Horrible events have occurred here in the United States in the last few months in such rapid succession it is hard to comprehend. From a mass shooting in Las Vegas, to an ISIS driven attack in New York City to the most recent mass shooting at a small town Baptist church in Texas and a school shooting in California. While I know this blog is usually about updates to my books, it is also about my life and thoughts. Authors are not immune to the sadness and fears of the world even though we spend so much time in fantasy. It leaves me thinking of my huge church where inside hundreds of family members gather weekly and daily to serve Christ. I fear for our safety, yet then I remember how many times in the Bible God tells us not to fear.
Its 365 times. By God’s design there are 365 days in a year. Not a coincidence.
Times like this lift up the question, “Why does God allow such horror?” If you’re like me and a Christian, you’ll get asked that in your lifetime. So I remember that in times like this…. God weeps.
God isn’t allowing this suffering to happen. This horror and pain entered the world on the back of sin in the Garden of Eden when Adam and Eve chose sin over God’s loving guidance. The next question that will come flying at a Christian is, “Then why did He allow sin into the world?”
I have said these things to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world. ~John 16:33
That’s when Christians tackle the tough task of explaining how God loves us and how He wanted us to have free will. In order to be in a unique relationship with every son and daughter He has, He gave us individual choice. Without that, we’d be carbon copies of one another, marionettes for God instead of children of God. With our freedoms we have the ability, daily, to choose God’s love or to choose not to love.
“Then why can’t God just stop it all?”
The truth is, in my opinion, God surely can. Just as He opened his mouth and spoke light into existence He can speak sin out of existence. But then… when would God be able to stop? Take away one sin there is still another to deal with, then another, and another, and soon a world of sin to discipline. Pretty soon humans are nothing more than those marionettes with God constantly intervening to correct our thoughts and movements, instead of humans learning from our free choices.
Look at it this way, as children didn’t we learn from our mistakes? A parent who constantly scolds and corrects the bad action of a child isn’t teaching in my opinion, they’re merely controlling the child’s actions. If children behave there is no need to correct them, yet once they misbehave then the correction must occur. It’s a learned process to do the right thing. Had sin not entered the world when it did, learning right from wrong wouldn’t be an issue. The world would have known only right, good, and love.
Now I consider the fallen world I live in since sin entered and look at my neighbor. Would I rather be exactly like them, in all ways, the good, bad and ugly or have the ability to choose how I want to behave? Would you want to be controlled, or free?
“But He took care of getting rid of sin early in the Bible, so why not now? Answer that one!”
When the world was created, when Mankind was just taking its baby steps, there were a lot of miraculous ways God showed His power. He had to. In order for the race He created to understand His great love, and their mistakes, God had to perform many signs of His power, even if it meant things like the Great Flood. Today… He doesn’t have to. His great faith is evident in the millions of followers of Jesus worldwide.
I sadly heard one morning that someone somewhere said loud enough for the news to pick up on it, that praying at times like this doesn’t control or change anything so why bother. I’ve even been told myself that God can’t change things. That was one of the saddest statements ever said to me, and I disagree. It doesn’t make tragedies easier to endure knowing about free choice. But understanding that God gave me a will of my own can help me, and others, pray over tragedy. Pray that those impacted have hearts that remain rooted in the love of God, and that God’s spiritual warfare is present in their lives so that Satan doesn’t get a grip on them in the wake of their sadness. Just as the horrible choices of one person changed the lives of the victims and their families and friends forever, their individual choices after a tragedy can have impact good or bad too. Do I want them to fall prey to all the horrible feelings Satan wants them to experience in this time, or do I want a hedge of protection to envelope them to know God’s loving guidance even more? I think many would agree with me over which is the better choice.
God wants us to use our free will to make the right choices. He wants us to choose to make disciples who make disciples who make disciples. We have the choice to pray for the sinners of this earth to turn to Christ so other horrific events don’t happen. So, praying in my opinion changes everything.
When we weep, God weeps too. Spiritual growth occurs in the valley and in that sorrow His love endures.
Something to ponder as I write.
“Literary fiction exercises a reader’s imagination in matters of character and emotional nuances.” ~Sherry Turkle
When was the last time you noticed emotional nuances? The reply should be just now, or two minutes ago, or whatever is the last amount of time you spent in the room with another person. Every second we stand before another person we are giving off emotional cues about our inner, unspoken feelings that add to the conversation and our ability to build empathy. That is totally lost in the digital age. By spending so much time with screens in front of our faces we lose out on the nuances of body language.
Imagine this: Lets say we are sitting together in a room and you declare “Let’s go see The Shack!” I slap my hand down on the arm of my chair, point to the ceiling, nod and say “Great. Lets do that. What time?” What feeling do you get? Lets say instead, I reply by rolling my eyes, hanging my head to my shoulder, stare at the floor, then say “Great. Lets do that. What time?” What feeling do you get?
In the first instance, body language would show enthusiasm and engagement; in the second disengagement, boredom, maybe even disgust.
Now imagine a screen in front of you and you type the same question to the person on the opposite end. All you see are letters forming the words, “Great. Lets do that. What time?” Sans any visual clues you have zero idea of what is really being thought and felt. Without this type of engagement, where we get to read another person’s body cues, there is only so far empathy can build. It’s common knowledge that using all caps means someone is yelling at you–but are they really angry? Can you see their pupils dilate or their fists clench? If you type something funny is the person really “ROTFL” or are they sitting there stone-face, bored and saying that to humor you? A problems existing in today’s world is that folks are forgetting the importance of being together. What suffers is empathy. Reading body language builds connection.
Turkle wrote of something called “disconnection anxiety.” That’s a phenomenon of when people who are always plugged in to there phones, emails, or computers finally get to be alone–they can’t handle it. Concentration suffers, boredom sets and the fear of falling off the radar becomes too much. Alone–is the worst thing possible. When there is a constants stream of blogs to read, emails to check and things to like on Facebook or Twitter, there is little time being spent on just being quiet enough to understand the benefits of true solitude.
Too much time spent focused online or on phones leads to an inability to take time for oneself. And, if one cant take time for oneself, how can they take time for another?
Something to ponder as Lent continues….
crossposted over at Strong Finds Power
I’ve been looking forward to this weekend for a long while. The Shack has finally released.
I can testify that there is no relationship on earth quite like the one we have with God, through Jesus and by the power of the Holy Spirit. When I first read The Shack I thought it was a good book, but didn’t really understand it. The ideas and concepts confused me even thought I grew up in the church. I wasn’t ready to hear what the book had to say. I was reading it for the wrong reasons. It was something trendy to do, since Oprah recommended it. It wasn’t until 2015 when I needed and turned to God the most, that I re-read it…. and it made more than sense, it made the way to understanding my faith easier.
I was once told God didn’t have “time” to listen to prayers when I prayed for my needs, only when I prayed for the needs of others. I know this is wrong now for I know where to find my support first and foremost in the scripture. Matthew 7:7 says: “Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.” The Shack helped me see that God has time for every prayer. I turned more away from misguided thoughts and more to opening my heart and mind to understanding my relationship with God, through prayer. He wants to hear from me and I from Him. He is always speaking…
I hope everyone welcomes this book into their lives. It may be the start to a new understanding…
Turkle is on to something and I slowly realize I am making a conscious choice to strive, whenever possible, to make sure all my friendships involve eye-to-eye conversation. Words have far more meaning and connection when there are the feelings of attachment and empathy that can only be achieved by the power of eye contact. Even if it is only via Skpe, the “mirroring” pathways in our brain are engaged and a deeper connection occurs.
Turkle reveals shocking studies. More and more youth in this day and age are accustomed to constant interruptions in conversation due to social media. So much so, the interruptions are not viewed as a bad thing but rather as another form of human connection. These interruptions provide an “out” for things folks want to avoid, and the overwhelming thing people want to avoid is boredom. Boredom is basically a warning sign when you come down to it. It’s the mind is telling us we have to pay closer attention to something… anything. At its core, that’s a good thing as it teaches us to take note to what makes us tick and pushes us to make new connections or learn new things. But if boredom is constantly swatted away by the allure of the phone and the online world, how are we to come to know ourselves? And in that, how are we to come to make meaningful conversations with one another?
This world is too fast paced if you ask me. People want instant gratification. I’ve said that numerous times at work. The “meat” of a story has to be within the first paragraph, or three sentences, lest you risk losing a reader. More often than not, people want to be told what to do, not how to do for themselves. Focus is lacking and lulls in conversation are a bad thing. During the point in my life when I was online all the time, I learned that any “lull” in a conversation committed by me that was longer than 3 seconds would spark questions. It led to more anxiety for me, which wasn’t good when you have an anxiety disorder. I’d worry for a split second that I wasn’t fast enough to reply. Many times I’d have to think before I would type or respond to a question. 99% of the time all I was doing was processing what I just read and was forming my thoughts. It takes me longer than most sometimes due to my Pure O. I think in pictures and metaphors. I absorb things slower. My “lulls” would spark questions of if I was multitasking. Who else was I talking to? What else was I doing? What was going on? Well…. nothing. I was thinking. Plain and simple. If you speak to me and it seems like I am not replying fast enough, give me a second. I am just flipping through mind mind and rotating my thoughts into words. But this digital age has programmed a world where faster is better, and, when people lack the empathy found in face to face conversations, silence can be misread. Turkle mentions this. She writes:
“...people who chronically multitask train their brains to crave multitasking. Those who multitask most frequently don’t get better at it; they just want more of it. This means that conversation, the kind that demands focus, becomes more and more difficult.” I can’t help but think that those who are constantly on the go, and especially our youth today with their crazy schedules, might expect others to be on the go too. That if they multitask, they expect, or assume, others are as well and are capable of functioning in that environment. Where I respond slower, an expert multitasker may be quicker to a reply. How does the movement from texting, to instant messages, to Facebook, to Twitter feeds, etc., affect people’s ability to slow down, form thoughts, and carry on conversations, and can it be done without the interruptions? Youth today are experts in juggling multiple forms of social media. Turkle discovered that, for people in their teens and twenties, the most commonly heard phrase at dinner with friends was “Wait, what?” Everyone is always missing something because they are not slowing down enough to pause, process, think and then respond.
I suppose that is why I love small groups at church. They are highly focused. It’s why I love dinners at the dining room table with my daughter. Togetherness breeds connection. A slower pace creates time to think before you speak.
It’s not easy to unplug from it all though. Just last night I was having a hard time with my necessity to say good night to my best friend so to have my dinner and walk the dog. I kept wanting to flip my computer back open so to be in constant connection. I felt selfish for leaving. Backing away from the world I was so involved in when I am home is strange for me, especially when it’s part of my job, but it’s giving me a lot more power to be a better person and friend. I’m less stressed now that I am offline more than I am online. I feel like I have privacy.
Always being connected in the digital world leaves you never alone and, in order to know yourself the best, you have to be alone sometimes.
It’s the wrap up of #OCDWeekOfAction, an initiative of a UK based charity for those with OCD. So I invite everyone who takes those online OCD “tests” that cycle around Facebook to donate to support the mental illness they so quickly discovered they were afflicted with.
I’ve said it once and will say it again… it’s not funny anymore. I’ve pondered if I should get a thicker skin, if I should “lighten” up over these obviously fluff tests likely designed to phish information from Facebook accounts… but I find I fail. This is a mental illness I have watched get trivialized repeatedly. So my action, in what small corner of the web I own, is to say, again, please stop it. Stop degrading and spreading false ideas about what OCD is all about. It is not about your eyesight or color standards. It is not about perfectionism and attention to detail.
The tests for OCD suck. They suck because you’re alone in a room being asked a battery of questions, some which make no sense to your racing mind, all while your heart is flat on your shoes. You wonder if you will be leaving that doctor’s office “fixed” and “normal” or will keep on living a life “faking normal.” They are scary and confusing, and since you are not diagnosed yet, you are left with hours (to days) of waiting as your symptoms get worse because of the anxiety you just went through. Then your results come back and you are staring down bottles of mind-bending, extremely powerful drugs that literally alter your personality.
But instead society has this idea that OCD is the kid to pick on in the “playground” of mental illness. It’s fun to say, easy for celebrities to make into a “designer” illness, and profitable to slap on tee-shirts and coffee mugs.
I wonder if folks who take these online “tests” on Facebook, and then proudly say they are 100% OCD afterward will remember the day of their diagnoses for all their lives. I’d like them to post on the blog in reply and let me know. And if you really do have OCD, post in reply and let me know if you remember the day you were diagnosed. Help to spread knowledge and crush the ignorance. I remember mine. I came home scared out of my wits, angry as all hell, and for days later was sick as a dog. Since I was terrified back then of letting anyone know I had a mental illness I went on with life and suffered through work with debilitating migraines as the meds tried to work. Then I would sleep every second I could.
I had to be a wife, I had to be a mother to an infant, I had to “fake normal.” I had to try to forget the exact circumstance that woke this sleeping giant in me.
I have Pure O-OCD. I can’t forget as much as I want to and I assure you it was not the moment I took a “test” on Facebook.
But… I can vent to my corner of the world and ask again that OCD not be commercialized or trivialized. Think about the cancer a friend had, or the Alzheimers a parent died of, think of the darkest diagnosis in your life and how it impacted your family and friends, then think of what it would be like if that diagnosis was constantly disrespected. It’s not just disrespectful to the illness, but to the person afflicted.
Take the online GAMES but when you go to post results be sure to mention that it was a fun way to see if you had quirk, to test your eyesight, or finickiness. Call it for what it is. This mental illness would have a greater understanding and a lot more support if those who didn’t suffer from OCD helped to spread the word about what it really is.
I suppose I’m never going to lighten up about this. If I have the opportunities take a stand on it, I will.
I am totally not editing today. I have the attention span of flea hopped up on caffeine, but the motivation of a snail. Not a good combination when you have to push a book out. I’ve been cleaning instead. I found this information on sexual tension and thought I’d toss it up on the blog.I learned something from it years ago. Perhaps those trolling the web may find it useful too.
Sexual tension is actions and reactions of your characters to each others chemistry both physical and emotional. It is your characters flirting with the limits of their relationship and the emotions of their partner. It’s where your hero touches your heroine and she trembles. Where he strokes her skin and she melts. Understanding body reflexes and reactions to all the senses is critical in good romance writing. All the senses must be involved to make a good scene. How does your hero smell, what does his feel like, how does the heroine react to his touch? There are twelve steps to consider in creating convincing sexual tension:
Eye to body– This is the fraction it takes for someone to size up the physical attributes of their partner. Instantly we know what attracts us, so your character should to. What do they see in their partner and how to they process it?
Eye to eye— Our attraction is connected to the eye. Only intimate people make direct eye contact. Prolonged eye contact in non-intimate people could be considered aggressive staring. Let the reader know what the character reads behind those eyes.
Voice to voice– In a scene this connects the reader via small talk and introduces a reader to how the characters relate. A hero who is staring at a heroine might walk up her and say he wants to sleep with her outright. That’s a fairly bold move. You’d either shock the reader with this voice-to-voice contact or perhaps the reader expected him to do that by how you built up the sexual tension in the scene. Think about how a character will sound in the moment. Husky? Throaty? Where the words moaned? Manipulations to the voice in sexual tension can speak volumes.
Hand to hand–This intimacy is important. Throughout history social intentions were built around gestures of the hand. Look at the handshake what it means. Physically the hand is extremely sensitive by the amount of nerves involved, so be sure to pull in the sense of touch.
Arm to shoulder— This is a breaching of social circles by coming in closer than what is usually acceptable. Invading personal space to find a more intimate connection is a daring. Letting bodies touch crosses a threshold and brings the reader closer to a sexual intent. The character could be leaning in slightly then quickly backing off, or could brush brushing against someone he or she passes by.
Arm to waist–Who doesn’t know what hand on the small of a back means? It is a direct statement of sexual intimacy. It could state a deep interest or reflect disgust. How many times have you seen a woman arch away from contact as this as if to say “hands off!” This form of intimacy and can convey a variety of sexual tension, both good and bad.
Mouth to Mouth–You can count on physical arousal with this one, especially with your male characters, and it will occur or you have done something wrong in the sexual tension. Don’t under estimate the power of a simple kiss. There are several hot spots on the human neck that will automatically arouse. Don’t forget taste here either. The characters are kissing, each has to taste like something so consider, if it works well for the scene, to add that element. Be certain, however, that it doesn’t pull the reader out of scene.
Hand to head–I love this one. This is an intimate portrayal of trust. It’s difficult to not to see the meaning behind someone’s eyes when their hand and is holding your head, cheek, neck…
Hand to body— If your heroine doesn’t trust your hero this is usually the spot where you should break off the tension.
Mouth to breast— By now you may be approaching a sex scene or at least extreme intimate arousal. Here all senses come into play. For a male he is smelling, tasting and feeling all at the same time
Hand to genital–The characters have reached total bonding at this point. Your hero and heroine should be trusting each other enough to want to progress.
Genital to genital–the face to face, full body contact of making love.
Those are the basic to building up to sexual tension—go out and find a character to use them on.
It’s rare that a book makes me leap out of the tub to post a blog, but just a few pages into this one and I knew I had to. It’s called “Reclaiming Conversation: The Power of Talk in a Digital Age” by Sherry Turkle.
The art of conversation has died around us. I was never a big conversationalist to begin with but I sure did listen..a lot. I don’t hear many real honest to goodness conversations where people are talking with each other and not at or through each other. In this day and age human empathy and connection has suffered by placing windows and screens in place of eye-to-eye, face-to-face contact.
I spend most of my time in an online world. It’s a part of my job. I interact with countless people on social media that I will never see face to face. For many years I came home and social media was my world too, so much so, the first thing I did when I walked in my door was to make sure the computer was on and the alerts were turned up. But the online world is no substitute for being present before another person, and yet, we all succumb to it. We love the idea of being able to edit a thought before we say it and be as flawless as we can possibly be.
Things have changed for me over years. I started to get involved in small groups with my church. I am less interested in social media and growing more addicted to God and small groups. I get a high from making connections and hearing the flawed stories of people face-to-face.
It’s 2017 and it took some time and a lot of prayer but I can say I social media is not running my life as it has for the last 9 years. My phone is used to make calls or send a text to one of a handful of people. When in a waiting room full of people looking at their phones, I’m the one looking at them.
I’m “reclaiming” my own art of conversation. That’s why I am going to read this book and post a blog when a thought strikes me. I sure hope this helps me learn a lot more about the conversation before my daughter gets to be the age where she wants/needs a phone. I don’t want her to be one of those tweens who never looks where she is going when she walks or who’s idea of hanging out with friends is sitting around looking at their phones.
Turkle writes: “The very sight of a phone on the landscape leaves us feeling less connected to each other, less invested in each other….Once aware we can begin to rethink our practices. When we do, conversation is there to reclaim. For the failing connections of our digital world, it is the talking cure.”
Granted, it’s the digital age, but God made people so people can be known to one another. He did not make us to live alone. He did not create us to love in secret. He did not design us to hide from one another. He gave us empathy for a reason.
I know mine needs polish.
Each Christmas presented an awesome way to annoy my older brother.
That I did so during church on Christmas every year didn’t matter. In my heart, God has a sense of humor and I figured He was laughing along with me.
First off let me say the church I attend now, (Christ Church) rocks. Figuratively and literally. Besides the fountain of Living Water that greets everyone as they come in, we’ve an amazing worship team and Pastor John has a gift of stimulating the mind and the heart. Currently he is teaching us about the history behind famous carols. Being a history geek myself I thought I’d polish up this old blog post and start not being a hermit to my fans as I have been of late.
My brother’s glare of warning every Christmas Eve when it came time to sing “Silent Night” could light brimstone. That glare was my cue, and he knew what was coming the instant the lights dimmed throughout the church. During high school I spoke German, and, being a teen and the annoying younger sister that I was, I thought it hip to sing “Silent Night” in its original language solely to bother my brother.
But that story is not my point, fun as it is to remember.
Christmas brings many creative stories about how this timeless carol was created. One being that a mouse munching the bellows of an organ forced the need for Joseph Mohr, a young priest assigned to a pilgrimage church in Mariapfarr, Austria, to compose something in haste in order to sing at the Midnight Mass. That story has more versions than can be counted at this point! It’s been sensationalized through the years in film and books, but the reality of this hymn is humble in its origins.
“Silent Night” was written by Joseph Mohr in 1816; however it wasn’t until Christmas Eve of 1818, when Mohr visited the home of Franz Gruber, a primary school teacher and church organist, that it came into being as a carol. Mohr showed his friend the poem and simply asked him to write a melody for it for two solo voices, a choir, and guitar accompaniment. Mohr liked what Gruber wrote and later that night, December 24th, the first stanzas of “Stille Nacht! Heilige Nacht!” were heard. Gruber’s personal account of how the carol was written doesn’t mention Mohr’s specifics for inspiration, but one supposition is that the church organ was no longer working forcing Mohr’s need for it to be written for guitar (some legends claim it was mice eating the organ, other claim rust on the pipes).
However a broken organ does tie into the tale by some accounts, as master organ builder Karl Mauracher worked at Mohr’s church several times over the years. While there, it’s possible Mauracher obtained a copy of the composition and took it away him. As a result the simple carol began its journey around the world in the hands of an organ builder and ultimately ended up into a church songbook prepared by Blasius Wimmer.
Many carols (as learned in church recently) were composed during troubled times. “Do You Hear What I Hear,” during the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis and “It Came Upon A Midnight Clear” when Christmas was illegal in the United States. “Silent Night” was no different. It was created and first performed after the Napoleonic Wars. The Congress of Vienna had created new borders and a new order for Europe. Salzburg, Austria suffered greatly during this time having to secularize due to losing its status as an independent country. In 1816, at the time Mohr penned “Silent Night,” its lands were divided between Bavaria and Austria. The local economy in Oberndorf by Salzburg suffered, causing a depression and forcing many into unemployment. Mohr was in Oberndorf at this time. Witnessing these events his wrote “Silent Night” and penned the 4th verse as a plea for peace:
Silent night! Holy night!; Where on this day all power; of fatherly love poured forth; And like a brother lovingly embraced; Jesus the peoples of the world; Jesus the peoples of the world. (translated from the original)
The melody changed over the years. In December of 1822 the Rainer Family Singers performed the song at the Castle of Count Donhoff for Emperor Franz I and Tsar Alexander I of Russia. Several musical notes were changed at this concert and the carol evolved into the melody we now know. By 1839 “Silent Night” was performed for the first time in America at the Alexander Hamilton Monument outside Trinity Church in New York City. The rest, as they say, is history.
Without doubt it will be performed this holiday season in churches across the country and most likely sung in English… unless I happen to be home at the same time as my brother.
Old habits die hard.
Ein frohes Weihnachtsfest und alles Gute zum neuen Jahr!
Many are curious as to Erik’s last name, and therefore his nationality. Leroux doesn’t provide us with a last name to his famous monster however many assume Erik is French because Leroux set his novel in Paris. The truth is nationality plays a big role in Leroux’s Phantom.
Leroux writes Erik was born in Rouen, which would make him nationally French, but doesn’t give us a parental bloodline. He makes mention of Erik’s mother and father, but beyond a snippet of information about trades, locations, and attitudes toward their monstrous son, the reader knows nothing. What is obvious is Leroux loved German villains.
Leroux’s most famous villains were German. The Phantom of the Opera is not his most beloved work, nor is Erik his most popular character. That honor belongs to his novel Rouletabille and his character Ballmeyer, a German. Ballmeyer and Erik display frightening similarities: murder, hidden passages, tricks, and an obsession with genius and disguise.
Much in Leroux’s novel echoed the anti-Germanic sentiment that was still prevalent in Paris at the time he wrote Phantom of the Opera. Leroux chose the Opera Garnier which was, for many years, was anti-Germanic. The Paris Opera House didn’t host a German opera until 1890. Leroux’s commentary of the opera manager, M. Richard, as the “sole person who has any comprehension of Wagner” makes him a comical figure in the eyes of Parisian society at the time of its printing and further hints at the anti-Germanic sentiment at the Opera Garnier.
Leroux goes further into rooting Erik as a German/Germanic and portrays France’s anti- German sentiment in the novel as a whole. Leroux’s Phantom was gleaned in part from Svengali, an Austrian Jew who captures the love of an opera singer by transfixing her and molding her into a work of public musical admiration. (This from George Du Maurier’s novel, Trilby.)
During her captivity Christine asks if the “name of Erik does not point to Scandinavian origin.” Erik doesn’t reply other than saying he is a man with no heritage and no country. He took his name “par hazard,” or at great risk. This indicates that “Erik” might not be his actual name at all, or another form of detaching himself from elements of his persona he doesn’t care to acknowledge. Even Leroux’s spelling of the name “Erik” points to German roots. As and aside, the choice of wine used throughout the novel is a Tokay which Leroux writes that Erik “himself brought from the cellars of Koensingburg,” further hinting Leroux’s route toward Germanic elements of his novel.
Overall Leroux wanted to create Erik as the foreigner among Frenchmen, in the same way he wanted a parallel between Raoul as the sexless virgin yet the leading male. Leroux wanted to craft Erik as the nation-less character while still creating a recognizably villainous character for the French: a German.
If anyone wants debate, the novel was also written at a time when Oriental thought was popular—echoed in the Persian, certain décor, even Erik as the Moor of Venice and his “yellow skin.”
Who is to say what nationality Erik was? This element of Leroux, however, is why I chose to make my heroine (or anti-heroine if you will) in my series of Germanic origin.
“Pride when there is a real superiority of mind…. Pride will always be under good regulation.” ~Fitzwilliam Darcy, Pride and Prejudice, Jane Austen
Often there are two themes in romance. A heroine lured into the dangerous world of the underground by the “bad boy” of literature, or she has her eyes set on the life of a titled lady.
Christine Daae, in Leroux’s The Phantom of the Opera, was a woman in limbo and trapped between two different classes: the aristocracy and the underground. She had to either choose the hero, Raoul, and his aristocrat life or choose the anti-hero, Erik, and live in the world of deviants and freaks.
In reality, Christine belonged in the bourgeoisie–between the middle class and the nobility–where image was everything. Leroux knew this and built his plot around it beautifully. Christine was a social ladder climber–a heroine interested in furthering her career, but also drawn to the idea of a title. I don’t believe for a moment that Christine didn’t’ realize that marrying a nobleman would bring her social admiration. She desired that popularity, but at the same time, wanted her career. Many readers forget–by marrying into the aristocracy, Christine would have had to leave the opera. Her life on stage would have been over. By resting comfortably in the bourgeoisie world, she could have it all. The career she wanted and the rubbing elbows with the upper classes that made her look desirable.
The bourgeoisie wanted the privilege of the aristocracy but also the freedom from their power and rule. Fashion was as important as outings to salons and the opera. They had to flaunt their status wherever they could. What better place for Christine then as the star of the opera? The bourgeoisie made sure they were noticed by the right people in restaurants, gardens, and boulevards. They mimicked whatever was in style at the time and placed etiquette first in order to mirror the noble image they wanted to obtain.
This is the perfect place for Christine. Here she stayed safe in an upwardly mobile class while desiring Raoul and his title, and at the same time furthered her career with Erik. Image-was paramount in Leroux’s novel and he built much of Christine’s internal conflict off this clash of the class system.