Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.85 AVERAGE
3.85 AVERAGE
adventurous
challenging
sad
tense
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated
This book is just depressing. Les Miserables at least had some form of resolution with a little bit of justice and a feel for happy ending. Not sure I feel much justice in this book. Yeah the bad guys got their comeuppance, but so did everyone else?
I'm also quite perplexed as to how this became a Disney movie, and VERY disappointed in the mode that Disney used to create a happy ending (why didn't she just end up with her mom instead of a douchebag soldier that tried to take advantage of her?), but that doesn't really have much to do with the original source material, which is the book.
So I didn't really enjoy it. Some chapters (including the beginning with the play) were an absolute slog and nearly impossible to get through. I'm glad to be done with it.
Sufficiently horrifying villain at least. Frollo is monstrous.
I'm also quite perplexed as to how this became a Disney movie, and VERY disappointed in the mode that Disney used to create a happy ending (why didn't she just end up with her mom instead of a douchebag soldier that tried to take advantage of her?), but that doesn't really have much to do with the original source material, which is the book.
So I didn't really enjoy it. Some chapters (including the beginning with the play) were an absolute slog and nearly impossible to get through. I'm glad to be done with it.
Sufficiently horrifying villain at least. Frollo is monstrous.
adventurous
challenging
dark
informative
sad
tense
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Notre-Dame de Paris est définitivement le classique le plus surévalué que j'ai lu dans ma vie. L'histoire est vraiment très mince et pourrait être résumé en deux ou trois lignes. Je n'ai pas aimé lire Le Procès de Kafka et Guerre et Paix de Tolstoï mais je considère quand même que ce sont des grands romans. Malheureusement, ce roman de Victor Hugo est ennuyant et trop long avec des chapitres de description qui apportent très peu à l'histoire. J'aurais peut-être dû lacher la lecture après le chapitre sur l'architecture.
adventurous
dark
emotional
informative
sad
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
Victor Hugo writes quite well, and I enjoyed this book quite a lot, even if the plot is agonizingly slow in places. I'm pretty sure most people know what this book is about (or have at least seen the Disney movie), so I'm not going to summarize the book (too much?).
The characterization and descriptions were amazing and vivid. I am pretty sure that, if dropped into 15th C France I would be able to find my way around Paris due to Hugo's insane love of architecture. I also really liked the contrasts between Jehan and Claude Frollo, Quasimodo, Phoebus, and Pierre Gringoire. I also thought it was very interesting that Hugo continuously refers to Quasimodo as "monstrous" but shows him to be compassionate and kind (if a little obsessive), while his initial descriptions of the rest of the men imply them to be virtuous or heroic, but upon further reading they reveal various monstrous qualities.
I liked that actions had consequences. Every man in the book is directly or indirectly responsible for some aspect of Esmeralda's eventual death. Esmeralda herself is quite flawed, but is also young, naive, and innocent of the crimes she's accused of (witchcraft and murder). Gudule, Esmeralda's mother, is also indirectly culpable for Esmeralda's death--her negligence that caused Esmeralda to be kidnapped by the gypsies causes Esmeralda to constantly search for her mother, a quest which unfortunately puts Esmeralda in harm's way. Esmeralda's own desperate, obsessive love for Phoebus also causes her to be found and taken away to be hanged.
Hugo makes the point that piety and false religion cannot help one escape fate, and this is played out through every character. The one character who is true to himself throughout the book--Pierre Gringoire--and who does not lie about who he is, what he wants, and what he is willing to do to get it, is the only main character who survives and is moderately happy. Everyone else either dies, or is implied to be miserable for the rest of their lives.
No one needs to write that many chapters about architecture. They ended up slowing the story down, almost fatally in a few places. However, understanding that the novel was originally printed in a serialized form, it might have been necessary to remind readers or to catch readers up who hadn't read all of the preceding material. Also, not every reader would have known the architecture and history of Paris, so this is another reason to leave the long passages describing streets and districts in tact.
There isn't a hero to this story. There aren't even clear protagonists and antagonists. Everyone is constantly changing sides. Quasimodo is perhaps the great tragic figure of the story, yet he's never truly heroic. Esmeralda gets tossed around the plot like a bag of extremely attractive oats, but she is also not a hero. That said, we do root for Gringoire, Quasimodo, and Esmeralda. We also very much dislike Phoebus, the Frollos, and the King.
I also think that this was the kind of book I would have actually enjoyed in High School, and if we'd read it, maybe I wouldn't hate other books (I'm looking at you, Cry the Beloved Country) quite so much.
The characterization and descriptions were amazing and vivid. I am pretty sure that, if dropped into 15th C France I would be able to find my way around Paris due to Hugo's insane love of architecture. I also really liked the contrasts between Jehan and Claude Frollo, Quasimodo, Phoebus, and Pierre Gringoire. I also thought it was very interesting that Hugo continuously refers to Quasimodo as "monstrous" but shows him to be compassionate and kind (if a little obsessive), while his initial descriptions of the rest of the men imply them to be virtuous or heroic, but upon further reading they reveal various monstrous qualities.
I liked that actions had consequences. Every man in the book is directly or indirectly responsible for some aspect of Esmeralda's eventual death. Esmeralda herself is quite flawed, but is also young, naive, and innocent of the crimes she's accused of (witchcraft and murder). Gudule, Esmeralda's mother, is also indirectly culpable for Esmeralda's death--her negligence that caused Esmeralda to be kidnapped by the gypsies causes Esmeralda to constantly search for her mother, a quest which unfortunately puts Esmeralda in harm's way. Esmeralda's own desperate, obsessive love for Phoebus also causes her to be found and taken away to be hanged.
Hugo makes the point that piety and false religion cannot help one escape fate, and this is played out through every character. The one character who is true to himself throughout the book--Pierre Gringoire--and who does not lie about who he is, what he wants, and what he is willing to do to get it, is the only main character who survives and is moderately happy. Everyone else either dies, or is implied to be miserable for the rest of their lives.
No one needs to write that many chapters about architecture. They ended up slowing the story down, almost fatally in a few places. However, understanding that the novel was originally printed in a serialized form, it might have been necessary to remind readers or to catch readers up who hadn't read all of the preceding material. Also, not every reader would have known the architecture and history of Paris, so this is another reason to leave the long passages describing streets and districts in tact.
There isn't a hero to this story. There aren't even clear protagonists and antagonists. Everyone is constantly changing sides. Quasimodo is perhaps the great tragic figure of the story, yet he's never truly heroic. Esmeralda gets tossed around the plot like a bag of extremely attractive oats, but she is also not a hero. That said, we do root for Gringoire, Quasimodo, and Esmeralda. We also very much dislike Phoebus, the Frollos, and the King.
I also think that this was the kind of book I would have actually enjoyed in High School, and if we'd read it, maybe I wouldn't hate other books (I'm looking at you, Cry the Beloved Country) quite so much.
I read the Oxford translation by Krailsheimer. The members in my book club each read different translations, so it was fun to compare how the text was interpreted. (A guide on translations https://welovetranslations.com/2022/10/18/whats-the-best-translation-of-the-hunchback-of-notre-dame-part-2). We all liked the novel much more than we expected to. For sure, it was dark, and darker than the animated Disney movie. The plot was not lovely, but that was not surprising. The characters were not particularly lovable--Quasimodo was an oafish pitiable doorknob and Esmeralda was a weak silly teenager. The Disney movie added a lot of social justice to Esmeralda's character; in the book, she's a white girl kidnapped by gypsies who's pretty and is undeservingly head over heels for a hot guy (Phoebus) who is generally just horny, wants a good time, and doesn't want strings attached. Frollo is super awful(tw: attempted rape) and completely and unapologetically messes up Esmeralda's life just bc he can't get her out of his head. Some famous lines are "If I can't have her, no one can" and "This (printing press) will kill that (architecture)." The ending is tragic, making for an excellent classic and very juicy for discussion throughout. We talked about internal vs external monsterhood; destruction, ephemerality, and preservation (particularly regarding architecture); and obsession (passive vs aggressive). This novel influenced historic architectural preservation in France, which is pretty cool. It was cool to dive into learning more about the historic context as well, what with the variation in the novel's name (initially just 'notre Dame,' then 'hunchback' only added upon the English translation, and 'Esmeralda' being its original dramatic reproduction) as well as the historic setting knowing when it was written (1800s) vs when it took place (1400s).
I gave this book five stars as I found the tantalizing glimpse into the time of the tale was exquisite. I found Victor Hugo’s lyrical and detailed prose to be a page turner, however, the depth of detail will not be for all.
challenging
informative
reflective
sad
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:
No