Trish's Reviews > The Hunchback of Notre-Dame

If these stones could speak …

Victor Hugo wrote this book in 1829, largely to make his contemporaries more aware of the value of the Gothic architecture, which was neglected and often destroyed, only to be replaced by new buildings or defaced by replacing parts of buildings in a newer style (such as the beautiful glass window of Nôtre Dame).

The actual French title translates to „Our Lady in Paris“ as it is not really about Quasimodo but about the cathedral of Nôtre Dame.

Now, in order to understand the core story, I have to go somewhat into detail. For those, who don’t want to know, I recommend skipping this paragraph, fair warning.

We find ourselves in Paris in 1482.
Archdeacon Frollo is torn between his oaths and his obsessive lust for the gypsy Esmeralda. He therefore instructs Quasimodo to kidnap Esmeralda. Quasimodo, a half-blind and meanwhile also deaf hunchback, loving Frollo ever since he took Quasimodo in when his mother abandoned him as a child, does as he’s told. However, Quasimodo is stopped by Captain Phoebus and his guards and is captured by them. Subsequently, he is sentenced to be flogged and turned on the pillory for an hour, followed by another hour’s public exposure. During this ordeal, he almost dies of thirst but Esmeralda, of all people, saves him by giving him water - which makes him fall in love with her.
Frollo, meanwhile, driven half mad by jealousy, tries to kill Captain Phoebus and, when that fails, frames Esmeralda for the attempted murder since she keeps refusing him. Quasimodo saves her from the gallows by swinging down from Nôtre Dame and taking her into the cathedral, claiming sanctuary for her. The leader of the gypsies then tries to rally the citizens of Paris to free Esmeralda before the Parliament can vote to deny her the right to sanctuary. However, Quasimodo mistakes their motives and repels them while thinking that the King’s men are there to help. Eventually, Esmeralda and Quasimodo are betrayed by Frollo, Esmeralda being handed over to the guards and hanged. Frollo, truly mad now, laughs while watching from a balcony high up on Nôtre Dame, driving Quasimodo to push him off to his death. Then, Quasimodo vanishes (it is implied that he dies also, holding Esmeralda's body in a comforting embrace).

This is not the entire story, not by far. But it is the core and what is usually addressed in movie adaptations and perhaps more than future readers want to know in advance (which is why I wrote that warning above).

It has to be stated that Quasimodo does not feature too often in this story. The reason being that the story is more about the structure of the cathedral, its timelessness and what it witnessed ever since it was built. The author was trying to make the point that mere men don’t have the right to destroy or - through inaction - allow to come to harm such a magnificent and important piece of architecture. Nevertheless, it is a love story and one of the most tragic ones at that. It features all the elements relevant at the time: the aloof upper society including the uncaring ruling parties, the lower levels of society such as beggars and gypsies, artists, conflicted and not-to-be-trusted members of the clergy, outcasts. In short: the puppets and puppet masters.

The book impresses with the author’s impeccable writing style, rich with lively descriptions that place one firmly amongst the characters. The author also effortlessly throws in historical information as decoration to describe the timelessness of structures and of works of art.
Albeit this being a tragic romance, it is also definitely a satire full of sarcasm shown in people using gatherings in the church to gossip and make fun of others, or shown in how the people here react to current events and inventions:
„Printing will kill bookselling.“ since it supposedly is a „wretched“ German invention. *lol*
Not to mention the social criticism that continuously exposes ludicrous customs, vanity, hypocrisy and other character weaknesses.

Like Dumas, Hugo allows a sharp look at the times, at the different levels of society and politics but also at peoples’ characters and occupations. Unlike Dumas, however, Hugo doesn’t quite manage to successfully walk the knife’s edge between bringing the surroundings and times alive through detailed descriptions, firmly placing the story through adding relevant historical information and clubbing the reader to death with too much information that has no immediate merit whatsoever. Nevertheless, it is an important piece and I very much enjoyed Bill Homewood's narration once again.