Talk:Phantom (Kay novel)

However, despite the many sources that Kay drew on, her story is original, and the ending is significantly different than other stories. The most obvious difference is that the grasshopper and scorpion scene has been completely removed.

I don't think this bit makes sense to people who haven't read the novel(s).

Merpin 18:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Overhaul

I've attempted to make some changes to the article, to make it better and address some of the cleanup tags. I know this novel means a lot to many people, so I have tried to be as respectful and fair as I can possibly be.

Links: "Wikipedia is not a link farm." Unfortunately, unless the pages address the Kay novel directly (for instance, a newspaper article about how she wrote the book, or an online interview with the author) they don't belong here.

Characters: Bold instead of subheadings is standard in other book articles; it also makes the text somewhat neater.

Opinions: Wiki articles are to be written from NPOV. If something did not seem objective, I took it out or rephrased it.

No original research: Wiki is not the place for original research or sharing of original philosophies about the book (for instance, what Erik's surname was).

Chunks of text: as good and descriptive as they are, they're also copyvio. Wiki policy forbids more than a short quote or two.

I hope the edit meets everyone's approval. Mademoiselle Sabina 04:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Aggressive Phan Reactions

The bit of Phan Reactions seemes a bit to aggressive toward the Phans. I am a Phan myself and I fully understand that it is for lack of better terms, a glorified Fan Fiction. Kay's work may not be cannon, but it is the second best novel in Phandom for a simple reason: It demonstrates something I have been saying for years. Erik needs to be seen through every version. Only by combining many works can we see the bigger picture. Kay has demonstrated that. She combined many versions to show the man Erik. Not simply the enigma of Leroux, the tragic hero of Chaney, and Webber's monthy royalty checks. I fully realize that her work would not exhist if Leroux had not written his the first place. But I am only one very vocal Phan. Vila 09:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Spoilers

There should be spoiler alerts on the character section and probably on the plot section, since Charles is mentioned. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.116.143.113 (talk) 18:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC). I have tried but it keeps being deleting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.67.112.234 (talk) 02:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• The WIkipedia guideline is not to include spoiler warnings - see WP:SPOILER Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

I'm guessing a novel like this has garnered some degree of cult following and a HUGE amount of criticism from literary experts. Shouldn't there be a section on that? The excerpts demonstrate a strong yet strongly unoriginal desire to humanize a traditionally villainous famous character, and not much craft in the writing itself, apart from the plot. From what I can see, the dialogue is even more two-dimensional than Andrew Lloyd-Webber's adaptation. Any critic would see that, and if they haven't, that probably just means no critic has bothered to read this book; something has to be relevant in order to have it's own Wikipedia page and over-abundant links on other pages linking to it.--Plavalagunanbanshee (talk) 17:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Restoration of lost information

I think we need to restore the information removed by people like the user Just Another Cringy Username. 87.72.89.8 (talk) 09:32, 25 October 2022 (UTC)