Scan barcode
brutusbloch's review against another edition
challenging
dark
sad
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
4.0
Es hat eine Weile gedauert, dass ich mich daran gewöhnt habe, dass Victor Hugo den Leser immer Mal wieder direkt anspricht. Aber dann fand ich seinen Schreibstil fantastisch.
Es beginnt auch sehr langsam, was damit zusammenhängt, dass ca. 1/3 des Buches für den Plot komplett irrelevant ist und sich hauptsächlich im Beginn des Buches abhandelt. Das hängt natürlich mit der Liebe von Hugo zu Paris und vor allem Notre Dame zusammen.
Meiner Meinung nach ist es ein unglaublich gutes Buch, kein schönes Buch, sehr verstörend, aber wirklich, wirklich gut. Wenn auch etwas vorhersehbar.
Ohne den leider sehr hervorstechenden Gadjé-Rassismus und Ableismus, die dem Plot zugrunde liegen, wären es vlt. sogar 5 Sterne gewesen.
Es beginnt auch sehr langsam, was damit zusammenhängt, dass ca. 1/3 des Buches für den Plot komplett irrelevant ist und sich hauptsächlich im Beginn des Buches abhandelt. Das hängt natürlich mit der Liebe von Hugo zu Paris und vor allem Notre Dame zusammen.
Meiner Meinung nach ist es ein unglaublich gutes Buch, kein schönes Buch, sehr verstörend, aber wirklich, wirklich gut. Wenn auch etwas vorhersehbar.
Ohne den leider sehr hervorstechenden Gadjé-Rassismus und Ableismus, die dem Plot zugrunde liegen, wären es vlt. sogar 5 Sterne gewesen.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Ableism and Racism
Moderate: Sexism, Adult/minor relationship, and Rape
writtenontheflyleaves's review against another edition
dark
informative
sad
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
3.5
The Hunchback of Notre-Dame by Victor Hugo ⛪
🌟🌟🌟✨
⛪The plot: In Medieval Paris, the fates of a handful of citizens collide in the shadow of the cathedral: Gringoire, the down-on-his-luck playwright; Esmeralda, the innocent dancer; Claude Frollo, the archdeacon tortured by his horniness for Esmeralda; Phoebus, fuckboy extraordinaire; and Quasimodo, the deaf bellringer.
This edition was a surprise gift from my boyfriend when he visited @shakespeareandcoparis (he came home and asked "Is that shop famous or something? There was a big queue" 💀) and honestly I don't think it's something that would have occurred to me to read otherwise!
Having now read the book and re-watched the movie, my overall review is: I have no idea, whatsoever, how ANYONE read this and thought "Ah, yes. Perfect material for a Disney film." This is bleak chapter after bleak chapter, interspersed with long and detailed (😩) musings on medieval architecture. Quasimodo is treated as less than human by everyone, including the narrator; no one but Esmeralda's pet goat gets a happy ending. It's astonishing that they managed to create a hopeful masterpiece like "Out There" from this material honestly!!
That said, one thing Disney stayed surprisingly faithful to - especially for a kids' movie - is how horny Frollo is 💀 The man is absolutely rabid, to a degree I didn't expect, and Phoebus is tragically not much better.
In short: The writing was frequently beautiful, and I'm glad I read it, but I don't think this is an unmissable classic. In fact, this is one of the rare occasions where the cartoon does it better 😂
⛪Read it if you are passionate, and I mean PASSIONATE, about medieval architecture and city planning. Victor Hugo has got you boo. Also if the above has made you wonder "How bad can it be?" 😂
🚫 Avoid it if you think reading severe ableism, even in a historical novel, will be too much for you. Also if you're avoiding narratives that involve sexual assault and violence.
🌟🌟🌟✨
⛪The plot: In Medieval Paris, the fates of a handful of citizens collide in the shadow of the cathedral: Gringoire, the down-on-his-luck playwright; Esmeralda, the innocent dancer; Claude Frollo, the archdeacon tortured by his horniness for Esmeralda; Phoebus, fuckboy extraordinaire; and Quasimodo, the deaf bellringer.
This edition was a surprise gift from my boyfriend when he visited @shakespeareandcoparis (he came home and asked "Is that shop famous or something? There was a big queue" 💀) and honestly I don't think it's something that would have occurred to me to read otherwise!
Having now read the book and re-watched the movie, my overall review is: I have no idea, whatsoever, how ANYONE read this and thought "Ah, yes. Perfect material for a Disney film." This is bleak chapter after bleak chapter, interspersed with long and detailed (😩) musings on medieval architecture. Quasimodo is treated as less than human by everyone, including the narrator; no one but Esmeralda's pet goat gets a happy ending. It's astonishing that they managed to create a hopeful masterpiece like "Out There" from this material honestly!!
That said, one thing Disney stayed surprisingly faithful to - especially for a kids' movie - is how horny Frollo is 💀 The man is absolutely rabid, to a degree I didn't expect, and Phoebus is tragically not much better.
In short: The writing was frequently beautiful, and I'm glad I read it, but I don't think this is an unmissable classic. In fact, this is one of the rare occasions where the cartoon does it better 😂
⛪Read it if you are passionate, and I mean PASSIONATE, about medieval architecture and city planning. Victor Hugo has got you boo. Also if the above has made you wonder "How bad can it be?" 😂
🚫 Avoid it if you think reading severe ableism, even in a historical novel, will be too much for you. Also if you're avoiding narratives that involve sexual assault and violence.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Ableism
sarasreading's review against another edition
adventurous
challenging
dark
emotional
informative
sad
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.5
I attempted to read this as a teenager and quit when I reached a point that was absolutely bogged down with architecture description. I don't judge younger me at all for quitting. It was so boring and had no bearing on the rest of the book at all. If you're into dozens of pages of description about 1400s Paris, boy do I have the book for you!
About halfway through it finally started picking up, and it became a mostly unputdownable book for me, which was a lovely surprise!
Other things that were a surprise:
1. Playwrite marries the prettiest girl in Paris, literally only cares about her goat and basically elopes with it by the end, leaving the 16 year old in the clutches of a total pedo.
2. Phoebus was a bigger douchebag than Frollo, change my mind. At least Frollo was mildly conflicted. "Oh she's been charged for my murder but had nothing to do with the attack I'm still totally alive and well? Eh, let her hang I guess, not my problem." -Phoebus probably.
3. The battle scene in front of the Notre Dame was wild. Probably said "holy crap!" out loud like 7 times.
4. This book is a huge bummer. Towards the end you hope and hope, and then it guts you.
If the first half of the book was much shorter, it would be a 4-4.5 star read for me. I know he was trying to get people to care about older gothic architecture, and the churches specifically, which is probably why we still have the Notre Dame today. So good on him and all, but in the 21st century it's a total snooze fest lol
About halfway through it finally started picking up, and it became a mostly unputdownable book for me, which was a lovely surprise!
Other things that were a surprise:
1. Playwrite marries the prettiest girl in Paris, literally only cares about her goat and basically elopes with it by the end, leaving the 16 year old in the clutches of a total pedo.
2. Phoebus was a bigger douchebag than Frollo, change my mind. At least Frollo was mildly conflicted. "Oh she's been charged for my murder but had nothing to do with the attack I'm still totally alive and well? Eh, let her hang I guess, not my problem." -Phoebus probably.
3. The battle scene in front of the Notre Dame was wild. Probably said "holy crap!" out loud like 7 times.
4. This book is a huge bummer. Towards the end you hope and hope, and then it guts you.
If the first half of the book was much shorter, it would be a 4-4.5 star read for me. I know he was trying to get people to care about older gothic architecture, and the churches specifically, which is probably why we still have the Notre Dame today. So good on him and all, but in the 21st century it's a total snooze fest lol
Content Warnings
Graphic: Classism, Confinement, Pedophilia, Racism, Sexual harassment, Violence, and Ableism
Moderate: Torture and Animal death
cambrand's review against another edition
adventurous
dark
mysterious
reflective
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.25
Hugo's "Notre-Dame de Paris" is the first French Romantic novel and a great representation of it. The original title represents the story better than "The Hunchback of Notre-Dame", given the the cathedral is the real center point and symbol of his novel rather than Quasimodo. A great illustration of middle-ages France - its people, politics, religion, and architecture. If you're reading this book based on the Disney's movie, you might be disappointed. Knocking off a star because of the mixed narration in the book that shifts from novel to almost essay-like in some chapters. I'm sorry to say Frollo is actually the most interesting character and Esmeralda is actually painfully boring and mildly infuriating. Phoebus isn't a knight in shining armor and Quasimodo is somehow both heroic and pathetic.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Racial slurs, Racism, Toxic relationship, Torture, Xenophobia, Death, Religious bigotry, Murder, and Ableism
masha__me's review against another edition
challenging
dark
emotional
funny
informative
inspiring
mysterious
reflective
sad
tense
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
5.0
Content Warnings
Graphic: Body horror, Child death, Kidnapping, Mental illness, Religious bigotry, Schizophrenia/Psychosis , Grief, Sexual assault, Sexual violence, Torture, Blood, Confinement, Self harm, Stalking, Abandonment, Emotional abuse, Misogyny, Gore, Death, Murder, Toxic relationship, and Rape
Moderate: Classism, Fire/Fire injury, Ableism, Hate crime, Incest, Physical abuse, Violence, Forced institutionalization, Injury/Injury detail, Suicidal thoughts, Suicide, and Bullying
Minor: Alcohol, Animal cruelty, Animal death, Child abuse, and Infidelity
reebeee's review against another edition
dark
informative
reflective
sad
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.75
As with any Hugo novel, if you come to the book expecting it to be like its adaptations, you will be disappointed—the novel is much more interested in depicting a historical place and time than focusing on a particular character or storyline. The biggest surprise for me (who otherwise by and large knew what to expect from Hugo) was how morally ambiguous every character was. It's fascinating to compare with its adaptations and consider what goals and effects various changes had.
Also, there's not a specific content warning label for this but I think it's worth noting that this book contains a repeated accusation of blood libel.
Also, there's not a specific content warning label for this but I think it's worth noting that this book contains a repeated accusation of blood libel.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Ableism, Racism, Racial slurs, and Sexual harassment
danaaliyalevinson's review against another edition
challenging
dark
emotional
sad
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
5.0
If you’ve not read the book and you think you know the story, you don’t. There’s never been an entirely accurate adaptation. A deeply felt and deeply charged story about xenophobia, fear of the future, and both of their deadly intersection with politics.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Death, Religious bigotry, Xenophobia, Violence, and Ableism
sarah_speaks's review against another edition
dark
emotional
sad
tense
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.75
Content Warnings
Graphic: Sexual assault, Xenophobia, Toxic relationship, Violence, Stalking, Murder, Death, Ableism, Adult/minor relationship, Racism, Racial slurs, Body shaming, and Torture
Moderate: Religious bigotry and Confinement
Minor: Cannibalism, Pregnancy, Animal death, Child death, and Abandonment
laurenleigh's review against another edition
adventurous
challenging
dark
sad
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.5
This was a SLOG. I thought it would be an interesting read while I was getting ready for our trip, but it took forever to get through. Normally Disney adaptations are watered down, but in this case, I think Disney actually did a good job of distilling and updating the text for a modern audience. Hugo is a great writer, but he’s a terrible editor. In addition to feeling bored often during this reading, I found myself very frustrated by Esmeralda’s portrayal, which was made even weaker with this audiobook narrator. As I kid, I loved the Disney Esmeralda’s spirit and independence, but that was often missing in the original text. I also hated how Quasimodo was framed, and Disney did a much better job in my memory of showing that disability or disfigurement does not make one less of a person. I suppose I should try and judge the text on its own merits outside of my childhood memories of the movie, but I can’t quite untangle my expectations from what I found in the novel.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Ableism, Adult/minor relationship, Sexism, Sexual harassment, and Torture
hot_water's review against another edition
adventurous
dark
emotional
funny
mysterious
reflective
sad
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.0
Content Warnings
Graphic: Ableism, Body horror, and Body shaming
Moderate: Sexual assault, Torture, and Racism
Minor: Death