It is difficult to read but just when I was about to give up on the book he drew me in with his character depictions and exciting storyline. Hugo killed a lot of people in this book, pity about the gruesome death of Esmerelda though. A true gothic novel.💀👿☠
Yes, definitely feel the same! I found the first 50 or so pages pretty difficult but it became really great as soon as it 'zoomed in' on the characters :) I actually knew about Esmeralda's death before reading the book, but was still shocked when it happened. Really bleak!
Glad you loved it too! It's one of the novels that got me really excited about classics, and it seems French novels from this time were especially good. I read Germinal by Emile Zola later this year and loved it just as much. I plan on reading Madame Bovary later this year :) Thanks for commenting!
The best film version is the Charles Leighton one. The worse version film version is the Anthony Hopkins one. "...the bells,the bells..." . Great book.
I think Disney's focus on Quasimodo is because of the amazing acting performance of Lon Chaney Sr in the 1923 silent film _The Hunchback of Notre-Dame_. Lon Chaney did his own make-up, which was ground-breaking at the time. I recommend watching the film. Hugo does tend to dribble on, but it seems to have been the trend at the time. And you cannot mention the timeframe without mentioning Napoleon; name-dropping sells copies (and gets you short-listed on book award lists )
Oh yes, I knew the Disney version was more based on the silent film, and I've seen it too! Pretty great :D I'm totally happy with adaptations taking liberties like that. Definitely was the trend! Some do it better than others though, haha. I really like the non-narrative interludes (the "This Will Replace That" monologue and the one that parallels Notre Dame's inconsistent architecture with Quasimodo's deformities especially), but some wear out the welcome. Like that part where Hugo talks about the history of Paris, but then devolves into just listing out buildings that no longer exist. I still mostly like those parts though! Thanks for the comment and insights! :D
Late to the party on my comment but nice review. Admittedly, after slogging through a few hours of his non-narrative descriptions of architecture, I began skipping those sections. I found the book good and the characters remarkably frustratingly. Many of the main characters could be seen as archetypes of unhealthy or non-ideal love, including lust, obsession, naivety, convenience, and a sort of groveling/self-loathing worship (I’m trying to not give away spoilers by providing names). I think everyone eventually chooses their own downfall and acts against their best interests. That is, you may say, what makes it a romantic novel, and perhaps makes it a great novel, but nonetheless, it is frustrating to read at times. I kept telling “Come on, people! Really?” 😅 I just finished it today so my thoughts are still percolating. Thanks for sharing yours!
Thanks so much for sharing your thoughts! No such thing as a late comment :) Definitely, Hugo wasn't trying to endorse the character's behaviors--the tragedy is baked right into their human flaws, while still making characters mostly empathetic, and I think that's what makes the book work so well! I was okay with Esmeralda being naive especially because of her age, and I've known people from rough backgrounds who are equally eager to believe in perfect love and blind to how toxic the relationship is. Glad you liked it despite the drawbacks! Thanks again for sharing!
To be honest this novel is much more appreciated in France, or most certainly used to be in Hugo's time than in our time. I loved Les Miserables and this novel much less. However, it is still worthwhile reading it just for the gun that Hugo makes us go through. For example, after telling my nephew that having finished Les Miserables, I now intended to read Notre Dame he said : " Ah, so from the sewers of Paris to the architecture of Notre Dame; have fun ! " ,He is right,though. Hugo did love long complicated descriptions and digressions. I am patient and carry on, must admit rather slower than usual, but will not give in. Kind regards from GB. PS: Apologize for UT typos but cannot do much about them 😊
Thanks for the comment! I think it'll be a while still before I try to tackle Les Miserables, but it sounds promising that it's even better than Hunchback :)
It is difficult to read but just when I was about to give up on the book he drew me in with his character depictions and exciting storyline. Hugo killed a lot of people in this book, pity about the gruesome death of Esmerelda though. A true gothic novel.💀👿☠
Yes, definitely feel the same! I found the first 50 or so pages pretty difficult but it became really great as soon as it 'zoomed in' on the characters :) I actually knew about Esmeralda's death before reading the book, but was still shocked when it happened. Really bleak!
oh, I too loved this book so much. I'm a little late to your upload of this video but we read it around the same time which I find really nice
Glad you loved it too! It's one of the novels that got me really excited about classics, and it seems French novels from this time were especially good. I read Germinal by Emile Zola later this year and loved it just as much. I plan on reading Madame Bovary later this year :) Thanks for commenting!
The best film version is the Charles Leighton one.
The worse version film version is the Anthony Hopkins one.
"...the bells,the bells..." .
Great book.
I'll have to check out that adaptation! I've still only seen the old silent film and the Disney one. Thanks! :)
I think Disney's focus on Quasimodo is because of the amazing acting performance of Lon Chaney Sr in the 1923 silent film _The Hunchback of Notre-Dame_. Lon Chaney did his own make-up, which was ground-breaking at the time. I recommend watching the film.
Hugo does tend to dribble on, but it seems to have been the trend at the time. And you cannot mention the timeframe without mentioning Napoleon; name-dropping sells copies (and gets you short-listed on book award lists )
Oh yes, I knew the Disney version was more based on the silent film, and I've seen it too! Pretty great :D I'm totally happy with adaptations taking liberties like that.
Definitely was the trend! Some do it better than others though, haha. I really like the non-narrative interludes (the "This Will Replace That" monologue and the one that parallels Notre Dame's inconsistent architecture with Quasimodo's deformities especially), but some wear out the welcome. Like that part where Hugo talks about the history of Paris, but then devolves into just listing out buildings that no longer exist. I still mostly like those parts though!
Thanks for the comment and insights! :D
Late to the party on my comment but nice review. Admittedly, after slogging through a few hours of his non-narrative descriptions of architecture, I began skipping those sections.
I found the book good and the characters remarkably frustratingly. Many of the main characters could be seen as archetypes of unhealthy or non-ideal love, including lust, obsession, naivety, convenience, and a sort of groveling/self-loathing worship (I’m trying to not give away spoilers by providing names).
I think everyone eventually chooses their own downfall and acts against their best interests. That is, you may say, what makes it a romantic novel, and perhaps makes it a great novel, but nonetheless, it is frustrating to read at times. I kept telling “Come on, people! Really?” 😅
I just finished it today so my thoughts are still percolating. Thanks for sharing yours!
Thanks so much for sharing your thoughts! No such thing as a late comment :)
Definitely, Hugo wasn't trying to endorse the character's behaviors--the tragedy is baked right into their human flaws, while still making characters mostly empathetic, and I think that's what makes the book work so well! I was okay with Esmeralda being naive especially because of her age, and I've known people from rough backgrounds who are equally eager to believe in perfect love and blind to how toxic the relationship is.
Glad you liked it despite the drawbacks! Thanks again for sharing!
To be honest this novel is much more appreciated in France, or most certainly used to be in Hugo's time than in our time.
I loved Les Miserables and this novel much less. However, it is still worthwhile reading it just for the gun that Hugo makes us go through. For example, after telling my nephew that having finished Les Miserables, I now intended to read Notre Dame he said : " Ah, so from the sewers of Paris to the architecture of Notre Dame; have fun ! " ,He is right,though. Hugo did love long complicated descriptions and digressions.
I am patient and carry on, must admit rather slower than usual, but will not give in.
Kind regards from GB.
PS: Apologize for UT typos but cannot do much about them 😊
Thanks for the comment! I think it'll be a while still before I try to tackle Les Miserables, but it sounds promising that it's even better than Hunchback :)