Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.85 AVERAGE
3.85 AVERAGE
A great novel which nevertheless pales in comparison with Hugo's other great masterpiece.
Seandainya sebelum penyerangan kaum dungu ke Katedral Notre Dame Claude, Pierre, dan Quasimodo bekerjasama, maka tidak akan banyak kaum dungu yang tewas dan La Esmeralda mungkin bisa terselamatkan. Dan mungkin novel ini akan memiliki akhir yang berbeda XD.
Paling suka karakter Quasimodo, kasihan sekali dia.
Paling tidak suka dengan karakter La Esmeralda, benci sekali dengan karakter Heroine semacam ini. Terlalu dibutakan cinta, sosok gadis (dia memang masih kecil sih) yang lemah dan tidak berpikir panjang dan mudah diperdaya.
Jadi, Quasimodo akhirnya memilih untuk bunuh diri atau mati kelaparan di kuburan Esmeralda??
Benar-benar karya yang indah, must read.
Paling suka karakter Quasimodo, kasihan sekali dia.
Paling tidak suka dengan karakter La Esmeralda, benci sekali dengan karakter Heroine semacam ini. Terlalu dibutakan cinta, sosok gadis (dia memang masih kecil sih) yang lemah dan tidak berpikir panjang dan mudah diperdaya.
Spoiler
Sedih sekali waktu Quasimodo menangis melihat Esmeralda digantung menyayat hati sekali, dia benar-benar cinta yang tulus kepada esmeralda tidak seperti cinta gila Claude Frollo. Dan bodohnya Esmeralda mencintai Phoebus yang hanya menginginkan tubuhnya saja.Jadi, Quasimodo akhirnya memilih untuk bunuh diri atau mati kelaparan di kuburan Esmeralda??
Benar-benar karya yang indah, must read.
challenging
dark
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:
Yes
adventurous
challenging
dark
informative
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
My first Hugo novel, though I knew the story roughly having seen the Disney film, though the original tale is much deeper and darker. I regret that I was unable to read it in the French but the notes in the edition I read were good at discussing anything that may have been lost in translation.
The first 50 pages or so seemed to take a while but beyond that I loved every bit of this book and flew through the final third of it very quickly, even the long digressions and philosophising. Hugo's descriptions are so impressively and vividly visual I could see mediaeval Paris as though I was there, though I've never even visited, and his pacing of the plot, contrasting the action scenes and set pieces against the contemplations and lengthy dialogues.
20 years before Herman Melville published Moby Dick, another of my favourites, I couldn't help but notice a lot of similarities, in style as well as themes with this book. Of course both authors have long full chapters presenting their philosophies, one especially on whaling, the other primarily on architecture. Many readers might find these chapters tedious but for me they are fascinating, especially Hugo's chapter on the invention of the printing press being the death of architecture. The other key parallel between the books are the monomaniac obsession of one man with an innocent victim, though Ahab is driven by revenge and Frollo by repressed lust - that's one thing the Disney film really sterilises (obviously and understandably, it being for children), but really this is a story about the sexualisation of a very young and helpless girl.
It's often noted that the actual title of the novel doesn't mention Quasimodo at all, and should just be translated as Notre Dame of Paris, the cathedral being Hugo's actual main character, though I disagree. Esmeralda is quite clearly the main character and the driving force for every plot element, perhaps the title of the book ought to relate to her instead, just as Melville named his after the equivalent character, in spite of how little time we ever even see The White Whale.
There are so many great characters though not many of them could be considered good, all very flawed. Djali the possible exception. Characters who're left out of adaptations like Gringoire and Jehan really help fill this story out into the masterpiece it is. Of course the finale is one of high tragedy but it was so well constructed as to be inexorable and satisfying all the same.
The edition I read (Wordsworth Classics) was odd because the academic who wrote the introduction and notes didn't seem to even like Hugo or this book, and spent a lot of time criticising the original translator, which felt strange to read after having finished and thoroughly enjoyed it myself.
The first 50 pages or so seemed to take a while but beyond that I loved every bit of this book and flew through the final third of it very quickly, even the long digressions and philosophising. Hugo's descriptions are so impressively and vividly visual I could see mediaeval Paris as though I was there, though I've never even visited, and his pacing of the plot, contrasting the action scenes and set pieces against the contemplations and lengthy dialogues.
20 years before Herman Melville published Moby Dick, another of my favourites, I couldn't help but notice a lot of similarities, in style as well as themes with this book. Of course both authors have long full chapters presenting their philosophies, one especially on whaling, the other primarily on architecture. Many readers might find these chapters tedious but for me they are fascinating, especially Hugo's chapter on the invention of the printing press being the death of architecture. The other key parallel between the books are the monomaniac obsession of one man with an innocent victim, though Ahab is driven by revenge and Frollo by repressed lust - that's one thing the Disney film really sterilises (obviously and understandably, it being for children), but really this is a story about the sexualisation of a very young and helpless girl.
It's often noted that the actual title of the novel doesn't mention Quasimodo at all, and should just be translated as Notre Dame of Paris, the cathedral being Hugo's actual main character, though I disagree. Esmeralda is quite clearly the main character and the driving force for every plot element, perhaps the title of the book ought to relate to her instead, just as Melville named his after the equivalent character, in spite of how little time we ever even see The White Whale.
There are so many great characters though not many of them could be considered good, all very flawed. Djali the possible exception. Characters who're left out of adaptations like Gringoire and Jehan really help fill this story out into the masterpiece it is. Of course the finale is one of high tragedy but it was so well constructed as to be inexorable and satisfying all the same.
The edition I read (Wordsworth Classics) was odd because the academic who wrote the introduction and notes didn't seem to even like Hugo or this book, and spent a lot of time criticising the original translator, which felt strange to read after having finished and thoroughly enjoyed it myself.
De først 50% = en stjerne
De neste 25% = tre stjerner
De siste 25% = fem stjerner
Så, eh, tre??
De neste 25% = tre stjerner
De siste 25% = fem stjerner
Så, eh, tre??
It is easy to see why this book is considered a classic; the text is rich and the story timeless. The characters are lifelike and philosophically diverse. Aside from the one or two chapters entirely devoted to the history of architecture and the geography of Paris I found the book immensely readable. The story is tragic but I was pleasantly surprised by the dark and comedic tone of the book and laughed out loud at several points - I did not expect the extra dry wit.
sad
slow-paced
adventurous
dark