The Hunchback of Notre-Dame

Written by Victor Hugo

Narrated by Geoffrey Giuliano and The Ark

When you get an idea into your head you find it in everything.”

“A one-eyed man is much more incomplete than a blind man, for he knows what it is that's lacking.”

“mothers are often fondest of the child which has caused them the greatest pain.”

“One drop of wine is enough to redden a whole glass of water.”

“He reached for his pocket, and found there, only reality”

“You would have imagined her at one moment a maniac, at another a queen.”

Victor Hugo

The Hunchback of Notre-Dame is a French Gothic novel by Victor Hugo, published in 1831. It focuses on the unfortunate story of Quasimodo, the Romani street dancer Esmeralda and Quasimodo's guardian the Archdeacon Claude Frollo in 15th-century Paris.

3:15

Victor-Marie Hugo was a French Romantic writer and politician. During a literary career that spanned more than sixty years, he wrote in a variety of genres and forms. He is considered to be one of the greatest French writers of all time. A classic audiobook exclusive!

• Language: English
• Publisher: Icon Audio Arts
• Release date: Feb 16, 2023
• ISBN: 9798887677705

Victor Hugo

The best-known of the French Romantic writers, Victor Hugo was a poet, novelist, dramatist, and political critic. Hugo was an avid supporter of French republicanism and advocate for social and political equality, themes that reflect most strongly in his works Les Misérables, Notre-Dame de Paris (The Hunchback of Notre-Dame), and Le Dernier jour d'un condamné (The Last Day of a Condemned Man). Hugo’s literary works were successful from the outset, earning him a pension from Louis XVIII and membership in the prestigious Académie française, and influencing the work of literary figures such as Albert Camus, Charles Dickens, and Fyodor Dostoevsky. Elevated to the peerage by King Louis-Philippe, Hugo played an active role in French politics through the 1848 Revolution and into the Second and Third Republics. Hugo died in 1885, revered not only for his influence on French literature, but also for his role in shaping French democracy. He is buried in the Panthéon alongside Alexandre Dumas and Émile Zola.

Reviews for The Hunchback of Notre-Dame

[mojomomma_1 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

It took a while to get used to Hugo effusive style, and I could have read it happily without the descriptions of the Paris skyline and streets from 600 years ago, but it did capture my attention. I doubted I would be able to read it at all until I was well into it, then it went pretty rapidly. I was inspired to read this by a student who compared the original with the Disney movie of her childhood, which I have never seen, in a capstone presentation. Another classic--read at last!

[sometimeunderwater · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

I was prepared for the novel to be vastly different from the Disney film, more serious and 'grown-up'. In the end the distance was probably less than I was expecting. Although naturally more complex, the novel is comic and carnivalesque in a way that feels somewhat Disney. All the characters are somewhat comically grotesque, and few of their actions feel truly human. I suppose the difference is in the absence of 'good' and 'bad' characters. Esmerelda and Phoebus are as comic and irrationally-driven as everyone else, and Frollo is more screw-eyed than he is evil. The hunchback himself is no protagonist, and to my mind no more interesting than other fringe characters like Clopin, Pierre and the mad mother in the cell.

[kristelh_15 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Finished this story set in the 1400s in Paris, France of the story of Esmeralda, Quasimodo, the archdeacon of Norte Dame and of the architectural structure, Notre Dame. The author wrote this book to advance his concern for the lack of care of these pieces of art. His argument that the story prior to the printing press is in these structures and that the birth of the printing press put these structures in peril of being left to deteriorate. Victor Hugo spends a great deal of time on these discourses as he did in his other great work and the sewers of Paris. It reminds me of other books that have themes/settings around architecture such as Hawkmoor and Pillars of The Earth.

[mrslee_1 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

I became very tired of the architecture and culture of 14th century Paris before I finished this book. It was good reading when Hugo got down to the business of the story. I was so disappointed in the heroine, Esmeralda, that I didn't mind the ending so much. All in all, a pretty depressing cast of characters. Apparently, Hugo didn't think much of mankind. He did however, make the entire 15th century come alive. Something I think was unusual in the early 1800's when this was written. It made me glad to be alive now and not then.

[sweet_serenity · Rating: 2 out of 5 stars]

This would be my advice to Victor Hugo. If I had a time machine I would travel to a time just before he published this book, and give him an intervention.

Dear Mr. Hugo,

Firstly, may I say that I am a big fan of your future work, Le Miserables. And because of that, I cannot accept The Hunchback of Notre Dame as you have written it. If it were written by a different author, I would dismiss this as a three star novel, not terrible, but not a book I would read again if I had the chance. But in the future you will write a masterpiece, and so I rate this a two star novel, for failed potential.

The plot is magnificent. But you have written this story all wrong. You destroyed the mysteries- Esmerelda's enemy, and her mother, by revealing the information too soon, and not using the early revelation to create tension and anticipation in the reader to be sustained throughout the story. Leave things unexplained- it gives you the chance to surprise us later on. Readers love to be surprised.

You made the story less fun to read, by woefully neglecting Esmerelda and Quasimodo (the only sympathetic characters) perspectives. By all means, give us glimpses of the perspective of the villainous archdeacon (no, DON'T! Frankly his perspective disturbed me greatly), use Gringoire's perspective to introduce the book, and show how the mysterious Esmerelda looks to a stranger, give Jehan a few lines to add some wit. But all of that should come to less than a quarter of the book. YOU CREATED TWO AMAZING, SYMPATHETIC, UNIQUE CHARACTERS. GIVE THEM THE VOICE THEY DESERVE!

I admire your story, but the story telling in this novel is incredibly disappointing. I sincerely wish you could have a do-over, rewrite this story with the wisdom and genius you will accumulate by the time you write Le Miserables.

Thankyou for listening,

Goodbye from,
An admirer and well-wisher, a friend.

[amerynth · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

It was interesting to read "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" after reading Victor Hugo's masterpiece "Les Miserables." I really enjoyed "Hunchback" but couldn't help but feel it was like reading "Les Miserables" light.Central to the story is Notre Dame-- around which most of the action takes place. A corrupt priest, a gypsy girl with a counting goat and, of course, the hunchback in the title, are interesting (and at times frustrating) characters. The story moves long aside from Hugo's trademark digressions into French history.I liked this book a lot, but if you're only going to read one book by Hugo in your lifetime, this isn't the one, of course!

[gypsysmom_1 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

I listened to this classic narrated by David Case who I thought did a fairly good job of narration. I had also listened to Les Miserables which Case narrated and I wasn’t very impressed with him then but for whatever reason this book seemed better. Of the book itself I was suitably impressed once I got over the custom of the time of writing which Hugo emulated in spades i.e. using 10 words where one would have done. This writing style seems well suited to listening to rather than reading as I have also noted with Dickens works.It is the latter part of the 17th century. Paris is still a walled city but the walls have had to be expanded three times. Anyone who is not Catholic is viewed with suspicion and often put to death. The King Louis Eleventh is not particularly well liked but he has the support of the church and the military. A band of gypsies (or Egyptians as they are called in the book although they doubtless have never seen Africa) lives in the heart of Paris. A young gypsy girl called La Esmeralda entertains crowds by dancing and demonstrating her goat’s tricks. She is lovely and catches the attention of many men including a captain of the Guard (Phoebus) a priest (Archdeacon Claude of Notre Dame) and a disfigured bell ringer (Quasimodo). The priest enlists Quasimodo’s help to capture La Esmeralda but the kidnapping is foiled by Phoebus. Quasimodo is tried and sentenced to some hours in the stocks. La Esmeralda takes pity on him and brings him water ensuring that Quasimodo is her devoted servant ever after. In her turn La Esmeralda is hopelessly in love with Phoebus who saved her and when he makes an assignation with her she gladly goes although she had sworn to remain a virgin until she could find her parents. (La Esmeralda had been brought up by the gypsies but not born to them.) When the priest heard of the assignation he was overcome with jealousy and followed Phoebus. He hid in the room where they were to meet and when he saw Phoebus and La Esmeralda embracing he sprang out and attacked Phoebus. La Esmeralda fainted and the priest escaped out the window before the Watch could appear. Thus La Esmeralda was charged with the attack on Phoebus (who did not die although La Esmeralda was told he had) and sentenced to hang. She was brought in front of Notre Dame before hanging and Quasimodo snatched her up and claimed sanctuary for her. Despite this aid La Esmeralda does end up on the gallows and is hung. Her fate is even more tragic in that minutes before she had finally reconnected with her mother who had lived as a recluse in Paris ever since her infant daughter had been kidnapped. The priest and Quasimodo also had tragic ends. Love does not conquer all.Definitely the best person in the book is Quasimodo. His body may be disfigured but his heart is pure. If this were a fairy tale La Esmeralda would have transformed him into a handsome prince with a kiss and they would have lived happily ever after. But Hugo doesn’t do happy endings it seems.

[aliceanna-1 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

I hadn't read this since I was in high school and had forgotten how good it is. Unrequited love for everyone (except perhaps Gregoire and Djali). Quasimodo is such a tragic character ... it makes your heart ache for him. The only reason I'm not giving it 5 stars is because of a couple of the ridiculously long sidetracks that Hugo gets on. I just skipped right through them, but the story and the characters are so good, I really wish he'd just stuck with that.

[loralu_1 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Yet another great read by victor hugo. So much underlying meaning that still transforms to today alongside a great story on the surface. The struggles of inner vs outer beauty and acceptance will always be relatable, no matter the generation.

[gbill_7 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

“Notre-Dame de Paris”, the actual title of this book, is from Hugo’s early phase; it was published in 1831 when he was only 29. Quasimodo the hunchback, La Esmeralda the gypsy dancer, and Claude Frollo the archdeacon are all unforgettable. Bear with it in the beginning, as Hugo takes his time setting the stage of Paris in 1482. Less philosophical and learned than his later works, but enjoyable nonetheless.Just one quote, on love:“That little brother, without father or mother, that infant which dropped all at once from the sky into his arms, made a new man of him. He perceived that there was something in the world besides the speculations of the Sorbonne and the verses of Homer; that human beings have need of affections; that life without love is but a dry wheel, creaking and grating as it revolves.”

[regoodrich · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Victor Hugo once again demonstrates unrivalled mastery over the written word, but the story itself was grievous to experience. Shakespeare has nothing on tragedies in this case. I loved the descriptions, the in-depth details and creative examples that colour both Victor's characters and their emotions in this book. I awed at the author's ability to rend a reader's heart through poetic text. But normally, even in a tragedy, at least one character stands out as piteous—an ill-fated victim entirely deserving of sympathy given his or her altruistic, often heroic nature. These Notre-Dame characters, however, were all hard to pity. Even the hunchback, Quasimodo, who I believe was meant to be the hero in this case, through actions that caused pain and cruelty unbalanced by an attempt to protect Esmerelda, proved upsetting.

I wonder if this wasn't meant to be a cleverly laid out example of self-seeking, base human nature demonstrated from diverse stations and perspectives. Esmerelda, Claude Frollo, his drunkard brother, Quasimodo, Captain Phoebus, Gringoire, the King, and so on—every character, even the minor players, seemed controlled by selfish interests, none truly praiseworthy! It was difficult to read through these intertwining paths and root for no one. Lives tragically found their end in the same manner in which they elapsed, through spiteful and heartless misfortunes. It was a harsh and sad tale but a seriously insightful demonstration of the end results where selfish obsessions are concerned.

[booksontrial · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Historian, Philosopher and Poet

If I can quote one passage from Hugo's books that best reflects the author, the focus of his passions, the style and architecture of his novels, it would be the following:

"There he was, serious, motionless, absorbed - all eye, all ear, all thought. All Paris was at his feet, with the thousand spires of its buildings, and its circular horizon of gentle hills, with its river winding beneath its bridges and its people pouring through its streets, its cloud of smoke, and its mountain chain of roofs crowding close to Notre-Dame with their double slopes of mail. In this whole city the Archdeacon's eye sought just one point of the pavement, the Place du Parvis, and among the whole multitude just one figure, the Bohemian."

Hugo referred to himself as a historian, philosopher and poet. He studied history, contemplated human destiny, and expressed his ideals through his writings, i.e., through the struggles and voices of his heroes, for whom he prepared the whole world and history as the grand stage.

Ecce Notre-Dame, Ecce Homo

This book can be divided into four Parts, like four movements of a symphony, with mini climaxes in the second and third movement.

Part I: Festival of Fools (Book I-II)

Hugo introduces all the main characters in the dramatic setting of a festival in the streets of Paris in 1482. It's in the late Middle Ages, a year before the birth of Martin Luther. One of the characters is a poet, who is the thread that runs through the entire novel and at whose expense Hugo showcases his self-deprecating humor.

Part II: Ecce Notre-Dame (Book III-V)

The view zooms out, so to speak, and Hugo describes a bird's-eye view of Paris and its history as immortalized in its architecture, the centerpiece of which is Notre-Dame de Paris. Here is the most beautiful chapter of the book, a symphonic description of the life and architecture of Paris.

To paraphrase Hugo, Notre-Dame is the expression of the world. Its architecture, a transition from Roman style with its low circular arches and heavy pillars to Gothic style with its pointed arches, is a reflection of the progress of society since ancient times, from unity and hierarchy to democracy and freedom.

Hugo proclaims, "Architecture is dead". Architecture, as a means of expression for mankind, will be replaced by printing, which is cheaper and more convenient, and therefore provides more freedom of expression. If Hugo were alive today, he would perhaps predict that digital media would replace their analog counterpart, e.g. electronic books would replace printed books, and something like Wikipedia would be the new Tower of Babel.

Part III: Ecce Homo (Book VI-VIII)

After setting the historical stage, Hugo zooms in on the main character of the novel, i.e., the human face of Notre-Dame, the Archdeacon and the bell-ringer. To me, they are one person. The physical deformity of the latter illustrates the spiritual deformity of the former, and the residual tender loving-kindness in the former is magnified in the latter. (If I might add, a similar device is used in Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde and The Picture of Dorian Gray.)

The conflict is unrequited love. The Archdeacon's passionate but deadly lust for the Bohemian girl, the bell-ringer's tender but primitive devotion to her, and the Bohemian girl's love for her idol. In contrast, there are also exhilarating moments when love triumphs over lust, over baseness and over the condemning laws. When the ugly and pitiable becomes august and beautiful.

However, there is a deeper meaning underneath the conflict of unrequited love, and that's the reason, I think, why the book was once banned by the Catholic Church.

The Archdeacon represents the Church, more specifically, the religious hierarchy and laws of the Church, and the Bohemian girl, the unbeliever. The Church pursues the unbeliever, but because the religious laws bring nothing but shackles and death, the latter shrinks from him and pursues her own idol, Phoebus "the Sun god". This is made poignantly manifest when the Archdeacon claimed that only he could save the Bohemian from death and demanded her to choose between him and gallows, and she chose the latter.

Part IV: The Siege of Notre-Dame (Book IX-XI)

Finally, the view returns to the bigger stage, when the tension between hierarchy and freedom mingled with lawlessness becomes unbearable, there broke out the siege of the Notre-Dame, a figure of the siege of the Bastille. Ironically, the siege was instigated by the Archdeacon himself and the poet, signifying that revolts against the Church have their roots in its own corruption through lust. Alas, there was no freedom or deliverance except through death.

[deltaqueen50 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

The Hunchback of Notre Dame by Victor Hugo is a historical fiction novel that was originally published in France during 1831. The story is set in Paris during the 15th century and is centred around Quasimodo, a deformed bell ringer and his unrequited love for the beautiful dancer Esmeralda, who believes herself to be a gypsy. These two originally meet at the Feast of Fools where Quasimodo is elected “Pope of the Fools” and then beaten by an angry mob. Esmeralda takes pity on him and offers him a drink of water. Quasimodo immediately falls in love with the girl and decides to devote his life to protecting her.Esmeralda has other admirers, the evil Archdeacon Dom Claude Frollo and her choice, Captain Phoebus de Chateaupers. Due to Frollo, Esmeralda becomes a suspect in the attempted murder of her love and is arrested, put on trial and sentenced to death after she is forced to falsely confesses to both the murder and to witchcraft. Quasimodo attempts to shelter her in the cathedral but Frollo interferes and Esmeralda is released to the ranting crowd leaving Quasimodo to take his vengeance upon Frollo.This famous tragedy plays out in one of the enduring symbols of Paris, the Notre Dame Cathedral. Hugo paints a vivid story that also shines a light on life in the 15th century. While the author explores what it meant to be labelled a “monster”, the real star of the book is the historic Gothic architecture that Hugo wanted to see preserved. Although this story has been adapted many times, very few adaptations tell the actual story, most revise the ending to give the audience a happy conclusion. I have been reading this book on and off since last November by installments and as happy as I am to be able to say that I have completed this read, I can’t say that I really felt involved in the story. I think I brought too many preconceptions with me, and the disjointed reading also played a part in my disconnection from the story.

[mattries37315 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

When the publication of a novel results in a major restoration effort for a centuries old Gothic church that features as a significant secondary character, it must be a special book. The Hunchback of Notre Dame is Victor Hugo’s first novel that established him as one of the greatest French writers.The story is set in Paris in 1482 during the reign of Louis XI. The beautiful gypsy Esmeralda captures the hearts of many men, including those of Captain Phoebus and Pierre Gringoire, but especially Quasimodo and his guardian Archdeacon Claude Frollo. Frollo is torn between his obsessive lust for Esmeralda and the rules of Notre Dame Cathedral. He orders Quasimodo to kidnap her, but Quasimodo is captured by Phoebus and his guards, who save Esmeralda. Gringoire, who attempted to help Esmeralda but was knocked out by Quasimodo, is about to be hanged by beggars when Esmeralda saves him by agreeing to marry him for four years. The following day, Quasimodo is sentenced to be flogged and turned on the pillory for two hours, followed by another hour's public exposure. He calls for water. Esmeralda, seeing his thirst, approaches the public stocks and offers him a drink of water. It saves him, and she captures his heart. Later, Esmeralda is arrested and charged with the attempted murder of Phoebus, whom Frollo attempted to kill in jealousy after seeing him trying to seduce Esmeralda. She is sentenced to death by hanging. As she is being led to the gallows, Quasimodo swings down by the bell rope of Notre-Dame and carries her off to the cathedral, temporarily protecting her – under the law of sanctuary – from arrest. Frollo later informs Gringoire that the Court of Parlement has voted to remove Esmeralda's right to the sanctuary so she can no longer seek shelter in the cathedral and will be taken away to be killed. Clopin, the leader of the Vagrants, hears the news from Gringoire and rallies the homeless citizens of Paris to charge the cathedral and rescue Esmeralda. When Quasimodo sees the Vagrants, he assumes they are there to hurt Esmeralda, so he drives them off. Likewise, he thinks the king's men want to rescue her, and tries to help them find her. She is rescued by Frollo and Gringoire. But after yet another failed attempt to win her love, Frollo betrays Esmeralda by handing her to the troops and watches while she is being hanged. When Frollo laughs during Esmeralda's hanging, Quasimodo pushes him from the height of Notre Dame to his death. With nothing left to live for, Quasimodo vanishes and is never seen again. Quasimodo's skeleton is found many years later in the charnel house, a mass grave into which the bodies of the destitute and criminals were indiscriminately thrown, implying that Quasimodo had sought Esmeralda among the decaying corpses and lay beside her, himself to die. As the guards attempt to pull the embracing skeletons apart, his skeleton crumbles to dust.This book is hard to judge, mainly because when the narrative and drama is going it is great but early on Hugo liked to focus on other things namely architecture then it was hard to read. While Hugo’s descriptions of Notre Dame are fantastic and are necessary considering its central importance to the book, however the history of Paris and its architecture was a tangent that slowed things down enough to make the book feel like a drag. Hugo’s characters were extremely well-written from the hypocrite Frollo to the love-sick Esmerelda to superficial jerk Phoebus and the book’s titular character Quasimodo.The Hunchback of Notre Dame features a fantastic narrative, however some of Victor Hugo’s decisions early in the book make it struggle to get through as it veers away from any narrative flow. However, I did enjoy the book overall and would recommend it for people to read yet with a warning about things early so they are prepared to either endure it or plan skip parts of the book.

[swampygirl-1 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

Much more poignant, dramatic and even comical then I had been expecting.

[samj1111 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

(Note: This review contains some spoilers.)I can't believe this novel is considered a classic. Overall, it's a real mess. In fact, the famous author Goethe, nearly 200 years ago, had this to say about the book:"I have lately been reading [Hugo's book], and required no little patience to support the horror with which this reading has inspired me. It is the most abominable book that ever was written! Besides, one is not even indemnified for the torture one has to endure by the pleasure one might receive from a truthful representation of human nature or human character. His book is, on the contrary, utterly destitute of nature and truth! The so-called acting personages whom he brings forward are not human beings with living flesh and blood, but miserable wooden puppets, which he deals with as he pleases, and which he causes to make all sorts of contortions and grimaces just as he needs them for his desired effects. But what an age it must be which not only renders such a book possible, and calls it into existence, but even finds it endurable and delightful." I think Goethe hit the nail on the head. Sadly, so much of this novel is utterly barbaric, lacking any kind of grace or subtlety.Did Hugo think his readers were naughty or something? He must have, because he sure seems to enjoy punishing them. ;)The first 200+ pages are a real snooze, and some of the digressions are nearly unbearable. Then for the next 100 pages are so, things pick up a bit. Toward the end, things get much more exciting. But even in the last 100 hundred pages, Hugo manages to interrupt the flow by throwing in a tedious 35-page chapter on Louis XI, which is almost unforgivable. As Goethe pointed out, the whole novel feels contrived—not organic. The characters are mostly two-dimensional. Very little about the novel seems realistic. For instance, it's hard to believe that la Esmeralda, who is "hopelessly devoted" to Captain Phoebus, would be so stupid as to sacrifice her own life over her silly infatuation with him. And the evil Claude Frollo lets la Esmeralda be condemned to death for his own crime, then goes to great lengths to "rescue" her, only to abandon her to the gallows once again? Does that make any sense? Unfortunately, Hugo seems to just yank his characters around for effect. Even worse, he is forever going on and on about the most trivial things; but the most important things—like character development—go woefully neglected.Perhaps the worst part of all is the horrific ending. After raising your hopes by accelerating the story, Hugo seems to enjoy just throwing everything to the dogs. As Avril Lavigne once put it: "So much for my happy ending." ;)Today, we frequently hear complaints about needless violence and gore on TV. Well, it's almost as if Hugo just tried to make the ending here as gruesome and depressing as possible in order to improve his "ratings." The whole ending is clumsy and half-baked. It's almost as if he ran out of good ideas, so he decided, "Hey, I know! I'll just throw in a ton of carnage and kill everybody off!!!!" Brilliant, huh? The conclusion just seems gratuitously macabre.Perhaps a better title for this novel would've been Blood 'n' Guts at Notre-Dame. :)What's more, the final two chapters are very strange. Even though the next-to-last chapter is called "Phoebus's Marriage," only the last sentence actually mentions him. And the final chapter is titled "Quasimodo's Marriage." Marriage???? Yeah, right.Of all the characters in the novel, the affectionate goat Djali is probably the most likable. Maybe Hugo should've just called the novel Hello, Djali!!! and made her the star while throwing out most of the other characters. LOL. Oddly enough, Hugo doesn't kill off Djali. And that makes you wonder—was he sick or something when he decided to let her live? ;)In a nutshell, this novel is a long, painful slog. While it does have its riveting moments, too much of it is bogged down in trivia, tedium, and gore. And there's very little depth or meaning. Since there are so many other better classics out there, I would not recommend reading this one. If you want to know something about the story, you might want to watch one of the film adaptations instead, even if it isn't that faithful to the original. Or if you do decide to read this book, I'd recommend going for an abridged version—trust me, you won't miss anything important. ;)

[cheryl_in_cc_nv · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

I must admit I don't remember it well, but after seeing a trailer for the Disney movie I decided to read the book. I do remember it was moving and interesting. And since I'm generally pretty disgusted with Disney versions of classics, I won't be comparing the two.

[theelliemo · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Truth be told, there are large chunks of this novel that could be removed without causing any detriment to the plot - it’s claimed Hugo was paid by the word, so he used a *lot* of them! - but it can not be denied that Hugo knew how to write a damn good story. This tale of the beautiful gypsy La Esmeralda, and the various men who loved or lusted after her, is rightly a classic.

[fingerpost_1 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

A little dry in parts, I would probably have enjoyed an abridged version more.

[kakadoo202 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

if it would not be for the long chapters of architecture about the church, this book would get 5 stars. This is really an action book with a highly dramatic ending. Great script for a movie.

[fothpaul · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

A bit tedious. The book seems to have had some sort of alternative agenda, but I'm a little unsure about what this was supposed to be. It hasn't aged well in my opinion, and I'm sure it would have been better received by Hugo's peers than by me.It took me a long time to read through the book and I found my thoughts wandering off quite a lot. The author has spent more time describing the architecture of 15th century Paris than his characters. This seemed to have been a dig at the architects of the 19th century, but was a little contrived and not particularly relevant for the rest of the story.

[ctpress_1 · Rating: 2 out of 5 stars]

This novel was a disappointing read. Disappointing because Les Miserable was so good. The tragic story is in itself a good one - and of course with the tragic hero climbing around at the top of Notre Dame as it's main imaginative creation. The other characters are deeply flawed characters: One enormously proud priest - a pompous poet - an angry hysterical poor woman, a violent captain and of course the irritatingly vain Esmeralda. The writing is full of over-the-top emotions, theatrical outbursts en masse and the characters remain very stereotype. It's very difficult to take serious in any way. To make matters worse, Hugo decides to insert long chapters on the history of Paris and a detail description of Notre Dame and other historical stuff. Come on, Hugo. Do we have to inspect every single corner of that church?The Huncback have been retold many times, and it might work very well as an opera or in an very abridged retold version for children. As it is read here - the original story - it's a no go.

[john257hopper · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

This was a re-read, prompted by a recent viewing of the very good 1982 film version starring Anthony Hopkins and Derek Jacobi. This is of course a Gothic classic, with some amazingly descriptive passages about the Cathedral and the streets of Paris, and a stunning, dramatic and tragic last few chapters (Book 11). Hugo being Hugo, there are also some slower and frustratingly distracting sections, particularly towards the beginning of the novel in the first three chapters of Book 1 and in Book 3. According to a note at the end of this edition (part of Delphi Classics Complete Works of Hugo on Kindle), some of these chapters were originally "lost" and restored in an edition published much later in Hugo's life. The novel would be better paced without them, frankly, or they could have been included in an appendix (as some of the equivalent chapters are in the Penguin paperback edition of Les Miserables, for example). Deservedly a classic for its timeless story of how one shouldn't judge character by appearances. 4.5/5

[ex_ottoyuhr · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

A difficult book to love -- almost as difficult as it is to hate. Hugo _knows_ his setting, all the more impressive when one considers how 'disreputable' the 15thC was considered to be during the 19th -- how little scholarship was being done on it. His characters are impossible to forget, and inspire very strong emotion for good or, in a few cases, ill (particularly Captain Phoebus, the ancestor of all jocks everywhere...); his writing style is splendid in every translation _I've_ ever read...And his plot is up to 19thC novel standards, that is to say, idiotic -- one could say that the book is a masterpiece if you ignore the things that happen in it, particularly at the end. Exactly what are the odds against the sequence of utterly implausible and contrived events that put you-know-who, who just so happens to be you-know-what-relation to Esmerelda, at you-know-where just in time for you-know-when and in order to foul up you-know-what? Or, for that matter, you-know-which-tortured-cleric just _happening_ to fall in with you-know-which-jock and you-know-which-brother just in time to hear you-know-who planning to you-know-which-reproductive-act with you-shouldn't-have-to-be-told-which-female-lead?The net result is that an otherwise great book is saddled with a plot worthy of a soap opera (or _Return of the Jedi_, as I mentioned in my review of _Tale of Two Cities_, which has the same problem for the same reason), and anyone who tries to describe said plot to anyone who hasn't read the book yet ends up looking and feeling like sixteen kinds of stupid. Blasted 19thC narratological conventions...(But hey, at least there aren't any killer albinos.)

[jwhenderson_1 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Several years ago I both read this book and saw an adaptation of it for the stage as a musical! They were both great productions. The original began appearing in the bookshops of Paris on March 16, 1831 as a new novel from the pen of Victor Hugo, Notre-Dame de Paris. This novel, which is now popularly known as "The Hunchback of Notre Dame", tells the emotionally exhausting tale of the penniless poet, Gringoire the demonic, lecherous priest, Frollo, the handsome, empty-headed, guardsman, Captain Phoebus, the deaf bell-ringer, Quasimodo, with his hump and his wart-obscured eye, and the beautiful gypsy girl they all fall in love with: Esmeralda, whose only friend in the world is her performing goat, Djali (the name Emma Bovary gives to her lap-dog twenty-six years later). The epicenter of the novel is the Gothic cathedral. In the minds of progressive Parisians, it was a shabby relic of the barbarian past. Hugo himself explored the cathedral climbing the bell-towers and it is there that he discovered his inspiration for the story. The story is sited in 1482 at the historical crossroads when the modern world was struggling to be born and when the printed word began to dominate and annihilate that older form of writing--architecture. Hugo's own "basketful of rubble" is reminiscent of the Renaissance novelist whose tale, though gargantuan, was also thought by some to be no better than rubble (The opposite is true and the wise reader should explore the beauty of Rabelais if he has not already done so). Hugo's novel is one of the great historical romances of all time with characters in the Hunchback Quasimodo, Esmeralda and Frollo who you will never forget. The City of Paris and the Cathedral of Notre Dame also come alive in Hugo's story and you see the power of love and loyalty that can persevere in the face of evil. The theme of justice also resounds in this novel almost as much as in Les Miserables. It is clear that this was an important concept for Hugo. For lovers of romantic historical literature this is a great read.

[chrisriesbeck · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

One doesn't review a classic of this stature, but given how well known the story is from other media, here are a few things I didn't expect in the real thing, if you accept the Modern Library anonymous translation as representative of the source material, and some things I did expect.Unexpected: the emphasis on architecture and city planning. Chapters of it. Comparing Paris of the 1400s, 1600s, and 1800s. The pages spent describing Notre Dame itself is but a fraction of what's covered. For the most part, this is not adjacent to the story, as is the lengthy descriptions of whaling in Moby Dick, it's just something Hugo wanted to write essays about. To that extent, it's like reading a Neal Stephenson book, but, for me, of way less interest.Unexpected: the many chapters of black humor. This is as much a comic novel as something like Catch-22, with a similar emphasis on the crazy but deadly logic of the system of culture and government. Virtually all chapters with Pierre, the poet-philosopher, are comic and he appears more often than Esmeralda or Quasimodo. Literally at the peak of the violence in the assault by the Vagabonds on Notre Dame, Hugo inserts a chapter with the king going over the budget, then taking a tour of his expensive new jail cell, where he and others comment on its solid construction and what it cost, while the occupants plead for mercy to no avail. Then, back to the action. Unexpected: the centrality of the archdeacon who lusts for Esmeralda. Pretty much everything that happens is the result of his actions. Beyond the obvious bit with Esmeralda, he adopted and placed Quasimodo at Notre Dame, he raised Jehan, a younger brother whose actions enable certain events at important points, he mentored Pierre the poet, who "marries" Esmeralda, and engineers the afore-mentioned assault, and he (the archdeacon) carries out several key action that dooms Esmeralda.Unexpected: how clearly Esmeralda dooms herself with her love for someone purely because he is handsome and wears a uniform, and how clearly that captain never had any thought but to bed her and leave her. Calling this a romance misses that the only expressions of love present are twisted ones.Expected: florid writing and overwrought passions. I had hopes when early on, with the following exchange after Esmeralda has rescued Pierre by her marrying him for four years by Vagabond custom. When she makes it clear they will not be bedmates, "Then you will not have me for your husband?" The damsel looked at him intently for a moment, and replied "No". "For your lover?" asked Gringoire. She pouted her lip and again replied "No." "For your friend?" continued Gringoire. She again fixed her eyes steadfastly upon him. "Perhaps" she said after a moment's reflection.Sadly, most other dialog is much more ornate, and full of swooning and impassioned pleas, etc. The opening chapters almost stopped me in their tracks with a very boring extended sequence involving the crowd attending a mystery (passion play of sorts) at Notre Dame. Eventually our primary characters emerge from a host of names but it's pretty confusing and slow going.Bottomline: despite chapters that made me wish for an abridged edition, I'm glad I took the time to read this epic tale.

[daizylee · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

One of my all-time favorites. Sadly underrated and overlooked. I think it's Hugo's best, most full work.

[drenglish-1 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

An odd book: the narrative drive is extremely fitful, to the extent that it doesn't at times disappear (as in, say, a sixty-page disquisition on Notre Dame as an exemplar of the history of architecture), and the characterizations are sometimes bizarre (Pierre Gringoire, a self-infatuated poet who seems to develop romantic feelings towards his accidental wife's pet goat). Like a lot of authors who do their research, Hugo seems too interested in what he's turned up to let it go no matter how it clogs up the flow. Nevertheless the novel pulls you along in the series of masterful set-pieces, never greater than in the shift of perspective at Esmeralda's death, that seem to be where Hugo's real power resides.

[jalenv_2 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Although I would have preferred that Mr. Hugo's digressions, such as the one about architecture through history, had been stuck in an appendix; I still enjoyed most of the book. The scene where poor Quasimodo was defending Notre Dame was very exciting. Imagine my dismay when I eagerly changed to the next CD and discovered Mr. Hugo had decided to interrupt the action for an annoying-sourly amusing-creepy scene involving King Louis XI, his finances, and some prisoners. Esmeralda's escape attempt left me tense even though I knew what to expect from my late mother's copy of Plot Outlines of 100 Famous Novels. There were times I wanted to scream in frustration at our heroine, but she wasn't even 17, poor kid. There's far more going on than any movie could hope to cover. Speaking of movies, I wonder how kids who grew up on the Disney version are going to react if they have to read the book for school. (One of my sisters read The Hunchback of Notre Dameit in school decades ago and remembered enough of the plot to be able to discuss it with me. That's staying power!)Mr. Guidall's narration was very good, too. I'm sorry that I waited so long to read this classic. While I think I can appreciate it more as a middle-aged adult than I would have in high school or college, I can think of books I had to read then that were much less enjoyable than this one.

[missboyer3 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Contrary to popular opinion the novel Le Notre Dame de Paris by Victor Hugo is not primarily about the deformed bell-ringer Quasimodo. Quasimodo's role is actually surprisingly small in the story, which makes you wonder why the English translater's chose "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" as the translation for the title. Actually, as the original French title would indicate, it is the cathedral itself that is the focus of the book. This is why in the unabridged editions of this book you will find numerous chapters that seemingly have nothing to do with the plot of the story. This is the books weakest point, and it may turn many people away from the book. Once you get into the plot, however, it is iimpossible to put the book down. The characters are intriguing: composer Pierre Gringoire, archdeacon Dom Claude Frollo, once a paragon of virtue now tormented by his corrupt love for a gipsy girl, L'Esmerelda, the naive gipsy dancer, Phoebus, the selfish, egotistical captain of the guards, and of course Qausimodo, a deaf, deformed bellringer. The relationships between these characters are complex and dark but they make an unforgettable story. The story is never, from front to back, a happy one, so if you are looking for a book that makes you "feel good" this is not the one for you. If, on the other hand, you are looking for a good book to read, that is unafraid to deal with the darker side of reality, I highly recommend "The Hunchback of Notre Dame."