You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.85 AVERAGE
3.85 AVERAGE
adventurous
dark
sad
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Content Warnings
Moderate: Racism, Torture, Murder
You know the story- Quasimodo, the deformed hunchback bellringer of Notre Dame, falls in love with Esmeralda, the gypsy girl. But there's a lot more to the story, and it's worth the trip to 15th century Paris to learn.
Hugo is prone to philosophizing and history lessons, and this book is no different. He does get back to the story without too much wandering and I learned a few things along the way. Like Hugo proposes that architecture was the written history of mankind before the printing press and the ability to print books en masse killed architecture. Gave me some food for thought! I do think having been to Paris and to Notre Dame specifically helped when Hugo gave the layout of the city and the cathedral, which is a bit dry. I'm sure some of the history and politics of the time went right over my head and I'm not invested enough to delve into it.
Food: I had a ham and butter baguette in Paris that was simple, hearty, satisfying, and took a bit of chewing. Some might pass it up, but it hit the spot.
Hugo is prone to philosophizing and history lessons, and this book is no different. He does get back to the story without too much wandering and I learned a few things along the way. Like Hugo proposes that architecture was the written history of mankind before the printing press and the ability to print books en masse killed architecture. Gave me some food for thought! I do think having been to Paris and to Notre Dame specifically helped when Hugo gave the layout of the city and the cathedral, which is a bit dry. I'm sure some of the history and politics of the time went right over my head and I'm not invested enough to delve into it.
Food: I had a ham and butter baguette in Paris that was simple, hearty, satisfying, and took a bit of chewing. Some might pass it up, but it hit the spot.
"He loves that goat!" - Episode Six, THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE-BLONDE
http://thetoreadlistpodcast.libsyn.com/the-hunchback-of-notre-blonde
http://thetoreadlistpodcast.libsyn.com/the-hunchback-of-notre-blonde
مش عايزة أظلم الرواية ككل، يمكن النسخة بتاعت مكتبة الأسرة مختصرة زيادة عن اللزوم لدرجة خلت حاجات كتير تبقى مش منطقية بالنسبالي
بس نسخة زي دي مناسبة لحد عايز يقرأ حاجة سريعة عموماً
بس نسخة زي دي مناسبة لحد عايز يقرأ حاجة سريعة عموماً
adventurous
dark
mysterious
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated
Hugo likes long descriptions and discussions about building, and every time I tell myself that the next book of his that I read surely can't be so descriptive. I am always wrong.
This book is long, but I enjoyed it so much more than I expected which is always good. The story is interesting and the characters are all quite odd.
This book is long, but I enjoyed it so much more than I expected which is always good. The story is interesting and the characters are all quite odd.
3.4 stars - the second half saved the first one but you really need to know that to struggle through till there. The moral of it all, to use reddit-terms, would be ESH, I guess... ^^' [prtf]
i originally thought about rating it three stars but i’m giving it a four because this is a book that i hold dear to me.
i’ve not read the original version before but after going on wikipedia, it looks like this adapted version is more or less accurate in terms of the events and characters. in general, this whole story is just really sad and i don’t think I can ever forget it.
i’ve not read the original version before but after going on wikipedia, it looks like this adapted version is more or less accurate in terms of the events and characters. in general, this whole story is just really sad and i don’t think I can ever forget it.
“The Hunchback of Notre Dame” has long been one of my 5 favorite reads of all time. Really, I’m not one for love stories. This is though. Of course it is.
“ ‘Do you know what friendship is?’ he asked.
‘Yes’, the gypsy answered. ‘It means being brother and sister, two souls touching but not merging, two fingers of the same hand.’ “
“The fact is that love is like a tree, it grows of its own accord, strikes deep roots throughout our being, and continues to put out leaves on a heart in ruin.”
This reading has been my 3rd or perhaps even my 4th; it does grow more difficult with time to count the tellings. But it’s the 1st time — I confess — that I have come away with a tolerably complete understanding of how Mr Hugo’s Philosophy of History plays a distinct role in the writing.
Having said this, I’m more than a wee bit uncertain if those editions of this work that I had read in the past were complete. I certainly do NOT recall Book Three tossed so abruptly into the story as it was in this Oxford University Press edition , Translated by Alban Krailsheimer. And I cannot say that I recall Book Five Ch II with its analysis of Claude Frollo’s “This will kill that”. But I did fully appreciate the measure of context given.
Were I a 1st time reader, however — not particularly interested in Paris layout and architectural changes between the 15th and 19th Centuries — I may have tossed this STORY into my DNF pile. I personally, would have preferred the placement of Book Three to the front of the book - within an Author Preface - and Book Five Ch II as an extensive footnote after the text in Ch I. As written these interruptions — to the thread of story — lessen its impact (costing a half star brilliance in my rating at 4.5 ⭐️s). The STORY remains in my TOP 5 of all time.
“ ‘Do you know what friendship is?’ he asked.
‘Yes’, the gypsy answered. ‘It means being brother and sister, two souls touching but not merging, two fingers of the same hand.’ “
“The fact is that love is like a tree, it grows of its own accord, strikes deep roots throughout our being, and continues to put out leaves on a heart in ruin.”
This reading has been my 3rd or perhaps even my 4th; it does grow more difficult with time to count the tellings. But it’s the 1st time — I confess — that I have come away with a tolerably complete understanding of how Mr Hugo’s Philosophy of History plays a distinct role in the writing.
Having said this, I’m more than a wee bit uncertain if those editions of this work that I had read in the past were complete. I certainly do NOT recall Book Three tossed so abruptly into the story as it was in this Oxford University Press edition , Translated by Alban Krailsheimer. And I cannot say that I recall Book Five Ch II with its analysis of Claude Frollo’s “This will kill that”. But I did fully appreciate the measure of context given.
Were I a 1st time reader, however — not particularly interested in Paris layout and architectural changes between the 15th and 19th Centuries — I may have tossed this STORY into my DNF pile. I personally, would have preferred the placement of Book Three to the front of the book - within an Author Preface - and Book Five Ch II as an extensive footnote after the text in Ch I. As written these interruptions — to the thread of story — lessen its impact (costing a half star brilliance in my rating at 4.5 ⭐️s). The STORY remains in my TOP 5 of all time.
challenging
dark
funny
reflective
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
May contain spoilers.
I'm trying not to fanboy all over the place and rant and rave about how amazing Victor Hugo is because this book deserves a more measured review.
So bear with me.
This book was groundbreaking in its day for its depiction of the whole of existence within a specific time and place. We see scenes with Louis XI, and scenes with the poorest of the poor living in the gutters of Paris, and it has such an astute awareness of how everything in society is affected by everything else. Life isn't fair, good people are unjustly punished, the leaders aren't often in positions of power because they're good leaders, and the unfair actions of the Patriarchy can have devastating consequences on those who can't defend themselves against it.
I wish I could time travel back to 1831, bring Victor Hugo back with me, and have him write books on the modern age just so we could all benefit from his shrewd cultural awareness.
This book is extraordinary.
It's hard to bring it up without mentioning the Disney version, which is one of my favorite Disney animated films, so I will just say, yes, a great deal was changed when adapting this massive story. The Disney version's plot is VERY different from the novel's, but thematically (except for the happy ending) it hits on a lot of the same ideas. Frollo's self-destructive corrupt paradoxes are portrayed very well, for example.
But leaving the movie behind.
The characters are all memorable and they're all flawed. The only "good" character is perhaps Esmeralda, but even still, it's her attraction to the dismissive, womanizing Phoebus (who's handsome, but rather dead inside when it comes to the women he uses for short-term pleasure) that ends up tipping her over the edge to her destruction in the end.
Pierre Gringoire, the struggling poet who joins the Court of Miracles to save his own skin, and who basically just goes along with whoever has the most power so as to keep himself out of danger, is my favorite character. He's such a worm, but when you see how dangerous and unfair life in this century is, you can see why it's the cowards and corrupt who survive. Gringoire COULD have easily been the book's hero. If he had stood up to Frollo, he could have saved Esmeralda, but instead he saves the goat and flees into the night. He's ultimately useless, but he's a useless human being rather than a useless archetype in a collection of stock characters.
Speaking of heroes, Quasimodo is probably the closest thing the book has to a hero, but he's hardly the protagonist. He's very much a background character for much of the book. When Esmeralda gives him water while he's being humiliated unjustly on the pillory, the scene eventually ends and we don't see him developing feelings for her. He comes back for his triumphant moment when he saves her from execution, but we never get inside his head, really, except at the very end. We see that he is human, not animal, but he remains very much a mystery, up until he takes charge of the narrative.
Frollo is very much the book's protagonist, but he's so vile and evil that we don't much care for his company, especially once he makes his feelings for Esmeralda known. And yet, we do get to see his love for his adopted brother Jehan, a slacker troublemaker who would rather spend money on wine and women rather than his studies. But I love how, for as angry as Frollo gets at him, he ultimately always relents. And then we get his barely-hidden grief near the end after Quasimodo kills Jehan in the attack on Notre Dame. We cannot like Frollo at all. His predatory lust for Esmeralda, and his willingness to kill her if she doesn't return his horrifying advances ultimately lead to one of the darkest and most horrifying conclusions to a novel I've read in a long time. But again, Hugo gives Frollo depth and we can't help but see him as human rather than as a flat villain.
Esmeralda herself remains the one element that hasn't aged well. And yet, we can understand why she's so passive. She's a scared sixteen year old girl surviving on the streets of Paris. She is protected by those of the Court of Miracles, but she's not powerful in any way. The tragedy which she suffers through in the end is designed to cause the reader to get angry at Frollo and Phoebus, corrupt men who abuse and mistreat women, but she herself never becomes more than a flat archetypal ideal. She's sweet, innocent, and foolish, and gets destroyed by the horrible men who want her for her physical beauty. It makes for an incredibly powerful denunciation of sexual violence against women that still works today, but it doesn't make for an interesting character. She's an object, not a person. In that sense, I am glad that the Disney version gave her so much agency, and then the Broadway adaptation restored the tragic ending while keeping her agency in place.
Few books punch you in the stomach and make you feel anguish and joy and that very French righteous indignation that the French are so good at, but this books succeeds beautifully. Don't be turned off by the essays on Parisian urban growth or the clash between architecture and printing. They're important to what Hugo is doing. By the end of the book, Paris itself is a character. You know what it looks like, you can see how it fits into the changing world of the Renaissance, and the buildings themselves have a majesty and ephemeral beauty that you know won't last through the centuries to come. You feel like a citizen of this medieval city, and you care that much more about what happens to the characters.
Hugo wrote this as a love letter to the Gothic architecture that was being torn down or painted over, so you must forgive his gorgeous loving descriptions of these fantastic backdrops. But that attention to detail brings out the incredible characters and struggles of this whole richly described world that much better.
It's no exaggeration to call this one of my favorite books of all time.
I'm trying not to fanboy all over the place and rant and rave about how amazing Victor Hugo is because this book deserves a more measured review.
So bear with me.
This book was groundbreaking in its day for its depiction of the whole of existence within a specific time and place. We see scenes with Louis XI, and scenes with the poorest of the poor living in the gutters of Paris, and it has such an astute awareness of how everything in society is affected by everything else. Life isn't fair, good people are unjustly punished, the leaders aren't often in positions of power because they're good leaders, and the unfair actions of the Patriarchy can have devastating consequences on those who can't defend themselves against it.
I wish I could time travel back to 1831, bring Victor Hugo back with me, and have him write books on the modern age just so we could all benefit from his shrewd cultural awareness.
This book is extraordinary.
It's hard to bring it up without mentioning the Disney version, which is one of my favorite Disney animated films, so I will just say, yes, a great deal was changed when adapting this massive story. The Disney version's plot is VERY different from the novel's, but thematically (except for the happy ending) it hits on a lot of the same ideas. Frollo's self-destructive corrupt paradoxes are portrayed very well, for example.
But leaving the movie behind.
The characters are all memorable and they're all flawed. The only "good" character is perhaps Esmeralda, but even still, it's her attraction to the dismissive, womanizing Phoebus (who's handsome, but rather dead inside when it comes to the women he uses for short-term pleasure) that ends up tipping her over the edge to her destruction in the end.
Pierre Gringoire, the struggling poet who joins the Court of Miracles to save his own skin, and who basically just goes along with whoever has the most power so as to keep himself out of danger, is my favorite character. He's such a worm, but when you see how dangerous and unfair life in this century is, you can see why it's the cowards and corrupt who survive. Gringoire COULD have easily been the book's hero. If he had stood up to Frollo, he could have saved Esmeralda, but instead he saves the goat and flees into the night. He's ultimately useless, but he's a useless human being rather than a useless archetype in a collection of stock characters.
Speaking of heroes, Quasimodo is probably the closest thing the book has to a hero, but he's hardly the protagonist. He's very much a background character for much of the book. When Esmeralda gives him water while he's being humiliated unjustly on the pillory, the scene eventually ends and we don't see him developing feelings for her. He comes back for his triumphant moment when he saves her from execution, but we never get inside his head, really, except at the very end. We see that he is human, not animal, but he remains very much a mystery, up until he takes charge of the narrative.
Frollo is very much the book's protagonist, but he's so vile and evil that we don't much care for his company, especially once he makes his feelings for Esmeralda known. And yet, we do get to see his love for his adopted brother Jehan, a slacker troublemaker who would rather spend money on wine and women rather than his studies. But I love how, for as angry as Frollo gets at him, he ultimately always relents. And then we get his barely-hidden grief near the end after Quasimodo kills Jehan in the attack on Notre Dame. We cannot like Frollo at all. His predatory lust for Esmeralda, and his willingness to kill her if she doesn't return his horrifying advances ultimately lead to one of the darkest and most horrifying conclusions to a novel I've read in a long time. But again, Hugo gives Frollo depth and we can't help but see him as human rather than as a flat villain.
Esmeralda herself remains the one element that hasn't aged well. And yet, we can understand why she's so passive. She's a scared sixteen year old girl surviving on the streets of Paris. She is protected by those of the Court of Miracles, but she's not powerful in any way. The tragedy which she suffers through in the end is designed to cause the reader to get angry at Frollo and Phoebus, corrupt men who abuse and mistreat women, but she herself never becomes more than a flat archetypal ideal. She's sweet, innocent, and foolish, and gets destroyed by the horrible men who want her for her physical beauty. It makes for an incredibly powerful denunciation of sexual violence against women that still works today, but it doesn't make for an interesting character. She's an object, not a person. In that sense, I am glad that the Disney version gave her so much agency, and then the Broadway adaptation restored the tragic ending while keeping her agency in place.
Few books punch you in the stomach and make you feel anguish and joy and that very French righteous indignation that the French are so good at, but this books succeeds beautifully. Don't be turned off by the essays on Parisian urban growth or the clash between architecture and printing. They're important to what Hugo is doing. By the end of the book, Paris itself is a character. You know what it looks like, you can see how it fits into the changing world of the Renaissance, and the buildings themselves have a majesty and ephemeral beauty that you know won't last through the centuries to come. You feel like a citizen of this medieval city, and you care that much more about what happens to the characters.
Hugo wrote this as a love letter to the Gothic architecture that was being torn down or painted over, so you must forgive his gorgeous loving descriptions of these fantastic backdrops. But that attention to detail brings out the incredible characters and struggles of this whole richly described world that much better.
It's no exaggeration to call this one of my favorite books of all time.