This isn't an easy question to answer, and I think the answers phans come up with will illustrate their different perspectives on life, really. If you look at this from Erik's point of view, the answer is no. Why should he be condemned? Who condemned him to the life he was forced to lead? Besides, society tossed away its morals regarding Erik--he would have either been instantly killed or immediately put on display in a freak show somewhere if he had been discovered--so why should he have any different feelings? He was only mirroring the way he had been treated. In other words, "turn the other cheek" just doesn't work here.

However, if you look at this question from the good old Christian point of view, killing is wrong, period. Oddly enough, most of these people will support the death penalty, but then I digress from the subject.

Now, if we stick specifically to the ALW version of POTO, things get a little more complex. Erik's background isn't really dealt with much in the ALW version, but as most of us well know, directors/producers/writers are severly limited in what they can put on stage due to time constraints. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to put much more of Erik's background into the musical. There just isn't enough time on stage. So I can see where some people, who haven't read the Leroux or Kay versions of POTO, would condemn him for the killings.

As for my personal view, well, Piangi was a wuss who had it coming. *OG ROTFL* (Sorry, Car.) Erik only ended his misery. ;) As for Buquet, well, I do believe Madame Giry warned him, but he didn't listen. In a sense, Erik's murder of Buquet protected Erik from being discovered. Buquet had apparently seen him, and was already inventing tales about him. I admit Erik wasn't thinking along these lines when he murdered Buquet in the ALW version--he was thinking of the shock value of the murder, and the message it would send to the managers. How ... efficient... of him. ;) You just have to love a man like that. ;)

Christi V. (LadyCDaae):

Wow, tough question. Obviously we can't condone the murders--life is life, no matter how you take it. But given that history of abuse, ridicule, and physical and emotional isolation, nearly anyone would turn homicidal. I can't really explain it--but Susan Kay has this great dialogue between Raoul and Nadir:
"You think he deserves mercy?"
"I do not defend what he has done."
"But you forgive him....don't you?"
"Yes....I forgive him."
That's about as close as I can come to expressing my feelings on the subject.
Like just about everything else in this story and in life, the answer isn't black or white but somewhere in between.

Irene Emelyanova:

Were to be justified. Just by the same reasons. Erik's behaviour is the guilt of that same public at large who doesn't tolerate any deviations from 'standard' and as a result makes a wonderful man behave like that.

MlleDaae28@aol.com:

No. Why? Because he's Erik.

Next issue's question: