abe lincoln enthusiast

I love how most of what we know about Erik in Leroux’s novel is told by someone else’s perspective. Even by the end of the book, Erik’s appearance, backstory, creations, and actions are still shrouded in so much mystery and confusion. I just love how, even to the reader, the phantom and his genius appears incomprehensible

The whole epilogue is Leroux (who was a reporter! he wrote much of the framing device of the book in his journalistic voice!) going "I have dug up the truth, and this guy was a normal man under miserable circumstances, and you should feel sorry for him." He also breaks down, in detail, the mechanisms by which he did basically everything that originally seemed ghostly, and it's all as mundane as possible (tiny trapdoors for pickpocketing, et al). There is almost no mystery or confusion about him by the end, save perhaps that we never learn what his real name was (or if he ever had one; and functionally Erik was his real name by the time he died, and he seems to have been using it his whole adult life). We know where he was born and what his father did for a living, for chrissakes.

I don’t think that’s necessarily a level of re-mystification; I think it’s that if anything Leroux’s narrator persona kind of takes a higher view of how Erik deserves to be remembered than Erik himself had by the end of his life.

I mean, I guess it boils down to what you consider to be "re-mystification." G.L. credits himself for tracking down the solid facts of the case, which in the epilogue seem to derive from one source - the daroga - who is biased by nature and proximity to the situation. We are also point-blank told "Toute une période de l'existence d'Erik était assez obscure" ("A period of Erik's life remained quite obscure" in De Mattos), meaning that apart from the details we do know, we don't know anywhere close to everything. Even what we are told are pretty superficial - his early home life is given a mere three sentences - and the influence of the daroga’s bias shows through quite a bit when he says "il semblait ne connaître ni le bien ni le mal" ("He seemed not to know the difference between good and evil" in De Mattos).

I love how most of what we know about Erik in Leroux’s novel is told by someone else’s perspective. Even by the end of the book, Erik’s appearance, backstory, creations, and actions are still shrouded in so much mystery and confusion. I just love how, even to the reader, the phantom and his genius appears incomprehensible

The whole epilogue is Leroux (who was a reporter! he wrote much of the framing device of the book in his journalistic voice!) going "I have dug up the truth, and this guy was a normal man under miserable circumstances, and you should feel sorry for him." He also breaks down, in detail, the mechanisms by which he did basically everything that originally seemed ghostly, and it's all as mundane as possible (tiny trapdoors for pickpocketing, et al). There is almost no mystery or confusion about him by the end, save perhaps that we never learn what his real name was (or if he ever had one; and functionally Erik was his real name by the time he died, and he seems to have been using it his whole adult life). We know where he was born and what his father did for a living, for chrissakes.

*hires an Etsy witch to fix Hugh Panaro’s knees*

*hires an Etsy witch to fix Hugh Panaro’s knees*

idk if this is an usamerican thing or not but it always blows my mind as a small european country resident that yall have many names and types of apples???? what do you mean its not just red yellow or green??? why is it so complicated??? who is granny smith????

'whats your favorite apple' 'red' 'no i mean like what type' '??????' actual conversatiom i've had with a mutual from usa

the world is so big and beautiful