Catching up on Classics (and lots more!) discussion

This is the Spoiler Thread for the 2nd Quarter Long Read of 2016

The Hunchback of Notre-Dame by Victor Hugo

I started the other day. So far it's a really in depth description of the feast of fools. Considering my only exposure to this work is the disney film, I'm anxiously awaiting when we meet Quasimodo.

Disney is my expertise on this book too.

9% in and we're still in the feast of fools. It's going quickly, but at the same time I want to move on to a new setting...can we meet Quasi yet? Or Esmerelda?

Just made it through Book Three with the chapters about Notre Dame de Paris and Paris from above. Felt like an angry (especially the church part) guide book ;).
I'm sooooo glad I've got the audio book. I couldn't have read that on paper. I abandoned Les Mis because of chapters such as these. Maybe I should try it again in audio form.
My narrator, Bill Homewood, does a fantastic job. When he reads those "guide book chapters" I can visualize and they're not so bad at all.

Victor Hugo is a genius describing scenes and actions. La Cour des Miracles had me shivering and now Quasimodo rides the big bell and it's like I'm right there with him feeling the wind in my hair. Incredible!

Phil, you are moving along well with the audio of this book.

Man, I loved this book when I read it, but Phil is right, no one needs to write that much about architecture except an architect. :)

LOL

Matt wrote: "Overall, I enjoyed the book, and it was definitely worthwhile. Finishing it makes me want to tackle Les Mis' (but I am still a little scared of it!) : )"

I feel the same way about Les Mis, Matt!

Les Misérables is very doable. Not my favorite book, but a good read.

I've finished the book now.

What is your opinion on Esmeralda?
Against all expectations I think I don't like her. She doesn't like Quasimodo simply because he's ugly although he saved her and shows her kindness. She's very superficial. She has this childlike worship for Phaebus (again for purely superficial reasons), but cannot form any real relationship, even on terms of friendship. That in the end Gringoire decides to save the goat instead of her shows me that she might be incapable of reciprocating any form of human attatchment. Besides, she's terribly passive (except for saving Gringoire) and never tries to help save herself. In the end, she depends on her mother and ruins everything by stupidly murmuring "Phaebus".
It's funny... I think I'm more capable of empathy towards Claude Frollo than towards her.
Did Hugo dislike women? Or think of them as only passive stupid pawns? Is it typical for that time?
I remember we had a similar discussion about Mansfield Park. In my opinion, Fanny and Esmeralda are worlds apart, because Fanny saw real value in people and didn't fall for superficial beauty.

Emily & Phil -- Such good thoughts. Thank you. I'll be pondering those for a bit.

48% through and I'm not seeing a whole lot of similarity to the disney movie. Frollo doesn't seem to be the villian, Esmeralda isn't as spunky.

And despite being the title character, Quasi isn't getting a whole lot of screen time.

I would say that Notre Dame is definitely the central figure of the book, and a lot of the characters that are featured in the movie are changed or merged to make them more palatable than they are in the book. Esmeralda in particular got a personality makeover.

I do think Disney did a pretty good job keeping the overarching themes of the book despite their changes, and in the stage musical they seem to have expanded on some of the ideas in the book--Frollo and his brother, for example. But really, the best movie version I've seen is the Lon Chaney silent film version. Much as I love Disney's version, Lon Chaney gives Quasimodo pathos while still retaining the horror elements and Quasimodo's inability to interact normally with other people.

(I mean. Lon Chaney may be the most genius character actor I have ever seen, able to evoke emotion and sympathy from behind layers and layers of makeup and prosthetics . . . my film nerd might be showing a little here, but I've noticed that he almost seems to be more empathetic, sympathetic, and emotional when he's in those grotesque and limiting makeups. He was great, seriously. Watch his version of Hunchback if you can find it. Totally worth it--and he's who Disney based their Quasimodo off of, albeit much less grotesque.)

64%. I know the disney version simplified the book, but right now Frollo looks like the 'good guy', where as in disney, he was the 'villian'.

His brother is more like the disney movie Frollo...awful horrible guy.

And I've got a funny feeling Esmerelda's going to end up being the kidnapped baby girl Quasi got swapped with.

Finished earlier today.

My hunch about Esmerelda's mom was true.

Not sure I'd read again, but it's a pretty good classic.

Myst wrote: "Finished earlier today.

My hunch about Esmerelda's mom was true.

Not sure I'd read again, but it's a pretty good classic."

Nice to see that you finished and liked it.

Myst wrote: "64%. I know the disney version simplified the book, but right now Frollo looks like the 'good guy', where as in disney, he was the 'villian'.

His brother is more like the disney movie Frollo...awful horrible guy"

Hey, I was just wondering, did you mean Claude Frollo seemed like the good guy, or Jehan Frollo? It's been a while since I read it, and I don't recall Claude Frollo being cast in a particularly good or heroic light necessarily. I would say that in the book he's looked at as a much more sympathetic figure than in any movie version I've seen, since we get a lot of his motivations and background in the book.

Thanks Kelly. What nice thoughts on the book.

Jennifer wrote: "Myst wrote: "64%. I know the disney version simplified the book, but right now Frollo looks like the 'good guy', where as in disney, he was the 'villian'.

His brother is more like the disney movie..."

Quasi's master Frollo in the movie seemed rather like a villian. I don't recall Frollo's younger brother story line being in the disney movie.

Myst wrote: Quasi's master Frollo in the movie seemed rather like a villian. I don't recall Frollo's younger brother story line being in the disney movie.

Sorry, I meant did you mean Jehan or Claude in the book! That came out a bit muddled. :/ You are correct that Jehan is not in the Disney version--although he is in the musical based on the Disney version very briefly.

Just finished it and I have to admit, I was kind of disappointed. I really loved Les Miserables and this one really doesn't hold a candle. Esmeralda was so superficial and did not earn the right of Quasimodo's devotion in the very end when he went to die by her side. Claude Frollo was my favorite character until the last couple chapters. I would have pushed him over the rail as well. Although, I really did appreciate his internal struggle through the book. I really felt for him!

Ciera, I was disappointed as well.

I loved Les Mis, but HBND was not on the same level. But it wasn't a terrible book.

Esmeralda was very one-dimensional-flat. There was nothing to her character at all.

Ciera wrote: "Just finished it and I have to admit, I was kind of disappointed ... Esmeralda was so superficial and did not earn the right of Quasimodo's devotion ... Claude Frollo was my favorite character until the last couple chapters... "

Ditto on the disappointment.

Although I think Esmerelda is the weakest of the character's in the book, everyone else is hugely superficial too. Frollo and Quasi are obsessed sexually with Esmerelda, who is sexually obsessed with Phoebus, who is just obsessed with sex in general. Jehan just wants to get drunk and Gringoire has his head in the clouds. None of them know anyone else through more than a few meetings.

And I don't know that I'd want to be deserving of Quasi's love. The moment where he undressed the disarmed Jehan piece by piece and breaks his back is properly psychotic.

I agree with you that Frollo is by far the most interesting of the characters. Its impressive that Hugo can wring so much sympathy out of someone as sanctimonious, racist, and rapey as Frollo. But he manages it somehow.

In the end though, the thing that baffled me that anyone would read this and think: Children's Musical.

Jon wrote: "...Ditto on the disappointment. ..."

I've been putting this one off -- because I keep thinking, "I've got three months to read this, no hurry," This is not the motivation I need to start actually reading.

Kathy wrote: "Jon wrote: "...Ditto on the disappointment. ..."

I've been putting this one off -- because I keep thinking, "I've got three months to read this, no hurry," This is not the motivation I need..."

Don't put it off, it is a fairly easy read for so long a book and it is good Gothic fun. It just lacks the depth of Toilers; the action is fairly melodramatic and the characters are too broad.

I think going into this book with an expectation that it is going to be a sweeping tale of humanity and love (which is how I would describe Les Miz) is going to put you off the story and make it unpleasant. I hadn't read Les Miz when I read Hunchback, and because I'd seen the silent Lon Chaney movie, I knew the plot was going to be quite a bit less Disney-fied and more along the lines of Dracula or Frankenstein, in that the characters you expect to like aren't going to be the ones you actually do like, and the over all plot is going to be quite slow moving and probably frustrating.

In fact, I think comparing Hunchback with Frankenstein gives you a lot better idea of what's going to happen and how the book is going to flow. Comparing it with Les Miz is just going to set up expectations that won't ever be fulfilled.

I paused my reading for a while, but I will think about it being more like Frankenstein when I pick it up soon.

Jennifer wrote: "I think going into this book with an expectation that it is going to be a sweeping tale of humanity and love (which is how I would describe Les Miz) is going to put you off the story and make it un..."

Very interesting idea, Jennifer! I agree that if you compare it to Les Miserables or the Disney version, the book loses almost all of its charm (which is probably where I went wrong). Like many classics, it's definitely a slow build. Frankenstein, however, keeps you engaged with its lovable and relatable characters and chilling plot. In theory, Hunchback has all the potential and right characteristics of a good gothic story, but the execution was lacking.

Jennifer, what good thoughts on expectations for reading this novel. I never thought of it that way.

Well, while I never found Victor Frankenstein or his monster particularly lovable, I see your point, Ciera. I was mostly trying to pick something with similar themes and genre. There's probably a better comparison book out there, Frankenstein was just the first one I thought of that I'd had a similar reading experience with. Maybe a better comparison would be Phantom of the Opera?

I started reading this one late in the game, and am absolutely struggling through. I know once I get going it is going to be well worth it, but I just can't seem to get through the architectural descriptions. Any suggestions?

Holly wrote: "I started reading this one late in the game, and am absolutely struggling through. I know once I get going it is going to be well worth it, but I just can't seem to get through the architectural de..."

Don't feel guilty about skim-reading the architectural sections. You can always go back if you later feel that you have really missed something.

I've started late, but finished Book I. Good fun so far!

I wasn't sure what a Phrygian cap was, so I looked it up.



The Phrygian cap is a soft conical cap with the top pulled forward, associated in antiquity with several peoples in Eastern Europe and Anatolia, including Phrygia, Dacia and the Balkans. In early modern Europe it came to signify freedom and the pursuit of liberty through a confusion with the pileus, the felt cap of manumitted (emancipated) slaves of ancient Rome. Accordingly, the Phrygian cap is sometimes called a liberty cap; in artistic representations it signifies freedom and the pursuit of liberty.

Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrygia...

I finished this today, I felt it took ages! I am in the same boat with many; loved LesMis not so much this...mostly because the slow going and too much going to the side paths. And because the characters didn´t encage me to the story.

Desertorum wrote: "I finished this today, I felt it took ages! I am in the same boat with many; loved LesMis not so much this...mostly because the slow going and too much going to the side paths. And because the char..."

Well, at least you can say that you have read it now.

I guess at least now I can say I've read it. #1 I can't believe Disney made a movie about this. While they are notorious for changing miserable endings (like The Little Mermaid) there's just isn't anyone happy at the end of this book. #2 I was so sick to death of reading about the architectural details, until I thought about why he went into such great depth. I grew up in a house with a set of World Book Encyclopedias. If I wanted to know what Notre Dame Cathedral looked like, I could have just walked over and picked up the N. In this day and age, my children would probably high light Notre Dame Cathedral in their E-book and be sent directly to a Wikipedia link showing the blueprints. In 1800, most people would have had great difficulty obtaining a copy of the Bible, much less a reference book of great European architecture. #3 Is the moral of this story don't let a gypsy read your daughter's fortune? #4 One very interesting note I made was of how Hugo states after his lengthy description of Notre Dame cathedral that no one builds structures like this anymore. That building and architecture was the art of the time and that in his present day, the art of the time was writing. I observed this when I did the Classic Literature Bingo challenge. There is an abundance of novels available written during the 1800s, but trying to find a classic novel written before 1600? Good Luck. There's like five, and the rest are all plays or really long poems.

Kathy, those are all excellent observations. They definitely made me think, especially about why the attention to architectural detail. Thank you!

Kathy wrote: "#4 One very interesting note I made was of how Hugo states after his lengthy description of Notre Dame cathedral that no one builds structures like this anymore. That building and architecture was the art of the time and that in his present day, the art of the time was writing. I observed this when I did the Classic Literature Bingo challenge. There is an abundance of novels available written during the 1800s, but trying to find a classic novel written before 1600? Good Luck."

The Western tradition of the novel starts with –depending on with whom you are arguing – Cervantes' Don Quixote (published in 1605) so it would make sense that there aren't loads of 16th Century novels. But, if you are still looking to fill that bingo card this has a few interesting things on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novel#E...

Jon, thanks for linking that article, I'm often interested in pre 17th century literature, so it was great to get some more suggestions, while learning a little more about their history.

I just finished yesterday and I loved this novel. I guess I will have to accept my role a group contrarian, but I thought Hugo was a master of plot and character development. He begins his tale at a brisk pace with the Festival of Fools, crowning of the Pope of Fools and the Court of Miracles and once he has captured the reader’s interest, he slows the pace with descriptions of Notre Dame, Paris and back stories of Claude Frollo, Esmeralda and Quasimodo. Granted, in today’s literary world of “show - don’t tell” this would probably not be acceptable, but I feel this truly enhanced the story. In particular, I found the chapter “The One Will Kill the Other” very fascinating. It was an interesting take on the importance of architecture in the Middle Ages; one that I had never considered.

Having then provided the necessary background, Hugo again launches into the narrative, slowly revealing the central plot and introducing a series of subplots which he successfully brings together at the end of the story.

I can’t wait until the group selects another of his novels.

I loved the scene with the Festival of Fools and all that happened there. What a riot to read.

And I will agree that Hugo is a master of back story, whether it be the history or architecture of the period. I have learned much from this read.

Well, I finished it today, and just finished reading all of this discussion on it, and I have so much to say, too much really. Not sure I can get through it all in one go, haha, so perhaps I'll only get through a few of the notes I just jotted down in Notepad and have to get to other things at some other point.

I'm with Tom in that I'll be a bit of a contrarian here - I quite enjoyed the book and got a lot out of it. All/most(?) of you who seem to have been disappointed seem to have also read Les Miserables, which I haven't (despite owning it!), and perhaps it's a good thing I haven't. Maybe it's best not to compare these, to see them as two completely separate works trying to accomplish wholly separate goals? (Perhaps other than being critical of medieval justice systems...)

Now... Claude Frollo... Can words do justice here? What a maddening, pitiable, miserable, but relatable character. One could subject this book to feminist literary criticism and pick apart sexist attitudes regarding the objectification/reification and ownership of women, but there's more going on here than that. This madness that infatuation/lust can inspire in the more repressed souls of reformers like Frollo, or perhaps in anyone really but I should think especially in people like him, can't be boiled down to being a product of dysfunctional gender relations, I don't think. Hugo certainly has no issues criticizing societal institutions (again, he hits the justice systems - plural for that time - pretty heavily), so is he also critiquing the institutions of monasticism/priesthood and our rejection of our own human bodies and needs? I'm not sure. It doesn't obviously read that way, if he is. In any case, we can wonder what the effect is, psychologically, at least on certain types of people. Frollo thinks himself above matters of the flesh, but is anyone, really? We are all humans, all animals, and maybe when we try to be all "spirit", our bodies and minds necessarily revolt, our desires twist under that pressure, etc.

Jon, you dismissed the feelings of many of the characters as being purely sexual in nature, and that's certainly entirely or primarily the case with Phoebus and Jehan, I'd say, but I don't think it's true of the others, even if no one's feelings are based in true, healthful love. Where Esmeralda's just a stupid, infatuated kid (the girl is 16, people, come on!), Quasimodo's feelings are the desperate, stunted grasp at some kind of affection - bear in mind the only sort of care he's received his entire life has been from the repressed, twisted Frollo! And Frollo's love, while again based on infatuation and lust, is not solely about sex, either. It's a destructive, heart-wrenching thing, a maddening obsession with a false idol, and the damnation of his own soul (in his mind, anyway).

Remember the scene, near the end, where he's got her at the Place de Greve, and he keeps pleading with her to accept his love, to choose between his love and the gibbet? At one point he asks at the very least for her compassion; he seems to accept that he's not something she can love, that even on the (very) off chance she could have ever loved him, his actions have made it impossible. In that moment, all he wants is for her to pity him. She calls him a murderer instead, and his sense of being the victim again takes root, from her calling Phoebus back to his attention. His delusion here is profound, and he clings to this notion that Fate alone is responsible for everything that's transpiring, rather than his own actions. Again, he's the victim, to his mind, when in reality all she ever did was perform a dance outside the cathedral, and he's been pursuing her and making her life miserable since.

I remember reading something awhile back, on conflict and resentment in relationships, that said something to the effect that often, what we're reacting against in our loved ones is not purely something they've done, but the reflection of who we are, things we've done, things we see about ourselves that we don't want to own. Frollo desperately tries to justify himself and his actions to Esmeralda, but she mirrors back to him what he truly is: a murderer, a liar, a despicable old priest that she couldn't possibly ever love. He tries to alter the mirror, he desperately wants it to reflect something else, but it's hopeless, and so instead, he destroys the mirror.

There's so much more I want to say, and lots of interesting things you guys brought up I want to comment on, but I think I need to wrap things up for now. I have to stop somewhere or I could go on forever, haha.

Just briefly, though, Kathy, I'd not considered that, about the lack of encyclopedias, etc. back then. You're so right. What annoys us a bit in our own times, with so many resources at our fingertips, would no doubt have been delightful to readers of those times.

Jennifer, I think the comparison to Frankenstein is a good one. Both books explore what happens to us when fundamental needs go unmet. In the Hunchback, we have two very different kinds of thwarted, unloved monsters in Quasimodo and Frollo.

Just finished. It had too much description. Hugo was so focused on historical accuracy that the story suffered. Esmerelda made so many poor choices. Frollo was a good villain but sometimes his motivation seemed muddled to me. The sorcerer stuff felt tacked on. I enjoyed Les Miserable more.

Phil wrote: "She doesn't like Quasimodo simply because he's ugly although he saved her and shows her kindness. She's very superficial. ..."

To be fair - he attacked her in the street at night. A strong first impression. And since then, he's been a benign jailer. He can't converse, creepily stares at her in the dead of night, then hovers just out of her sight.

None of that is anything that could or should induce a friendship.


Emily wrote: "Going back to the subject of why Gringoire chose the goat Dali over Esmeralda at the end of the novel, I came across this quote while looking at other reviews in preparation to go back into it..."


Well, but from Gringoire's point of view, Esmerelda possibly cheated on him. After months of her putting him off to preserve her virginity, she was arrested in a compromising position with another man.

I mean, sure, Gringoire should have valued a human life over a goat's life, but the goat never betrayed him, and he didn't know Frollo's real intentions. He thought Frollo wanted to rescue Esmerelda. And he was just a coward who thought he'd be safer away from her than sticking together in a big group.

I'm sure racism and class issues are a factor, but I primarily blame his cowardice. He didn't want to rescue her in the first place because he was too worried about his own neck!


I loved Frollo's character! Such a complicated guy.

Finished. Actually a good story (somewhat hidden by Hugo's wordiness)

I'm honestly surprised that people found Frollo to be a pitiable character at all. Anytime someone says that you'll be tortured and die unless you become their plaything, my sympathy goes right on out the window. And he did this repeatedly. And at length.

Which brings up one of the things that bothered me with this book. He would take one situation, like the architecture or Frollo's confession of love, and just talk it to death.

It looks like in my review I called it the oldest soap opera in existence :) It really was very much like a soap opera.

There were plenty of things to enjoy. I loved his writing when he wasn't beating a dead horse. It was very beautiful. I also enjoyed seeing the story that became The Phantom of the Opera (the book, musical, and movies) as well as The Beauty and the Beast. I knew it would be different from all of these but I enjoyed seeing where they sprang from.

I'm glad I read it. I'm intrigued that most people say that Les Mis is a much better book. I have that on my challenge this year.

Nice to see that you finished, Sarah Anne. I didn't pity Frollo either -- I'm with you on him.

Yay!