Not sure how they made a Disney movie of this book, seeing as how the entire thing is about sex. Good book, though. ( )

3.5* based upon my unabridged Kindle edition:
Hugo will never be one of my favorite authors because, while I can tolerate his lengthy digressions, I don't really like them. I found myself surprisingly angry by the end of the book; I guess my tolerance for men obessessed with a woman and making it all her fault has substantially diminished.

It is an excellent book and the characters are all well portrayed - I think it is because Claude Frollo was so believable that he made me so mad! ( )

One doesn't review a classic of this stature, but given how well known the story is from other media, here are a few things I didn't expect in the real thing, if you accept the Modern Library anonymous translation as representative of the source material, and some things I did expect.

Unexpected: the emphasis on architecture and city planning. Chapters of it. Comparing Paris of the 1400s, 1600s, and 1800s. The pages spent describing Notre Dame itself is but a fraction of what's covered. For the most part, this is not adjacent to the story, as is the lengthy descriptions of whaling in Moby Dick, it's just something Hugo wanted to write essays about. To that extent, it's like reading a Neal Stephenson book, but, for me, of way less interest.

Unexpected: the many chapters of black humor. This is as much a comic novel as something like Catch-22, with a similar emphasis on the crazy but deadly logic of the system of culture and government. Virtually all chapters with Pierre, the poet-philosopher, are comic and he appears more often than Esmeralda or Quasimodo. Literally at the peak of the violence in the assault by the Vagabonds on Notre Dame, Hugo inserts a chapter with the king going over the budget, then taking a tour of his expensive new jail cell, where he and others comment on its solid construction and what it cost, while the occupants plead for mercy to no avail. Then, back to the action.

Unexpected: the centrality of the archdeacon who lusts for Esmeralda. Pretty much everything that happens is the result of his actions. Beyond the obvious bit with Esmeralda, he adopted and placed Quasimodo at Notre Dame, he raised Jehan, a younger brother whose actions enable certain events at important points, he mentored Pierre the poet, who "marries" Esmeralda, and engineers the afore-mentioned assault, and he (the archdeacon) carries out several key action that dooms Esmeralda.

Unexpected: how clearly Esmeralda dooms herself with her love for someone purely because he is handsome and wears a uniform, and how clearly that captain never had any thought but to bed her and leave her. Calling this a romance misses that the only expressions of love present are twisted ones.

Expected: florid writing and overwrought passions. I had hopes when early on, with the following exchange after Esmeralda has rescued Pierre by her marrying him for four years by Vagabond custom. When she makes it clear they will not be bedmates,

"Then you will not have me for your husband?"
The damsel looked at him intently for a moment, and replied "No".
"For your lover?" asked Gringoire.
She pouted her lip and again replied "No."
"For your friend?" continued Gringoire.
She again fixed her eyes steadfastly upon him. "Perhaps" she said after a moment's reflection.

Sadly, most other dialog is much more ornate, and full of swooning and impassioned pleas, etc. The opening chapters almost stopped me in their tracks with a very boring extended sequence involving the crowd attending a mystery (passion play of sorts) at Notre Dame. Eventually our primary characters emerge from a host of names but it's pretty confusing and slow going.

Bottomline: despite chapters that made me wish for an abridged edition, I'm glad I took the time to read this epic tale. ( )

What a power masterpiece of literature The Hunchback of Notre-Dame is to the French culture. Victor Hugo does a good job drawing you into the story and giving you emotions to Quasimodo, La Esmeralda, Claude Frollo, Phoebus de Châteaupers, Pierre Gringore, Paquette la Chantefleurie, et. al. Before reading this I suggest skimming (no skipping) the long chapters on the histories of Paris and the Notre-Dame de Paris only because they aren't key to the storytelling but important to know Hugo wrote the novel to promote the beauty of Gothic architecture. Also keep in mind this is NOT suitable for children unless supervised due to the part where Frollo attempts to rape Esmeralda. Overall, this is one of the best novels I've read in the historical, romantic, and Gothic genres. ( )

We know The Hunchback of Notre-Dame is Victor Hugo's classic masterpiece for a reason, but it did take me a while to understand why. It starts slowly, with several treatises embedded in the text. Hugo is particularly inflamed by the failure to maintain the Medieval architectural structures of France. In this regard, the Cathedral is itself a major character in his novel.

As for the story, it is a romantic tale of love, abuse of power, political and religious corruption, the moral state of humanity, the injustice of justice, the futility of love, the inability of man to see beyond the surface and love for what is beneath, and the fleeting effects of beauty on life. The only character who truly loves is the misshapen Quasimodo, who loves Esmeralda more than self. Because he has been conditioned to think himself beyond being loved by anyone, he takes all of his affections and heaps them upon the object of his desires without any expectation of any return.

Frollo the Archdeacon is a malevolent character, but this is tempered by what we know about him prior to his falling for Esmerelda's charms. It is he who has saved Quasimodo when no one else would have even considered doing so, and he has raised and cared for his worthless brother past all duty and obligation. At the same time, he is the poster child for those who lament "if I can't have you, no one can." To the bitter end, I hoped that his better nature would win out, but even in the face of knowing his soul was at stake, he persisted in feeding his evil character.

By its conclusion, the story has become a tragedy of great proportions. I was reminded of the final lines of Romeo and Juliet in which the Prince laments "all are punished." Goodness does not win any quarter for Esmeralda, who dies piteously and the only kindness given her mother is that she expires before she can see her daughter hanged. Both Frollos get what is coming to them and Quasimodo suffers the fate he chooses in the absence of saving his love. Only Djali can be said to have a happy end, Gringoire will doubtless make him a fine master.

Had someone asked me if I knew this story, I would have said "yes". I would have been wrong. I had many misconceptions about both the plot and the themes Hugo addressed. It is apparent why this story has survived time and still has impact and meaning for a modern audience: Love is often still unrequited for the wrong reasons; we still fail to see the quality in someone who presents an ugly face and make too much of those who are only pleasing outwardly; there is still great political corruption that feeds the pockets of those at the top and cares nothing for the everyday man; mobs still whip themselves into fury and reap havoc upon the wrong objects; and injustice can be found in every community and every system.

( )