Notre Dame de Paris

[LauraLeZunzu]

Unbelievable but true, there was NO specific topic for talking about the book!!
Released on 1832, when Hugo was 30, in the second edition appeared some unrealeased chapters that made the unbridged edition (those chapters were lost when the first edition was released).
Everybody knows the story and, if not, better read the book ;D
Operas and films were made inspired in this book.
I don't know how much say because I need to know from which part of the book is considered a spoiler, or if we can talk with freedom in this topic about the entire book...
Til now, I'll just say things about his way of writing. I love it. It is not as good as Les Misérables, but it was many years earlier. I mean, with 30 years old he wrote Notre Dame? Holy *whatever*!
There are less essays, and I missed more of them. But the poetic way of writing still the same, and the casualties. And the catch of Human beings behaviour and personalities... and the hope. But in this novel the hope in humanity (I think) is a little less than in Les Mis, but maybe it is because he is younger, or because the 1848 revolution hasn't come yet, and so his faith was not so clear...
I love the way he talks about art and History. And his essay about architecture and books is one of the greatest things I've read, it cleared me many ideas that I didn't understand studying art History.
And that's all right now from my part!

[simosax24601]

I love Notre-Dame de Paris, it's my second favourite book after Les Misérables! <3 Hugo was a genius even when he was 30!

[FortressDoor]

Given he was only 30 it was a pretty good book. I read in the intro that he was publishing at the age of 15.

However after reading this book, expecting something with the quality of Les Mis I was disappointing. The one thing I dislike about Hugos stlye is his digressions, and while the ones in Les Mis usually had substance, the ones in the Notre Dame seem pointless and strange. When he focusing on the story he seemed to jump around randomly, introduce random characters that we'd never see or care about again and then go back to digressing.

The plot feels drawn out and has a lack of substance. To be honest, it's strength was in it's pretty powerful ending.

Still a better book than I will ever write though

[Chantefleurie]

Both Les Mis and Notre Dame have grand endings. I haven't read any other Hugo novels - is it just his style, to set up the situation for half the book and then to bombard you with emotional artillery for the second half? Anyways, I think both books are fabulous, but I have a slight preference for Notre Dame.

Les Mis seems to be more about ideals. It's large-scale. People die for their causes, or live for their lack of such. It's about a country and a people. Notre Dame is a personal book. It's more about personal struggles and individual lives. And both perspectives come out very powerful, they just have a different focus.

However after reading this book, expecting something with the quality of Les Mis I was disappointing. The one thing I dislike about Hugos stlye is his digressions, and while the ones in Les Mis usually had substance, the ones in the Notre Dame seem pointless and strange. When he focusing on the story he seemed to jump around randomly, introduce random characters that we'd never see or care about again and then go back to digressing.

I feel the opposite way. I did shamelessly skip the two sections on Parisian geography and the cathedral's architecture, but I feel like in Notre Dame Hugo's detours blend in better with the text and provide a better understanding and feel of the time. In Les Mis, though, he just goes on rants, half of which don't seem relevant and the other half I can't understand because he keeps referring to people and places I've never heard before.