The Hunchback of Notre Dame

By Victor Hugo

This historically significant novel of love and betrayal led to a renewed interest in preserving the grand architecture of Paris.

Victor Hugo’s The Hunchback of Notre Dame was written in 1831, at a time when the Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris was falling into disrepair. This epic novel helped spark a preservationist movement that led to the cathedral being restored to its full glory. Set in 1482, the story tells of how four men—the hunchbacked bell-ringer, Quasimodo; the archdeacon of Notre Dame, Claude Frollo; the dashing soldier Phoebus de Chateaupers; and the poet Pierre Gringoire—vie for the love of Esmeralda, a young Romani woman. As the story unfolds, readers come to realize that the focus of the story is not only on the human characters but on the grand cathedral itself. 
 

• Language: English
• Publisher: Canterbury Classics
• Release date: Apr 14, 2020
• ISBN: 9781645171836

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[crewman_number_6 · Rating: 1 out of 5 stars]

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

[sariebearie · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Extremely underrated. Hugo's most famous work is without a doubt Les Mis but I can never figure out why. Hunchback is beautiful and tragic and lovely and heartbreaking. Richly detailed but not to the point of tedium. Dramatic characters but still beleivable. It's a kaleidoscope of emotion and fulfills everything you could want in a book. My all time favourite.

[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.)

[xvpatchvx · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Great! Fast paced and terrific! See and then watch the movie for a different interpretation!

[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.

[nicole_a_davis · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

Victor Hugo is so long-winded and overly detailed. I had to skim through every other chapter where he describes the layout of the city. I got so bored working my way through all that!

[irisheyz77 · Rating: 2 out of 5 stars]

Hugo is too long-winded and overly detailed. I was majorly bored with his heavy detail on a building or a road...so many details that they often detracted from the story.

[fingerpost_1 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

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

[sweetbriarpoet · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Victor Hugo has always wowed me with his ability to arrange language, with his broad cast of characters (who never resemble each other, but who still are believable and have endless amounts of humanity), and with his seemingly effortless flow from plot to subplot to unsuspected and terrific endings. Hunchback is one of those novels that reminds an author why they love to write: the outcome can be phenomenal.

[tryion · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

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

[saraprindiville · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

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

[jkorta_2 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

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

[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.

[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.

[eruditescythian · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

If I could give this book ten stars I would.

[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.

[wanderlust_lost · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

This book is amazing. It\'s more about the conflict of old vs. new, of architecture vs. literature, than it is about man vs. man. It\'s beautifully written and deeply tragic. I loved it.

[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.