Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.85 AVERAGE
3.85 AVERAGE
Alright, it's time to discuss one of my least favorite classics of all time...
CW: Ableism, racism, prejudice in general, romanticization of pedophilia & grooming, religious abuse & intolerance, sexual assault, bullying, misogyny
Victor Hugo's “The Hunchback of Notre Dame” follows the story of Quasimodo, who is feared and hated by all in Paris, France, and is taken care of by Dom Claude Frollo, a stern, cold priest who ignores him in the face of his public torment.
However, the beautiful Romani girl Esmeralda, who is only a teenager at the time of the story, comes forward to stop Quasimodo's abuse by the public and it sparks reactions from Quasimodo, Frollo and a 30+-year-old Captain Phoebus. (Btw, Mr. Phoebus might be one of my least favorite male characters ever depicted in literature. We'll get to him later.)
Boy howdy, I really disliked this book, and its terribleness manifests itself in many nuanced complicated ways.
Before we break down those terrible aspects, though, I want to mention one positive. This book was written in a more coherent and even more poetic way than other classics I've read from around this time period. So, at least it has that going for it. However, I'm not giving this book points for doing the bare minimum.
Also, this book seems to have the thematic message of how mankind sucks and how architecture will survive past all of mankind's terribleness. However, I believe that intended theme and message doesn’t negate all of the hideous content that the author included in this book for no reason, including pedophilia and discrimination.
Yes, this book was written in the 1800s, and some people may think it's unfair to judge it against our modern content sensibilities. With many classic books, I'm willing to give books the benefit of the doubt with their content since they were written in a different time, like Mark Twain's books.
This book has many shamelessly problematic elements within it, and I can't just shrug off all of the hideous things in this book to, "Eh, it was a different time! Who cares?!" I read this book in the modern day so I can't just leave all of my modern-day sensibilities at the door.
Therefore, I get if people think I'm being too critical of this book, but I can only judge this book based on how it holds up to the modern day based on my own reading sensibilities, since I've only lived in the modern day.
This book will always be known as one of my least favorite classics ever. (I mean, you know it's bad when the only likable character in a book is the goat. But thankfully, the goat made it out okay, so at least the book didn’t add “animal cruelty” to its list of toxic traits.)
Let's now dive into everything I disliked, starting with how this book was basically architecture porn:
1. Victor Hugo went on numerous unnecessary historical explanations and tangents about not only Paris, France, that made the book way too long. There’s no reason why Victor Hugo had to go on these seemingly endless tangents and backstories about buildings and the history of the setting where the story takes place. It all felt very pointless.
I’m pretty sure Victor Hugo had a fetish for architecture because he went into SO MUCH DETAIL about it. Look, I’m not kink-shaming, but I personally don’t want to read a story about that.
2. ALL OF THE ABLEISM against Quasimodo. Quasimodo is the disabled character in the book. He is deaf and does not often speak, except in huffs and grunts, and he is visibly deformed with a disabled back, which means he probably has back problems.
Because of this, he is CONSTANTLY framed as (and directly called) a beast, an animal, monster, a threat to women and children, disgusting, ugly (an ugly monkey, specifically), horrifying, and *insert every other possible detestable description about him here.*
There was no reason for how rude and cruel they were to him, and there was NO PAY OFF for it! It’s not like they learn not to be cruel anymore. They were just cruel for the sake of it, and the cruelty was basically endorsed in the book. It was horrifying to read.
3. ALL THE RACISM AND PREJUDICE against the Romani people. Holy cow, dude. The Romani people are distastefully called “g*psies” throughout the book, and they are constantly called “thieves, mischievous, scheming, criminals, devilish, satanic,” and basically horrible.
Esmeralda, the main female lead who is an actual child in this story, is a white girl stolen from birth by the “barbaric g*psies” and raised by them. So that just adds to promoting this stereotype against them. I mean, what the what??? Why would you write the story that way??
They also say, “G*psies eat children,” and this kind of prejudice and racism against them is never challenged in the book. The Romani people are depicted so unbelievably poor in this book and again, there is no reason for it. No thank you!
4. Esmeralda is the ACTUAL WORST, BOY HOWDY. I hoped she would be a strong female character, or at least be a female character that I could get behind in this story, but NOPE. She is useless and constantly whines about Phoebus because she was “so in love with him,” despite them meeting only a few days prior and him being at least 20 years her senior.
Esmeralda never stands up for herself & she’s also still mean to Quasimodo & other less fortunate people, while still being praised and beloved by the city for no reason. She was DETESTABLE, and I was extremely disappointed by her.
5. OMG, PEDOPHILIA!! Captain Phoebus, who is definitely over 30 years old, preys on the teenage Esmeralda, who can’t be older than 14 years old. It’s pure insta-grooming, and they proclaim themselves to be in love, despite the fact that they don’t know each other and OMG SHE’S A LITERAL CHILD. And this book never talks about that GROSS AND CREEPY factor of this relationship. I hated every second of it. I don’t care if this book “was written in a different time.” It’s still grooming & pedophilia.
6. Captain Phoebus was THE WORST PIECE OF FRIGGIN GARBAGE TO EVER EXIST IN LITERATURE. OMFG. He was the WORST!!! Not only was he a bigoted, arrogant, disgusting, creepy pedo, but he also didn’t give a crap about anyone but himself. The fact that he was allowed to stay alive at the end of the book made me want to throw it into a lake. He might be my least favorite male character ever depicted in fiction.
(Read spoilers below to get specifics)
7. Claude Frollo was an absolute creep!! He was an abusive pedophile who also lusted over the teenage Esmeralda, and the book doesn’t talk about the creepy nature of that either. Also, he is abusive and prejudiced to the Romani people and Quasimodo, and it was despicable. I know he was supposed to be horrible, but it was still extremely uncomfortable to read. His creepiness was the cherry on top of this mess.
8. The main protagonist Pierre Gringoire was so arrogant, whiny and prejudiced, and I loathed him by the end.
I understand that this book has thematic elements and messages, like how mankind sucks and architecture will survive past all of our terribleness. (Because, again, it’s architecture porn.)
However, those intended themes and messages don’t negate all of the hideous content that the author included in this book for absolutely no reason. I hated this book, and I don’t recommend it.
**SPOILERS from here on out, if you care:
Let’s go into more detail about how horrible Phoebus was in the book because I’m always happy to complain about him.
Basically, he caused Esmeralda to be arrested, and she was nearly burned at the stake at the end of the book BECAUSE OF HIM AND HIS ACTIONS. He knew Esmeralda was going to be burned at the stake for his actions, and he didn’t give a crap!
In fact, while Esmeralda was on the platform in the town square and she’s about to be burned at the stake, Mr. Phoebus was in a suite near that town square, banging another woman!!! He even looked out the window of the suite and saw Esmeralda on the platform, and he still didn’t care!!
Talk about chivalry! You’re a grown man who’s happily willing to let a FRIGGIN CHILD die horrifically for your actions and your mistakes. And the author doesn’t write it in a way where Phoebus is being criticized for acting this way. Instead, Phoebus is still praised!
In fact, Victor Hugo decided to let Phoebus be the ONLY CHARACTER LEFT ALIVE at the end of the story!! WOW, THANKS! I absolutely hate it!!
*sigh*
…But at least the goat lived, so I guess there’s that.
CW: Ableism, racism, prejudice in general, romanticization of pedophilia & grooming, religious abuse & intolerance, sexual assault, bullying, misogyny
Victor Hugo's “The Hunchback of Notre Dame” follows the story of Quasimodo, who is feared and hated by all in Paris, France, and is taken care of by Dom Claude Frollo, a stern, cold priest who ignores him in the face of his public torment.
However, the beautiful Romani girl Esmeralda, who is only a teenager at the time of the story, comes forward to stop Quasimodo's abuse by the public and it sparks reactions from Quasimodo, Frollo and a 30+-year-old Captain Phoebus. (Btw, Mr. Phoebus might be one of my least favorite male characters ever depicted in literature. We'll get to him later.)
Boy howdy, I really disliked this book, and its terribleness manifests itself in many nuanced complicated ways.
Before we break down those terrible aspects, though, I want to mention one positive. This book was written in a more coherent and even more poetic way than other classics I've read from around this time period. So, at least it has that going for it. However, I'm not giving this book points for doing the bare minimum.
Also, this book seems to have the thematic message of how mankind sucks and how architecture will survive past all of mankind's terribleness. However, I believe that intended theme and message doesn’t negate all of the hideous content that the author included in this book for no reason, including pedophilia and discrimination.
Yes, this book was written in the 1800s, and some people may think it's unfair to judge it against our modern content sensibilities. With many classic books, I'm willing to give books the benefit of the doubt with their content since they were written in a different time, like Mark Twain's books.
This book has many shamelessly problematic elements within it, and I can't just shrug off all of the hideous things in this book to, "Eh, it was a different time! Who cares?!" I read this book in the modern day so I can't just leave all of my modern-day sensibilities at the door.
Therefore, I get if people think I'm being too critical of this book, but I can only judge this book based on how it holds up to the modern day based on my own reading sensibilities, since I've only lived in the modern day.
This book will always be known as one of my least favorite classics ever. (I mean, you know it's bad when the only likable character in a book is the goat. But thankfully, the goat made it out okay, so at least the book didn’t add “animal cruelty” to its list of toxic traits.)
Let's now dive into everything I disliked, starting with how this book was basically architecture porn:
1. Victor Hugo went on numerous unnecessary historical explanations and tangents about not only Paris, France, that made the book way too long. There’s no reason why Victor Hugo had to go on these seemingly endless tangents and backstories about buildings and the history of the setting where the story takes place. It all felt very pointless.
I’m pretty sure Victor Hugo had a fetish for architecture because he went into SO MUCH DETAIL about it. Look, I’m not kink-shaming, but I personally don’t want to read a story about that.
2. ALL OF THE ABLEISM against Quasimodo. Quasimodo is the disabled character in the book. He is deaf and does not often speak, except in huffs and grunts, and he is visibly deformed with a disabled back, which means he probably has back problems.
Because of this, he is CONSTANTLY framed as (and directly called) a beast, an animal, monster, a threat to women and children, disgusting, ugly (an ugly monkey, specifically), horrifying, and *insert every other possible detestable description about him here.*
There was no reason for how rude and cruel they were to him, and there was NO PAY OFF for it! It’s not like they learn not to be cruel anymore. They were just cruel for the sake of it, and the cruelty was basically endorsed in the book. It was horrifying to read.
3. ALL THE RACISM AND PREJUDICE against the Romani people. Holy cow, dude. The Romani people are distastefully called “g*psies” throughout the book, and they are constantly called “thieves, mischievous, scheming, criminals, devilish, satanic,” and basically horrible.
Esmeralda, the main female lead who is an actual child in this story, is a white girl stolen from birth by the “barbaric g*psies” and raised by them. So that just adds to promoting this stereotype against them. I mean, what the what??? Why would you write the story that way??
They also say, “G*psies eat children,” and this kind of prejudice and racism against them is never challenged in the book. The Romani people are depicted so unbelievably poor in this book and again, there is no reason for it. No thank you!
4. Esmeralda is the ACTUAL WORST, BOY HOWDY. I hoped she would be a strong female character, or at least be a female character that I could get behind in this story, but NOPE. She is useless and constantly whines about Phoebus because she was “so in love with him,” despite them meeting only a few days prior and him being at least 20 years her senior.
Esmeralda never stands up for herself & she’s also still mean to Quasimodo & other less fortunate people, while still being praised and beloved by the city for no reason. She was DETESTABLE, and I was extremely disappointed by her.
5. OMG, PEDOPHILIA!! Captain Phoebus, who is definitely over 30 years old, preys on the teenage Esmeralda, who can’t be older than 14 years old. It’s pure insta-grooming, and they proclaim themselves to be in love, despite the fact that they don’t know each other and OMG SHE’S A LITERAL CHILD. And this book never talks about that GROSS AND CREEPY factor of this relationship. I hated every second of it. I don’t care if this book “was written in a different time.” It’s still grooming & pedophilia.
6. Captain Phoebus was THE WORST PIECE OF FRIGGIN GARBAGE TO EVER EXIST IN LITERATURE. OMFG. He was the WORST!!! Not only was he a bigoted, arrogant, disgusting, creepy pedo, but he also didn’t give a crap about anyone but himself. The fact that he was allowed to stay alive at the end of the book made me want to throw it into a lake. He might be my least favorite male character ever depicted in fiction.
(Read spoilers below to get specifics)
7. Claude Frollo was an absolute creep!! He was an abusive pedophile who also lusted over the teenage Esmeralda, and the book doesn’t talk about the creepy nature of that either. Also, he is abusive and prejudiced to the Romani people and Quasimodo, and it was despicable. I know he was supposed to be horrible, but it was still extremely uncomfortable to read. His creepiness was the cherry on top of this mess.
8. The main protagonist Pierre Gringoire was so arrogant, whiny and prejudiced, and I loathed him by the end.
I understand that this book has thematic elements and messages, like how mankind sucks and architecture will survive past all of our terribleness. (Because, again, it’s architecture porn.)
However, those intended themes and messages don’t negate all of the hideous content that the author included in this book for absolutely no reason. I hated this book, and I don’t recommend it.
**SPOILERS from here on out, if you care:
Let’s go into more detail about how horrible Phoebus was in the book because I’m always happy to complain about him.
Basically, he caused Esmeralda to be arrested, and she was nearly burned at the stake at the end of the book BECAUSE OF HIM AND HIS ACTIONS. He knew Esmeralda was going to be burned at the stake for his actions, and he didn’t give a crap!
In fact, while Esmeralda was on the platform in the town square and she’s about to be burned at the stake, Mr. Phoebus was in a suite near that town square, banging another woman!!! He even looked out the window of the suite and saw Esmeralda on the platform, and he still didn’t care!!
Talk about chivalry! You’re a grown man who’s happily willing to let a FRIGGIN CHILD die horrifically for your actions and your mistakes. And the author doesn’t write it in a way where Phoebus is being criticized for acting this way. Instead, Phoebus is still praised!
In fact, Victor Hugo decided to let Phoebus be the ONLY CHARACTER LEFT ALIVE at the end of the story!! WOW, THANKS! I absolutely hate it!!
*sigh*
…But at least the goat lived, so I guess there’s that.
dark
emotional
mysterious
sad
fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
N/A
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Written in the wake of the French Revolution, The Hunchback of Notre-Dame manages to condemn the crimes of the Terror while rejecting the monarchist sympathies of the 1820s. The novel establishes the heritage of the French people at Notre-Dame, where the conditions and changes of the cathedral over the centuries reflect those of its people.
Like many writers following the Napoleonic era, Hugo has no delusions concerning idealism. He choses pragmatism and empirical evidence over the infallible human spirit. Over the course of the novel, love and art “fail” in a way; the former demonstrated through Esmerelda and the latter through Gringoire. The two are misguided, dumb, innocent; and in tragic fashion, they are crushed by meaner forces.
Hugo denounces the crown, the church, the army, the poets, the masses, the jailers, the judges, and everyone in between. Who does that leave us with? Quasimodo. The only righteous character of the novel, and the only one who seemingly exists “outside” the established norms. In this way Hugo doesn’t really offer any alternative answers to his anthropological questions. At the end of the day he seems content more with upholding French architecture than uplifting the people themselves. In all his fault-finding, his portrayal of the peasants as stupid, self-serving, and hateful rubbed me the worst. The novel, beautiful as it is, sort of culminates into this contrarian moderate piece, with no real ideology at the center of it, besides the assertion to protect one’s historical landmarks, which is certainly virtuous, but not enough. It leaves the people in the dust. (I learned however, that this was the first novel with beggar as a protagonist. You can see the impact it had on Dickens.)
Last thing I’ll say is that I couldn’t stand Esmerelda’s incompetence. Are you kidding me with that getting herself killed shit? I almost never play this card—but Hugo’s depiction of women was truly shallow. I know it’s a gothic novel and we’re working in the realm of the absurd, but it was too ridiculous and frustrating for me at times. Through all her trials and tortures, Esmerelda didn’t learn a thing. Is this a submission of love’s blinding properties? Who knows, but I remain unconvinced.
Claude Frollo steals the show, though he also becomes a bit too one-dimensional and cartoonish by the end. Gringoire is my favorite by far. Sort of a backwards picaresque hero.
Good book overall.
Like many writers following the Napoleonic era, Hugo has no delusions concerning idealism. He choses pragmatism and empirical evidence over the infallible human spirit. Over the course of the novel, love and art “fail” in a way; the former demonstrated through Esmerelda and the latter through Gringoire. The two are misguided, dumb, innocent; and in tragic fashion, they are crushed by meaner forces.
Hugo denounces the crown, the church, the army, the poets, the masses, the jailers, the judges, and everyone in between. Who does that leave us with? Quasimodo. The only righteous character of the novel, and the only one who seemingly exists “outside” the established norms. In this way Hugo doesn’t really offer any alternative answers to his anthropological questions. At the end of the day he seems content more with upholding French architecture than uplifting the people themselves. In all his fault-finding, his portrayal of the peasants as stupid, self-serving, and hateful rubbed me the worst. The novel, beautiful as it is, sort of culminates into this contrarian moderate piece, with no real ideology at the center of it, besides the assertion to protect one’s historical landmarks, which is certainly virtuous, but not enough. It leaves the people in the dust. (I learned however, that this was the first novel with beggar as a protagonist. You can see the impact it had on Dickens.)
Last thing I’ll say is that I couldn’t stand Esmerelda’s incompetence. Are you kidding me with that getting herself killed shit? I almost never play this card—but Hugo’s depiction of women was truly shallow. I know it’s a gothic novel and we’re working in the realm of the absurd, but it was too ridiculous and frustrating for me at times. Through all her trials and tortures, Esmerelda didn’t learn a thing. Is this a submission of love’s blinding properties? Who knows, but I remain unconvinced.
Claude Frollo steals the show, though he also becomes a bit too one-dimensional and cartoonish by the end. Gringoire is my favorite by far. Sort of a backwards picaresque hero.
Good book overall.
dark
emotional
fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
dark
emotional
hopeful
informative
mysterious
sad
tense
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
The first half of the book was kind of boring and it was really hard to get into the story with all the details and stuff but once you passed that boring part it really is amazing and interesting!!
Que livro incrível! Este final... Que venham "Os Miseráveis"!
challenging
dark
emotional
sad
tense
medium-paced
challenging
emotional
reflective
sad
tense
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
dark
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Content Warnings
Graphic: Racial slurs, Racism
dark
emotional
sad
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Complicated
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes