Customer Reviews

The Hunchback of Notre-Dame (Signet Classics)

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Victor Hugo, the French poet and writer, who wished to change how novels were written and read, wrote The Hunchback of Notra-Dame in the beginning of his career. In contrast to Les Miserables, which is his more celebrated work, and was written several decades after the Notra-dame novel, the present piece is not only laced with more humor and romance but also stands out as a piece where the young poet in Hugo pours out a ravishing range of similes. Just for the pure magic of his metaphors and similes that make all his descriptions so poetic, so powerful Notra-Dame is worth reading.

The story itself reads like a fanciful movie, an ugly hunchback, Quasimodo is brought up by a Priest Frollo, the archdeacon of Notradame. The hunchback is hence attached like a dog to his master to him. The English title of Hunchback of Notra-dame is a misnomer, for the original is called Notra-dame de Paris, and English title lets us assume that it is the story of Hunchback as hero, while the original title asserts it is story set in Notradame and has charaters who reside in it, or live in its shadows. The Priest Calude Frollo, leaving his pursuit of science and philosophy meanders to a path of unrelenting lust for the gypsy dancer, Esmeralda. A writer, Pierre Grigorne, gets into a set of bizarre circumstances, where a token marriage attaches him to the gypsy. Phoebus, captain of King's Archers is the object of the affection of Esmeralda herself.

Besides these characters, there is a madwoman who lives in confinement, pining for her lost child, who was carried off by gypsies, and hates Esmeralda. There is the goat Djali, who performs tricks with Esmeralda, Jehan who is Claude Frollo's irreligious brother, King Louis IV - who interacts with Claude on issues of science, and the most important character, who lurks like an existence all though, is the Notra-Dame itself. The romances criss cross through a series of interesting episodes and drama, and that forms the crux of the story that I won't divulge here. Readers will benefit by discovering surprises and mystery for themselves, in process getting enchanted by a story that has been a popular read for centuries now.

What makes this novel a masterpiece, besides the poetic descriptions, is
Hugo's description of the cathedral of Notra-dame and the city of Paris, and his discussion of how the arrival of printing press signaled an end to the importance as architecture as the expressive art of intellectuals. The views of the author expressed in these pages and pages of delightful reading provide the reader not only with historical and architectural prespective on the buildings in Paris, but also gives us a word image of buildings, roofs, rooms, carvings, modernism, and more. In his commentaries and comparisons between writing and printing as form of expression in contrast to architecture, Hugo unmasks a wide array of issues that arrival of every new media (TV, Cinema, Internet, Digital Photography) bring. How existing precepts and concepts are revised, how adaptations occur, how each age has its own expression through any of these means- and all Hugo says so passionately about architecture or literature allows us to feel the essence of why we make monuments of stones or words in the first place.

Victor Hugo had great skill in developing characters, and describing their lives over an extended period of time, capturing how situations and people led to certain choices, behavioral changes and thought process of each. His ability of doing this, in a very detached manner, where narrative is like a camera floating into a room, and staying long enough for a distant observer to watch and identify traits of every person present there, makes him a great novelist. The novel, like all classic reads, looks formidable in size, but can be read at a formidable pace, especially after the first half of the novel is over.

Besides the merits of the novelist, and the beauty of his wordplay, the story itself is a charming one, and has been brought to screen versions many times. Reading Hugo's two major works allows one to get the same keen insight into French society of the respective times, as does Thackeray and Dickens novels for England and Tolstoy in Russia. Reading any of these masters takes time, but trust me, it is worth the patience and the effort. Recommended highly.

This delightful novel has rekindled my desire to read or re-read the classics. I picked it up for no particular reason other than I had never read Hugo. I didn't expect much: My experience with the classics in high school and college was that they are dull and not worthy of modern reading. But, to my pleasant surprise, I discovered a fascinating book that is rich in wonderful characters and vivid descriptions of 13th century Paris. This is a very good book and it's easy to see why it has stood the test of time.

After a recent trip to Paris with my son on a business trip, I decided it was crazy that I had been to Paris and inside Notre Dame so often yet had not read this classic novel. As someone who loves modern Paris, this book captivated me with its vivid portrayal of life in medieval Paris. What a far cry from Baron Hausman's modern Paris -- a Paris with teeming with squalor, poverty, vagabonds -- and the King's Court. Hugo paints wonderful portraits of the main characters -- the hunchback bellringer of Notre Dame, Quasimodo; the tormented archdeacon, Claude Frollo; the exotically beautiful gypsy, Esmeralda.

All of these characters and the city of Paris come to life in a way that transports one back 650 years. My only criticisms of the book are the couple of chapters that painstakingly outline the street detail of Paris and the layout of Notre Dame. For me, these interrupted the flow of the story, the development of the characters and left me quite bored. As soon as Hugo got back into the core story and plot, I was re-captivated.

I do wish that the original French title was preserved -- Notre Dame de Paris -- rather than the English "Hunchback of Notre Dame". While Quasimodo is certainly a core character, the book is a story about medieval Paris, the daily life of the city, the ordinary citizens of the growing city,the privileged class and themes of love, passion, death and honor. For someone misled by the title, this book is far richer, deeper and more complex than just the story of a deformed bell-ringer of Notre Dame in spite of the images that are etched in most people's minds, a great many who haven't read the book.

This is truly one of those novels that deserves its rightful place in the pantheon of literature classics.

SPOILERS

This is quite a tome, and it requires a lot of patience to get through it. Hugo writes at a leisurely pace, to say the least, and is willing to take lengthy detours from the main story to detail the geography and architecture of Paris. And yet, it are these detours which give the novel a sense of authenticity and depth -- it is so detailed that it's difficult to believe that it is not a "history" as the narrator calls it.

The plot itself is defined by the machinations of a number of fascinating players. Every main character has something which makes him or her compelling. Quasimodo is physically repulsive, but his love for Esmeralda is endearing. Esmeralda can be frustrating because she seems incapable of overcoming her obsession with Phoebus, but it is this same flaw which allows any reader who has ever had his or her love unrequited to empathize with her. The Archdeacon is as mentally and emotionally repulsive as Quasimodo is physically repulsive, but his inner-conflict between his lust for Esmeralda and his spiritual identity makes for engrossing drama. Phoebus is a prime example of the actions of one egotistical person ruining the lives of innocents, and therefore he acts as a cautionary tale against unrestrained, careless lust. Gringoire is a character who, while nearly as selfish as Phoebus, is made likable by his humorous and sarcastic attitude.

The selfishness of Phoebus and the Archdeacon which cause woe for Esmeralda, Quasimodo, and numerous other characters. In allowing the story a great deal of scope, Hugo seems to be demonstrating how the actions of a few can have devastating consequences for the many. But what's most fascinating about Hunchback is how no one is completely free of blame in the final outcome, as Quasimodo and Esmeralda ultimately choose their own fates by giving in to their own weaknesses. It is this blunt depiction of the characters' understandable yet self-destructive motivations which really give the novel much of its worth, and is why I recommend it.

Recently, I read The Hunchback of Notre Dame for the first time and it is the best book I've read. The extreme contraries of beauty and ugliness are embodied in the story's two main characters: Esmeralda, the beautiful gypsy street performer, and Quasimodo, the troll-like and severely deformed caretaker and resident of Notre Dame Cathedral, which Hugo presents as a massive conglomeration of both Esmeralda and Quasimodo--her beauty, and his ugliness. The book also pits the animal against the intellectual, and how the animal wins out in the end. With Esmeralda, she becomes fatally--and carnally--obsessed with a handsome, but careless, French officer named Phoebus, who thinks of her as nothing more than a whore and a one-night-stand; on the other hand, Claude Frollo, erudite and archdeacon of Notre Dame, renounces God and becomes fatally--and carnally-- obsessed with the beauty of Esmeralda. But also, Quasimodo himself, who's blind in one eye and deaf--maybe that blind eye is the intelligence he lacked to assist his good eye, which was only capable of seeing beauty and not ugliness, such as that of humanity and that of Esmeralda's disgust towards him--can only see Esmeralda as what she is--a beautiful ideal that he, in his ugly prison both of his deformed body and that of the cathedral, can never possess. Throughout the story, everyone responds only to physical beauty, but no one-- including Quasimodo-- neither responds to nor is able to discern inner beauty. Phoebus is the perfect example of superficial beauty but inner ugliness; Quasimodo is the perfect example of superficial ugliness but inner beauty.
So, in all of these characters, Hugo has pitted animal against intelligence, religion, and logic. Especially logic. Nothing's logical about Esmeralda's obsession for Phoebus and nothing's logical about Claude Frollo's obsession for Esmeralda. There are a lot of Frollos and Esmeraldas out here today. You see some woman in an abusive relationship, yet she won't break away from the relationship because of the sex or her abuser's good looks: she's Esmeralda. You see some guy killing himself to impress some gorgeous woman who could care less about the guy having a heart attack: he's Frollo. Hunchback's a great great book. If anyone's read a better book, please let me know. Right now, I'm reading The Death of Ivan Ilych; I'll post my thoughts on the book when I complete it. So far, it's pretty good.

BONDAGE AND DISCIPLINE, SADISM AND MASOCHISM: Zack's Odyssey Part 1

Okay, so I read it. It was long and pretty much depressing. Maybe it just went right over my head. The character Quasimodo was fascinating. I definitely enjoyed that aspect of the book.

Just as it is the fate of the fly to be caught by the spider, we are all subject to the hand of fate that dooms our free will. That is how the poor priest Claude Frollo justifies his bizarre actions for nor can he or anyone for that matter prevent or change the predetermined outcome. Victor Hugo paints a lavish story that rivals the fame of the cathedral itself. Ironically, Frollo exclaims at one point "the book will kill the building!", in a reference to the printing press and its threat to the old ways of religion, when in fact in this case it was the savior of the building. At the time it was written, the Notre Dame cathedral was in a state of disrepair. Seen as a symbol of the old monarchy, it was ransacked by various protestors and uprisings. There was an even talk of tearing the old ruined cathedral down. Victor Hugo wrote this novel to install public interest back into the well being of the church. And thus the legend of the hunchback was born. Victor Hugo despised the English translation for the title because he believed the main character to not be Quasimodo but the church itself. All the plot events and character actions either take place in or are influenced by the cathedral. Fate plays another key role in this novel. It is Frollo's fate to love and lust after Esmeralda. It is Esmeralda's fate to refuse his love and seek the love of a man who is only beautiful on the outside. It is Quasimodo's fate to choose between protecting the woman who has shown him pity and given him a soul or to please the man who gave him life and a purpose for living. But Victor Hugo makes it very clear that we can not use fate as a crutch to justify our actions. Fate may determine the ending but how we come to that end is by our own free will and actions. So while the fate of the church is for it to be one day toppled by an earthquake, wrecked by the angry fires of a revolution, or destroyed by God, it is still within its power to influence the actions of today, as does the story within this book.

Reading The Hunchback of Norte-Dame was a nightmare for me. I don't mind trudging through a certain degree of detail, but The Hunchback contained well beyond a reasonable amount of description.

The book starts out with a play no one is watching. We return to what is going on with the play again and again which distracts from the excitement of the crowd. We are then provided with an entire chapter describing Notre-Dame. Quickly followed by a longer chapter about Paris that doesn't pertain to the story any further than its being the setting. A few more chapters of story and then another description only chapter, this time about architecture and other forms of art. The description is overkill and is so dull and tiring I could barely force myself to finish the book.

Victor Hugo addressed the reader many times, like many writers of the time did. This "breaking the fourth wall" is something I personally dislike. It reminds me that I am reading a story, thus pulling me out of totally submersion. Or at least it would have if I had been able to keep my eyes open longer than a few pages at a time. At one point, Hugo writes "Our reader must excuse us" before taking us on another descriptive tangent.

I'm sorry, Mr. Hugo, but you're not excused. Every once in a while, when he focused on the actual plot, the book was interesting. Unfortunately a large majority of the book was a cross between a guide book and a text book. Why is The Hunchback of Notre-Dame a classic? Only because it's old? I don't see the appeal.

I love Hugo and had just come off reading Les Miserables. Then I picked this one up and when I finished it I was depressed for a week. It is so incredibly tragic. If you're depressed or can't take hard reality don't read this book. It is beautiful, but so so depressing!

This novel was written as an argument against the death penalty. The victim was a young, naive innocent girl caught at the wrong place at the wrong time. She was falsely charged by an overzealous prosecutor, then condemned to death for a crime that didn't even take place!

After being rescued by Quasimoto and hiding from the crowds, the King, thinking the mob wanted her hanged, ordered her death, with no knowledge or even any interest in her situation. Thus, she was murdered.

I never previously paid much attention to the debates charging that the death penalty should be abolished, nor did I understand the reasons. I must say, however, that as hard as it was for me to read this book, (I'm not experienced at reading the classics) it changed my mind and made me see the problems with the death penalty.