Scan barcode
lazy_raven's review against another edition
adventurous
dark
informative
sad
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
3.75
The 1st half of the book was half story half documentary of Notre Dame. Disney got the whole thing wrong, but it was very good.
Content Warnings
Minor: Torture, Murder, Adult/minor relationship, and Death
emileeandherbooks's review against another edition
4.0
What an engaging, tragic story. The story of The Hunchback of Notre-Dame is a familiar one; the outside doesn’t always match the inside. The societal “monster” might have a heart of gold. Maliciousness, obsession, perversion, cruelty, desire, and fear are all very prevalent in this book, yet Victor Hugo handled those topics masterfully by creating a strong humor throughout the story that actually made me laugh a few times. Hugo is a very skilled writer and storyteller. I was highly engaged ~most~ of the time.
There are many ‘tangents’ about architecture or cultural changes, or how Paris/France was run back in the 1400s. I personally loved those chapters because I found them fascinating. Victor Hugo also shared his opinion on how time changes historical buildings and landscapes and that was interesting too. But Hugo also had random chapters where he focused on total side characters like King Louis XI or on a failed play and that felt pointless. It made the story drag.
I am obsessed with this whole topic of medievalism and its decline and how people lost value in its glory and beauty. But how that change was necessary because the Medieval Ages were so freaking brutal - mass killings and torture. And a very corrupt government with tyrannical leaders. But Hugo laments the loss of that beautiful time of religious devotion/architectural magnificence that the Medieval era brought us and he has hope that we can regain a respect for that time and appreciate its importance. And I think we have??? At least us nerds???
Quasimodo was constantly breaking my heart with all his self-hating comments. I kept waiting for someone to show kindness to him and it seriously only happened like once or twice and very halfheartedly. Disappointing.
The end was so dramatic and epic. I had “Down Once More/Track Down This Murderer” from Phantom of the Opera stuck in my head while I was reading. Claude Frollo and Quasimodo both reminded me of The Phantom a few times.
There are many ‘tangents’ about architecture or cultural changes, or how Paris/France was run back in the 1400s. I personally loved those chapters because I found them fascinating. Victor Hugo also shared his opinion on how time changes historical buildings and landscapes and that was interesting too. But Hugo also had random chapters where he focused on total side characters like King Louis XI or on a failed play and that felt pointless. It made the story drag.
I am obsessed with this whole topic of medievalism and its decline and how people lost value in its glory and beauty. But how that change was necessary because the Medieval Ages were so freaking brutal - mass killings and torture. And a very corrupt government with tyrannical leaders. But Hugo laments the loss of that beautiful time of religious devotion/architectural magnificence that the Medieval era brought us and he has hope that we can regain a respect for that time and appreciate its importance. And I think we have??? At least us nerds???
Quasimodo was constantly breaking my heart with all his self-hating comments. I kept waiting for someone to show kindness to him and it seriously only happened like once or twice and very halfheartedly. Disappointing.
The end was so dramatic and epic. I had “Down Once More/Track Down This Murderer” from Phantom of the Opera stuck in my head while I was reading. Claude Frollo and Quasimodo both reminded me of The Phantom a few times.
leigh_ann_15_deaf's review against another edition
4.0
"What matters deafness of the ears when the mind hears? The one true deafness, the incurable deafness, is that of the mind,” Victor Hugo wrote to the deaf educator, Ferdinand Berthier, 25 November 1845. This suggests that, at least after publishing Hunchback, Hugo had connections in the deaf community, which may help to explain the fairly strong representation. We can certainly appreciate that we don't have the perfectly innocently or totally evil disabled character that so often features in literature! Like most of the characters, Quasimodo is acerbic and violent. He is clearly a product of this society and isn’t special and naive/innocent on account of his disabilities.
Quasimodo has craniofacial and bodily differences (maybe some sort of skeletal/bone condition?), and the people of Paris view him with disgust and fear, except at the beginning when they are electing the Fools’ Pope based on ugliness. He is the archdeacon’s bellringer, and is totally deaf from 14 years old due to (presumably) being too close to the huge bells when they pealed.
He can still hear the bells, which is realistic! He speaks when he wants to, as he is late-deafened, though he loses vocal quality and articulation because he doesn’t use speech often. Also fantastic.
But he can hear a whistle and birds, which doesn’t really make sense. Hair cells in the inner parts of the cochlear spiral conduct low-frequency sounds, so if the innermost cells are okay, they can still conduct low-pitches, not high. If he can bear high pitches, it means the damage somehow skipped over the parts of the ear that would be most exposed to the damaging decibels. In other words, Hugo got it backwards—the damage to his hearing would result in low-frequency deafness, probably gradually also taking the higher frequencies because he is nearly constantly exposed to the bells’ noise.
Frollo and Quasimodo communicate through “signs and gestures” without speech. These are home signs used and understood only by Frollo and Quasimodo. Quasimodo and his behaviors are repeatedly (rather, relentlessly) likened to a wild animal, which unfortunately reinforces the signed language as subpar, apish, etc. (Check out Douglas C. Baynton’s "Forbidden Signs" for good overview of this belief.) But it is accurate for the time.
Another deaf character: Maître Florian Barbedienne, auditor at the Châtelet. He’s basically a judge who (appears to) listens to a complaint and then delivers an impartial decision. Barbedienne is noted to be fairly competent at his job, though he does mix up cases sometimes due to clerical error. He goes to great lengths to conceal his deafness, which tracks, but it also seems to be common knowledge at least among those who frequent the court. He questions Quasimodo, and draws a great deal of attention to his deafness because Quasimodo isn’t aware he’s being asked anything, and Barbedienne (who isn’t looking at the defendant) isn’t aware that Quasimodo isn’t answering anything. It’s a whole farce that none deems to interrupt. Eventually Quasimodo catches on that he’s being interrogated and starts supplying his name, age, and occupation through speech, though this is taken for impertinence.
He speaks to Esmeralda and bids her respond by gestures, and he will try to speechread her (though he has a fairly hopeless track record with that). The interactions between them is mostly a self-pity galore, but I guess that makes sense.
Towards the end of the novel, Hugo loses the thread of what Quasimodo can and cannot hear. He once refers to Quasimodo as “deaf mute,” even though it’s clear he speaks. He can also inexplicably hear Esmeralda calling for Phoebus from the top of the bell tower. The muddling of rep could be answered by the fact that Hugo was rushing to meet his publisher’s deadline.
There's also some general ableism throughout the novel (to be expected), usually having to do with being "trapped" in a defective body and being incapable of thinking. A couple examples:
“The mind that was lodged in that misshapen body, was necessarily itself incomplete and dull of hearing; so that what he felt at that moment was both vague and confused to him.” Hearing used to mean understanding gained through critical thinking/theory of mind.
Quasimodo’s deafness “intercepted the sole ray of joy and light that still penetrated the soul of Quasimodo. That soul was now wrapped in profound darkness.” ... “It is certain that the spirit becomes crippled in a misshapen body.”
Overall, though, Hugo was thoughtful and accurate in writing his deaf character. Quasimodo and his behaviors fit into the context of this world, and he has a personality and agency.
Deaf reader reviewing books with deaf characters. This book is listed on my ranked list of books with deaf characters: https://slacowan.com/2023/01/14/ranked-deaf-characters-in-fiction.
kagera's review against another edition
adventurous
dark
emotional
informative
mysterious
medium-paced
carryoncrab's review against another edition
Very wordy book, but also not attention grabbing. It felt like I had to put in effort to read it instead of reading it to relax.
eponineeurydice's review against another edition
4.0
Someone tell me how Victor manages to BREAK MY HEART so well! Oh my stars... that was such a sad book. But a good one! Despite its many imperfections, I'm still happy that I read because I really do love Victor Hugo. His lyrical writing and the way he talks to the readers as if they were his dear friends, his thoughtful and loving depiction of women and his obvious love for his own characters... all of these things work so well for me, and I still have such respect for him. I wish I could go back in time to speak to him about his books and characters. I do have something to say about this book, though, and that is the portrayal of disability—for Quasimodo is disabled. Aside from his body's disfigurement, he is also Deaf, and it is suggested—none too mindfully—that he is Neurodivergent as well. So no, this is not a supernatural or monstrous condition—it is a real disability, and I truly believe it should be handled as many other components of humanity are: with the assumption that despite this, or even because of it, they are still worthy of love, and of their story being well told. As far as I know, Victor Hugo is able-bodied. He wrote this story for the able-bodied, in many ways, assuming that we would pity Quasimodo. "Look at this poor fool," he seems to say. But did he ever consider, I wonder, that a little girl would watch the Disney movie and know that Quasimodo was disabled, just like her—although definitely with a different disability, I will stress—and see that he was being abused because of his supposed monstrousness, and wonder how others could simply watch this without addressing it? Did Victor know that when that little girl voiced that she disliked the show because she felt so similar to Quasimodo and it was easy to imagine herself in his position, she would be immediately told to never mention it again? (I must note that this was said by a well-meaning family member, probably just trying to protect her.) I can't read Hugo's thoughts, and I have no idea if he wrote this knowing that disabled people would in fact read it. And don't get me wrong, there were moments in this story where Quasimodo was portrayed with incredible beauty and empathy. I do believe that Hugo was well-intentioned in his writing of the story. But there is an innate assumption that Quasimodo is less than human because of his appearance, and the make-up of his mind... that he is, in fact, like a poor animal or beast who doesn't know any better than to love someone, even if she will never love him back—because certainly she will not, not when he is so hideous-looking. She tries, of course, but her pure spirit cannot stand his presence for very long... and it all turns my stomach a little, just to know that Quasimodo is so often dehumanized. The Disney movie gets many, MANY things wrong about the book. They objectify Esmeralda and portray her as almost the opposite of what she is in the book, they steal away Frollo's moral grayness—which I'm not too mad about, because I hate Frollo and always will lol—and they completely omit many women from the text. Additionally, they make Quasimodo into a hapless, childish soul who is only to be pitied. We never think, for a second, that he will end up with Esmeralda—any statements that we make regarding his ability to find love would be platitudes. But I'm going on a tangent; my main point is that Quasimodo does not even receive the privilege of being seen as human, because of his lack of beauty. And what does that say about society? Yes, Victor does not make Quasimodo into a villain; but he turns him into a beast who deserves nothing but pity, and while I do appreciate his efforts, and I do still adore Quasimodo and wish him every happiness (he ripped my heart apart lol), it still made me cringe to see the way he was handled in some scenes.
Here's a thought: disabled people deserve better. Not in spite of their disabilities, but in harmony with them, along with them, because of them. Quasimodo deserves love because of his imperfections, notwithstanding his hideous appearance which brings him to the point of wishing he could be made of stone instead of being treated the way he is. Be deserves better, not to be cured of his disfigurement but to find beauty in himself, because there is so much of it, as Victor observes. He finds himself unworthy and heart-broken in the end, but he deserves a story where he is found worthy of all the love in the world, a story where he doesn't have to withstand abuse because he is guilty and grateful for Frollo taking him in. He deserves to be loved, he deserves a story which does him justice, just as we all do. I hope that someday disabled children will see themselves in stories, fighting dragons and falling in love and pursuing their dreams—and yes, falling short and getting their hearts broken, just as all of us do. Because as cheesy as it sounds, humanity isn't about beauty. It's not about the love which makes us into handsome princes or beautiful princesses. Disabilities shouldn't have to transform to "earn" love, and disabled authors should have the chance to tell their own stories, and therein lies the one thing keeping me from rating this book five stars.
Okay... I talked for longer than I thought I would, but all that to say, there were so many things I loved about this book. The characters' journeys were beautiful, the descriptions of the bells were breathtaking, and the depictions of motherhood and its power, as well as the power of redemption, were just beautiful. Also, Victor Hugo is way too funny and I don't know why nobody talks about it. This man is a comedian!! I loved Esmeralda most of all, she was a wholesome bean and I truly am heartbroken by Hugo's depiction of prejudice and injustice and how it affects the world at large. He truly was a magnificent writer ahead of his time, in everything but disability rep, which I do believe he would have written better if he'd had more resources, or been in modern days. As much as I love Victor, I know the best way to understand an experience is either to go through it yourself or do extensive research, which I'm not sure if he did. I DO know that he researched architecture, but I'm not sure about the disability part lol! There are also depictions of other races in this book which I can't personally speak for, but which I know were unflattering for the most part... but that's not a conversation for today. Basically, even though Victor Hugo is a silly goofy guy sometimes, and even though I'm salty about beauty standards, I still quite enjoyed this book!
And if anyone read all of that... thanks so much for listening to me rant! Sorry it was so long lol!
Here's a thought: disabled people deserve better. Not in spite of their disabilities, but in harmony with them, along with them, because of them. Quasimodo deserves love because of his imperfections, notwithstanding his hideous appearance which brings him to the point of wishing he could be made of stone instead of being treated the way he is. Be deserves better, not to be cured of his disfigurement but to find beauty in himself, because there is so much of it, as Victor observes. He finds himself unworthy and heart-broken in the end, but he deserves a story where he is found worthy of all the love in the world, a story where he doesn't have to withstand abuse because he is guilty and grateful for Frollo taking him in. He deserves to be loved, he deserves a story which does him justice, just as we all do. I hope that someday disabled children will see themselves in stories, fighting dragons and falling in love and pursuing their dreams—and yes, falling short and getting their hearts broken, just as all of us do. Because as cheesy as it sounds, humanity isn't about beauty. It's not about the love which makes us into handsome princes or beautiful princesses. Disabilities shouldn't have to transform to "earn" love, and disabled authors should have the chance to tell their own stories, and therein lies the one thing keeping me from rating this book five stars.
Okay... I talked for longer than I thought I would, but all that to say, there were so many things I loved about this book. The characters' journeys were beautiful, the descriptions of the bells were breathtaking, and the depictions of motherhood and its power, as well as the power of redemption, were just beautiful. Also, Victor Hugo is way too funny and I don't know why nobody talks about it. This man is a comedian!! I loved Esmeralda most of all, she was a wholesome bean and I truly am heartbroken by Hugo's depiction of prejudice and injustice and how it affects the world at large. He truly was a magnificent writer ahead of his time, in everything but disability rep, which I do believe he would have written better if he'd had more resources, or been in modern days. As much as I love Victor, I know the best way to understand an experience is either to go through it yourself or do extensive research, which I'm not sure if he did. I DO know that he researched architecture, but I'm not sure about the disability part lol! There are also depictions of other races in this book which I can't personally speak for, but which I know were unflattering for the most part... but that's not a conversation for today. Basically, even though Victor Hugo is a silly goofy guy sometimes, and even though I'm salty about beauty standards, I still quite enjoyed this book!
And if anyone read all of that... thanks so much for listening to me rant! Sorry it was so long lol!
ladygodivas's review against another edition
3.0
FINALLY FINISHED THIS BRICK OF A BOOK. i swear this book is almost as thick as notre dame itself. i know there are thicker books but this was a hard read so it felt longer than other books of the same size.
i have to say that the ending was satisfying and i loved all the twists, especially near the end.
and honestly, the movie did try to encapsulate the true essence of this book but failed miserably in order to be dubbed as suitable for children.
nonetheless, this was a nice read and i'm proud of myself for finishing it.
victor hugo still remains as one of my favorite authors.
i have to say that the ending was satisfying and i loved all the twists, especially near the end.
and honestly, the movie did try to encapsulate the true essence of this book but failed miserably in order to be dubbed as suitable for children.
nonetheless, this was a nice read and i'm proud of myself for finishing it.
victor hugo still remains as one of my favorite authors.
vampiresreadtoo's review against another edition
4.0
That was the most depressing ending ever written
liloulitdeslivres's review against another edition
adventurous
dark
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.0