Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.85 AVERAGE
3.85 AVERAGE
I really wish by the end of this book I had found out what happened to Quasimodo, even though I know him "disappearing" was part of the ending. This book richly described a time in Paris, even though fictional, with the most beauty in detail of Notre Dame. The villains are easy to hate, almost out of a Poe story. The love triangle had a slightly predictable ending, though the tragedy was saddening. Quite an end to my classic summer reading list, I must say.
This was a lot of fun. The melodrama & suspense, certain infuriating characters (and fewer essay-like digressions than Les Mis) kept me turning pages to find out what happened next. And while I enjoyed this more than Les Mis, I have to also admit that Les Mis is the better book. I think I would get more out of Les Mis on a re-read, more depth, more intricacies, etc. This one is more just a page-turner of a story, once you get past the digressions about Parisian architecture. I'm glad I finally read this chunkster classic from my TBR shelf! And now that I‘ve read the source material, I wonder why anyone thought this would be a good story to adapt for kids?!
So với Những người khốn khổ, cuốn này đỡ lê thê dài dòng hơn nhiều. Bản phim hoạt hình chuyển thể của Disney có lẽ đã phải thay đổi kha khá, khiến câu chuyện đỡ đen tối và tàn khốc hơn. Tuy có một điều không đổi, đó là mối tình đơn phương không được hồi đáp của Quasimodo với La Esmeralda
Welp, *that* was different from the Disney movie. And I loved it. I found the details about the cathedral and the city of Paris both lovely and a bit of a slog, if that's possible, but the story itself was fantastic, with an ending that I both loved and hated and loved to hate. The dark humor sprinkled throughout was wonderful and almost all the characters were excellently well-drawn. Esmeralda herself, funnily enough, is the only exception here, whose one-sidedness was doubly annoying - annoying for being one-sided, and also that one side of her character was itself frustratingly simple and meek. Overall, though, I'm thoroughly happy that I read this one, finally.
A very dense read for me. Great story with many different stories that was something I wasn’t expecting. I can’t say I really liked any character though.
OMG!!! 6 mois plus tard, j'ai fini!!! Excellent, comme prévu, mais parfois très frustrant dans son timing (peut-être pas le moment de faire une description de deux pages du paysage en plein dénouement)
Oh, goodness, me and this story. Here we go:
When I was in high school, I first picked up The Hunchback of Notre Dame, excited to read the story behind Quasimodo and Esmeralda. Honestly, I'm not sure what I expected - maybe a little better understanding of the characters in a Disney movie I'd never seen but desperately wanted to see. I might have made it to the first 100 pages, I'm not sure, but I soon tired of the ENDLESS description of the cathedral. It was exhausting, and, quite frankly, Victor Hugo hadn't arrived at the point of the novel soon enough to make me want to continue and actually finish his novel.
Fast forward a few years.
I finally watched the movie; and wow, what a moving showcase of powerful music and a timeless message. That was it, I then decided. I should at least try to give Hunchback another go. Maybe I would like it this time, being older and at least a little bit wiser.
With the Hunchback on my summer reading list - literally all these months - I finally got around to checking it out from the library. Keeping in mind my initial experience/reaction, I looked through both editions that the library had: namely, the unabridged and the abridged. Previously, I'd struggled through the unabridged. Obviously not for me, so I checked out the unabridged version this time. (This version knocked off at least 100 pages . . . probably the 100 about the description of how the cathedral's columns looked. And let me tell you, that's 100 pages I did not miss.)
To be honest, I feel like it took me forever to plow through this book. Just a side note: don't ever, world without end, read this book late at night. You will lose your place, read the same sentence 10,000,000 times, and fall asleep. Trust me.
But to get to the actual plot . . . my goodness. Hugo drew from history, architecture, and human flaws to paint this colossal picture of a situation in 1400s Paris. Annnd he did succeed . . . on some level. I've heard it said that one of the reasons Hugo even wrote Hunchback was because people were going to tear the cathedral down. Apparently, Hugo opposed this so strongly that he conjured up this story in hopes of perhaps preserving the gorgeous cathedral. The fact that Hugo's story worked - that Notre Dame still stands today because of this story - makes it that much more amazing.
For anyone who's seen Disney's portrayal of Hunchback, the movie stayed pretty close to the actual plot. In fact, the only differences I found were, okay, well, quite a few characters - i.e., Gringoire (an idiot - I mean, honestly, he saved the goat instead?); Jehan (Frollo's younger brother, a genuine reckless imbecile); and the woman with the shoe (who surprised me with more importance than I initially pegged her for). However, I loved how Hugo tied them all together in the end. It made for a powerful conclusion.
Speaking of characters, Hugo had quite the knack for developing characters who were interesting because of their complexity.
In my opinion, the two most interesting characters were Frollo and Quasimodo - a basic contrast between good and evil.
Obviously, Frollo is the evil one. He had a pretty consistent creepy we'll-call-it "infatuation" for Esmeralda. Oh goodness, that man is creepy. Buuut, due to his super complex character, I actually *shocker* somewhat liked him at the beginning of the book - mostly because, before anything else, he was a devoted scholar. He was a really well-educated man who learned how to love when his parents died, forcing him to get away from his books to take care of his younger brother. Annnd when Quasimodo comes into the picture, Frollo *really did* save him out of the sheer goodness of his heart. Well, okay, come to think of it, he truly perceived saving Quasimodo as more of a good deed to lock away for later (maybe to offset, to some degree, all the bad he would later do). Frollo's aspirations vanish - along with my own fascination with him - as soon as 16-year-old Esmeralda first enters his mind. It all goes downhill for him from that moment.
Okay, so there are actually no inherently "good" characters in this book, but the character closest to fitting the definition is Quasimodo. I had an interesting time looking at his motivations for doing things, such as grabbing Esmeralda by the waist and rushing her into Notre Dame, crying "Sanctuary! Sanctuary!" He did that because she had previously helped him when he was being punished. Another aspect about him is that, after years and years of ringing those bells, Quasimodo is very much deaf. This quality adds so much to him. To me, I think, it made him more intuitive about the pain of the world. Despite his gruesome looks, Quasimodo is quite compassionate toward others; he feels so deeply. Even though his deformity repulses Esmeralda, he still cares deeply for her and wishes her happiness, even to his own pain. I'm not sure I would say he loves her, but Quasimodo definitely cares for Esmeralda to an extent far surpassing *coughs* how Phoebus feels about the gypsy. On the other hand, I couldn't stand Quasimodo's blind devotion for Frollo. That just blows my mind.
At any rate, I am glad I took up Hunchback again. If nothing else, I got to know Hugo's characters better than I did before.
Previous rating: 2 stars
Current rating: 3 stars
When I was in high school, I first picked up The Hunchback of Notre Dame, excited to read the story behind Quasimodo and Esmeralda. Honestly, I'm not sure what I expected - maybe a little better understanding of the characters in a Disney movie I'd never seen but desperately wanted to see. I might have made it to the first 100 pages, I'm not sure, but I soon tired of the ENDLESS description of the cathedral. It was exhausting, and, quite frankly, Victor Hugo hadn't arrived at the point of the novel soon enough to make me want to continue and actually finish his novel.
Fast forward a few years.
I finally watched the movie; and wow, what a moving showcase of powerful music and a timeless message. That was it, I then decided. I should at least try to give Hunchback another go. Maybe I would like it this time, being older and at least a little bit wiser.
With the Hunchback on my summer reading list - literally all these months - I finally got around to checking it out from the library. Keeping in mind my initial experience/reaction, I looked through both editions that the library had: namely, the unabridged and the abridged. Previously, I'd struggled through the unabridged. Obviously not for me, so I checked out the unabridged version this time. (This version knocked off at least 100 pages . . . probably the 100 about the description of how the cathedral's columns looked. And let me tell you, that's 100 pages I did not miss.)
To be honest, I feel like it took me forever to plow through this book. Just a side note: don't ever, world without end, read this book late at night. You will lose your place, read the same sentence 10,000,000 times, and fall asleep. Trust me.
But to get to the actual plot . . . my goodness. Hugo drew from history, architecture, and human flaws to paint this colossal picture of a situation in 1400s Paris. Annnd he did succeed . . . on some level. I've heard it said that one of the reasons Hugo even wrote Hunchback was because people were going to tear the cathedral down. Apparently, Hugo opposed this so strongly that he conjured up this story in hopes of perhaps preserving the gorgeous cathedral. The fact that Hugo's story worked - that Notre Dame still stands today because of this story - makes it that much more amazing.
For anyone who's seen Disney's portrayal of Hunchback, the movie stayed pretty close to the actual plot. In fact, the only differences I found were, okay, well, quite a few characters - i.e., Gringoire (an idiot - I mean, honestly, he saved the goat instead?); Jehan (Frollo's younger brother, a genuine reckless imbecile); and the woman with the shoe (who surprised me with more importance than I initially pegged her for). However, I loved how Hugo tied them all together in the end. It made for a powerful conclusion.
Speaking of characters, Hugo had quite the knack for developing characters who were interesting because of their complexity.
In my opinion, the two most interesting characters were Frollo and Quasimodo - a basic contrast between good and evil.
Obviously, Frollo is the evil one. He had a pretty consistent creepy we'll-call-it "infatuation" for Esmeralda. Oh goodness, that man is creepy. Buuut, due to his super complex character, I actually *shocker* somewhat liked him at the beginning of the book - mostly because, before anything else, he was a devoted scholar. He was a really well-educated man who learned how to love when his parents died, forcing him to get away from his books to take care of his younger brother. Annnd when Quasimodo comes into the picture, Frollo *really did* save him out of the sheer goodness of his heart. Well, okay, come to think of it, he truly perceived saving Quasimodo as more of a good deed to lock away for later (maybe to offset, to some degree, all the bad he would later do). Frollo's aspirations vanish - along with my own fascination with him - as soon as 16-year-old Esmeralda first enters his mind. It all goes downhill for him from that moment.
Okay, so there are actually no inherently "good" characters in this book, but the character closest to fitting the definition is Quasimodo. I had an interesting time looking at his motivations for doing things, such as grabbing Esmeralda by the waist and rushing her into Notre Dame, crying "Sanctuary! Sanctuary!" He did that because she had previously helped him when he was being punished. Another aspect about him is that, after years and years of ringing those bells, Quasimodo is very much deaf. This quality adds so much to him. To me, I think, it made him more intuitive about the pain of the world. Despite his gruesome looks, Quasimodo is quite compassionate toward others; he feels so deeply. Even though his deformity repulses Esmeralda, he still cares deeply for her and wishes her happiness, even to his own pain. I'm not sure I would say he loves her, but Quasimodo definitely cares for Esmeralda to an extent far surpassing *coughs* how Phoebus feels about the gypsy. On the other hand, I couldn't stand Quasimodo's blind devotion for Frollo. That just blows my mind.
At any rate, I am glad I took up Hunchback again. If nothing else, I got to know Hugo's characters better than I did before.
Previous rating: 2 stars
Current rating: 3 stars
Wow, what a difference from the Disney version. I have to say that Disney has completely corrupted this wonderful but depressing tale. The gothic feel to this novel was very intense and the symbolism in the cathedral was very vivid. I thorougly enjoyed this, save for the lengthy descriptions and the fact that it has been translated, so the language quality is lost.