Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.85 AVERAGE
3.85 AVERAGE
challenging
dark
emotional
funny
reflective
tense
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
emotional
informative
sad
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
dark
emotional
reflective
sad
tense
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated
Notre-dame de Paris est un livre très fort, très symbolique, après l'avoir lu je vois pourquoi il y a tant d'adaptations, notamment la comédie musicale qui reste populaire bien qu'il fait déjà 30 ans depuis sa sortie.
Bien que je lisais la traduction russe, la plume de Hugo m'a plu. C'est très descriptif avec un syntaxe difficile. L'histoire de Frollo m'a touchée le plus, je suis une passionnée des histoires des prêtres tourmentés, et Frollo l'est entièrement. C'est dingue jusqu'à quelle mésure la comédie musicale se ressemble au livre. N'empêche que je lisais en autre langue, il y avait des extraits que les réalisateurs ont pris mot par mot. C'est donc peut-être bien que j'avais regardé la comédie musicale avant d'avoir lire le livre lui-même, car parfois je ne pouvais faire que chanter des extraits haha. C'est dommage quand même que les réaliateurs ont laissé tomber entièrement l'histoire de la mère d'Esmeralda. De plus, c'est très symbolique que Esmeralda s'appelle en réalité Agnès, ce qui signifie "pure".
Cette fois-ci j'ai apprécié beaucoup toutes les descriptions de la ville de Paris et surtout de la cathédrale. J'ai hâte de la voir par mes propres yeux. De plus, maintenant j'ai envie de lire d'autres livres de Hugo, surtout ceux qui ont place au XIX siècle.
Un autre aspect que j'ai apprécié est la manière dont l'histoire est racontée. Bien que beaucoup de choses ont lieu, je crois que le récit n'est pas surchargé, parce que les évènements dramatiques sont séparés par de longues descriptions.
En fait, la seule chose qui ne m'a pas plu, ce soit peut-être que Hugo décrit très précisement toutes les émotions et les pensées des personnages. Je préfère quand on laisse quelque chose à deviner au lecteur.
Bien que je lisais la traduction russe, la plume de Hugo m'a plu. C'est très descriptif avec un syntaxe difficile. L'histoire de Frollo m'a touchée le plus, je suis une passionnée des histoires des prêtres tourmentés, et Frollo l'est entièrement. C'est dingue jusqu'à quelle mésure la comédie musicale se ressemble au livre. N'empêche que je lisais en autre langue, il y avait des extraits que les réalisateurs ont pris mot par mot. C'est donc peut-être bien que j'avais regardé la comédie musicale avant d'avoir lire le livre lui-même, car parfois je ne pouvais faire que chanter des extraits haha. C'est dommage quand même que les réaliateurs ont laissé tomber entièrement l'histoire de la mère d'Esmeralda. De plus, c'est très symbolique que Esmeralda s'appelle en réalité Agnès, ce qui signifie "pure".
Cette fois-ci j'ai apprécié beaucoup toutes les descriptions de la ville de Paris et surtout de la cathédrale. J'ai hâte de la voir par mes propres yeux. De plus, maintenant j'ai envie de lire d'autres livres de Hugo, surtout ceux qui ont place au XIX siècle.
Un autre aspect que j'ai apprécié est la manière dont l'histoire est racontée. Bien que beaucoup de choses ont lieu, je crois que le récit n'est pas surchargé, parce que les évènements dramatiques sont séparés par de longues descriptions.
En fait, la seule chose qui ne m'a pas plu, ce soit peut-être que Hugo décrit très précisement toutes les émotions et les pensées des personnages. Je préfère quand on laisse quelque chose à deviner au lecteur.
Поистине, вот опера, которую стоит послушать. Смешанный гул, обычно стоявший над Парижем днем, - это говор города; ночью - это его дыхание; а сейчас - город поет. Прислушайтесь же к этому хору колоколов; присоедините к нему говор полумилионного населения, извечный ропот реки, непрерывные вздохи ветра, торжественный отдаленный квартет четырех окружных лесов, раскинувшихся по гряде холмов на далеком горизонте, подобно исполинским трубам органов; смягчите этой полутенью то, что в главной партии оркестра звучит слишком хрипло и слишком резко, и скажите - есть ли в целом мире что-нибудь более пышное, более радостное, более прекрасное и более ослепительное, чем это смятение колоколов и звонниц; чем это горнило музыки; чем эти десять тысяч медных голосов, льющихся одновременно из этих каменных флейт высотою в триста футов; чем этот город, превратившийся в оркестр; чем эта симфония, гудящая, словно буря?
Когда творишь зло, твори его до конца. Безумие не останавливается на полпути! В чрезмерности греха таится исступленное счастье. Священник и колдунья могут слиться в наслаждение на охапке соломы и в темнице.
Когда человек владеет мысль, он находит ее во всем.
И быстрыми шагами, не выпуская ее руки, так что она должна была бежать, он направился прямо к виселице и, указав на нее пальцем, холодно произнес: - Выбирай между нами.
adventurous
challenging
dark
emotional
funny
reflective
sad
tense
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
An epic tragedy unfolds in Paris.
I became interested in reading this book after finishing Les Misérables, also by Victor Hugo. Written 31 years prior, Notre-Dame de Paris (a.k.a. The Hunchback of Notre-Dame) has some of the same strengths and flaws of Les Mis, and suggests themes that would be further developed in his later work. The characters are (mostly) strong, and the plot is compelling. The theme of inward vs. outward beauty is timeless and exquisitely structured.
Compared to Les Mis, the narrative of this book is much tighter and less rambling. Although some pacing issues still exist, the sheer difference in page length, 450 pages vs. 1400 pages, keeps the plot moving at a much steadier clip. Additionally, while many of the characters of Notre-Dame struggle with similar issues of poverty and oppression, circumstances almost indistinguishable from those of Les Mis, the author is much more agnostic and emotionally distant from this strife. Rather, Hugo spends more thought and emotion on attacking the practice of capital punishment, instead of poverty. While this is neither inherently good nor bad, it felt a bit emotionally underdeveloped relative to the heart-wrenching plight of Cosette and Jean Valjean. To its detriment, this book is much more bigoted and racist than Les Mis. I do not recall Les Mis as having a particularly diverse cast, but I suppose a lack of diversity is preferential to outright demonizing Middle-Eastern immigrants. All things considered, I would say that these two exquisite books are equally good, but with different flaws.
The real strength of this book is in the characters. It is interesting to me, how the characters in this book, upon reflection, are very flat, unchanging, and almost one-dimensional. Yet there is character development. The development comes, not in the characters themselves, but in how we as the reader see and understand the character. Gringoire goes from a frustrated artist, to a coward; Esméralda from a headstrong beauty to a terrified girl; Phoebus a heroic knight to an immature baffoon; Claude Frollo from a chaste priest to an envious demon; and of course Quasimodo from a pitiable monster to a beautiful soul. However, the truth is that all of these people were always this way, it was just their outward appearances that belied their true nature. In this way, it is almost like the reader is the focus of the character development, not the characters themselves. As we spend time with these people, our initial impressions are challenged and the illusion is slowly broken, as we, the reader, grow to see beyond the surface, to the true person underneath.
I said earlier that the characters were mostly good. So let's talk about Esméralda. Esméralda, like Cosette thirty years later, is so close to being a good character. On paper, she sounds like a strong female lead, independent, confident, resourceful, intelligent, and caring. But, Hugo seems to have an inability to write interesting female characters. She spends the whole second half of the book obsessively hung up on an older man, who does not even like her, and just wants to sleep with her. Especially for a character that is introduced as intelligent enough to perform slights-of-hand to amuse large crowds, she is foolish and blundering through much of the plot. She swallows her lover's lies, misses super obvious clues that she is in danger, and barely says a meaningful sentence after part 7.She even gives herself up for dead at the sound of her love's voice, despite him not talking to her, or about her, or caring for her in any way! Some of this can be explained away, by her age, saying, well she is only 16. But this is a massive catch 22 for a modern audience. If you age her up to, say, 19 or 20, she is a dolt, who should know better. If you keep her as a girl, the whole story is just that much grosser. Again, you might think, well It's not really a love story, it is supposed to be kind of creepy and dark. But that does not work either because Quasimodo's love is not fully plutonic. While it may ultimately be unrequited, and Quasimodo has enough respect for both Esméralda and himself to keep a certain distance, the desire is clearly there, so Esméralda's age continues to be an issue.
Regardless of Esméralda's age, or any other nit-picks, this is a beautiful story which is fully deserving of its place in the cultural zeitgeist. The way it contrasts internal and external beauty is powerful and just as prescient today as it was 200 years ago, perhaps more so, and it's take on disability feels progressive, even by modern standards. It is no surprise that this book has been adapted and retold so many times, and rightfully so. Although this book is not the Disney movie, it has a clear and sonorous message, which like the bells of Notre-Dame, will resonate throughout the ages.
Unequivocal, must read!
I became interested in reading this book after finishing Les Misérables, also by Victor Hugo. Written 31 years prior, Notre-Dame de Paris (a.k.a. The Hunchback of Notre-Dame) has some of the same strengths and flaws of Les Mis, and suggests themes that would be further developed in his later work. The characters are (mostly) strong, and the plot is compelling. The theme of inward vs. outward beauty is timeless and exquisitely structured.
Compared to Les Mis, the narrative of this book is much tighter and less rambling. Although some pacing issues still exist, the sheer difference in page length, 450 pages vs. 1400 pages, keeps the plot moving at a much steadier clip. Additionally, while many of the characters of Notre-Dame struggle with similar issues of poverty and oppression, circumstances almost indistinguishable from those of Les Mis, the author is much more agnostic and emotionally distant from this strife. Rather, Hugo spends more thought and emotion on attacking the practice of capital punishment, instead of poverty. While this is neither inherently good nor bad, it felt a bit emotionally underdeveloped relative to the heart-wrenching plight of Cosette and Jean Valjean. To its detriment, this book is much more bigoted and racist than Les Mis. I do not recall Les Mis as having a particularly diverse cast, but I suppose a lack of diversity is preferential to outright demonizing Middle-Eastern immigrants. All things considered, I would say that these two exquisite books are equally good, but with different flaws.
The real strength of this book is in the characters. It is interesting to me, how the characters in this book, upon reflection, are very flat, unchanging, and almost one-dimensional. Yet there is character development. The development comes, not in the characters themselves, but in how we as the reader see and understand the character. Gringoire goes from a frustrated artist, to a coward; Esméralda from a headstrong beauty to a terrified girl; Phoebus a heroic knight to an immature baffoon; Claude Frollo from a chaste priest to an envious demon; and of course Quasimodo from a pitiable monster to a beautiful soul. However, the truth is that all of these people were always this way, it was just their outward appearances that belied their true nature. In this way, it is almost like the reader is the focus of the character development, not the characters themselves. As we spend time with these people, our initial impressions are challenged and the illusion is slowly broken, as we, the reader, grow to see beyond the surface, to the true person underneath.
I said earlier that the characters were mostly good. So let's talk about Esméralda. Esméralda, like Cosette thirty years later, is so close to being a good character. On paper, she sounds like a strong female lead, independent, confident, resourceful, intelligent, and caring. But, Hugo seems to have an inability to write interesting female characters. She spends the whole second half of the book obsessively hung up on an older man, who does not even like her, and just wants to sleep with her. Especially for a character that is introduced as intelligent enough to perform slights-of-hand to amuse large crowds, she is foolish and blundering through much of the plot. She swallows her lover's lies, misses super obvious clues that she is in danger, and barely says a meaningful sentence after part 7.
Regardless of Esméralda's age, or any other nit-picks, this is a beautiful story which is fully deserving of its place in the cultural zeitgeist. The way it contrasts internal and external beauty is powerful and just as prescient today as it was 200 years ago, perhaps more so, and it's take on disability feels progressive, even by modern standards. It is no surprise that this book has been adapted and retold so many times, and rightfully so. Although this book is not the Disney movie, it has a clear and sonorous message, which like the bells of Notre-Dame, will resonate throughout the ages.
Unequivocal, must read!
"God's great thunderbolts do not bombard lettuces." - A crazy sentence from a crazy book
adventurous
dark
funny
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Horridly long, whole chapters describe nothing but architecture, barely understood the historical context, dark, twisty, nothing like the Disney movie, and a real pain to get through. 10/10
Litsy Buddy Read #HugoNuts — This book was so intense I just had to read ahead. Although I finished way before the deadline I still plan on participating in the Litsy conversation.
I first read this book in 1988. After re-reading it in 2019 I truly believe that I was not mature enough to understand it fully the first time. Heck, I could read it again in years from now and find other truth and brilliance within its pages.
I first read this book in 1988. After re-reading it in 2019 I truly believe that I was not mature enough to understand it fully the first time. Heck, I could read it again in years from now and find other truth and brilliance within its pages.
challenging
dark
emotional
mysterious
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:
Yes
Why can’t men just leave women alone 😭😭 quite slow in the beginning and confusing with the writing of the crowd but I got more into it the more I read. Long stretches of description of Paris and architecture that I think I would’ve appreciated more if I was more familiar with Paris
dark
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
a boring story about a bunch of men objectifying a teenager