Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.85 AVERAGE
3.85 AVERAGE
challenging
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
Complicated
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Woof. This took a lot to get through. Some of Hugo's works I enjoy, others not so much. This falls into the latter category. Everyone on this book sucks, no one to root for. So many red flags from all of them that I became quite apathetic. And so many unnecessarily long chapters about the architecture of Paris over the years which started off interesting - an attempt to really flesh out the city at the time - but quickly became tedious. Or long monologues in which the characters drone on and on. Only character worth anything in this story is Djali. And we don't even get much of a wrap up for her. Esmeralda is useless and fragile, Phoebus is a dick, Frollo is is toxic incel, and Quasimodo is a stalker. I can give Quasi some grace since he was raised by a POS and due to his appearance, faced a life of hardship and ridicule but even so... everyone sucks.
challenging
dark
sad
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
Complicated
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
challenging
dark
informative
reflective
sad
tense
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Complicated
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
I left this book feeling somewhat disappointed by it. Like so many of my peers, my initial exposure was from the Disney adaptation, painting this as a tale of temptation, and humanity set against the iconic backdrop of Notre Dame, although I knew better that to expect the saccharine ending composed by Disney. In reality, this book serves to track the history of the cathedral and encourage its preservation, critique the trends of the rulers and movers of society of its day, and then as a third function as a story.
My chief complaint with this is that it fails as a novel, although it was never supposed to be. The background is that this book was initially written more as a treatise on gothic architecture and as a rallying cry to preserve it, and on that count it does do quite well. There are quite a few chapters that break entirely from the story to recount the history of Notre Dame and bemoan its history of changes and defacing, and those continue throughout the novel. In almost every part there is some nod or gesture to the architecture. This works for Hugo's goal of preserving Notre Dame, but as a part of a novel its not great. I never got a sense of the literary gothic from the Cathedral, and the frequent interruptions get in the way of the story.
The second thing that Hugo uses his characters for frequently is political commentary on the times. There is a lot in this book on the themes of justice, on power, on wealth, on bigotry, and so much more, but the characters often feel like mouthpieces for the author's ideas before they are people. I will say the deaf judging condemning the deaf Quasimodo was one of the best scenes in the book, and there are a lot of other moments similar that are clever critiques, but again it feels that the story plays second or even third fiddle to these other priorities.
The story is entirely about a bunch of grown men lusting over a 16 year old, and in one guy's case, her goat. I mean there's more that goes on but really that covers about 80% of the story. It feels tacked on, and whoever changed the name of the novel to the Hunchback should of read it first, as he's only in about a third of the book. The main character is Esmeralda, who is a somewhat naive girl who has the misfortune of being noticed by Claude Frollo, who literally passes out at the sight of her bare shoulder, and later on asks for her to step on him. I'm not sure if that's a translation thing or what, but there was a lot of focus on her feet, so much it felt like a Tarantino movie. Quasimodo had potential, but we really never spent enough time with him. Gringoire I truly despised. He's a failed playwright slash philosopher who is "married" by Esmeralda to save his life, and when rejected by her becomes obsessed with her goat. Like his happy ending is running off with the goat. His delusions of grandeur and constant lauding over everyone got old very quickly, and the goat stuff was weird. Unfortunately I didn't gel with the majority of the cast and felt that by the end I disliked about 90% of the characters in this book.
This book really does fail successfully. As a story and as a novel it isn't great, but as a work on gothic architecture and a call to arms to save it, it works splendidly. It feels hard to give at a rating considering that, so I'll compromise a little and give it 3 stars.
My chief complaint with this is that it fails as a novel, although it was never supposed to be. The background is that this book was initially written more as a treatise on gothic architecture and as a rallying cry to preserve it, and on that count it does do quite well. There are quite a few chapters that break entirely from the story to recount the history of Notre Dame and bemoan its history of changes and defacing, and those continue throughout the novel. In almost every part there is some nod or gesture to the architecture. This works for Hugo's goal of preserving Notre Dame, but as a part of a novel its not great. I never got a sense of the literary gothic from the Cathedral, and the frequent interruptions get in the way of the story.
The second thing that Hugo uses his characters for frequently is political commentary on the times. There is a lot in this book on the themes of justice, on power, on wealth, on bigotry, and so much more, but the characters often feel like mouthpieces for the author's ideas before they are people. I will say the deaf judging condemning the deaf Quasimodo was one of the best scenes in the book, and there are a lot of other moments similar that are clever critiques, but again it feels that the story plays second or even third fiddle to these other priorities.
The story is entirely about a bunch of grown men lusting over a 16 year old, and in one guy's case, her goat. I mean there's more that goes on but really that covers about 80% of the story. It feels tacked on, and whoever changed the name of the novel to the Hunchback should of read it first, as he's only in about a third of the book. The main character is Esmeralda, who is a somewhat naive girl who has the misfortune of being noticed by Claude Frollo, who literally passes out at the sight of her bare shoulder, and later on asks for her to step on him. I'm not sure if that's a translation thing or what, but there was a lot of focus on her feet, so much it felt like a Tarantino movie. Quasimodo had potential, but we really never spent enough time with him. Gringoire I truly despised. He's a failed playwright slash philosopher who is "married" by Esmeralda to save his life, and when rejected by her becomes obsessed with her goat. Like his happy ending is running off with the goat. His delusions of grandeur and constant lauding over everyone got old very quickly, and the goat stuff was weird. Unfortunately I didn't gel with the majority of the cast and felt that by the end I disliked about 90% of the characters in this book.
This book really does fail successfully. As a story and as a novel it isn't great, but as a work on gothic architecture and a call to arms to save it, it works splendidly. It feels hard to give at a rating considering that, so I'll compromise a little and give it 3 stars.
adventurous
challenging
dark
emotional
inspiring
lighthearted
mysterious
reflective
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
adventurous
reflective
sad
tense
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Really excellent and moving tragedy. I really could have used an entire less volume - I got nothing from the admittedly exquisite but IMO really not relevant at all to the story many, many pages long descriptions of the architecture of Paris.
Leaving all that aside however, the characters and central story are captivating and moving.
Leaving all that aside however, the characters and central story are captivating and moving.
challenging
dark
emotional
funny
reflective
tense
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
emotional
sad
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
dark
sad
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Flaws of characters a main focus:
N/A