Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.85 AVERAGE
3.85 AVERAGE
dark
emotional
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
The review that simply said “I am sad.” perfectly sums up of my feels directly after ending this book. Omg. I read the e-book version, and enjoyed most of it but was absolutely enthralled the last half of this lengthy book. It helps knowing it was originally written as an effort to bring love and attention to the Notre Dame cathedral, and the action and characters were the side pieces of this book. There is about 100 (?) pages straight just waxing poetic about the architecture and history of Paris and I will fully admit my mind drifted as a skimmed through the pages.
The book really picks up when Esmeralda catches everyone’s eye, to her great misfortune. There are no likable characters in the book, except for Djali the little goat of course so sweet, and yet it was not hard to want to follow along their entertaining plots and storylines. I was frequently shocked, and there was 20 straight minutes at one point that my mouth was fully gaped open as I read. I loved Les Miserables, and while this writing is not as refined and mature (he was in his 20’s when this book was published!), the writing is still wonderful.
This book published in 1831, was written as a historical fiction of the 1600s. Really enjoyed the author’s imagination of what was happening at that time in the city he loves so much. The archdeacon succeeded in enraging me more than any other villain I can remember in a while. Such trash, and all the more enraging because even now, hundreds of years later, I’ve seen it happen in today’s society.
This is more of a love story to Paris and Notre Dame than it is about Quasimodo and Esmeralda. It's so descriptive of the city and church that it's like I am there again. The story that deals with Quasimodo is good, and it had a perfect yet tragic end. There was a point when I said "Really?" but thankfully it wasn't a total cheese fest at the end.
I much prefer Les Miserables to this book by Victor Hugo.
adventurous
challenging
slow-paced
Che dire? Un capolavoro ottocentesco targato Hugo. Ben lontano dalle atmosfere buoniste e ovattate del cartone della Disney che del libro ha mantenuto solo i nomi ( comprensibile dato che si tratta di film per bambini), questo romanzio racchiude la crudezza della vita medioevale. A parte le noiose digressioni sulla città e i suoi cambiamenti, il paragone è tra la Parigi del 1300 e quella del 1600, il libro è avvincente. La storia è di una crudezza affascinante. Le perversioni del religioso per Esmeralda e le sue vendette, l'ipocrisia del capo delle guardie, il cuore spaccato di Quasimodo nominato re dei matti, l'innocenza di Esmeralda e la Parigi medioevale di sottofondo. Il quartiere dei menomati, l'università e soprattutto la cattedrale di Notre-Dame. Un romanzo corale e avvincente. Bellissimo.
Good story, but a long read. 61 pages in a row of description of one little corner of the cathedral? Thank God writers are no longer paid by the number of words...
Why didn't I read this when I was in high school? I don't know, probably too simple for my snooty English classes. Why didn't I read this when I decided [book: Les Miserables] as my favorite novel of all time? I don't know, probably too simple for my snooty Disney (Eisner-Disney) disliking self. Whatever the reason, I've read it and loved it. It holds a much more coherent and linear story than Les Miserables, but loses much of the pathos and depth. Overall, it was a fun and surprisingly light read. To anybody with half a brain, many of the later developments are telegraphed early on, but the interest is sustained in how you get to the results rather than the results themselves.
adventurous
dark
I love a good French 19th century classic, but this one really tested my patience at some points with its waffling... the whole of book 3 can be skipped since it contains no plot or characters whatsoever - Hugo just waffles on about architecture and Paris for 30 pages.
I still enjoyed the stories and the intertwining characters since I don't remember anything of the Disney movie (which I imagine varies a lot from this source material!). Esmeralda deserved better!!
I still enjoyed the stories and the intertwining characters since I don't remember anything of the Disney movie (which I imagine varies a lot from this source material!). Esmeralda deserved better!!
Un chef d'oeuvre et un classique. Les longues descriptions de Paris m'ont un peu laissé de côté, mais je n'ai pas vu les pages défiler en dehors de ça.
dark
informative
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Heard as an audiobook excellently read by BJ Harrison - my warmest recommendations for him as a narrator.
If you are going to give "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" a go, may I suggest the bridged version? Oh my god, the amount of boring details in the unabridged.
It is not an exaggeration when I say that the main story really doesn't start until 50 % in. Before that, my estimate is that somewhere between two thirds and three quarters of the book are not the story, but are descriptions of Paris, of the area around the Notre Dame, of the Notre Dame itself, if the lineage of persons etc. etc.
It is boooooring and is not relevant for the plot.
How about the story? It's okay. It's not bad and it's worth investing 7-8 hours into, but definitely not more than 20 for the unabridged.
If you are going to give "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" a go, may I suggest the bridged version? Oh my god, the amount of boring details in the unabridged.
It is not an exaggeration when I say that the main story really doesn't start until 50 % in. Before that, my estimate is that somewhere between two thirds and three quarters of the book are not the story, but are descriptions of Paris, of the area around the Notre Dame, of the Notre Dame itself, if the lineage of persons etc. etc.
It is boooooring and is not relevant for the plot.
How about the story? It's okay. It's not bad and it's worth investing 7-8 hours into, but definitely not more than 20 for the unabridged.