He cites the factual errors of the electrical lighting (a simple error, easy to forgive. The basic idea is there and it is brilliant, but the way poor Gaston tells it is a mess' (xx). 'Looking at his original text today, frankly one is in a quandary. And thenForsyth decides to inform us that Gaston Leroux, author of the original novel, got his story wrong, and that Webber's musical 'corrects' the errors. Irrelevant perhaps, but interesting all the same. It starts off all right: he goes into the history of the Paris Opera House. Just from the author's preface, I should have known this was going to suck. The problems start even before the first chapter. After all, writing books usually takes more effort and care than making a movie, so I was hopeful that this would be a pleasant reading experience. So when I found out there was a sequel, I was skeptical but interested. (And on the outset, I will warn you that this review contains spoilers for all three works.) And let me say, I love 'The Phantom of the Opera,' both the novel and the musical. The book in question is 'The Phantom of Manhattan' by Frederick Forsyth, a sequel to Andrew Lloyd Webber's popular musical 'The Phantom of the Opera,' which in turn was based on the novel by Gaston Leroux. I have to tell you all just howhow terrible this reading experience was.

But this book is so bad, so nonsensical, and so mind-bogglingly stupid that I simply have no choice. I thought I'd stick to writing film reviews and that would be that. I've never done a book review before, and until now, I never thought I would have to.

Phantom of the opera book sequel