The Hunchback of Notre Dame

By Victor Hugo

A mad priest, a vagabond playwright, a social-climbing soldier, and a deformed bell-ringer — all are captivated by a gypsy girl's beauty and charm. Two of them will betray her, but the others will remain loyal, even in the shadow of the gallows. These outlaws find sanctuary within the walls of medieval Paris' greatest monument, the grand Cathedral of Notre Dame.
"What a beautiful thing Notre-Dame is!" declared Gustave Flaubert of Victor Hugo's 1837 novel. Originally published as Notre-Dame de Paris (Our Lady of Paris), it was conceived as a story of the cathedral itself, which functioned as the passionate heart of fifteenth-century city life. But Hugo's human drama rivals the Gothic masterpiece for dominance. Drawn with humor and compassion, his characters endure, both in literary history and in readers' imaginations: Frollo, the sinister archdeacon; Quasimodo, the hideous hunchback; and the enchanting outcast, Esmeralda.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Dover Publications
• Release date: Jun 11, 2012
• ISBN: 9780486114507

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[she_climber · Rating: 1 out of 5 stars]

Not sure if it was the narrator or the story itself but after listening to 2 hours of this audio I couldn't take it anymore. If it weren't for the Disney movie I really would have had no clue what was going on in the story. Sad because I've really like a lot of the other classics that I've done recently on audio - this just wasn't meant to be.

[ricky21_1 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

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

[deebee1_1 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

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.

[aikon_5 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

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.

[rebeccaann_1 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

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 ;-)

[soylentgreen23 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

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.

[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.

[m2andrews · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Before reading, I was struck by the original French title, which makes no mention of the Hunchback of Notre-Dame, but only of the cathedral itself. This makes complete sense, when reading the novel, as one almost feels as though, at points, Hugo is simply writing a biography of the cathedral. He devotes a considerable number of pages describing the building's inner anatomy from the bells to the crypt. This devotion spurred a revival in mid-nineteenth century French architecture, with many Parisians restoring buildings to their former glory. Ultimately, though, Hugo describes the novel as being the victor over architecture. It is the novel which can put civilisations' greatest ideas in to the hands of all people, in a way that only architecture was able to in a bygone age. This Oxford translation was quite stunning: at numerous points I had to re-read a sentence just to grasp a beautiful turn-of-phrase, and wondered at what Hugo wrote in the original French text. There are points where Hugo departs from the central storyline in order to ponder at length over one of the central character's views on philosophy, religion, architecture, or literature. At these junctures in the narrative, it can sometimes be quite tricky to pick the novel back up and return to where you left off. I got the most out of the novel when reading it in huge chunks, as I was able to return to the narrative with greater ease. In hindsight, I wonder, if there were moments where I would have appreciated a deeper insight in to the characters' lives before the novel. Surely Hugo could have pondered much longer on Quasimodo's loneliness, his place in the world, his relationship with the God who had made him and the struggles that he had to face in a world which poured scorn on him in so many ways. Hugo prefers, I assume, to share these nuggets through narrative and subtle association. The depiction of Frollo's lust and demise is so maddeningly described in places, for example, that it makes for gripping reading – at times, it felt like reading a modern thriller. I can only guess at the kind of reaction this novel would have received in the nineteenth century. The way in which Hugo intertwines the theological consequences of his demise with his pursuit of Esmerelda's matrimony, is so superbly done. In the end, his pursuit of her leads him to openly reject God and paradise, in exchange for his vacuous (and fatal) lust for Esmerelda. At one point, Hugo writes about his point of no return: 'I drew myself up; I fled; but alas! something within me had fallen never to rise again, something had come upon me from which I could not flee.' If you like long classic novels, then you may enjoy Notre Dame, although you may be put off by the long passages on architecture – if I was to read this again, I would probably aim to read it while sailing down the Seine! This was my second attempt at getting through the book: this time I got to the end, and it was certainly worth it.

[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.

[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.

[eruditescythian · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

If I could give this book ten stars I would.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[petroglyph_1 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

This was a fun read. I was unfamiliar with most of the story or the politics, not having seen the Disney version (a lacuna now filled), and came to it mostly spoiler-free. Notre-Dame de Paris was this year’s Big French Classic (following Thérèse Raquin and Le comte de Monte-Cristo), and I’ve enjoyed working my way through this delightfully dark, if melodramatic, Gothic Novel. It felt very filmic in the way it set scenes and gathered momentum for its spectacle through imagery, and I mean that as a compliment. And of course, it featured an awesome villain -- entirely believable in his zealous self-righteousness and post facto rationalisations. Even so, a few portions of this 1831 book were a slog to get through. Not Hugo’s digressions on what 1480s Paris looked like, or his tract on Architecture vs the Printing Press, or the Alchemy subplot that went nowhere -- I was mostly on board with those. The incredibly obvious setups for later “reveals”, on the other hand, did make me check the pagecount. The intervening two centuries or so of media and storytelling do make a difference. I wasn’t too keen on the cheap melodrama, either, or the Manic Pixie Dream Girl -- a trope I tend to shun. Most of what I disliked about the book can be chalked up to its age (melodrama, unsubtle setups for reveals); and most of what I liked (opinionated author, the setting, the spectacle, and the surprising darkness) I feel are good features to have in novels. Two thumbs up!

[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!

[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.

[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.

[dufflepuds · Rating: 2 out of 5 stars]

A good classic but somehow drifted off away from the real plot. I know that the descriptive language was suppose to make you imagine that you're in that place but somehow I find that less enjoyable.

[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."

[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.

[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.

[johnthefireman · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

A beautiful and tragic book.