The Phantom of the Opera

How Leroux’s description of noise overpowers everything else 

The Phantom of the Opera was a novel that thrived on the power of sound and music. It created silence and a description of speech which dominated the words’ meanings. 

Gaston Leroux demonstrated the influence of what we can hear and how it subdues everything else, with discernible factors only being made apparent by ear. 

The Phantom of the Opera follows the story of Christine Daaé, a young singer who is described as having a “seraphic” voice. She is taught yet also obsessed over by the “Angel of Music,” who is the haunting Phantom of the opera. Upon falling for a friend, Viscount Raoul de Chagny, the Phantom’s envy leads him to provide Christine with an ultimatum. The Phantom, or Raoul – with horrific prospects awaiting her on either path. 

What intrigued me the most was how the interpretation of words changed depending on the constantly changing word for “says.” This was written to indicate how speech was spoken or emphasised. Leroux utilised his creative freedom in adapting this word to impact the reader’s perception of the information which undeniably made the novel so powerful in the written word. 

I feel that the differentiation in “says” revealed emotional states of the characters and heightened the feeling erupting from them. Similarly, it undid ulterior motives given away by the reality of their words, affirming the previously unnoticed. 

Clarity is disguised and the manipulation of sight is alluded to by the Angel of Music. He represents a heavenly, divine professor who guides Christine. Yet he becomes a hideous product of his own desire beneath his mask. 

To display how Erik (the Phantom) conceals himself, one had “never seen him, but she had heard him.” Similarly, one had also “recognised the voice of a monster” when Erik was upon them. 

One could close their eyes if they wanted to avoid something visually, yet to hear comes quicker than sight at a speed which is unavoidable. 

Some chapters included little to no noise. These occurred earlier on in the book as the plot had not bloomed yet. Nothing tense had taken place and therefore needed nothing dramatic to happen through sound and secrecy. 

On the other hand, other chapters included a vivid illustration of silence. The oxymoron of a deafening silence occurs in this novel as it is filled with stillness that echoes in the rooms of quietude.  

“The awful silence succeeded the uproar.” 

Why does this “silence” win, as though there were something to be beat? Why can it be so powerful as to overtake the screams of a crowd? 

In the same way, an “agonizing” silence is described as “reign(ing)” – this shows in its entirety how silence is pictured throughout the novel. 

Constantly, quietness is upon us, and it begins to bring light to minor instances or actions that would be usually unheard. For example, “Nothing was heard but the hard breathing of the girls.” Once audible regularity is gone, what is usually overseen becomes worryingly apparent. 

Likewise, when the silence occurs, things begin to be said “very loudly,” as though to disguise fear. At one point, someone began “lowering her voice” as though “fearing lest other ears than those present might overhear. This suggests that a whisper could have connotations of mystery. 

In “The Phantom of the Opera,” the Phantom is all-hearing. If there was knowledge that “lowering” your voice does nothing to accomplish privacy, then what reason was it done for? Was it to conceal what was said or to guide those listening to confidence? 

What substantiates my claim is the description of the voice “sitting on the corner chair” on the right “in the front row.” Once more, is this voice superior to everything else? Why is it “sitting” in the front row like it was destined to be there? Are we supposed to regard this voice as the top of a ladder despite its existence being intangible? 

Something I noticed very clearly in the novel was the contrast between happiness and fear. The declaration of “forced and unnatural laughter” determines that they are one and there is no difference. They co-exist freely. Particularly, “those who laughed the loudest were not the most at ease” explores how volume does not equal composure. 

Finally, what is audible seems to hypnotise those in the novel and becomes its own power. For instance, the “monster” almost becomes overthrown by himself and his strength. “We heard nothing except the monster’s laughter and the monster himself could have heard nothing else.”  

This supports the argument that noise dominates all surrounding it, even the thing producing it. 

To conclude, The Phantom of the Opera exerts a powerful force shaped by Leroux’s description of noise. From the idea that music co-exists with silence and that everything is part of a whole, it defines how the trajectory of the plot is moved forward. The Phantom of the opera is not just a story of obsession and a haunting figure, but of sound and how it alters our perception of the reality existing inside this classic. st a story of obsession and a haunting figure, but of sound and how it alters our perception of the reality existing inside this classic.