills the pacing. It's not necessary to include details the reader can be expected to assume because they are normal life events. So, someone going to the kitchen to get a glass of water would be expected to return when she was finished, and that information isn't necessary. If the next part is dialogue between hero and heroine, her return is simply accepted."
-- A well-meaning and very nice editor.

Bullshit.
 

If she went to the kitchen in the fist place it SHOULD BE forwarding the plot. If getting that glass of water isn't an element of either "what has happened", "what is happening" or "what will happen" - she should have never gone into the kitchen. BUT if that glass of water is important, so is her trip to the kitchen to get it. Therefore, it should be SHOWN instead of TOLD.

ANYTHING that isn’t necessary to tell the story
DOESN'T BELONG in the story!
If it CAN be pulled out - it SHOULD be pulled out.

If it's Important enough to be Mentioned
It's Important enough to be DETAILED.

Harrumph!

Now, on to how to FIX this insidious problem.

 

"A picture is worth a thousand words."

 

Unless you are writing kiddie books, you Don't Have a picture beyond the book cover, you have only Words to illustrate your story. 

 

USE those Freaking Words! You don't need the whole thousand words to give me the picture, but SOME would be nice. Damn it!

If you want to write Fiction with clarity, VISUALIZE what is happening in your head. Play the scene out in your imagination and view it, just like a movie. If it shows up in your mind's eye - it belongs on the page. Okay?

Descriptive ASSUMPTIONS.

 

Normally, description-less fiction is Not what the writer intended. Usually it's a case of Oversight, an Assumption. The writer saw the scene in their head and jotted down a few cues that would trigger the picture that they envisioned, and ASSUMED everyone reading those phrases would see what they saw. 

 

Guess what? They DIDN'T.

The Reader always sees what THEY want to see
- unless you SHOW them something else.

• They fucked, and it was glorious.

 

I can guarantee that no two readers (or writers) saw what I envisioned when I wrote those words.

The Writer's job is to SHOW the fucking and Convince the reader that it was glorious without actually Telling them. You have to Seduce the reader into getting all hot and bothered, so they come out of the book thinking; "Wow that turned me on so much... It must have been glorious!"

You Don't need blocks of descriptive text to get your point across, but the reader Cannot See what the writer is trying to show them --pictures or feelings-- without descriptive cues, preferably Sneaky descriptive cues.

Yes, I said Sneaky, and I'll say it again:

SNEAKY Descriptive Cues.

No one likes to be pummeled. We prefer to be, enticed, tempted and seduced - not assaulted. A handful of well-placed descriptive words sprinkled here and there, really enriches an otherwise blank blue-screen imagination -- without beating the reader over the head.

The Tricks to
Tight SNEAKY Description 

Avoid Simple Words:
 

The door, the car, the tree, the house... Write instead: The French doors, the Subaru, the oak, the Victorian cottage. See how using a Specific Noun automatically pops in description?

Adjectives are your Friend!
 

Adjectives give your objects and locations emotional flavor and impact. The trick is not to over-do it! Moderation - moderation - moderation.

One adjective per Noun:

In addition to a specific Noun. The ornate French tapestry, the rusty Subaru, the yellow Victorian cottage.

Two adjectives per Sensation:

Sight, Sound, Taste, Texture, Scent - are all perceived through the senses. The glaringly red French doors, the seductively throbbing jazz, the creamy bite of yogurt, the nubby white dishcloth, the pungent musk of wet dog.

The Not-So Dreaded -ly Words.

 

Every once in a while you will hear someone whine that "you shouldn't use words that end in -ly". The "No -ly words!" whiners are usually the same people that say: "Don't use Adjectives!" Think People! How the heck are you supposed to describe something without adjectives? You CAN'T.

The "No -ly Words" rule does not apply to Fiction.

 

This rule comes from Basic School Grammar; grammar that was intended for NON-fiction, such as Reports and other boring description-less, education-related, or business-related writing. On the other hand, Fiction THRIVES on description!

Still Feeling Guilty?
 

If you can find another word that says the same thing without ending in -ly, use it. If you can't, then use what you have and DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT.

Making the Reader FEEL the Passion.

Sensually-Descriptive & Erotically-charged Words
- The key to EROTICA and Romance.

 

If the words you choose implies a Physical Sense - sound, flavor, color, texture, aroma - you're halfway there!

So, where do you get the rest of them there what's-it words? From Trained Professionals: Other Writers.

I pulled out my favorite trashy novels and hunted down phrases that really caught my attention, and then I made a list.

salacious humor
carnal gratification
languorous bliss
shrieking culmination
disconcerting stimulation
brutal carnal rapture
exquisite torment
lustful cravings
irresolute yearning
skittish laughter

I also dug through my thesaurus and made another list of all the adjectives I use over and over and over...

MY Erotic Thesaurus

Okay you got your words! Now...

How & Where do you PUT all that stuff?

Rule of thumb:

The moment the character lays eyes on it DESCRIBE IT! 

Picture the scene in your head like a movie. If it shows up in your scene - it belongs on the page.

OTHER Rule of Thumb:

Description should always reflect the opinion of the viewpoint character.

Oscar the Grouch is not going to see - or describe - a field of roses the same way as Big Bird.

People
 

People get three whole sentences max. If you need more than that, thread the rest in with the dialogue. Think of how you see characters in a movie. THAT'S how you describe the people your character sees. 

 

Start at the top and describe down. Bottom to Top description implies that the brain and personality is of no importance, only the body. Guys checking out a girl when they're looking for a fuck look at her from bottom to top.

Scene Changes
 

Every new scene should open with a snapshot of description that details the stage the action is about to happen in. No more than 60 words max. If you need more than that to describe your setting - splice it into your Action.

Fantasy and Sci-Fi require more description.

 

Preferably rich and detailed - because in Fantasy and Sci-Fi, the Setting is just as important as Character and Action. The snapshot at the beginning of every scene is still the same length (60 words) - but you have to continue to add more description as the characters move through the world.

Location Changes
 

Every time the scenery changes: every new room, every new view, every new place they arrive at - gets described; so the reader can see it, and experience it too. New locations get 30 words max, because that's about how much the average person can catch in a single look. The rest of the details should be mixed in between the actions and dialogue as the character gets a better look around.

Describing the Viewpoint Character - Yes or No?

 
YES - DAMN IT! I wanna know who's head I'm in - as Soon as I'm in that head!

Viewpoint Characters only get three sentences just like any other person in the story. NO MIRRORS! Mirrors have been done to death. There are lots of ways to describe your viewpoint charater without resorting to a MIRROR - Use one. Not sure how to do it? Go get your favorite books and highlight the sections where the viewpoint character is described. Figure out how they did it, and do that.

DESCRIPTION

NOT just for pretty Pictures.

WARNING! ~ Missing descriptive cues can cause: Author Angst!

 
Once upon a time, when I was a beginning writer of smut, I wrote what I thought was a kick ass, totally serious, "World of Grim Darkness" werewolf erotica. I had a right to think the story kicked ass. I got a lot of messages telling me so.

Then, one day...

I got a lovely letter gushing on how much they liked my story. It was so funny! They went into detail explaining exactly how pleased they were, and how witty my story was in so many places - but I hadn't ended it right. Where was the punch line?

The PUNCH LINE???

Yes, fellow writers, my serious "World of Grim Darkness" werewolf erotica had been completely misinterpreted as an erotic Comedy!

Talk about your total author disillusionment.

This misinterpretation happened because I had written strong sarcastic dialogue, a trademark in all my stories, but I had left too many other cues out. It was not apparent at all to this reader that my characters were speaking sarcastically - counter to their true feelings.

I didn't have enough of the POV character's feelings displayed through inner dialogue and body-language cues for the reader to pick up what I was really trying to show.

According to my current fan letters, I Don't make that mistake any more.

DESCRIPTION.
- It really is the Only way to get what you envision across to the reader.

TEST TIME!!!
- Now - how would you describe that picture at the top of the page? Can you make me FEEL the Passion?


Morgan Hawke
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A Premise is NOT a CONCEPT! ~ A small Rant

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Don't Need No Stinking "SAID" - a RANT!

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.