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. ( )

14. Notre-Dame de Paris (The Hunchback of Notre Dame)—Victor Hugo

I was very impressed by Notre-Dame de Paris, and Victor Hugo managed to win me over even in the area where I doubted him the most: his emphasis on the importance of medieval architecture and its preservation, and his use of long chapters of the book to both describe Paris and develop his argument that what had been done to the city in the centuries after the events of his book was a travesty and a damn shame. I was afraid that I would get bogged down in the language (I’m relatively new to French) and that I’d get bored, wanting to get back to the story. In truth, I thought his eventual thesis, “Ceci tuera cela,” this will kill that, or, the printing press will kill architecture, was remarkable. I never thought about works of architecture as works of art in the same way as, say, a poem or a painting. Hugo says that the great architectural landmarks of antiquity all the way up to the invention of the printing press were, at heart, poems, written in the most durable language that mankind had at its disposal, with stones being the building blocks of expression instead of words. With the printing press and mass production of books, though, the written word took on a more immortal aspect in the minds of men, and because artists could now imagine the lasting presence of their works in the world, suddenly a book was able to make as lasting and far-reaching of a statement as a building or monument.

Hugo’s argument obviously goes far beyond what I can express in a paragraph of explanations, but I liked it both as a different way to look at art and architecture and as a justification for his book, one that made me understand both why he wrote it and why I was reading it nearly 200 years later. His choice of the cathedral of Notre Dame as the protagonist in an expansive novel such as Notre-Dame de Paris, considering that the cathedral was crumbling and in disrepair as he wrote this book, seems to be his attempt to preserve the beauty and inspiration he found in an architectural work of art by immortalizing it in a written work. I wonder whether he imagined that his book would lead to the renovation of the church and to works of historical preservation throughout Paris, or whether he was trying to leave a record of the grandeur of an edifice that he believed to be on the verge of disappearing from the city. I can’t imagine he would think that, in 2010, the church that we see when we visit Paris is in better shape than the one he is so fervently converting into literature. I think that his book is a good companion to the church, and if I am ever fortunate enough to go to Paris again, I’ll look at Notre Dame in a new and more familiar light.

As far as the story, it surprised me. I’ve never seen the Disney movie, but I think I was imagining the book to be something like I imagine the movie. In truth, no single character plays nearly as large of a role in the book as the church and the city of Paris. I think this is a good thing, because I was afraid I would get bored of Esmeralda, Quasimodo, Pierre Gringoire, Claude Frollo and all the rest, but I never did. I don’t think that any single character is particularly well-developed, and Esmeralda especially stood out as a character with no real substance, just a body for things to happen to over the course of the story. But, due to the fact that the focus was constantly shifting from person to person, without ever really settling on one character, I was entertained and encouraged to keep reading. A character (Pierre Gringoire, for example) would have a chapter or two devoted to him, and then float out of the book for the next 150 pages. By the time he came back, I was happy enough to see him, even though I didn’t really care that much about him in the first place. I wouldn’t have expected the author to shift away from the rising action at the cathedral to devote a 40-page chapter to the king of France, right at the climax of the book, but it worked in the context of the book. I think that the sequencing of the book was excellent, and was one of the reasons I found it so readable and enjoyable.

I also really enjoyed the ending of the book. It was not what I was expecting, and I thought it was a great way to finish the story. Notre-Dame de Paris was one of my first “big” reads of the year, and I’m happy to have completed it. I wonder if I would like it as much in English. Part of what I enjoyed was the new vocabulary and the new language, and the satisfaction of reading and completing a classic in its original language. I didn’t think the story was amazing, although I appreciated the author’s motivation for writing it. I think I would recommend it to friends who really enjoy reading, but for someone who reads just a few dozen books a year it might be too long and not really worth all the effort. ( )

I reallly liked this book, despite the fact that the ending was so sad, and completley not what I expected or wanted to happen. I loved the Disney version of it, but I knew that the book would not end like the movie. The writing was well written, and the story pulled me in. I liked Quasimodo. He was made to be a repulsive creature that no one could love, but he was kind of endearing. He just wanted to love and be loved by someone. Esmeralda was kind and beautiful, but kind of stupid. All she could think about was Pheobus, who didn't even love her back. Pheobus was a ladies man, and basically didn't care about anything.
All in all, the book was very good. I just didn't like the ending. The only good thing was Pierre saved Djali ( )

A hunchback, a gypsy, a mad priest. A church and a scaffold. Paris is not exactly the city of lights. Peopled by colourful characters, depraved creatures, hopeless beings, the architecture of the city, however, is a sight to behold. And the church of Notre Dame is the most magnificent of all.

I enjoyed very much Hugo's writing, including the digressions on the evolution of architecture as a form of “writing” and immortality, as well as the portrayal of the center of the city, street by street. I didn't enjoy the story very much, though – it was carrying martyrdom too far. The priest was vile, the soldier petty, and Esmeralda not just cloying but downright foolish, too. Quasimodo, however, made up for all that – pity he didn't live a happier life.

Though it doesn't hold a candle to Les Mis, I'm still glad to have read this, as I greatly admire Hugo's ability to paint images with words. ( )

Un chef d'œuvre, ni plus, ni moins. ( )

Once I've read this movie in the cradle. If my memory serves me right, the movie's end was completely different from original...

I like the fiction but I don't like the story because it was sad and I couldn't understand the mind.
However, I want the person who I can love as Quasimodo. ( )

When I read this book, I was very very sad because of this last. I can't understand Quasimodo's detarmination. But I think he is very sad also. This story describes complicated mind of people. Not only sad story but also deep story.

http://nwhyte.livejournal.com/1345971...

I love Les Miserables, both the novel and the show (NB to those who know only the latter - Gavroche is the Thenardiers' son and therefore Eponine's sister), and of course everyone knows the stereotype of the Hunchback, so I was looking forward to reading this. It's a novel of biting social commentary, though set far in the past (1483); the innocent Esmeralda is exploited, persecuted and condemned by the ruling classes, her only defenders the unreliable denizens of the underworld and a disabled bell-ringer. (And her pet goat.) It starts awfully slowly - Hugo takes a very long time to clear his throat, as it were - but the characters are largely engaging, and the action accelerates towards the climax. Knowing that it had been made into a Disney film, which presumably must have a happy ending though I haven't seen it, I was in a state of considerable suspense as to how Hugo would resolve the situation and save the central characters.

It hadn't occurred to me that Disney might have changed the story, so the ending came as a rather brutal shock.

I must say that I still think Les Miserables is the better book, but Notre Dame de Paris is very interesting in the way it takes a lot of the same themes and puts them together with rather different effect. ( )

The infamous story of the disfigured bell ringer and his guardian, the priest, who both fall in love with a beautiful, young gypsy. When Quasimodo tries to save Esmerelda from the gallows, the story ends in tragedy. Disney immortalized these characters and their lives, but Disney got it wrong. There isn't just one bad guy and bunch of good people. Here, no one's innocent and no one gets a happy ending.

The name of the book is a bit misleading, I think. Having seen the Disney movie, I figured the protagonist would be Quasimodo. As odd as it is, though, the book doesn't really have a protagonist. Hugo kind of flits you from character to character in what seems an almost random pattern, often leaving one character at a vital point of the story to go visit the King and his clerk as they discuss how much everything costs. It can be very odd at times and honestly, it wasn't really a style of writing I wholly enjoyed. But then again, I was well aware of Hugo's tendency to go off on tangents before I started the book so it didn't come as a shocker and for the most part, it didn't detract too much from the story.

One thing I wasn't expecting going into the book, however, was an approximate 100 page discription of Paris about a third of the way into the book. Hugo's prose is delightful, but even so I had a hard time getting through this section. However, I could see the relevence before I'd even finished the book. Paris is described as a huge city, branching out from a central location with random buildings connected to other random buildings of little to no similarity. Hugo jumps from one building to another to another, and in the end, he sums the entire description up nice and tidy in about a page. This is the same relationship as the characters. All the characters, who seem to have no relation to the others for the most part, are all connected and each character affects the fate of the others. They all interlock, even though they don't see it themselves. It's very impressive when you sit back and view the grand scope of the story.

All in all, I heartily enjoyed this book and will be purchasing it for myself at some point in the near future. I recommend reading it, but don't expect to walk away feeling happy. The end is tragic (and a few scenes - namely one particular death scene - are very disturbing), no one gets their perfect, Disney ending, and the gargoyles, sadly, do not sing and dance ;-) ( )

Notre-Dame de Paris è uno dei romanzi più famosi di Victor Hugo. Pubblicato nel 1831 all'età di 29 anni, fu il primo grande successo dello scrittore francese. Venne infatti immediatamente accolto con amplissimo successo, superando senza problemi le possibili censure del tempo

Der berühmte Roman aus der Feder von Victor Hugo (1802-1885) über menschliche Schicksale im Schatten der großen Kathedrale Notre Dame ist ein unter die Haut gehendes Sittengemälde einer Gesellschaft an der Nahtstelle von finsterstem Mittelalter zur Neuzeit. ( )

Modern stories have done for me, they really have. As I was reading Hugo's masterpiece, I saw how all the relationships tied together from a very early point, and it seemed oh-so-inevitable and tiresomely predictable. Why? Because I've read books that take what Hugo did more than a century ago and have popularised the plot and technique, making it, for want of a better word, kitsch.

But I read on to the end, enjoying myself almost reluctantly. My opinion changed when I reached the chapter about the King; no other writer I can think of would have been so brave to leave the action and excitement of the thieves' revolt to spend a good fifteen pages introducing the king of France, but there's a reason here, and possibly it's the reason for the writing of this book. It's extraordinary. And then I reached the harrowing conclusion, and now I cannot disagree with the critics that say that this is one of the finest stories ever written. I was moved to the point of tears. ( )

I'm at a loss...how to synopsize one of the classics of world literature? Deformed bell-ringer falls for beautiful gypsy? That's only a piece of the story. Along the way, we get Paris history in brief, the construction and architecture of a grand cathedral, a study of Parisian society with all its warts, a commentary on church hierarchy...there's so much more to this story than Disney would have you believe.

Can be tough going -- it's wordy and dense, but worth the effort. ( )

An unforgettable novel with immortal characters. ( )

So disappointing...Les Mis was FAR better! Long stretches of unrelated 'text' that took forever to get through. I regret not opting for the UNabridged version. ( )

Notre-Dame truly is the main character of this novel. Calling this book "The Hunchback of Notre-Dame" in English is a huge misnomer for if any other cathedral had been used (even la St. Chapelle or Sacre-Coeur), the book would not have been as glorious.

As is typical with Victor Hugo, the first 100 pages (the first part basically) are difficult to get through and you are hit once again with a difficult chapter when you reach "A birds eye view of Paris" but those descriptive passages really do aid in setting the mood. If you have never seen Paris in person, I highly suggest looking up pictures to help you through the book. (As a Parisian I can close my eyes and see every nook of the cathedral and the alleys of Paris so I really got into the ambiance.)

Once Paris and the cathedral as characters are understood it is time to delve into the personalities of Frollo, Esmeralda, Gringoire, Quasimodo and Phoebus. Although Esmeralda's character is as superficial as can be, and Phoebus personifies the male stereotype that most women are told to stay away from, Frollo is such an intricate character worthy of following. His turmoils are truly what make this book so magnificent.

Overall, although I was much more entranced by Les Miserables, I am thrilled to have finally read this book. It'll hook you until you fall to dust. ( )

Outside of book is fine but inside pages are extremely fragile and brittle almost to the point that the pages can't be turned easily

This is the kind of book that excites your deepest imaginative spaces and populates your dreams with dancing visions of gargoyles and gypsies... As Hugo admits himself, "if the book has any merit it is in being a work of imagination, of caprice and of fantasy." True, weaved into the larger-than-life story about impossible love, Hugo tries to paint perspectives upon a lively Paris of the early French Renaissance in the year 1482. He allows himself a good many digressions on architecture, on the cityscape and on quasi-historical points which might put off a reader interested exclusively in a good quick plot. Still as any reader will notice and hopefully feel, architecture, Paris and its layout, the people, and especially the eponymous cathedral of Notre Dame, play a crucial role in the way this story is told. These are not only elements in the background, setting the scene, they provide the bricks and raw material for the story. The imposing cathedral itself emerges as narrator and central character, a story-teller in its facade and - incarnated by the mythical Quasimodo in all of its bodily contradictions - a central player in the story. Hugo is trying to build a story the size of oral tradition, with the obscure feel of the middle ages, a story steeped in tradition and myth. His readers back in 1831 would also have recognized the power which he grants the people and popular revolution, and which he implies were unleashed with the printing press. Part indulgence in nostalgia, part concession to fate, the Hunchback of Notre-Dame ("Notre-Dame de Paris" in French) praises the Gothic art and esoteric science of the declining middle ages, while celebrating its demise and the glimmer portending of better things to come. ( )

This book is so dense. I tried reading it a while ago, and finally finished it this past summer. It has its moments, though. Some of the characters are worth the trouble of getting through the book. The decriptions of history and the architecture are interesting, and the story is too, but there are so many plots that it's a little hard to follow. ( )

Some parts were tough to get through, especially the chapter called "Bird's Eye View of Paris". Good, compelling story. How it was made into a Disney movie is beyond me though. It's about "forbidden love" of a priest for a 15 year old girl who he kills for. The emotions of the characters could have been pursued farther, but a good story. ( )

80% excellent writing, strong characters, evocative descriptions, compulsive reading. 20% overly convenient plot developments, character turns. 1 full chapter on architecture belongs in a school textbook, not a fiction novel. My star rating is 3, but I'd really give it 3.5. ( )

Could this book be anymore slow and boring? I think it took about 4 chapter just for him to walk down the street. Maybe I am just a victim of the modern literary style, but I like the author to get to the point. If I wanted to know every last detail of Paris, I would read a history book. ( )

Very detailed and hard to get through at times. Great ending! ( )

Je l'ai lu il y a longtemps, mais je me souviens des longues descriptions à la Hugo qui coupent l'intrigue et tuent la dynamique, de scènes superbes et captivantes. Ce n'est néanmoins pas mon préféré, j'ai lu les Misérables 3 fois, je ne relirai pas Notre Dame de Paris ( )