Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.85 AVERAGE
3.85 AVERAGE
I liked it, but not nearly as much as Les Miserables. Frankly, Esmeralda just really annoyed me. I'm pretty sure the only word she knew was "Phoebus!" Oh well. I was definitely interested in the story and what happened to the characters. It's not the Disney version!
I have long been a fan of Les Miserables. Because this book was written so long before Les Miserables, when Victor Hugo was such a different person, with such different ideologies, I did not think that I would like this very much. There is a general consensus that the beginning is hard to get through, but it is worth it. I completely agree. Books do not often make me cry real, serious tears, but this one did. Straight to my favorites list...
adventurous
challenging
dark
emotional
sad
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
emotional
sad
tense
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Well. I knew the Disney version took liberties, but holy smokes, this novel isn't called Gothic for nothing. I'm still thinking about that final image - it's so pessimistic and poignant, showing both how cold and ruthless people can be, and how fragile and wrecked by emotion we ultimately are. Frollo, of course, is both things at once (which is part of what makes him such an effective character; he embodies this human incongruence in its darkest form).
The book as a whole is such a diatribe against society and "man's inhumanity to man" (with little credence given to the possibility of redemption) that I had to investigate where it stood in Hugo's oeuvre. It didn't surprise me at all to learn that he wrote Hunchback in his late 20s, whereas [b:Les Misérables|24280|Les Misérables|Victor Hugo|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1411852091s/24280.jpg|3208463] was published when he was 60. There's clearly a great deal of worldview development and accumulated wisdom that separates the two works. (Also, you can just tell that Hunchback is the work of a younger person. More sex and violence, somewhat less philosophizing. Ha. Though Hugo does wax poetic about architecture to his heart's content.)
It's interesting to me how the whole drive of Les Mis is the characters' evolution - Valjean at the end of the novel is worlds apart from who he is at the beginning - whereas in Hunchback, none of the characters are allowed to change at all. Quasimodo, Esmeralda, Frollo, and Phoebus are all static, victims of either their natures, fate, or circumstance.
I'm never partial to that kind of story. I prefer watching characters grow. Still, there's something fascinating about seeing this cast of tragic figures unwittingly orchestrate their collective demise, while the most callous person in the book escapes the chaos intact. I may not like the outcome, but the statement Hunchback makes is clear. Hugo obviously accomplished what he set out to do. Just... dang. I'm glad the guy managed to balance some of that bleakness with a (IMHO) more well-rounded take on the human condition later in life.
The book as a whole is such a diatribe against society and "man's inhumanity to man" (with little credence given to the possibility of redemption) that I had to investigate where it stood in Hugo's oeuvre. It didn't surprise me at all to learn that he wrote Hunchback in his late 20s, whereas [b:Les Misérables|24280|Les Misérables|Victor Hugo|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1411852091s/24280.jpg|3208463] was published when he was 60. There's clearly a great deal of worldview development and accumulated wisdom that separates the two works. (Also, you can just tell that Hunchback is the work of a younger person. More sex and violence, somewhat less philosophizing. Ha. Though Hugo does wax poetic about architecture to his heart's content.)
It's interesting to me how the whole drive of Les Mis is the characters' evolution - Valjean at the end of the novel is worlds apart from who he is at the beginning - whereas in Hunchback, none of the characters are allowed to change at all. Quasimodo, Esmeralda, Frollo, and Phoebus are all static, victims of either their natures, fate, or circumstance.
I'm never partial to that kind of story. I prefer watching characters grow. Still, there's something fascinating about seeing this cast of tragic figures unwittingly orchestrate their collective demise, while the most callous person in the book escapes the chaos intact. I may not like the outcome, but the statement Hunchback makes is clear. Hugo obviously accomplished what he set out to do. Just... dang. I'm glad the guy managed to balance some of that bleakness with a (IMHO) more well-rounded take on the human condition later in life.
adventurous
challenging
dark
emotional
sad
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Complicated
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
adventurous
dark
emotional
mysterious
reflective
sad
slow-paced
dark
emotional
reflective
sad
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Although there is a slow pace to the book, I think the purpose of it was to interweave this idea of architecture representing a source of identity for Paris as a whole that newer generations are losing sight of. It almost made the Notre Dame building its own character in how it’s described and its importance to the story. It’s overlong because of this and the story suffers as a result. In fact, the main plot involving the characters is contained in about a third of the book or half at the most. But I did enjoy the idea of our addictions leading to our own downfall. They become so all encompassing that it becomes who we are at the expense of the person we used to be and damaging those around us (especially those we claim to love). Also liked how it addressed issues of its time pertaining to government.
A wonderful classic for a reason, very tragic but beautiful
emotional
mysterious
reflective
tense
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
N/A
Flaws of characters a main focus:
N/A