Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.85 AVERAGE
3.85 AVERAGE
adventurous
challenging
dark
emotional
funny
hopeful
informative
mysterious
reflective
sad
tense
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
If you want a happier story, watch the Disney Version. This story was extremely tragic and sad, but also went on and on about the details of Gothic architecture, which is a turn off for reading. Though messy Relationships, Lust, Love, and Religion all play a wonderful role in this book, making the plot more amazing and tragic.
Hugo writes such great characters. This one is far more a tragedy than Les Mis, but still wonderfully complex. Yes, he has a penchant for over-description and tangential dialogue, but I prefer to blame that on the style of the time.
adventurous
challenging
dark
emotional
hopeful
informative
reflective
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
Hugo's stories are somewhat omnipresent in modern culture, from Les Miserables being adapted into a musical (and several movies) to this novel, which was the inspiration for one of Disney's most chilling animated movies (and one of my personal favorites). Though the story of Quasimodo, Esmeralda, and Frollo (among others) may be somewhat familiar, reading this novel is a whole new experience that shakes up whatever impressions Disney put in our heads.
Things I Liked
1. Prose: Despite this being a translation (and thus, English audiences cannot fully grasp the beauty of the original), there are moments of this novel that are amazingly realized and gorgeously written. For example, Hugo takes the time to describe how Paris looks from the top of the bell tower, how Quasimodo moves through the cathedral, and the turmoil within Frollo’s psyche. Hugo’s prose is unbelievably poetic at times, and such poetry serves not only to enhance the spectacle of the plot and its events, but also to enhance the beauty of Notre Dame itself.
2. Characters: Ok, I will admit being slightly influenced by seeing the Disney movie, but objectively, the characters in Hugo’s novel are very memorable. Not only do we get superstars like Quasimodo, Esmeralda, and Frollo, but we also meet interesting side characters with their own agendas. All of them are captivating and serve the plot in their own ways.
3. Humor: Believe it or not, there were parts of the novel that made me laugh out loud, and I think Hugo meant for them to be funny based on some clever turns of phrases and expressions. Though the overall story is grim and depressing, Hugo seems to find ways to distract the reader from this mood.
4. Psychology: One of my favorite things about the novel was Hugo’s description of Quasimodo and his relationship to the bells of Notre Dame. Holy wow was that part amazing. Hugo brilliantly imagines what it would be like to be a pariah of medieval society and explores what sort of personality and psychology would result from that. When he describes how Quasimodo forms an attachment to the bells and to parts of the cathedral itself, I was so convinced and I felt such pity for the character as if he were a real person.
Things I Didn't Like
1. Pace: Hugo’s novel is long… and the “main events” of the plot don’t really start popping up until halfway through the book. I’m not suggesting the first half is bad, but rather readers with little patience for descriptive visions of the landscape or side chapters about the nature of architecture and science will not enjoy this section.
2. Esmeralda: Ok, ok… I know this is a gothic novel and thus Hugo has to adhere to some of the conventions, including swooning maidens. But Esmeralda’s character, at least for me, wobbled between interesting and bland. On the one hand, she has an intriguing back story: she was “kidnapped” by g*psies (Hugo's term, not mine) and raised as one of their own, and she carries around a piece of green glass that she believes will help her find her birth parents. Also, her socioeconomic status and as the object of affection for Frollo was fascinating. However, she also fits the mold of tragic heroine with weak ankles. She faints a lot and is dumb enough to yell for Phoebus when she is hiding from the guards even though she knows he doesn’t care for her. She frustrated me so much.
Recommendations: Definitely read this book if you're a fan of Hugo's writing or 19th century prose, but avoid it if you're not a patient reader, since much time is devoted to description.
Things I Liked
1. Prose: Despite this being a translation (and thus, English audiences cannot fully grasp the beauty of the original), there are moments of this novel that are amazingly realized and gorgeously written. For example, Hugo takes the time to describe how Paris looks from the top of the bell tower, how Quasimodo moves through the cathedral, and the turmoil within Frollo’s psyche. Hugo’s prose is unbelievably poetic at times, and such poetry serves not only to enhance the spectacle of the plot and its events, but also to enhance the beauty of Notre Dame itself.
2. Characters: Ok, I will admit being slightly influenced by seeing the Disney movie, but objectively, the characters in Hugo’s novel are very memorable. Not only do we get superstars like Quasimodo, Esmeralda, and Frollo, but we also meet interesting side characters with their own agendas. All of them are captivating and serve the plot in their own ways.
3. Humor: Believe it or not, there were parts of the novel that made me laugh out loud, and I think Hugo meant for them to be funny based on some clever turns of phrases and expressions. Though the overall story is grim and depressing, Hugo seems to find ways to distract the reader from this mood.
4. Psychology: One of my favorite things about the novel was Hugo’s description of Quasimodo and his relationship to the bells of Notre Dame. Holy wow was that part amazing. Hugo brilliantly imagines what it would be like to be a pariah of medieval society and explores what sort of personality and psychology would result from that. When he describes how Quasimodo forms an attachment to the bells and to parts of the cathedral itself, I was so convinced and I felt such pity for the character as if he were a real person.
Things I Didn't Like
1. Pace: Hugo’s novel is long… and the “main events” of the plot don’t really start popping up until halfway through the book. I’m not suggesting the first half is bad, but rather readers with little patience for descriptive visions of the landscape or side chapters about the nature of architecture and science will not enjoy this section.
2. Esmeralda: Ok, ok… I know this is a gothic novel and thus Hugo has to adhere to some of the conventions, including swooning maidens. But Esmeralda’s character, at least for me, wobbled between interesting and bland. On the one hand, she has an intriguing back story: she was “kidnapped” by g*psies (Hugo's term, not mine) and raised as one of their own, and she carries around a piece of green glass that she believes will help her find her birth parents. Also, her socioeconomic status and as the object of affection for Frollo was fascinating. However, she also fits the mold of tragic heroine with weak ankles. She faints a lot and is dumb enough to yell for Phoebus when she is hiding from the guards even though she knows he doesn’t care for her. She frustrated me so much.
Recommendations: Definitely read this book if you're a fan of Hugo's writing or 19th century prose, but avoid it if you're not a patient reader, since much time is devoted to description.
challenging
dark
emotional
sad
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Content Warnings
Graphic: Ableism, Confinement, Death, Sexual violence, Torture, Violence, Stalking, Abandonment
(3.5)
Damn, this was like the architectural version of Moby Dick, but more boring (likely because by the time Melville publishes MD, fiction writing becomes much more sophisticated and focused; 20 years makes a big difference). Didn't expect it to be so ironic, either. I remember reading an abridged version of this when I was 8 (was a big fan of the Disney movie) and I gotta say that I probably gained very little by reading the "real" version. The actual story parts hold up well, but the immersion is hamstrung by interminable passages about urban planning, Gothic architecture, and general 19th century/Romantic Era over-descriptiveness.
Also: somehow, Disney Frollo seems HORNIER than book Frollo? (https://youtu.be/-NP-RsRGzVo)
Damn, this was like the architectural version of Moby Dick, but more boring (likely because by the time Melville publishes MD, fiction writing becomes much more sophisticated and focused; 20 years makes a big difference). Didn't expect it to be so ironic, either. I remember reading an abridged version of this when I was 8 (was a big fan of the Disney movie) and I gotta say that I probably gained very little by reading the "real" version. The actual story parts hold up well, but the immersion is hamstrung by interminable passages about urban planning, Gothic architecture, and general 19th century/Romantic Era over-descriptiveness.
Also: somehow, Disney Frollo seems HORNIER than book Frollo? (https://youtu.be/-NP-RsRGzVo)
dark
tense
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
Complicated
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
challenging
dark
emotional
informative
inspiring
mysterious
reflective
sad
tense
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes