Lost S06E07 - Dr. Linus

'bout time I did another Lost post, and what a episode to come in and write upon. "Dr. Linus," the best episode of the season so far, and definitely one of my all-time favourite episodes ever, along with "The Substitute" earlier in the season. I had a lot of trouble deciding whether I thought this or "The Substitute" was better ... and at the end of the day, this character study in my favourite character trumps the eulogy for John Locke. I mean in "The Substitute" it wasn't even actually John Locke half the time. So just to recap, my favourite Lost episodes this season ...

1. Dr Linus
2. The Substitute
3. LA X
4. Sundown
5. Lighthouse
6. What Kate Does

My ranking of episodes general has to do with my emotional response to the episode, so yes, it will be in part tainted by my own personal predilections. However, I do have other criteria, and that's basically the narrative flow of the story, how all the stories intersect thematically, and whether they compliment and echo each other, rather than blindly repeating each other. There's also the great character moments ... the scenes where the dialogue is just tasty ... there's a semiotic density to the scenes that can't be explained.

Things I don't really care for? Story progression ... For instance, in this story (outside of the Jack-Hurley-Richard segments), there was no actual movement in the plot. Ilana's crew make it to the beach and having found out Ben's lie Ilana makes Ben dig his own grave. She confronts him after he escapes and then forgives him and all his happy. If anything, there's definitely a season 1 feel about this episode, and truly it is the first episode in which Ben features in a traditional Lost episode, where he gets an actual story about him as a person.

And the other things I don't care for are answers in and of themselves. Obviously answers and mythological scenes (such as the Smoke Monster in "The Shape of Things to Come") will occur in these episodes since Ben is seemingly entrenched in the mythos of the Island, but I see these as rather serving the emotional narrative.

To be honest, I'm kind of glad we've had to wait so long before getting a proper Ben episode that was just examining him as a character. Because in all the eps we've had thus far, we've always examined just once facet of him, whether it be how much of a liar he is ("Man Behind the Curtain"), his relationship to the Island ("The Shape of Things to Come") and his daughter ("Dead is Dead"), but never him as a whole. And that is what this episode does.

There's always been more to his character, and perhaps these points should've been made clear upon analysis of these episodes previous, but it took "Dr. Linus" to reveal them to me; that the underlying principle of his character which was best described in this article by Jeff Jensen over at Totally Lost:

"Benjamin Linus: unappreciated, unloved, and unwanted. He has spent most of his entire misbegotten existence hustling to secure and maintain a toe hold in the world, improvising his relevance and significance to the narrative of life that he worries would otherwise neglect him and forget him and leave him behind."

The man who 'always has a plan' is revealed to be at the end a fraud, a man who never once ever communed with Jacob, duping not only the Others and the Losties but also the viewers. A man who lied not only just to get what he wanted, but to give himself and aura and mystique of importance.

But perhaps more fundamental and less pop-psych, Ben is a character who sees himself with all the potential in the world but without any opportunity. He looks out at the world he's in and he feels like he doesn't belong. He feels estranged to the DHARMA folks so he aligns himself with the Hostiles. When he's there he feels the exact same feeling about the Hostiles under Widmore's leadership, so he goes to rectify this by usurping the position and bringing his people in line with the issues he feels important. He's the one who initiated the move into the DHARMA barracks, he brings his new people, his new family into his old home. Ben's major focus for the tenure of his office deals with the pregnancy issues, something Richard Alpert takes much consternation with.

For this, it's become clear to me now that the 'quintessential Other,' a kind of thematic/philosophical Otherness I once described, is Benjamin Linus and not, as I had hoped, Richard Alpert. This of course allows Richard's origins to have been from the Black Rock (I have previously hoped him much older and to have been the first Other). But I've always overlooked my favourite character as a candidate for that interesting role. The quinessential Other - one who looks out into the world and can only ever feel estranged, divorced from people, always an other.

And I say this because this fundamental genetic makeup is also present in Dr. Linus, his counterpart in the flashsideways. His father directly comments on his, with perhaps a bit too much pity, that Ben could've been something, not a teacher at a high school with a doctorate. His Otherness can also be seen with his opposition to Principal Reynolds and Arzst ... He's there for the children, an ideology that seems to have been forgotten.

Jensen points out nicely how this directly parallels Ben's history, particularly with Widmore as the parallel to Reynolds. A man in power and using it unwisely, so Ben uses information about how this man has abused their office to take power. Ben does this act with good intentions in both cases: he wants to do it to improve the school for the students; he wants to do it to not have an Others society that would go about killing babies (Alex).

Of course, the great tragedy of Ben being a character that is unneeded and unwanted is that he's spent so much time lying and deluding others into thinking he is somehow important that he's started to think that himself. When faced in a situation when the one person in the world actually needed him most, his daughter, he prioritised the Island, the one thing that definitely never needed him.

The moment Keamy killed Alex was a turning point for Ben. The delusion he'd built for his people and for himself, that he was important to the Island and the Others, was put into jeopardy. Was Alex's death necessary for the Island's survival? The delusion said yes, but his heart was definitely saying no. And so desperate was he to prove this wrong, to prove to himself that his daughter's death was not in vain, he claims to John that Jacob (or Christian) told John to move the Island but not how, meaning Ben was supposed to do it. What John is destined to do, Ben lies to take, to make himself needed to the Island. I quote for you, "I hope you're happy now, Jacob." One might even suggest the entire story of him and Sayid killing off Widmore's people could be seen in the same light, that he somehow thought he was serving the Island.

And then comes Jacob, announcing, "What about you?" In that one instant, his entire delusion was shattered. In that one moment he was reminded what he was: Unwanted. Irrelevant. An Other.

In the flashsideways, he is face with the same cognitive dissonance. Does he go for the greater good of the students, fall into the delusion of grandeur he'd concocted that he'd somehow be able to actually make things better, at the price of one student's future? Or does he preserve that future, something he tangibly can do? That Ben makes the other decision, nicely paralleling the change in the main-timeline Ben of choosing not to shoot Ilana but to lay out his soul.

Ben is definitely one of the most sophisticated characters on the show for this reason. He has had a very true and real character arc, spanning multiple seasons. And perhaps I should've seen this coming, this analysis could've been written prior to this episode. But the beautiful of Lost is that you don't, and when they do it for you, they do it in such a beautiful way that it just makes your heart pang with pain just watching it. Was there a single unmoved person when Ben announced that he would go "to Locke" because "he's the only one that'll have me"?

The character of Ben has been through so many development and changes, but perhaps most importantly is when he finds out he is duped by the Man in Black (MIB) and Locke is still dead. In killing Jacob he thought he was finally doing something in revenge of Alex, doing something for her, to somehow repent for his sins. But this turns out to just be another con. Ben becomes a totally broken man. A lot of fans complained that Ben was getting so little screen time post-premiere, and what he was were simple snippets of pathetic-broken-man. But quite frankly, I was reveling in it. Because it showed Ben developing as a character and I knew there would be a payoff. And boy, did "Dr. Linus" deliver.

At the end of the episode, Ben might just have found his way. He's no longer the enigmatic Other, or their omniscient leader, he's no longer the revenge driven father. He may just be a man right now. At the very end of the episode he's joined the Losties at the beach as an equal. The producers have given his massive arc for his character and this is where he's at. As himself with this crew, perhaps at least, he will find people that can somehow accept him.

The only thing he needs now? I'm going to just come out and make my prediction, based on the trajectory for the character. Over the course of the season we will see Ben slowly develop into just a 'normal' character, culminating in a sacrifice he will have to make at or near the finale to save the Island and the people on it. And in this, Ben will finally become that which he's always craved:

To be needed.

***

Miscellaneous thoughts ... SPOILERS for several episodes ahead. You've been warned.


I've just read that episode 9, the Richard centric, will get an extra 6 minutes of airtime, just like "The Life and Death of Jeremy Bentham." I am *so* looking forward to that.

I have the sneaky suspicious and this middle act (6 episodes) will essentially have the most season one feel of all the episodes in that it will essentially be people and people conflicts on beaches, with slight mythological drops here and there. Ilana's crew at our original beach and MIB's crew on Hydra Island. If there a quarter as good as this episode then I will be very happy. The first act was all about the Temple, the second act will be about the beaches. As for the third act ... I have no idea.

Michael Emerson recently intimated in an interview about ... I believe episode 16 that it would be set in a time and place not seen on network television before. Suggesting that the main cast do not appear. That fucking excites me. a MIB/Jacob flashback type episode? Who knows, I know it will be choca-block full of answers though.

The Lost podcast just said we will be seeing Widmore in the next episode. And to that I say good. The last thing I'd want is for an ep or two to go by without addressing it. Based on previews, it's going to be a Sawyer episode, so he should be on/near Hydra, so that's likely where Widmore's heading. Personally I hope we see a bit of Ilana's crew, but it could exclusively be that bunch. Ironically, no one on Hydra will have ever met Widmore (maybe some of the Others, but the Losties there don't know him). I hope Desmond is somehow on the sub.

I think they suggested quite strongly that Richard came on the Black Rock in "Dr. Linus." I'm still hoping out that maybe that was someone he knew in those chains, a child/wife type thing, but who knows? Speaking of whom, how kickass was the dynamite scene??

Lost podcast also said something about the DHARMA food drops being addressed but not in the show, and that's "all [they can] say at this point." Do I smell a game? An ARG? Something Damon and Carlton approved, ostensibly ... so not a spinoff then. Interesting ... most interesting ...

Oops I forgot to write a title for this post. *retro-adds*

There are so many things to love about my life right now. Namely just Final Fantasy 13, which I got my hands on yesterday. I've only been playing like 5-6 hours, but so far I'm having a grand old time. People've complained about the upheaval of common jRPG tropes, such as the removal of towns and lack of open-ended exploring, but I'm not really minded it. I suppose I've always treated wide-open plains with some anxiety because I feel that unless I explore every nook and cranny then I've missed some essential gaming elements, so it always takes me awhile to complete any level. Right now I have the right amount of exploring to battles to story elements. But I'm also very early into the game.

I will say that the graphics are out of this world. Probably to be expected. But sometimes when it shifts into FMV mode I have to take a few seconds before I realise I'm not watching a normal game animation. The voice acting is great so far and the story is amazing. Very good. I'm interested as to why so many stories in our collective media seems to deal with fate and free will (I mean with LOST and Spiral also having such themes).

I'm currently exploring a level which is essentially an ocean that in the midst of what would be a turbulent storm have frozen into crystal .The result is an awe inspiring and eerie landscape of frozen waves and tunnels and other aquatic 'geology'. It's something that is totally inspiring and I love it. I feel like I'm watching through a living painting of the ancient Chinese/Japanese, you know where there's huge tumbling waves but obviously static 'cause it's a painting.

And I only have praise for the battle system. The upgrading system I've yet to full grasp, but that will come with time. But the whole notion of paradigm shift is really, really fun once you get into it. Can't wait until I have a full party and can finally play around with the paradigm arrangements.

And the other thing to love about life? The latest Lost episode. It is definitely one of the best episodes in the entire series. So it joins "The Substitute" into my all-time favourites list. I'm not sure where it sits. Last thing I would want is to make a flippant judgement based on recency bias. But how can a Ben centric NOT be genius? I nearly cried in this one ... hasn't happened for such a long time on Lost. (But then again, earlier today I nearly cried at the latest episode of Chuck :P)

And Ned to the rescue!

I tried to do a quick search about when I wrote the lyrics to this particular song, but I can't find it. Overall I have written the lyrics to 3 songs, 1 that's just long and wordy and may just be a poem/operatic piece or something, 1 that's supposed to be funny but I don't think it that much any more, and the other one of which I am quite proud.

I remember finishing writing that and looking at it and just feeling like it worked. Potentially it was because I had a very clear visual image in my mind and had characters in mind as I wrote it. This emotional core definitely made the lyrics much better. At some point, probably quite soon after, I had AJ take a look at it. Though he expressed enthusiasm for the lyrics, he has yet to even mention the composition of that song (which I recall entrusting to him), so I'm just gonna assume that's a bust.

That must've been a year ago at least. I remember thinking that I just had to keep it on the backburner until someone came along into my life that could collaborate me as a musical partner.

But then I remembered my good friend Ned, a very talented musician and studying music composition at university right now. He and I have been Facebooking for ages now, and it occurred to me that I should just ask him. This is what I did earlier tonight. And he's agreed to it :D

I sent him the lyrics and the type of song I'm after. He immediately upon reading it said he already had some ideas :D Though he won't get to it for a few weeks as he's busy with schoolwork (perfectly understandable), but I am eagerly awaiting his results.

And perhaps, if I were to finally get some actual payoffs for the work that I'm doing, I will become inspired to actually do some more work on the song writing front. Either as just a collection of music or as working on a musical of some sort. I trust Ned's musical sensibilities, and back in 2005 I had tried to talk him into writing a musical with me. Who'd've thunk that 5 years later it's all come back to him? :D

Love Never Dies - Soundtrack review

I've finally finished listening to the soundtrack of Love Never Dies in its entirety and I thought I'd jot down a few of my thoughts. If you have no interest in Phantom or you do not wish to be spoiled before listening to the soundtrack yourself or seeing the show itself, then read no further, as I will discuss at length plot details. Obviously, not having discussed the musical I can't comment on the staging or set or the acting, but I have read people writing about it and I have a bit of a fair idea what goes on; but I will move on to comment on broader implications this musical will have on the fandom.

Plot

So the day after the first preview, I pretty much went on a Google-hunt to the juicy details of the plot. I wasn't going to care for being spoiled when it came to this because I would've listened to the CD anyway, and really, I don't go to see musicals for the plot, I go for the music and the acting and the singing and the set and the aesthetic experience to overwhelm me.

I soon learnt a few thing. The mysterious boy, Gustave, was the Phantom's child, as had been long speculated, especially since this plot was loosely linked to The Phantom of Manhattan. I read that the scene in which this information is revealed = rather exposition heavy and jilted, that she, on her wedding night to Raoul, tracked down the Phantom, slept with him and then went and married Raoul anyway. Raoul has become a drunk gambler and Gustave doesn't like him that much and neither does Christine. I learnt that Meg becomes jealous of Christine's re-emergence into their lives, kidnaps Gustav and as the Phantom tries to rescue him, she becomes agitated and accidentally pulls the trigger, killing Christine. Thus the musical ends.

My initial reaction to it? I wasn't a very big fan at all. I had long hoped that Andrew Lloyd Webber would use the phan's expectations of Gustave being the Phantom's child against us, surprising us and revealing that though the child bears many striking similarities with our beloved Erik, he is not the child. The fact that these synopses contradicted my hopes did annoy me somewhat.

At this point I ought to point out that the people who are going to go see the musical and then come and post all about it online and debate fervently into the late hours of the morning are going to be people who hated it going in and coming out, or at the very least didn't like it. So their description of the plot and opinions were going to be heavily biased. I knew this, but I always thought their basic understanding of the plot wouldn't be misguided either. (Turns out I was wrong :P)

I was glad, however, to find out that the night of conception was not at the end of 'Music of the Night' when she fainted and he somehow raped her. It would just be too much for that to be the case. However, the fact that she somehow left Raoul on their wedding night, tracked down the Phantom seemed just a little jilted to me, especially since she went back to the Phantom anyway.

I've actually since constructed my own nifty 'sequel' to the original Phantom story, a how-I-would've-done-it type of thing. And perhaps one day that story will come to fruition.

The things I did like about what I learned? That Meg became the villain in this one was great. I would've maybe preferred that she maliciously murdered Christine, rather than it being a big stroke of bad luck. I also quite love the notion that Raoul wasn't all he was hyped up to be. Obviously people do change, so I don't know why people got all up-in-arms about Raoul becoming a drunk, abusive husband ... How many women knowingly marry a man who's always been that way and had no intentions for their man to change? Not many I'm betting. For me it contrasts quite the differing loves for Christine and her men; with Raoul it's puppy-love, reminiscence brought on by the days they spent together as a child. With the Phantom it's a pure, consummate love, something that transcends human barriers.

With all these thoughts in my mind, I started listening to the CD today.

I was absolutely stoked to hear, in the song "Beneath a Moonless Sky" where the Phantom and Christine's tryst is described, that Christine wasn't just being incredibly capricious, that her finding the Phantom was not one-last-roll-in-the-hay and was a realisation that in the Phantom's Lair she made the wrong choice and she belongs with the Phantom (note the present tense of that). But why they didn't stay together was because the Phantom left, ashamed of what he was. I like that. If anything, it's more reminiscent of his redemption at the end of the original Phantom of the Opera, where he lets her go with Raoul. One interpretation of that could be that he felt so overwhelmed and so insignificant next to Christine that she should have the better man, afterall the Phantom is a tortured soul no matter how you look at it.

That was something a lot of people had trouble with, that the Phantom would now go out and seek Christine, after his redemptive action. I think after 10 years, asking to hear her sing again is not all that unreasonable, having pined for her so long. There's no indication on the CD that he'd ever planned on dueling with Raoul or trying to break them up, he was merely trying to hear her voice, his angel of music. But it was the revelation that Gustave was his son and that Christine loved him that prompted him in "Devil take the Hindmost" to actually have her choose between them.

I loooved the fact that Raoul was completely aware of how infinitely inadequate he was to her, that he was unable to provide for her the same way he saw the Phantom could. The fact that he suffers from the same frail complex the Phantom did (that he could never provide for Christine the way Raoul could). In fact, the fact that Raoul explicitly states in his song "Why Does She Love Me?" about how he wears a mask was enough to clinch the character for me.

At the end of the first act, I had thought that Madame Giry would become the villain and that she would use Meg as her puppet. I would've so preferred that to the revelation at the end that she's just a bitter good person. Seems like her character got a nice hook for development, but had it totally ripped away from her to focus on the daughter. But at the same time, had she become the major villain, there's no way they could resolve her AND Meg at the end.

And that's really one of the problems I have with Meg as a character. She opens as becoming a type of substitute Christine, she's the leading lady at the latest production at Phantasma, she and her mother had become very caring and helpful to the Phantom, and when Christine appears she gets agitated. Then when she finds out he didn't even watch her premiere she snaps. She takes Gustave to the pier, since he can't swim and then threatens to kill him with ... a gun?! Wouldn't you just push him into the water? :P

And then in the finale ... she shifts from having gone batshit crazy, to being totally jealous, to getting so angry that she pulls the trigger. AND THEN getting all apologetic. I just would've preferred if maybe she had some kind of development in those last moments ... maybe 'coming down from the ledge,' so to speak, before having the trigger pulled. It could always be the case the staging of the show elaborates on this, but the CD does not at all.

Perhaps one way to resolve this would be to have the Phantom become more badass in his revenge, and somehow in the process Christine gets shot. This gives Meg some closure to her character, without Christine's death feeling somewhat forced.

Gustave... there are so many things to love about this character. The actor who sings his voice brings so much to the character. An open-minded and curious little 10 year old kid, who though being disturbed at first at the Phantom's disfigurement, is able to look past this to the "Beauty Underneath," that he has the same disposition as the Phantom himself.

And the three henchmen of the Phantom, there's not much done with those characters. For that I have very few qualms, the story in this one was far more focussed on the actual love story. These new characters didn't need a whole bunch done with them, they were merely embodiments of the Phantom's power and influence and mystique. I couldn't expect to get another Firmin, Andre, Carlotta  and Piangi, could I?

I think after listening to it through, and having written this far in the blog post, I don't mind the plot much at all. Not even the idea that they slept together 10 years ago, something I had been rather against right up until the beginning of this post. My rebuttal to this, especially since most fans are hatin' on the musical on this point, was that though you might argue the plot of Love Never Dies was kind of retarded, you also have to admit that The Phantom of the Opera was somewhat retarded as well. Not the characters, who are very well written, but the plot itself, the what happens. The ending really saves it for the plot of Phantom.

Oh yeah, I should probably talk about Christine's death. I think it had to be absolutely necessary for the musical to make any sense without veering horribly into fan-fiction territory, because it would've just been a happy ending. I will say I'm glad it wasn't Raoul who became the villain of the piece and that it was a Giry. I think the death especially the very ends, with her singing to Gustave and the Phantom were very well written. A nice use of motifs and reprise to really get the emotions across, using the best songs too. I nearly cried, so that's good enough for me ;)

Music


I will say that this is what surprised me most about this. The music is very well written for most of the songs. It is definitely a very different feel from Phantom, and I don't just mean that it's not the same orchestrations. Just the tunes and the way the melodies work ... In Phantom these were heavily influenced by opera, since that is the backdrop against which the musical is written. In Love Never Dies, the backdrop is very different. It's Coney Island. It's America. It's a different time-period. That's why the music feels quite distinct. It's why we have songs like "Bathing Beauty" which would be the musical-within-a-musical for this show, which feel so un-Phantom. That's because it's not Phantom, and it doesn't try to be. I think "Bathing Beauty" fits right in with the context of the musical.


What does disappoint me is that there is so much of the sections between the songs, what in most musicals is just plain dialogue, has been converted into awkward dialogue set to music, rather than having any musical integrity of their own. Phantom was able to do this, Les Miserables manages to do this. The lines just aren't awkwardly forced onto a song, but feel natural and part of the song. That and the different changes in music are natural and progressive, not awkward and jaded as they are at times here. These are all issues I do not believe can be adequately (or even remotely) addressed by the context argument raised above.


I will categorically state that "The Beauty Underneath" is one of my favourite songs from the musical, even though it feels so out of place. But at the same time, so was "The Phantom of the Opera," which was written as a rock-opera ballad. Though thematically it was far more in common with "The Music of the Night" which I think is quite well written.


Yeah, some of the lyrics are horrible. But that's like maybe 10 different lines. The majority of it is passable-good, whilst a sizable portion are great. So far I've maybe heard 3-4 brilliant lines, but I will probably find more upon re-listens. Glenn Slater does a nice job here of mirroring many of the themes addressed in the original show and introducing and exploring some new ones. What I love best about the musical, that although probably classified as a different genre (or at least sub-genre) is that it still addresses the major-arcing themes of masks, of beauty, of art, of love, of darkness, of truth versus illusion. And personally I'm glad.


"Beneath a Moonless Sky" gets very expositiony at some points. But when they start singing about the actual sex it works quite nicely without getting overly explicit. "Devil take the Hindmost" and "Dear Old Friend" are lyrically the best and smartest songs. They remind me a lot of "Notes", "Notes II" and "Prima Donna" in their genius.


As for the songs themselves. A lot of them are good. I can't think of any particularly bad ones, except the awkward dialogue-set-to-music stated above. The great ones are:

• The Beauty Underneath
• Till I Hear You Sing
• Love Never Dies
• Coney Island Waltz (sounds brilliant when words added to the melody)
• Beneath a Moonless Sky
• Devil take the Hindmost
• Dear Old Friend
• Look With Your Heart

Basically the ones which are actually songs in their own right. I wish more songs were like this in this one, like in Phantom, that have a memorable musical character, rather than necessarily lyrical or plot or action relatedly memorable. Like I always remember "The Final Lair" because it's just musically brilliantly written, rehashing the right motifs and melodies at the right moments. I don't remember it because it's the scene where the Phantom hangs Raoul. Or "Wandering Child" ... I don't remember the sparkly fireballs, I remember the genius music.

The other gripe I have with the music is the fact that so much of it, particularly the expositiony parts, feel reminiscent of Woman in White for me. I suspect that's because it also has expositiony moments, and without linking them to any specific songs they kind of just meld into the same rut of musicality. There were some fleeting memories of Sunset Boulevard in this as well.

I also love all the Phantom related motifs, particularly "Twisted Every Way" which I thought was very well used. As well as at the end of "Look With Your Heart" though I'ven't the slightest what name to give it, it outside of using a lyric attached to it in Phantom. "He'll always be there singing songs in my head" is the lyric from the original. Oh! I guess it's best classified as "Little Lotte", which makes a more blunt reappearance near the end, in another scene where I think it works very well.

Overall

I just also want to say that the pacing of the first act is very well written. I quite like it. In the second act I feel like that maybe felt a bit ... rushed, in that it's really all just in the one day. Though at the end in "Gustave! ... Gustave!" the Phantom's anger and urgency is very well done.

As for overall implications for the story. I wouldn't necessarily classify this as canon to the story of the original. The way I've approached it is to kind of see it in a parallel universe, one which is "if the story continued, this is what would've happened" rather than saying "this is what happened" with all the definitive connotations. I suspect this is where much of the debate lies, whether or not it belongs in the canon. My suggestion isn't based on allegiance to either side of the schism, rather that this forms a unique position since it is the first really major sequel to a famous musical. It's kind of why they kept the name of Once Upon Another Time for the story, rather than changing it to Love Never Dies.

There's no way, especially since it's so long since the original, AND the fact that it's based off an even older story that has no sequel, that you could in any way argue for canon status for the musical, I think. But this has nothing to do with the story or the Phantom's redemption or any of those arguments.

This musical works as an isolated musical. I mean, if he had released it as a standalone musical, different names for the characters, you would have to change very little. Except people would then criticise him for just reusing stock characters and having no originality. It's a lose-lose situation. I'd be very interested to take an uninitiated-to-Phantom friend to watch Love Never Dies, just to see how it fairs. It is, in its own right a rather good musical. It's not great, let's be clear, but it had the potential to become great, even if much of the major elements of the plot are left unchanged, just the small minor details.

The only thing that is most abrasive about this as a sequel would be the Phantom's change in role. He is, for all intents and purposes unmasked from the very beginning. That is he is no longer the mysterious figure who only appears for 20 minutes on stage, ala Phantom. He becomes a leading man in this role, which is kind of interesting considering he's very much an anti-hero. The change in Phantom's role is also reflected in the lyrics, which've become very personal and first-person, something I wondered about when I first heard "Till I Hear You Sing." But I see now it's probably for the best to make this particular story work ... except as I'm coming with indepth knowledge of Phantom it's become quite abrasive.

Overall, I'd just this musical as good. It gets my seal of approval. I'm in no rush to delete it from my playlists. It's by no means perfect, but it's not a trainwreck. I look forward to reading official critical reviews and how similar/dissimilar they are to my own opinions. It's not Phantom, but it is a good musical ... probably better than much of ALW's recent works.

And before I forget, the singing on this CD is just sheer beauty. Ramin does a really good job, but so does everyone. They provide just the right character to the songs. Ramin is particularly scintillating in "The Beauty Underneath" but that's to be expected, since he is a rock tenor and all. I wish I knew more names of the actors and I could comment, but there's no need since no one comes out as horrible.

The Web-Novel

Now here's an idea I just had ... It's recently dawned upon me that the majority of my Facebook usage is about encouraging communication and discussion, whether that be through witty little comments or deliberately controversial status updates. I suppose this isn't what dawned on me so much as it was the fact that I seem to have achieved this purpose, a quick purview of my wall indicates a lot of people (mostly regulars, I suppose) comment and we always get a nice lil' discussion going.

Like I lamented in my last post, Twitter is my escape away from "accountability" (by which I mean to my friends, and not to the larger social/political accountability and responsibility that I hold. So if you're someone in the future trying to comb through my blog looking for "incriminating" statements, kindly gloss the fuck over this.), but Facebook is definitely my main "broadcast" medium. I wish more people would use Facebook like that, as a means to foster communication and learn about people, rather than a one-way broadcast out, or a banal wall-to-wall service or even worse, a medium for just photos. Facebook takes all those things and creates something much grander.

As such I was just noodling in my mind about different ways about interacting with these people, most of whom are good friends of mine. And as always, it comes back to the notion of writing. I think the internet is one way in which actual serialised writing could work. But just writing it plainly and uploading it onto Facebook = not much of a guarantee for it to be a success, I mean the last thing I'd want is to write something, post it up and not get any feedback whatsoever.

Here's where my thoughts are at: Suppose that I have a germ of an idea of a story. I write up a short passage (a length I am not sure about) then upload that. People read it and respond (should I "tag" people I think would be interested ... maybe different people each week? Or would I just the regulars? I'm sure some people would not appreciate being tagged with my clutter). I then scour the comments and from that someone get influence in the direction I take the next segment.

Obviously my writing style would develop as the feedback built. So it's a way to get very immediate feedback. But I also see it as a way that I could communicate some of my ideas/philosophies, embodied in characters and situations, and generate a discussion and perhaps incorporate aspects of that discussion into each section.

(And how would I have any indication of readership? Perhaps I could ask that people, once read, would like the segment, so I know how many people have read it, who has read it and perhaps that could influence how the story develops.)

It would also discipline me to be writing regularly and to nurture communication and listen to feedback. As for regularity ... I have no idea how regular these things would be. Obviously the more regular the shorter the length of the piece. But if I leave it longer then it will be expected the segments will contain a good length. And yet I want to keep it short enough to allow people to read without suffering a tl;dr complex.

But there's also the battle between yielding to my readers' wants and my own story. I'd have to setup from the onset what the limits of audience feedback would be. Would it become a choose your own adventure style ... I offer a couple of alternatives at the end of the segment, and based on the vote, take the most popular and run with it? Or do I let people decide maybe on lines of dialogue/exposition that I have to include in the next segment?? Or is it just a standard style of writing without contrived gimmicks, and I just look at what the general feel seems to be and then write the next section? Should the novel just be a totally generative story, or do I write with an actual basic plot in mind and let the audience help guide the path but not the destination??

That's the most important part of this and I'm really at a stump to how I can effectively cultivate the zeitgeist of my peeps. If you have any suggestions I would LOVE to hear what you think.