The particule question
15 April 2020 02:59 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
igenlode(Cross-posted from a comment on ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
vicomte_de_chagny, since I know I'll never look for it there, and had enough trouble finding the reference to material that only existed in an untagged comment in my own blog...)
One interesting thing about Leroux's reference to the initials RC carved into the wall of the Communards' dungeon is how it relates to the particule question -- it implies that, to a Frenchman, Raoul's initials are self-evidently RC, not (as I've seen in fanfics where a handkerchief embroidered with Raoul's initials forms part of the plot) RdC, or even R.D.C.
(I wondered if I ought to drop the particule on typing up, but having now done five chapters -- 15,000 words/31 pages of manuscript/Plot Point Four -- I've stuck with having Lancard refer to him as 'de Chagny". Having him address Raoul as 'Chagny' just seemed rude and weird when I was typing it....)
vicomte_de_chagny, since I know I'll never look for it there, and had enough trouble finding the reference to material that only existed in an untagged comment in my own blog...)One interesting thing about Leroux's reference to the initials RC carved into the wall of the Communards' dungeon is how it relates to the particule question -- it implies that, to a Frenchman, Raoul's initials are self-evidently RC, not (as I've seen in fanfics where a handkerchief embroidered with Raoul's initials forms part of the plot) RdC, or even R.D.C.
(I wondered if I ought to drop the particule on typing up, but having now done five chapters -- 15,000 words/31 pages of manuscript/Plot Point Four -- I've stuck with having Lancard refer to him as 'de Chagny". Having him address Raoul as 'Chagny' just seemed rude and weird when I was typing it....)
no subject
Date: 2020-04-16 03:41 pm (UTC)Yes, I've heard about it, but I don't really have an Internet device that can take advantage. (I did make an exception for the National Theatre's "One Man, Two Guvnors", which was worth jumping through hoops for -- that was something that got outstanding reviews when it was on the stage, and was definitely worth seeing.)
This production has something of the reputation among fans (possibly influenced by the Karimloo/Boggess casting) of being Lloyd Webber's attempt to retro-fit his original musical to be more compatible with "Love Never Dies", featuring Abusive Raoul, Victim Phantom, and a Christine who directs her final ecstatic solo to her abandoned kidnapper rather than in duet with the lover she has just rescued. That may just be bias -- and after all, longer-established operas are constantly being given new interpretations with each fresh staging (though I've often wondered why they always update them forwards in time instead of, say, doing a production of "La Bohème" set at the court of Louis XIV, or "Tosca" during the Wars of the Roses).
I have seen bits of this production on YouTube in the past, either pirated as music videos or as part of review/comparison programmes examining different presentations, so I've got an idea of what it's like visually. (I find the microphone headpieces very weird -- these are trained singers so presumably don't need to be miked up to compensate for lack of projection, and I'm sure Sarah Brightman can't have performed with a microphone dangling six inches in front of her mouth at all times. I suppose it's because the Albert Hall is such a large venue, and so that they could mix the recording.)