The Hunchback of Notre Dame or Disney's Biggest Classic to Movie Failure

I have finally finished reading The Hunchback of Notre Dame!

WARNING: No one makes it to the end of the book happy, except one character.

Yes, it is officially done, and it was an amazing experience, in a good and bad way.

The first copy of Hunchback that I had was a PDF, and that was the worst thing I could possibly do to help with reading it. This book not only has difficult regular vocabulary, but it also has many phrases in Latin, and in (what I'm guessing is) archaic French. Then I finally stopped being a cheap ass and bought a copy for my kindle.

The first thing that I must say is that this book is not a book that you should go into lightly, unless you're like a super genius or something, and you're well-versed in ancient writing. If you are, you're probably not even reading a review from a plebian such as myself.

Now, the book should not have had the title The Hunchback of Notre Dame, because the book isn't about Quasimodo, although he is one of the main characters. That would be like me calling a book The Black Girl of Greenwich Village, when the book is about the entire neighborhood.

If I really had to choose a main character of the book, I would choose the cathedral itself. I don't know how many pages are spent describing it, and describing all the historical people that helped create it. There are times, when you get these really magnificent images that are built upon for pages and pages. That's nice, but then you forget that there is something else going on that you lost track a while ago. Besides the crazy historical things that he goes in to. Only a fraction of the people he mentioned actually had an entry in my Kindle's dictionary.

Victor Hugo is an amazing author, and he has a real talent of weaving together ten different character's stories, and ending them seamlessly. There were a few characters that I was like "dafuq do I care about this dude?", and later on, I was like "ooooooh, wooooow". I have to admit, you probably will have a problem in the first few books keeping the names and character's straight, except Claude Frollo and Quasimodo, and of course Esmerelda. After a while, you begin to associate the name with the actions, and you really get the drift of them, not to mention, the characters have distinct speaking styles, at least, a lot of them do.

This book is not for children, even if the language was simplified. People talk about his Quasimodo being a demon that should be burnt or drowned. Not only that, there's also some Antisemitism.

A lot of people of my generation might come to the table with their prescribed idea of the characters from what Disney told up in their movie. Some might come to it after watching Lon Chaney Sr.'s brilliant (and I do mean brilliant) performance, or a host of other cinematic depictions of the book.

Rather than starting on my basic breakdown of characters (the ones that are in both the book and the movie, because a lot were omitted), considering how people are familiar with the "gist" or what they think if the gist.

Quasimodo:

In the Disney movie, he's a kind of squat, red-headed dude with a hunched back, wart-hooded eye, kind of piggy nose, uneven (but adorable) front toothed misshapen loner. He sings, he dances, he talks to gargoyles and generally has a sweet demeanor.Disney was able to take a character that didn't have many lines in the novel, was deaf and half blind, and make him something cuddily. 

The real Quasimodo was hunchbacked, bandy legged,with teeth that stuck out like tusks, a ridiculous amount of strength, and an inner pain that made him cruel to most people, since they were cruel to him. Hugo says "One would have pronounced him a giant who had been broken and badly put together again."  There was no singing on his part, except an incredibly sad song he sung near the last part of the book. He didn't have gargoyles talking back to them, but he did have a connection with the cathedral and one gargoyle that he felt kindred to. He did talk to the bells however, and he had their names, and referred to them as his loves. Quasimodo didn't do much wrong in his life, and unlike the movie, he is incredibly stoic, to the point where being shot with an arrow doesn't even make him blink. He's honestly the character that I have the most pity for in the entire book, because his whole world crumbles around him. He's honestly the most pitiful character I've read, in a dead heat with Victor Frankenstein's Creation. If there was anything that I can say he had, was unwavering faithfulness, which made him so much more tragic.

Dom Frollo:

He seems made to be evil. Tall, long and gaunt, with bags under his eyes as if he's one thousand years old. He is an asshole of the highest category, from the way that he talks to Quasimodo and puts him down, to the general fuckery and judgmental manners.

In the book he was the only person that wanted to take Quasimodo in, and he NEVER mentioned to Quasi how disfigured. Frollo also had a younger brother that he loved and cared for (I can't remember if he was in the Disney one), and he was only 30 years old. Granted he was prematurely aged, and he was bald atop, and his hair was gray, but that was because he was so studious, and passionate about everything that he studied. If someone says that I have a thirst for knowledge, Frollo had an entirely unquenchable thirst, something that made him pretty crazy. If there's anything I can say about Frollo, he drove himself crazy.

Phoebus:

In the movie, he is a typical Disney hot dude that saves the day type. He is caring and "falls in love" with Esmerelda. He is injured and all, and they live happily ever after. -_-

I wish they had kept him true to character, because I think the Phoebus in the book is so much more realistic as to how those hot dudes are. To put it shortly, is an asshole playah. He has no real feeling for Esmerelda, he can't even say her name right, and he only wants the pussy. He is the unequivocal love interest, but he doesn't deserve to be the love interest. I can't think of an asshole that I dislike more than this fuckwad, as far as characters. Hell, "The Grandmother" from Flowers in the Attic is a more decent character than this scumwad.

Esmerelda:

Beautiful, dark-skinned, with eyes that glimmered like the emerald she is "named" after. She is intelligent, caring, sees past Quasimodo's outside, and falls in love with a handsome man and lives happily ever after. And she has Djali, her beautiful little goat.

A sixteen-year old, tanned (not nearly as dark as the character in the movie), ridiculously beautiful, dark eyed, naive girl. She does have a moment when she has sympathy and shows kindness to Quasimodo, something he never forgets. But more than anything... she is a stupid character. She is one of the most ridiculously stupid little girls (for she is more girl than woman) in my literature history. I was sick of her after half the book, because she was just so stupid and naive. I'd have imagined, living with a band of thieves her entire life, she'd have learned more than how to work a dagger, and teach her little goat. She becomes absolutely smitten with Phoebus, and that's all she cares about. Quite literally. She never takes the time to find the inner beauty of Quasimodo, although she understands that he's kind, and always brings her  vittles, and she knows he is utterly devoted. She never gets comfortable enough to look at him for long, and doesn't seem to understand anything other than what her heart becomes fixated on.

The Outcasts:

In the movie, they are Travelers that are outcasts because they aren't like the others. These are people God probably should help.

The Outcasts are a group of thieves, con artists, prostitutes, and vagabonds of all natures. They're not people that are outcast because society is full of douche bags, these are people outcast mostly by their own choice, because they don't want to live under the constraints of French society. These are not people God will help, because they (for the most part) don't want to be helped. They enjoy their place on the fringe of society.

If I am to end this review of the novel with anything, it would be that people should give it a chance. If you get really confused, take some time away from it, or skip over the extra wordy sections, because Hugo does have ways of letting you know important things are about to start back up. This is an amazing book, and a classic for a reason. I will say that if you're a sap, this will be a hard read. I was PMSing when I was finishing th estory, and I was crying almost constantly the last six or seven pages.

Were I to be a teacher, I would definitely want to teach this book to my students, whilst first watching the movie. It's wordy, and hard and difficult, but I think I could teach people to fall in love with it. I mean, c'mon, it has attempted rape, murder, attempted murder, sexual assualt, and lots of death and gore. If I jazz up those parts, I'll get even the most non literature liking person to enjoy it, especially if I find some graphic pictures to go with the teaching.