The Hunchback of Notre Dame

I'm thoroughly enjoying this book. I like how it's different than the Disney movie. I like very much how Victor Hugo introduces and developes his characters, he really brought them to life.

Unlike a great number of the people giving this book a positive review, I was and still am a fan of Disney's movie. Yes, the movie distorted the book quite liberally--but this is to be expected of a children's film adaptation. I view the movie's existence as positive since it encourages older fans of the movie to go and seek Hugo's book to get the complete story. It is a sad fact that most people have never read the book, however, the Disney movie brought attention back to it--a victory, in my opinion. As far as the book itself, it was marvelous! Hugo's writing style is ornate and an artistic work in itself. As far as who the main character is, I would daresay that this is up to the reader's interpretation. I agree with the fact that the British translation regarding the title is misleading, as I find Quasimodo to be a bit distant from the focus of the book. Hugo seemed to be preoccupied with portraying both Notre Dame and 15th Century Parisian society when writing this book. From that stance, it would seem as though both Cathedral and time period were the protagonists of the story. As far as in-context, living characters, I would again like to state that Quasimodo is not whom I would nominate as protagonist. Esmeralda is a tempting choice, however, she is not given too much detail as far as personality. I would daresay that the most developed character in the book is the antagonist, Claude Frollo. I could write volumes on this character alone, as he is my favourite. If he weren't already antagonist, I would deem him a good candidate for protagonist. Ah, Claude Frollo. He is the main reason behind my love for the book. (To Disney fans--his story does not unfold as in the movie!) I find his constant struggles and painful past to be some of the most intriguing parts of the book. The parts which included dialogue predominantly on his part were certainly my favourite ones. Claude and his constant battle with his feelings, his devotion, his jealousy and his belief in fate colour the book like no other character could. Ultimately, the message of the book is that appearances are deceptive. Hugo portrays this most obviously with Quasimodo. In my opinion, however, he gives the reader this message through every main character. Phoebus, for example, is at first presented as a gallant officer who rescues Esmeralda but later turns out to be a vulgar womanizer. Clopin is first encountered as a mere beggar but is in fact the king of the Gypsies, holding power within his circle of vagabonds. Quasimodo is first thought of as a monster but is given a more tender place in the reader's heart by the conclusion of the book. Esmeralda is described as beautiful and she at first shows mercy to both Gringoire and Quasimodo, but is later revealed as superficial and vulgar in her taste for men. Claude Frollo appears as a studious priest, but is in reality a passionate, tortured spirit and so much more. To all, I encourage you to read this book! You will feel what t

Victor Hugo was, among other accomplishments, a dramatist. It shows in this book. He knows how to take his time, how to create background and setting, how to build tension and anticipation. Yet, when the denouement occurs (as several mini-climaxes do before the final one), it does so with shocking or stunning detail, effect, and speed. For all the meandering Hugo does before a climax, he is quite economical when he gets to the end. "Notre Dame" is, despite its length, a nail-biting, page-turning read. But the dramatist also is evident in another way: dialogue. As has been mentioned by others, the dialogue seems stagey, two-dimensional, over the top (or under the bottom, if you wish). This, apparently, was typical of stage productions in Hugo's day. Claude Frollo, for example, in his last conversation with Esmeralda, is practically unbelievable. But he is not alone: Esmeralda herself stretches our credulity. (For one thing, we are never told why she seemed so sympathetic to Quasimodo on the pillory but repulsed by him in the cathedral.) She immediately falls in love with Phoebus, whom she only meets once briefly, and never changes her feelings, which is to say that she never learns, never grows, never seems aware. And this leads to the oft-repeated, central complaint about this book: the main players are not people; they are symbols, constant and unchanging. For example, at one point, in describing Quisimodo and Esmeralda, Hugo writes, ". . . there was someting touching about the protection offered by a creature so deformed to one so unfortunate -- one condemned to death saved by Quasimodo. Here were the two extremes of physical and social wretchedness meeting and assisting each other." (Walter J. Cobb translation) But that, in turn, may be why this long, 19th-century melodrama continues to mesmerize us today. There is something sweeping, larger than life about the story -- and the characters. Yes, the book is melodramatic. Yes, the main characters tend to be mechanically unswerving, almost frustratingly so. Yes, the dialogue makes you occasionally wince or shake your head. And yet you keep reading -- avidly. At least I did. Why? Partly I read to find out what would happen next. As I said, Hugo has created a genuine cliff-hanger (no pun intended, Frollo). But there is something more. Hugo made me care. How did he do that? How did he make me care about two-dimensional characters? That may be, ultimately, an unanswerable question. But part of the answer, I think, is that, as with all good larger-than-life stories, myths, or epics, the issues are central to us all. Therefore, we care not just about the characters, but about the issues they represent. When Frollo keeps falling (in more ways than one), we fall (or fear falling) with him. When Esmaralda keeps not seeing, we think of our own blindness, too. When Quasimodo is rejected, we remember the sting we have known or want forever to avoid. And when the king

Este es mi libro favorito de los que ha escrito Perls. A mi juicio la síntesis de su trabajo y enseñanza es inmejorable. Para mí es material de consulta permanente.Es un "must" para los que están interesados en acompañar sus procesos de terapia gestalt con los principios y fundamentos que subyacen a este mágico enfoque.