Take a photo of a barcode or cover
allisonjpmiller 's review for:
The Hunchback of Notre-Dame
by Victor Hugo
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.