There’s a new section over at the Phantom Library: Periodicals! Magazines, journals, and fanzines galore, so take a look if you’re so inclined!
(If you’re wondering, individual articles are still in Nonfiction; this section is for periodicals that are completely or mostly dedicated to the Phantom story, so there are a lot fewer of them!
The Phantom escapes again. Train to Liverpool. Bribes passage to Australia. A tiny porthole, sea-sickness twists his body into half a man, and half again - many’s the time he thinks he’s died. The ship is early, he disembarks on a rope. Spends six months scrimping, delivering pizza. Gives himself up to the authorities, who pardon him.
Goes back to music: church organ, retro bands, teaching, and after five years a steady gig. Hear him each Sunday at the Carillon on Lake Burley-Griffin, with those other-worldly bells.
–A Place for The Phantom by Owen Bullock (originally published in Otoliths magazine, 2018)
Phandom, circa 1997… because I accidentally got lost in a nostalgia spiral whilst looking for something else. Ahh, the state of the discourse 25 years ago. (All expressed opinions from back then generally disclaimed as caring too much.)
You’ve got to picture the old days, okay, when we were hearing that John Travolta was being cast as the Phantom, and then Antonio Banderas. Some of online fandom was very pro a movie, some were very anti, and the people who were anti were the ones making webpages, several of which are available through the glorious web archive.
All hail phandom history. All the following is very, very cringe.
Since May of 1997, a number of reliable and disturbing reports have appeared in the media with regards to a film version of Andrew Lloyd Webber’s musical The Phantom of the Opera. These reports show that Andrew Lloyd Webber has sold out to Hollywood, that he only cares about money and not about doing justice to his musical or to the story of the Phantom. As fans who have supported this show with our money and time, we are outraged by what we have been hearing. We want to express our opinion on the proposed movie before it is too late. We want the public to know that we do not support a Hollywood-ized version of the show, and that if a movie is made, it will not be the Phantom that so many millions of people have seen on stage and loved.
etc. I wrote this whole page. I’m currently too embarrassed to actually read all of it, but it’s funny enough that I’m posting this without reading it. Also, a press release. “See Phantom on Stage not Screen, say Fans. Phantom fans want you to see the musical on stage - not on the silver screen.”
There was also a “Michael Crawford only for the Phantom movie” campaign, which did manage to get bits and pieces in the press… Did they actually raise money and take out an ad in one of the trade papers, or am I imagining that being a thing that happened? All I remember is it being run by a woman named Diane, who I was on pretty good terms with, as my general position at the time was if they have to make a movie, it should at least have been Crawford or someone who’d played the role on stage.
There has recently been a lot of discussion in the media about a proposed film of Andrew Lloyd Webber’s Phantom of The Opera. This is a terrible idea! Why? Here’s why -In all likelihood it will be badly done, and completely disrespectful to Erik. This film will become what most of the world thinks Phantom is - if it’s not perfect, it will be an injustice to Erik and the show. It will influence the view the world has more than any other film or adaptation because it will have ALW’s name to it, so millions of people will think it is an accurate representation of Erik, the show, and the best casts.
Has links to various news articles about the casting of Antonio Banderas from the time.
The Wayback Machine truly is a blessing upon fandom, although reminder that these were our silly ass rantings from nearly 25 years ago and I’m presenting them here for the fandom history, the nostalgia, and the lols. I know Nicola actually liked Gerik!
While we’re on the nostalgia train…..Love Should Die
Now, for what it’s worth, I’m not going to make any statements on whether LND is GOOD. That’s……well. That’s a question and a half and depends on how you qualify “good.” But I remember back in 2010-2011, when we got the news about the sequel, and it was like the world was OVER. To the point where some fans (and I want it on the record that my 12 year old self was among them), got….very passionate.
Like. Really passionate. We are talking “feverishly looking at every bit of news, including interviews, to comment on it”, we are talking “writing notes in the Phantom’s voice denouncing it”, we are talking “contests to see who can create the best anti-LND video”, we are talking “selling anti-LND merchandise”.
To the point where it got in the news.
To the point of borderline egging on fans to harass people who spoke positively about it.
And like. A lot’s changed in over 12 years, for better or for worse, LND has and hasn’t changed phandom (there have been creative decisions made that were clearly attempts to agree with LND, but there have also been actors and actresses who’ve flatly said their interpretation wasn’t based on the sequel) but I think we can all agree that it wasn’t the catastrophic blow that we thought it was at the time.
Phandom, circa 1997… because I accidentally got lost in a nostalgia spiral whilst looking for something else. Ahh, the state of the discourse 25 years ago. (All expressed opinions from back then generally disclaimed as caring too much, except anything I said that I still agree with.)
You’ve got to picture the old days, okay, when we were hearing that John Travolta was being cast as the Phantom, and then Antonio Banderas. Some of online fandom was very pro a movie, some were very anti, and the people who were anti were the ones making webpages, several of which are available through the glorious web archive.
All hail phandom history. All the following is very, very cringe.
Since May of 1997, a number of reliable and disturbing reports have appeared in the media with regards to a film version of Andrew Lloyd Webber’s musical The Phantom of the Opera. These reports show that Andrew Lloyd Webber has sold out to Hollywood, that he only cares about money and not about doing justice to his musical or to the story of the Phantom. As fans who have supported this show with our money and time, we are outraged by what we have been hearing. We want to express our opinion on the proposed movie before it is too late. We want the public to know that we do not support a Hollywood-ized version of the show, and that if a movie is made, it will not be the Phantom that so many millions of people have seen on stage and loved.
etc. I wrote this whole page. I’m currently too embarrassed to actually read all of it, but it’s funny enough that I’m posting this without reading it. Also, a press release. “See Phantom on Stage not Screen, say Fans. Phantom fans want you to see the musical on stage - not on the silver screen.”
There was also a “Michael Crawford only for the Phantom movie” campaign, which did manage to get bits and pieces in the press… Did they actually raise money and take out an ad in one of the trade papers, or am I imagining that being a thing that happened? All I remember is it being run by a woman named Diane, who I was on pretty good terms with, as my general position at the time was if they have to make a movie, it should at least have been Crawford or someone who’d played the role on stage.
There has recently been a lot of discussion in the media about a proposed film of Andrew Lloyd Webber’s Phantom of The Opera. This is a terrible idea! Why? Here’s why -In all likelihood it will be badly done, and completely disrespectful to Erik. This film will become what most of the world thinks Phantom is - if it’s not perfect, it will be an injustice to Erik and the show. It will influence the view the world has more than any other film or adaptation because it will have ALW’s name to it, so millions of people will think it is an accurate representation of Erik, the show, and the best casts.
Has links to various news articles about the casting of Antonio Banderas from the time.
The Wayback Machine truly is a blessing upon fandom, although reminder that these were our silly ass rantings from nearly 25 years ago and I’m presenting them here for the fandom history, the nostalgia, and the lols. I know Nicola actually liked Gerik!
Nope, you didn’t imagine the Michael Crawford Phantom Movie Campaign putting out ads in the trade papers because I supplied the artwork for the one that appeared in Variety *LOL*
This manga series has to have some of the best art. This was an extra chapter in which the characters were assigned roles from Phantom of the Opera! PotO is an amazingly beautiful musical that everyone should see.
Revamped Star Princess! I had the surprise of a lifetime when I found out that one of my former classmates was interested in taking my work with her when she goes to meet Jeremy Stolle and the cast this Christmas, so this is getting signed!!! The initial version of this I posted was made hastily and never properly finished, so this is one of two things which I revised and cleaned up a bit for this s u p e r exciting event.
Back in 1993 I wrote a fan letter to Susan Kay, and asked if she’d be willing to give me an interview for the Phantom Appreciation Society fanzine. So this is the interview she gave me, by letter, published in “Masquerade” issue 4, Spring 1994. (Masquerade and Beneath the Mask were the same zine, it just changed name on issue 5 as I discovered there was already a musicals zine called Masquerade.)
AN INTERVIEW WITH SUSAN KAY
When and how did you first become interested in the story or the Phantom?
My first contact with the Phantom was a chance purchase of the soundtrack of the Lloyd Webber musical. The music took me to the London production and the show took me to the original Gaston Leroux novel, which I hoped would satisfy the immense appetite I had developed for further knowledge of the character. My reaction to the book was a mixture of disappointment and fascination. It told me so much less than I had hoped for, and yet the little there was intrigued me even further: the odd paragraph here, the throwaway line there which mentioned the Phantom’s earlier life. Increasingly the last two pages of Leroux’s book began to read to me like the plot of another story, a story which refused to go away and clamoured ever more incessantly to be written.
Do you think that Leroux’s novel was based on a true story?
It’s very tempting to think so.
How many times have you seen the Lloyd Webber show?
I’ve seen it ten times in all. Six times in London, twice in Los Angeles, and twice in Hamburg where I was the guest of the German Phantom, Thomas Schulze.
Do you still see it?
The last time I saw the musical in England was in London in April 1991. The following day “Phantom” was announced Romantic Novel of the Year at the RNA awards luncheon, so perhaps that particular show was a good omen for me.
Who is your favourite Phantom?
Michael Crawford was wonderful, and I found Dave Willetts very powerful. Anyone who has the opportunity should try to see Thomas Schulze in the Hamburg production.
How did you create the character of Erik in your book?
When I came to examine the character myself I came to the conclusion that the real tragedy of his life was not his disfigurement. but his complete inability to accept that his mother had ever loved him. This fatal belief warped his whole existence and rendered him incapable of recognizing love even when it was staring him in the face, whether it was the first infatuation of a young girl, the dark desire of an older woman, the affection of a friend, or the real admiration of those who came to work with or serve him in one capacity or another. This idea became central to the whole storyline, leading inexorably to one tragedy after another. Certainly his life was shaped by the rejection of society, horrific experience and some cruel twists of fate, but ultimately this was always a character relentlessly set on a course of self-destruction. I also felt that, in spite of the terrible crimes he commits during the course of his life, the Phantom was neither a psychopath nor an inherently evil man. In order to make that last act of self-sacrifice for the sake of love there must always have been an essential core of good within the character. Leroux himself allowed his Phantom certain traits of kindness, humour and civilized behaviour. I felt that essentially this was a fiercely proud man who came to desire his own human dignity to an almost insane degree and would go to any lengths to protect it. Couple this with the unstable temperament that often accompanies pure genius and you have a very dangerous man, a man capable of killing for a real or imagined slight even the people he most desperately loves. Those attracted to him are always rightly aware of an underlying fear, and I believe it is this mixture of attraction and fear which is responsible for his powerful sexuality. It’s what separates the Phantom from Raoul and all the other nice young boys like him who offer a safe mundane existence to a woman, but no thrills or chills.
What was the most difficult part of the book to write?
The first two sections dealing with his childhood were the most straight-forward. The sections from Rome through to the building of the Opera House were very demanding from the point of research, some of which was obscure and hard to obtain. But the section I found most hard to actually write was the part of the story which directly overlaps Leroux’s. It’s very difficult to trespass nonchalantly over someone else’s story, particularly when it has been adapted so many times in different mediums. I had to dispense with a lot of inhibitions, the chief of which was “"How can I ever dare to meddle with this?”
What would you have done if you were Christine?
I think I would have had to do what she did in the book, and go back that one last time to make things right. It would have been a terrible thing to live with otherwise: it would have destroyed both her and Raoul in the end.
