anithemonsterlover

[anithemonsterlover]

"Erik is so problematic!!!" No way, omg. Tysm for telling me. I've only read the book 101 times, watched every adaptation available, and read 100 essays on the subject. I had no idea about this. I will stop consuming this content immediately!

[anithemonsterlover]

Found this in my drafts! I assume i didn't like it much when I first put it there? But now it doesn't seem too bad, perhaps because it's been 20 years since I've colored something.

Leroux vs key characters I guess.

[anithemonsterlover]

Phantom of the Opera fans, I have returned for you ❤️‍🔥

I got to make a character sheet for my favorite gangly weirdo for class and had a lot of fun doing it

[anithemonsterlover]

Phantom of the Opera: How Much Did Opera Actually Influence Erik's Understanding of the World?

So, I love monster lit. A lot of folks know this if you've been following the blog.

I'm also a huge fan of opera. Like literal opera.

And, operas are really interesting because they're kind of, stylistically, marked by a couple of different things - style, forms, and whether they're tragic or comedic. However, you don't often get like ... blends? You can. Kinda. But, generally, like Shakespearean tragedies or comedies everyone's either gonna end up dead or married.

And, that made me think about Erik.

We have no darn clue how old he was per Leroux's timeline (because he was a prodigy and a genius) when he ended up under the opera house.

So, how many social experiences did Erik really have?

How much of his entire social world was filtered through the tragedy and comedy of opera?

Part of the reason I say this is because if you look at his relationship with The Persian it takes on flares of the sort of combative nature of operetic friendship. They fight. There's drama. They're rivals. Then, they're buddies. There's no stability. It's all drama, mostly put there by Erik.

But, again. That's what he knows! It's all he knows.

Even his relationship with Christine fascinates me.

If you look at his dialogue, he wants a friend.

He wants someone to hold his arm and take walks with him because he doesn't want to be alone. He wants someone to end his solitude. He wants to keep coaching her in music. He wants her to be the prima donna of the opera.

That's all he *really* says he wants.

Yet, he says he wants to marry her.

Why?

In comedic operas, everyone gets married in the end. That's how the happily ever after *works.* It doesn't matter if that's not what he actually wants, or if that's what she wants. It only matters that that's how the plot of the opera is supposed to work. In order to have stability, in order for the tragedy to stop, the marriage has to happen.

Erik fundamentally lacks the language of friendship.

He doesn't understand what it looks like, what it's supposed to feel like, what living is like, because he has no lived experiences of his own to draw from.

So, instead, he draws from the beautiful lyrical poetry of opera. He draws from what he knows and loves most to understand the world around him because it's all he HAS.

He uses the word "wife" because it's the only word he has to understand the complex intimate feelings he has for "best friend." He uses the word "wife" because marriage is the "fix-it" in almost all operatic comedies across all forms of comedy operas whether it's a Buffa (Think Barber of Seville) or Comique (This is probably what Webber was referencing with opera the chandelier crashes in although it could also have been an Operetta, as that incorporates dance, or perhaps it may have been a form of Grand Opera set in the current period, though that is less likely. It was likely a Comique because those were often about relatable characters in the current French culture of the 19th century. But, I'm getting in the weeds.)

Anyway, as soon as the world is brought to Erik, as soon as Christine recognizes his humanity, he is able to understand it.

One of my favorite, and perhaps the most important details in the Leroux text, is that Christine kisses Erik's *forehead.* She does not kiss his lips at any point in the story that I can remember?

In fact, Leroux seems to very intentionally make Erik and Christine's relationship quite asexual in nature. I never really noticed that as a young person, but I *did* very much notice it when I re-read the story as an adult. It's something I appreciate a lot about what Leroux seems to be doing and his commentary on human beings in general.

However, as soon as Christine recognizes Erik as a person, as soon as she kisses his forehead, he lets her go. He no longer wishes to marry her. It's like something is released in him, and he lets everyone he has been holding captive go. He no longer threatens to blow up the opera house and himself and everyone with it.

Christine and Raoul (who were childhood besties) run off together, and Erik dies of a broken heart.

But, if you look at his dialogue carefully, I don't think he dies because he wanted Christine romantically and didn't get to marry her. Instead, he compares her tears mingling with his to that of an angel's tears, and he goes on to talk about his *mother.* He talks about how his own mother never touched his face or kissed him. Yet, this girl looked at him, touched his face, and didn't die.

He fully expected anyone who kissed his face to die.

Yet, this perfect and pure angelic girl did not die when she kissed his forehead.

The way Erik talks in this is oddly paternal?

It's very different than the way he has spoken in past chapters of the novel.

In recognizing Erik's humanity, in bringing the world outside of operatic comedies or tragedies, Christine helped Erik make *sense* of the world, his feelings, and emotions. Marrying this girl is never what Erik really wanted.

He wanted a companion. He wanted a best friend. He wanted someone to walk with him when the world was too frightening after all the abandonment he had experienced.

And, his heart is broken knowing that he will never get to have that. He lost it in his own madness.

And, in that way, Leroux is right. We should pity Erik because if he had only been born a "normal" man he would have been a genius. But, things being what they were, he ended up lonely, confused, and broken hearted.

And, I would *love* to see an actor play Webber's Phantom in this way. Start him HUGE as though the only way he knows how to behave is in grandeur and, as the show progresses, make him more intimate. Take the energy from a 6 when we first meet him, up to a 10+ as Red Death, but then afterwards? Back down.

As he's losing it, he's softer. He's smaller. He's more intimate in his fury. He's scared.

So, at the very end, all is quiet. That final "Christine, I love you." And, he finally understands what that really means to him. So, it's just lightly sung. That exchange of rings is more pleasant. Nods are cordial. Maybe even a little hand clasp. There's understanding. It's soft. So, soft.

Even that last "It's over now, the music of the night?" So, stealthy. Don't belt. Just ... light. So light.

Like he's talking to himself and calling himself "Poor unhappy Erik."

As an autistic transmasc-nonbinary contralto. I would love to play this role. I can hit the notes enough to "pants" it in the original key too. I know. I've practiced.

So, anyway, thank you for coming to my TED-talk about why I think opera influenced Erik's understanding of relationship and how human kindness helped him to understand what he actually wanted for his real life.

[anithemonsterlover]

I like to think that in the middle of the night when the opera house is nearly deserted, Erik would go out in the middle of the stage with his violin and voice and just play or sing.

Perhaps he would go as far as to turn on a stage light, so he can pretend to be delivering a solo. He would sing to his fullest to a pretend crowd, and when he delivered the final note he would imagine rapturous applause at his talent.

Then he would open his eyes and the weight of reality crashes down on him.

[anithemonsterlover]

Autism Acceptance Month: Autistic Headcanons

"Prince, all alone, upon your throne. Your power is so frail. You raise your voice, you have no choice. Inside your gilded jail." ↳ Prince Stolas of the Ars Goetia (Helluva Boss)

[anithemonsterlover]

I sometimes feel Erik hate is overblown and exaggerated and mostly groupthink, since I see his haters and criticals stanning other villainous characters that I'm sorry, could also be cancellable if we judge them by the same parameters Erik has

Like this guy that, wow asshole is a hundred times worse than Erik is. Actual groomer and supported a tyrant oppressing a kingdom, and had no regrets till he died. And you can't give him the K*lo Ren or Dr*co excuse, he was an adult man not raised on this shit when he did all this, he was a handsome man not rejected for his looks, and he was in a position of power from the beginning, so *how* is he not worse than Erik?

I don't believe in purity culture, you can Stan any villain you want, but the hypocrisy gets me.

[anithemonsterlover]

Skønheden og Dyret / Beauty and the Beast (1989) dir. Romana Burianová

[anithemonsterlover]

[anithemonsterlover]

Drawing on the train

This is Erik and the Christine mannequin (he would not do that to real Christine he’s obv more gentle w her)

Might finish if I’m not lazy

Idk if anyone cares shout at me to stop being lazy and finish ts

Also I live on reading y’all’s reblog tags and cmts

Noticed that ppl like leroux Erik more than musical Erik generally which was kinda surprising cuz I feel like musical phantom fanart is more common ish like specifically draw him pretty with the half mask

if you like my scribbles ilyy

[anithemonsterlover]

im going to actually give it proper color it later, but guess what. im back at it again at the catacombs!!!!! sewer boy swag!!! the good ol supplication!! give me that yearning

[anithemonsterlover]

We have something in common, you know. What? In the town where I come from, the people think I’m…odd. You? So, I know how it feels to be...different.  And I know how lonely that can be.

[anithemonsterlover]

Happy Pride Month here’s some pharoga!!

[anithemonsterlover]

Good addition, and it's important to recall that at the end of the day these are fictional characters, not people, and w should observe them as functional tools in the narrative

Also i hate those takes that go "Quasi getting with Esmeralda is that gross 'Ugly Guy x Hot Wife' cliche that I hate" ...Which, hum, good for you, but you can't really compare Quasi to an Adam Sandler character or Homer Simpson. They're meant obvious self inserts for the average american man, whose biggest 'crimes' are maybe that he's out of shape or bald, not an abuse disabled victim like Quasi is.

Some rambling about Disney’s “Hunchback of Notre Dame”

I’ve discussed this topic before, but I’d like to cover it in more depth.

(Note: I’ve never heard the audio commentary by the film’s directors and I don’t have access to a copy of the DVD at the moment, so I don’t know if the directors have said anything on this subject or not.)

There’s one aspect of Disney’s The Hunchback of Notre Dame I’ve often seen discussed in reviews and analyses of the film, which I agree with, but which I think is slightly overemphasized in the fandom.

It’s the the idea that Quasimodo and Frollo both have distorted views of Esmeralda: Quasi sees her as an angel, Frollo sees her as a demon. Phoebus, on the other hand, relates to her as a real person and an equal. This is what makes him the best romantic partner for her. The film’s whole romance plot can be seen as a deconstruction of the Madonna/Whore Complex, because the man Esmeralda chooses is the one who sees her as a human being, neither a madonna nor a whore. 

This is all true. It’s a fantastic insight. Whoever first pointed it out was a genius, whether it was an online fan or one of the writers or directors themselves. I also applaud whoever wrote the entry on TVTropes which points out that during Heaven’s Light and Hellfire, both Quasimodo and Frollo fixate on an image of Esmeralda (Quasi carves a wooden figurine of her, Frollo hallucinates her image in the fire), not the real Esmeralda. This of course can be read symbolically.

But I think it’s been slightly exaggerated in online discussions of the film. I think people who cite it to counteract other fans’ cries of “Quasimodo should have gotten the girl!” sometimes swing too far in the opposite direction.

It’s true that Quasimodo puts Esmeralda on a pedestal. He doesn’t relate to her as an equal the way Phoebus does: he sees her as better than himself. For that reason, a romantic relationship between them definitely wouldn’t have been as healthy as the one she shares with Phoebus. Quasi’s self-esteem is too low.

But some fans are a bit too hard on Quasi and too eager to disparage his relationship with Esmeralda, as if they didn’t have a genuine friendship. I don’t buy the suggestion that he only loves an idealized fantasy of Esmeralda and doesn’t really know or appreciate her true self. He spends just as much time getting to know her as Phoebus does. He sees her sexy, teasing dance, her fierce callout of Frollo, and the slapstick pain she puts the soldiers through as she escapes them, so the argument that he’s blind to any aspect of her that isn’t gentle and kind falls flat. The only scene of her “dark side” that he doesn’t witness is her attacking Phoebus in the cathedral, but even though he might have been shocked for a moment if he had seen it, I can’t imagine it would make him love her any less. He’s no stranger himself to being ferocious when he needs to be – just ask those soldiers who run from the shower of molten lead at the climax! – and there’s no evidence at all that he would hold Esmeralda to a different standard just because she’s a woman. And even if it’s not an ideal basis for a romantic relationship, is it really so bad that he calls her an “angel” after she saves him from a mob and becomes the first human being to see past his deformity and offer him real kindness and friendship in his entire life?

I’ve read several negative statements about him that have no real basis onscreen. For example, TVTropes used to have an entry describing him as feeling innocently entitled to Esmeralda’s love and needing to learn that he’s not – I was the one who rewrote that entry and deleted that statement, because he never once shows a sense of entitlement toward her. His Disney Wiki page also states that he “jumps to the conclusion that Esmeralda has romantic feelings for him,” which isn’t true either. When the gargoyles (who, admittedly, might be figments of his imagination) try to convince him that she loves him, even though he wants it to be true, he denies it. Both TVTropes and the movie’s trivia page on IMDB also suggest that the reason why Esmeralda chooses Phoebus is because she doesn’t like the way either Quasi or Frollo treats her. What??? Since when does Quasi ever do anything that makes Esmeralda uncomfortable? Since when are her feelings for him anything but warm and positive? And since when does her falling in love with Phoebus have anything to do with any other man? He just happens to be the man she falls for and she never considers any other choice.

This brings me to another reason why I don’t like seeing this overemphasized: the false equivalence some people draw between Quasimodo and Frollo. Overemphasizing “Quasi and Frollo vs. Phoebus” detracts from the main juxtaposition the film itself highlights: “Quasi vs. Frollo.” Heaven’s Light vs. Hellfire. “Who is the monster and who is the man?” While of course it’s worthwhile to highlight Phoebus’s virtues and point out just why he’s the best match for Esmeralda, it’s not so worthwhile to constantly lump Quasi and Frollo together as “the negative choices,” when (a) Quasi’s innocent idolizing of Esmeralda within a genuine friendship is nowhere near as deluded or toxic as Frollo’s view of her as a demonic temptress, and (b) the much more important contrast is between the two men whom Esmeralda doesn’t choose. Quasimodo’s positive choice to let go of his jealousy and be both Esmeralda and Phoebus’s friend vs. Frollo’s horrific “Be mine or you will burn!”

I do agree with the basic thesis about why Phoebus is Esmeralda’s ideal match and why a Quasimodo/Esmeralda romance wouldn’t work as well. But I get a little tired of constantly reading “Quasi and Frollo reduce her to a madonna and a whore, only Phoebus treats her like a real woman.” Especially when people exaggerate the “unhealthiness” of Quasi’s feelings for her and are so eager to contrast him negatively with Phoebus that they almost forget how positively and heroically he contrasts with Frollo. Quasi has always been one of my favorite male Disney heroes and I’d like to see him treated a little more fairly.

[anithemonsterlover]

[anithemonsterlover]

Why ur Erik always so ugly. He should be pwetty like Gerard Butler...

T…that’s not a very nice thing to say….

[anithemonsterlover]

Phoebus promoted to main character. No Frollo cause that offends Karens. Instead Quasi is the evil incel that the beautiful het couple must bring down. Movie ends up even more racist and ableist but that's okay cause spoiled white feminists from Buzzfeed got satisfied

I can't wait for the live-action Hunchback of Notre Dame where it's revealed that all Roma including Esmeralda really are murderers and thieves and Frollo is one-hundred percent justified in commiting genocide against them.