Hunchback of Notre Dame (Wordsworth Collection) (Wordsworth Classics)

The story of the hunchback Quasimodo, the gypsy girl Esmeralda, and the satanic priest Claude Frollo, has such enduring appeal that it spawned plays, films, cartoons, and musicals for adults and children.When Victor Hugo (1802-1885) published his novel in 1831, when he was just 29 years old and considered a wunderkind because of the popularity of his prior publications, he called the book Notre-Dame de Paris: 1482, apparently wanting to focus on a particular moment in history and thinking when he wrote that the church rather than the horribly mistreated hunchback in his novel should be the primary focus of his book. But the focus and flavor that seasons the events of this novel is neither the history and machinations of the church or the piteous life and behaviors of the hunchback, but the politics of the time, the rule of a despot, and the urges by the populace for a republican government by and for the people, following the failure of the July 1830 revolution in FranceSome readers while generally liking the novel, find what they consider faults in it. Some critiques decry the paucity of character psychology and, in contrast, the overblown lachrymose atmosphere. Some felt shocked that Hugo over-secularizing the church, leaving God out of the discussions and events – indeed, the Catholic Church consigned the book to the list of prohibited books in1834; but others feel this is entirely acceptable in view of the behavior of the cruel clerics in the church. A lot dislike the long excursions where Hugo describes the church and life in France, writings they consider unnecessary over-long digressions that comprise approximately a third of the book; but many readers enjoy the information and the skillful way that Huge narrates it.Then there are those, with me among them, who simply feel that the book is over-long, that it would have been far better if it was only half as long, perhaps even just a third of its present size. I also disliked the many esoteric references to items that the general reader, and even educated readers did not know. The number of these references is so large that the Wordsworth Classics Edition had 19 pages with 225 explanatory notes, and the author of these elucidatory notes admitted that he could not explain everything. “Broadly speaking, I have focused on historical references at the expense of cultural ones,” The over-long nature of the book and its all-too-many obscure references dampened the enjoyment of the reading.

This is truly a classic and makes you have many feelings as you read through the book. It is definitely not the Disney version as everything does not turn out "happily ever after"

Come on It's the original by Victor Hugo :)

Magnificent

Great addition to collection of classics

Delivery was prompt and the book was as expected. Very pleased.

--SPOILERS--I first became familiar with the title "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" from the Disney movie. But finally after so many years, I decided to read the actual book. Naturally, being from the same author of "Les Miserables", this book is much darker than the cutesy Disney film and ends rather grimly.The main thing I liked about the book is that a lot of the characters are much more multi-dimensional (and also, there are a lot of very interesting characters who aren't even mentioned in the movie). For example, Frollo isn't as much of a one-dimensional monstrous villain in the novel. He has compassion, adopting and bringing up Quasimodo (and Claude's own brother, Jean; one of many characters not in the movie) out of empathy rather than force. Claude's evil deeds didn't start until after meeting Esmeralda, and it can be debated that his deeds stemmed from madness and a very twisted love rather than mere hatred and malice.Quasimodo also wasn't as kind and friendly like in the film. He was indeed mistreated and victimized, and much of his hostility towards the people stemmed from this mistreatment. But he was hostile and violent and hateful nonetheless. He was more like The Phantom of the Opera than the Lizzie Velásquez-like character he was in the film.Esmeralda, though she did indeed stand up for herself and others on occasion--e.g. being willing to pull daggers on men who threatened her, and going against the mob to help both Quasimodo and a poet from being tormented and hung respectively--she wasn't a skilled fighter like in the film. Also she was a lot more chaste, timid, and bashful. She (and her dancing) wasn't described as sultry or seductive as Esmeralda was portrayed in the film. She fell in unconditional love with Phoebus immediately, and she didn't show any defiance towards him like Esmeralda did in the film when she first met him.Also Phoebus was very different. Instead of being a kind-hearted soldier willing to defy orders and stand up to leadership to help Esmeralda, his only interest in her was to have sex with her, as he had done already with many other women. After she was falsely accused and condemned to death, he wanted nothing to do with her and he went back to his own fiance, leaving her to die without intervening. There's another main difference, and the way in which this book was much darker: Esmeralda is indeed hung, Frollo is murdered by Quasimodo, and Quasimodo dies by burying himself alive in the tomb where Esmeralda was placed.Like Quasimodo, the gypsies themselves were also not blameless outcasts mistreated only for being different. Many were indeed thieves, con artists, and kidnappers. Esmeralda herself was one of the children the gypsies stole from her real birth mother.As much depth as the story does have, it could have still been half the length and the story would not have lost any merit. There were literally chapters and chapters-worth of unnecessary, repetitive descriptions, and the author going on tangents about things irrelevant to the story. These parts are a test of endurance, but overall I feel the story was worth trudging through these other bits.

Good

ストーリーの面白さ、情景描写の迫力、良心の葛藤。「レ・ミゼラブル」に遜色無い傑作ではないでしょうか。何故かユゴーの和訳は「レ・ミゼラブル」以外とても手に入り難い。在るには在るが5、6千円します。本書はたったの５百円！買いです。

I love it......................!

Although this story is called 'The Hunchback of Notre Dame' - Victor Hugo could easily have called it 'A lengthy & tedious description of Paris streets' . The underlying story is there all right, but you have to be quite determined not to get fed up with all the far-too-lengthy descriptions of Paris at the time in which the story is set. My French is reasonable, but not good enough to enjoy a novel at leisure, so I read this English translated version. I think the translation is fine, but Victor Hugo is quite well-known for his ultra-lengthy descriptions of places. This does spoil the flow of the book in my view, but if you persevere, as I did, you will get to the nub of the story in the end. Should you read it? Well, yes, I suppose so, - it's a classic, after all, but once read, I won't be in a hurry to read it again.

A REVIEW OF `THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME' BY VICTOR HUGOWho is `The Hunchback of Notre Dame'? For many, the character of Quasimodo is the eerie, scratchy figure from black-and-white horror movies. For others, he is the comical character used to advertise telephones in the 1980s ("It's Esmeralda: She LOVES me!"). More recently, he is the more cuddly hero of the 1996 Disney animated film. These associations - whilst keeping the character alive in the public consciousness - do rather detract from his actual rightful place within the pages of Victor Hugo's magnificent novel. Indeed, owing to its ability to excite, horrify, amuse, surprise and move, `The Hunchback of Notre Dame' is a true `Classic'.So revered is the book in educated literary circles, that I would not deign to offer any in-depth analysis here. Suffice to say that the story revolves primarily not around the deformed bell-ringer, but rather the beautiful gypsy dancer, La Esmeralda. Hugo himself resented the English re-naming of his novel and argued forcibly (and correctly) that the original title, `Notre Dame de Paris' was far more fitting. Therefore, accepting Quasimodo as one of many pivotal characters, the story emerges as one of many figures' love for the captivating La Esmeralda. For the most part, this is the love of men, as her boldy charms attract the attention of three would-be lovers, none of whom fit the traditional leading man role. Perhaps the most obvious suitor is the dashing Captain Pheobus. However, beneath his good looks, lurks a serial womaniser who sees La Esmeralda as merely another notch on his bed-post. There is a realism about such a self-serving, vain `hero' that offers the first indication that `The Hunchback of Notre Dame' is not your typical 19th century masterpiece. Second, comes Archdeacon Claude Frollo, whose self-defined religious piety is shredded by an all-consuming and destructive lust for the gypsy girl. Finally, there is Quasimodo, whose hideous physical appearance masks an innocent, wholseome devotion that the other two cannot begin to match. As La Esmeralda falls for Pheobus, Hugo hammers home to the reader that she has fallen for the wrong guy.In doing so, the author introduces another key theme of the novel, namely that of misunderstandings and characters and events not being what they SEEM to be. This can be illustrated in two key scenes. Firstly, there is some delicious black comedy in the passages that see the deaf Quasimodo tried and sentenced by an equally deaf judge. Likewise, there is the later tragedy of the wild frenzy of violence in which the bell-ringer defends Notre Dame from attackers, whose actual intentions match his own.Hugo clearly had a great deal of fun writing `The Hunchback of Notre Dame' and keeps the reader on his toes with chapter titles that regularly serve as satisfying punch lines to the events narrated within. The final two chapters achieve this brilliantly, albeit one with comic irony and the other with a truly touching and poignant image.For such a sprawling novel, there are inevitably imperfections in `The Hunchback of Notre Dame'. Indeed, one particular mother-daughter reunion pushes the coincidence and `If only..' button with too much of a heavy hand. Nevertheless, at its best, this is a tremendous and hugely rewarding read. If there is a better single chapter in a `Classic' than `The Hearts of Three Men Made Differently' then I have yet to read it. Likewise, if there is a more witty, wry, captivating and fresh novel (a modern-day Pheobus can surely be found in every night club in the 21st century) of its age still in print, I have yet to find it. In short, if you haven't read the novel and you think that you know `The Hunchback of Notre Dame', do yourself a favour and think again.Barty's Score: 9.5/10