|
The Hunchback of Notre Dame arrived very soon after I ordered it and was in excellent condition.
In allowing the story a great deal of scope, Hugo seems to be demonstrating how the actions of a few can have devastating consequences for the many. Every main character has something which makes him or her compelling. Phoebus is a prime example of the actions of one egotistical person ruining the lives of innocents, and therefore he acts as a cautionary tale against unrestrained, careless lust. Esmeralda can be frustrating because she seems incapable of overcoming her obsession with Phoebus, but it is this same flaw which allows any reader who has ever had his or her love unrequited to empathize with her.
SPOILERSThis is quite a tome, and it requires a lot of patience to get through it. But what's most fascinating about Hunchback is how no one is completely free of blame in the final outcome, as Quasimodo and Esmeralda ultimately choose their own fates by giving in to their own weaknesses. Gringoire is a character who, while nearly as selfish as Phoebus, is made likable by his humorous and sarcastic attitude.The selfishness of Phoebus and the Archdeacon which cause woe for Esmeralda, Quasimodo, and numerous other characters. Hugo writes at a leisurely pace, to say the least, and is willing to take lengthy detours from the main story to detail the geography and architecture of Paris.
The Archdeacon is as mentally and emotionally repulsive as Quasimodo is physically repulsive, but his inner-conflict between his lust for Esmeralda and his spiritual identity makes for engrossing drama. It is this blunt depiction of the characters' understandable yet self-destructive motivations which really give the novel much of its worth, and is why I recommend it. And yet, it are these detours which give the novel a sense of authenticity and depth -- it is so detailed that it's difficult to believe that it is not a "history" as the narrator calls it.The plot itself is defined by the machinations of a number of fascinating players. Quasimodo is physically repulsive, but his love for Esmeralda is endearing.
If you're depressed or can't take hard reality don't read this book. It is so incredibly tragic. It is beautiful, but so so depressing. I love Hugo and had just come off reading Les Miserables. Then I picked this one up and when I finished it I was depressed for a week.
Ironically, Frollo exclaims at one point "the book will kill the building.", in a reference to the printing press and its threat to the old ways of religion, when in fact in this case it was the savior of the building. All the plot events and character actions either take place in or are influenced by the cathedral. Victor Hugo paints a lavish story that rivals the fame of the cathedral itself. And thus the legend of the hunchback was born. Just as it is the fate of the fly to be caught by the spider, we are all subject to the hand of fate that dooms our free will.
Fate may determine the ending but how we come to that end is by our own free will and actions. But Victor Hugo makes it very clear that we can not use fate as a crutch to justify our actions. Victor Hugo despised the English translation for the title because he believed the main character to not be Quasimodo but the church itself. It is Quasimodo's fate to choose between protecting the woman who has shown him pity and given him a soul or to please the man who gave him life and a purpose for living. There was an even talk of tearing the old ruined cathedral down. It is Esmeralda's fate to refuse his love and seek the love of a man who is only beautiful on the outside. Seen as a symbol of the old monarchy, it was ransacked by various protestors and uprisings. It is Frollo's fate to love and lust after Esmeralda.
That is how the poor priest Claude Frollo justifies his bizarre actions for nor can he or anyone for that matter prevent or change the predetermined outcome. Fate plays another key role in this novel. So while the fate of the church is for it to be one day toppled by an earthquake, wrecked by the angry fires of a revolution, or destroyed by God, it is still within its power to influence the actions of today, as does the story within this book. At the time it was written, the Notre Dame cathedral was in a state of disrepair. Victor Hugo wrote this novel to install public interest back into the well being of the church.
With Esmeralda, she becomes fatally--and carnally--obsessed with a handsome, but careless, French officer named Phoebus, who thinks of her as nothing more than a whore and a one-night-stand; on the other hand, Claude Frollo, erudite and archdeacon of Notre Dame, renounces God and becomes fatally--and carnally-- obsessed with the beauty of Esmeralda. There are a lot of Frollos and Esmeraldas out here today. The book also pits the animal against the intellectual, and how the animal wins out in the end. Especially logic. Recently, I read The Hunchback of Notre Dame for the first time and it is the best book I've read.
So far, it's pretty good. Right now, I'm reading The Death of Ivan Ilych; I'll post my thoughts on the book when I complete it. Nothing's logical about Esmeralda's obsession for Phoebus and nothing's logical about Claude Frollo's obsession for Esmeralda. If anyone's read a better book, please let me know. Phoebus is the perfect example of superficial beauty but inner ugliness; Quasimodo is the perfect example of superficial ugliness but inner beauty. Hunchback's a great great book. Throughout the story, everyone responds only to physical beauty, but no one-- including Quasimodo-- neither responds to nor is able to discern inner beauty. You see some guy killing himself to impress some gorgeous woman who could care less about the guy having a heart attack: he's Frollo.
The extreme contraries of beauty and ugliness are embodied in the story's two main characters: Esmeralda, the beautiful gypsy street performer, and Quasimodo, the troll-like and severely deformed caretaker and resident of Notre Dame Cathedral, which Hugo presents as a massive conglomeration of both Esmeralda and Quasimodo--her beauty, and his ugliness. You see some woman in an abusive relationship, yet she won't break away from the relationship because of the sex or her abuser's good looks: she's Esmeralda. BONDAGE AND DISCIPLINE, SADISM AND MASOCHISM: Zack's Odyssey Part 1 But also, Quasimodo himself, who's blind in one eye and deaf--maybe that blind eye is the intelligence he lacked to assist his good eye, which was only capable of seeing beauty and not ugliness, such as that of humanity and that of Esmeralda's disgust towards him--can only see Esmeralda as what she is--a beautiful ideal that he, in his ugly prison both of his deformed body and that of the cathedral, can never possess. So, in all of these characters, Hugo has pitted animal against intelligence, religion, and logic.
|
