The Hunchback of Notre Dame

By Victor Hugo

The Hunchback of Notre Dame (French: Notre-Dame de Paris) is an 1831 French novel written by Victor Hugo. It is set in 1482 in Paris, in and around the cathedral of Notre Dame de Paris. The book tells the story of a poor barefoot Gypsy girl (La Esmeralda) and a misshapen bell-ringer (Quasimodo) who was raised by the Archdeacon (Claude Frollo). The book was written as a statement to preserve the Notre Dame cathedral and not to 'modernize' it, as Hugo was thoroughly against this.

The story begins during the Renaissance in 1482, the day of the Festival of Fools in Paris. Quasimodo, the deformed bell ringer, is introduced by his crowning as Pope of Fools.

Esméralda, a beautiful 16-year-old gypsy with a kind and generous heart, captures the hearts of many men but especially Quasimodo’s adopted father, Claude Frollo. Frollo is torn between his lust and the rules of the church. He orders Quasimodo to get her. Quasimodo is caught and whipped and ordered to be tied down in the heat. Esméralda seeing his thirst, offers him water. It saves her, for she captures the heart of the hunchback.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Sheba Blake Publishing
• Release date: Dec 30, 2013
• ISBN: 9781304739759

Victor Hugo

Victor Hugo (1802-1885) was a French poet and novelist. Born in Besançon, Hugo was the son of a general who served in the Napoleonic army. Raised on the move, Hugo was taken with his family from one outpost to the next, eventually setting with his mother in Paris in 1803. In 1823, he published his first novel, launching a career that would earn him a reputation as a leading figure of French Romanticism. His Gothic novel The Hunchback of Notre-Dame (1831) was a bestseller throughout Europe, inspiring the French government to restore the legendary cathedral to its former glory. During the reign of King Louis-Philippe, Hugo was elected to the National Assembly of the French Second Republic, where he spoke out against the death penalty and poverty while calling for public education and universal suffrage. Exiled during the rise of Napoleon III, Hugo lived in Guernsey from 1855 to 1870. During this time, he published his literary masterpiece Les Misérables (1862), a historical novel which has been adapted countless times for theater, film, and television. Towards the end of his life, he advocated for republicanism around Europe and across the globe, cementing his reputation as a defender of the people and earning a place at Paris’ Panthéon, where his remains were interred following his death from pneumonia. His final words, written on a note only days before his death, capture the depth of his belief in humanity: “To love is to act.”

Reviews for The Hunchback of Notre Dame

[justagirlwithabook · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

Yikes. I didn't know what I was signing up for when I invited people to join me in a buddy read of what is more commonly known as The Hunchback of Notre Dame. Part of me wishes to apologize even (we were all so excited and then it turned out the way it did). It started out good, funny even, and then it turned ugly really quickly. I don't know that there was one honorable male character in the whole book, but at least the pet goat didn't die, and we'll always have that. Was it a valuable reading experience? Yes. Will I ever pick it up again? Nope.

[electrascaife · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Welp, *that* was different from the Disney movie. And I loved it. I found the details about the cathedral and the city of Paris both lovely and a bit of a slog, if that's possible, but the story itself was fantastic, with an ending that I both loved and hated and loved to hate. The dark humor sprinkled throughout was wonderful and almost all the characters were excellently well-drawn. Esmeralda herself, funnily enough, is the only exception here, whose one-sidedness was doubly annoying - annoying for being one-sided, and also that one side of her character was itself frustratingly simple and meek. Overall, though, I'm thoroughly happy that I read this one, finally.

[dandelionroots · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

While reading, I was considering the merits of abridged versions of classical works, but at the end - FUCK.My only experience with this tale was Disney - I knew their version was rot-your-teeth, sugar coated but duuuuuuude.SPOILER ALERT:In the late 1400s, a priest is infatuated with a gypsy girl who is in love with a soldier who is a P.O.S. (except when compared with the priest then he comes out favorably). The soldier is about to get lucky with the gypsy girl when the priest intervenes and stabs him. The gypsy girl is arrested and sentenced to hang as a witch. The hunchback (saved and raised by the priest) is also infatuated with the gypsy girl - he at least respects her bubble and moreso seems to recognize her as a human being - and thus rescues her from the scaffold temporarily protecting her with the sanctuary of Notre Dame ('cept that's the priest's crib!). The gypsy ends up "escaping" the church to find her long-lost mother grieving in a self-inflicted, weather-exposed dungeon (prayer cell). The guard catches up with her - her mother's skull is bashed in while the gypsy hangs. The hunchback pushes the priest off the ramparts of Notre Dame then finds and cuddles up with the corpse of the gypsy, rotting together. The soldier survived and marries (fate worse than death for him).I wish I could call this a caricature, but that would imply that it's exaggerated - this is the depth of absurdity that society had reached and the descent continues.But apparently it's really about the importance of preserving architecture from earlier ages. Aye, aye Hugo.#drunkreview

[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.

[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.

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

Zeer onwaarschijnlijk verhaal, maar wel zeer sterke sfeerschepping en tot op grote hoogte meeslepend. Figuren:-Frollo: soort van Faust (zelfs uitdrukkelijke verwijzing)-Quasimodo: het menselijke monster-Esmeralda: intrigerend, sterke vrouw, maar toch niet goed uitgewerkt-Gringoire: praatvaar en opportunistVooral het einde is zeer ongeloofwaardig.Duidelijk snelschrijverij, maar niettemin krachttoer

[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!

[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.

[m.belljackson · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

After reading the first five pages and realizing I was in the hands of a master story teller, I started over, more slowly.Victor Hugo totally draws readers in - to each plot, location, and to the finest nuances of each character, from wild humor tothe worst human desperations. Most vividly rendered in a few words.Unfortunately, for us tender hearted, he is also the master of horror and does not hesitate to unleash his powersin many directions."The Bird's Eye View of Paris" and Notre-Dame chapters could be greatly enhanced by photographs and illustrations.1/2 Star missing because of the wholly untimely and boring chapter dominated by the King.

[maxernst11 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

Zeer onwaarschijnlijk verhaal, maar wel zeer sterke sfeerschepping en tot op grote hoogte meeslepend. Figuren:-Frollo: soort van Faust (zelfs uitdrukkelijke verwijzing)-Quasimodo: het menselijke monster-Esmeralda: intrigerend, sterke vrouw, maar toch niet goed uitgewerkt-Gringoire: praatvaar en opportunistVooral het einde is zeer ongeloofwaardig.Duidelijk snelschrijverij, maar niettemin krachttoer

[sturmer-1 · Rating: 2 out of 5 stars]

I think I pointlessly ruined my enjoyment of this book by reading this abridged version. Anyway what I've read is barely a good book. I can't help suspecting it didn't help reading it in French, of which so many words I ignore. I'll count it as part of my growth; and I can always give a shot at the complete version a couple of years from now.

That said, the art of Hugo shines nevertheless. The characters, the descriptions of the place, the plot, heck, the whole idea of this story is genius. But the events seem sometimes juxtaposed, piled one on top of the other by force, rather than by grace. I would suggest anyone to go for the complete version; I doubt that Hugo would be capable of this.

[jo1968_1 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

When one is doing evil 'tis madness to stop half-way.

[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.

[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.

[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. ;)

[john5918 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

A beautiful and tragic book.

[christajls · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

This review originally posted at Christa's Hooked on BooksBefore reading Victor Hugo's classic whenever someone mentioned, The Hunchback of Notre Dame I usually thought of the Disney version. I'm sure I'm not the only one.It's actually quite shocking. These two ideas could not be more different from one another. (Although I would be lying if I said the Disney music didn't play through my head the whole time I was reading).In reality, this book is much more gruesome than Disney would have us believe. There is much more violence than I would have expected. This is not to say that it is too much or that it is gory. But it is dark. There are few (if any really) bright and shiny scenes, where everything work out. In my opinion this makes it much more gritty and much more interesting. The characters are more human, they have more depth.I found this version (i.e the real version) really helped you get to know the “villains” of the story. In particular Frollo. My previous opinion of him was a cold hearted, sadistic man, who cared for no one and nothing but himself. In actuality there is so much more to him than that. You really get to know him and his history. Though not pure by any means, he's not heartless either. He actually ended up being one of my favourite characters in the book.The one tragic flaw of this book, however, is it's repeated history lessons. Be prepared for very long descriptions of French architecture, music, the printing press etc. Hugo spares no detail! These often went on for pages, and a couple of times I was very tempted to abandon the book because of them. But if you can survive them they will add a nice touch to the story, in that all your settings will be much more vivid and the class divisions touched upon will make much more sense.All in all, this is a good book. It's longer than it needs to be, but the story is solid and the characters are well thought out. In true Gothic fashion it is dark and dreary but it's not that depressing. There's action, adventure and mystery. If nothing else it will ensure that visiting Paris and Notre Dame will be added to your bucket list.

[quaintlittlehead · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

"The Hunchback of Notre Dame" is my first Victor Hugo, and the comments I had previously heard about the vividness of his descriptive prose were certainly proved by this work. By the halfway point in the book, it seemed as if not very much had happened yet, but once I got used to the style, I didn't really mind. The story has a satisfying ambiguity to it; there is not just a black and white delineation between hero and villain, nor are the moral points of the story overtly spelled out. The reader walks away with lots to think about from the plot alone; intermingled with this are Hugo's interesting ideas about how literature has supplanted the role of architecture in society (in a chapter which, strangely, was almost lost to history). Many have posited the role of Notre Dame itself as a character in the book, but Hugo too almost becomes a character, in that the way this story gets told probably could not have been told the same by anyone else. This is one of those strange books that doesn't take hold as an immediate favourite and yet won't get its hooks out of you.The Barnes and Noble edition features a nice introduction by Isabel Roche, who in the series' featured "Inspired by This Work" section is far kinder to the Disney version of this story than I would have expected. Her footnotes are immensely helpful throughout the book, her endnotes less so. If you are a reader who perpetually gets exhausted by having your pinky finger in the back of a very large volume, skipping the few pages of endnotes probably won't bother you too much.

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

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

[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.

[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!

[aketzle · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Very cool how much research went into making this a learning experience about Paris in this time period, as well as a fantastic story. Learned a lot about architecture and all kinds of things. This is why I love historically accurate fiction!

[schmerguls · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

When I finished this book I said: "Finished tonight (it's 11:45) Hunchback of Notre Dame. There is no doubt: Victor Hugo could write (yet...in way it seems forced: like I would write if I could."

[mmmmtoasty · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

My first foray into 1800s literature has not been a bad one. Hugo draws the reader in with a unique narrative style that not only gives a large sense of authenticity to the story with its direct, 4th wall breaking notions to the reader- as if being lectured to on a history lesson in school, but also gives a sense of life to the world in which the story takes place in by changing perspectives constantly and making use of side characters to transition from one scene to another very effectively. Other novels have done this before, I'm sure, but I'd imagine few have done so to this extent. Add to this some wonderful imagery and you have the novel's greatest strength at hand: world building/scene setting. I challenge anyone to bring forth a more living, detailed, and breathing version of Paris than Hugo has done in this novel.

That said and done, there are a few flaws I have with the actual meat of the story. Some are subjective, such as Hugo's tackling of philosophical and societal issues through characters that are obviously not very good at defending the side they are supposed to be representing. For example, I believe the trial scene with La Esmeralda was supposed to be part of the not-so-subtle on-going critique towards capital punishment as a concept, where he portrays the system as one-sided, quick, and easily manipulated by personal bias on the judges' part. The problem is, in order to do this he makes use of unbelievably moronic characters, such as Captain Phoebus, whom we are to believe cares more about his own lust and pride than the life of an innocent, or the fact that literally no one decides to double check the judge's assertion on the victim's physical condition, or the fact that no one wonders why the priest, of all people and whom La Esmeralda claimed to be the real assailant, visited her alone during her imprisonment. It's just unrealistic, and there are several other philosophical critiques of his that are affected by this, such as his commentary on blind love/loyalty. I mean, it's all fine and dandy to present the flaws of an ideology you're critiquing through one-sided exaggeration in order to get your message across I suppose, but it just comes off as a bit too... Ayn Rand-ish to me.

Aside from that, the biggest universal complaint of the story is the one-dimensional aspect to about 75% of the characters, to which I would agree. It's not so much that they're uninteresting from a personality perspective, so much as their character development and motivations come off as very contrived across the board in an attempt to shoehorn them into the more melodramatic roles of the story. I also take issue with the fact that the two most interesting characters- the old praying woman and poet, played relatively small roles in the story. All in all though, Hugo has presented some very unique storytelling ideas here and has built a truly authentic Paris. Though the story isn't very good, especially from a character-driven perspective, it is still worth reading if nothing but for the interesting narrative experimentation and metaphorical commentary on cultural revolution by use of architecture.

TL;DR: Style over substance.

[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.

[ursula_2 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

In some ways, this reads like an odd book. If you read it for the story involving Esmeralda, the beautiful young gypsy girl, Quasimodo the hunchback bell-ringer and Frollo the archdeacon, you may be put off or annoyed by the digressions into the layout of Paris, or the architecture of Notre Dame, or a treatise on architecture in general and why newer isn't always better. For me, I found it created some odd pacing and I wondered if perhaps at one time it was more common to set a scene in such minute detail. But in reading about the book after the fact, I see that in many ways, the story about Esmeralda and company are actually the digressions from the main text, which was Hugo's views about Gothic architecture. Well, it's probably a good thing he put a story around all of that, or it probably would have been a hard sell. (His views, by the way, boil down to "Kids these days! Get off my lawn!")So all right, back to the story that people actually want to read - the gypsy, the bell-ringer, the handsome captain, the archdeacon, and of course, the goat. While reading, I was a little surprised by how few good guys there were - it was very interesting to see that beauty didn't equate to good in Hugo's world. In fact, the moral of the story might be instead of "all that glitters is not gold," "all that glitters is not only not gold, it's got a sharp edge that was probably dipped in poison." As far as the writing goes, for a novel written in the early 1800s, the story skipped along quite quickly, and although some twists were telegraphed far ahead of time, others weren't at all. Well worth the read.Recommended for: people who only know the Disney version of the story, those intimately familiar with Paris, people who prefer animals to humans.Quote: "And then, from morning till night, I have the happiness of passing all my days with a man of genius, who is myself, which is very agreeable."

[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.

[rosenstern · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

The classic tale set against the marvelously detailed description of the city. The story about Quasimodo, but it starts with him being praised. The hatred/prejudice comes only after misunderstandings. The overbearing message- ignorance breeds hatred. Worth the read.

[jvioland_1 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

A great work by one of the world's greatest authors. Complete excitement. It is not like any movie. I was shocked to discover this but it makes a much better read. Far more realistic.

[eruditescythian · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

If I could give this book ten stars I would.