Members with This Book
Most Helpful Reviews
see all reviews
Liked It1 of 1 members found this review helpful “Really thrilling and quite funny story about Paris and the craziness of the people, church and conflicting views. Of course Disney made Quasi loveable and non-deaf so he doesn't seem that much of a monster, this book was much more tragic and much more real. The characters do pop out of the pages,...” see full review » see other reviews » |
Didn’t Like It “The story is not bad, but I think the English translation (by J.Carroll Beckwith) I have is horrible. I slept off many times while trying to read a couple of pages. The translation has no emotion, but just a bland description of Notre-Dame and Paris (interestingly, I really liked such...” see full review » see other reviews » |
Newest Reviews
see all reviews-
“The story is not bad, but I think the English translation (by J.Carroll Beckwith) I have is horrible. I slept off many times while trying to read a couple of pages. The translation has no emotion, but just a bland description of Notre-Dame and Paris (interestingly, I really liked such descriptions in Les Miserables).”
Sunil wrote this review 9 days ago. ( reply | permalink ) Was this review helpful? Yes | No
“An amazing, but sad books! THe randomly intricate descriptions were boring, but easy to skip. Much different then the disney movie... :) but in a good way.”
Kat wrote this review 4 weeks ago. ( reply | permalink ) Was this review helpful? Yes | No
“SPOILERS
Thomas Johnson wrote this review Wednesday, November 25 2009. ( reply | permalink ) Was this review helpful? Yes | No
This is quite a tome, and it requires both patience and time to get through. Hugo is prone to digressions, some of which stretch on for at least fifteen pages (I was listening to an audiobook recording, and a number of the digressions went on for at least fifteen minutes). The lengthy asides are devoted to describing in elaborate detail the architecture and geography of fifteenth-century Paris, background which imparts the novel with a deeper sense of authenticity than it would have possessed had Hugo kept his narrative focus solely on his characters. Nevertheless, this reader was left wishing Hugo had refrained from sidelining them for as many pages as he did in order to indulge in his love for what he evidently believed to be the height of Parisian artistry.
Though these asides – educational as they are – can be tiresome, Hugo’s characters ultimately take precedence in the novel, and it is their struggles which impart the novel with lasting value as a story. His three main characters – Quasimodo, Esmeralda, and the Archdeacon Frollo – are not always sympathetic, but are consistently intriguing because they are motivated by the primal human emotions of lust and love. Through them, Hugo effectively shows the harm which one acting on lust can bring to a person who pursues love at any cost.
Quasimodo, the eponymous hunchback, is a character who pursues love at any cost – a love for Esmeralda which is especially selfless because he understands that she will always be repulsed by his deformities. Quasmodo’s devotedness to Esmeralda coupled with his inability to connect to the world around him makes him easily sympathetic, despite his occasionally violent behavior. However, it is this same isolation which make him the least engaging of the three main characters. While Esmeralda and Frollo can verbally spar and passionately express their emotions to one another, Quasimodo can barely communicate and remains in the cathedral throughout most of the story while the action continues below him. He is always compelling when he enters into the main action of the story, at which points he validates his status as the titular character by drastically altering the plot, but it is difficult to feel as strongly about his fate as though characters whom are continually at the reader’s attention.
Esmeralda falls in to that category, as she is a character who elicits a strong emotional reaction from the reader, though not necessarily a positive one. Unlike Quasimodo, Esmeralda cannot accept that the person whom she loves – the captain Phoebus who is entirely driven by lust – does not love her. It is this stubbornness which enables the reader to empathize with her while also becoming incredibly frustrated by her. Her cries of “Phoebus! Oh where is my Phoebus?” can become annoying, because they indicate a desperation which is both understandable and uncomfortable to read about. Some might, perhaps rightly, accuse Hugo of sexism in his portrayal of a woman who becomes utterly dependent on a man’s approval and acceptance, but her plight also speaks truthfully to the debilitating power love can have over an person, and to the larger damage a casually cruel person like Phoebus can unknowingly inflict.
Archdeacon Frollo’s cruelty, like Phoebus’s, is borne out of lust, but Frollo is more cognizant of the consequences of his choices than is Phoebus. He is arguably the most fascinating character in the novel because he, like Esmeralda, struggles with desire – in his case, a lustful desire – for a person who does not love him, but whereas she only had to fear for her temporal life, he is fully believes that pursuing his feelings will lead him to spiritual damnation. He is given the choice between selfless devotion and self-gratification, and chooses the latter in spite of the consequences to himself and everyone else. Though in this he becomes objectively despicable, the reader continues to be intrigued by and perhaps to feel a remnant of sympathy for him, because he is tormented by such an inescapable and universal emotion as lust. The complexity of his inner torment is arguably the strongest aspect of the novel, and a great example of how good writing can depict a believable villain.
While the conflict between love and lust is well depicted, Hugo must also be praised for injecting his story with enough humor to keep the story from becoming melodramatic. The narrator’s occasionally wry tone and mockery of Parisian government provides the opportunity for laughter, though some of the history he references may seem obscure to the modern reader. The character of Gringoire, the pitiful philosopher who tends to value his survival over anything else, is able to provide a steady stream of sarcasm throughout much of the story, as he is free of most of the personal attachments that plague the other characters.
By the end of the book, the reader may think he is wisest character of all, because Hugo does not allow those of his characters who love much happiness. In this, his depiction of love could be said to be one-sided, if not untruthful. He presents a powerful depiction of lust foiling love, without accounting for the possibility that in some cases, love might just come out the winner. ”“Only four stars because while Hugo has a talent for detail, I could have done without the 30 page (literally) description of the architecture of Paris. And, ever the hopeless romantic, I really, really wanted Esmeralda and her mother to live happily ever after.”
Michelle B wrote this review Monday, November 23 2009. ( reply | permalink ) Was this review helpful? Yes | No
“Surprisingly funny and charming! You will feel emotionally connected as you laugh at the characters in this book. Surprisingly easy to read, also. ”
Jesse D wrote this review Sunday, November 22 2009. ( reply | permalink ) Was this review helpful? Yes | No
“8th grade S.S. teacher recomended to read "at some point" in life.”
Kristine C wrote this review 6 days ago. ( reply | permalink ) Was this review helpful? Yes | No
“So far, this book is really confusing. Maybe it's because it goes into detail like, REALLLLLLLy far into detail. : / I don't know. ”
Omg, it's Lindsey! wrote this review Monday, November 9 2009. ( reply | permalink ) Was this review helpful? Yes | No
“I'm enjoying the characters and plot, very interesting and original, but the French names, Italian terms and 30 consecutive pages of description can be cumbersome at times!”
Danielle L wrote this review Tuesday, November 3 2009. ( reply | permalink ) Was this review helpful? Yes | No
“So, in the novel, Quasimodo is deaf and dumb. That means I read the entire book without getting to the part where he is on the roof of the cathedral shouting "SANCTUARY!!!! SANCTUARY!!!!" Welcome to Letdown City, population: me.”
Curtis H wrote this review Saturday, October 31 2009. ( reply | permalink ) Was this review helpful? Yes | No
