It’s strange to write a review of something this famous. I have read Les Miserables earlier than Notre-Dame and really enjoyed it. I expected so much from this undying classics, people who enjoyed it gave me good reviews and naturally I’ve got the highest expectations. That is why, my friends, you should always read the book by yourself. Especially when it’s classics.
Basically this is a story of a young and beautiful Esmeralda and the three men who loved or was loved by her. She is basically a teenager, who stupidly fell in love and saw nothing but her crush. I was disappointed with her, she as a character has no meaning. She has no depth and no purpose and was really annoying. Phoebus, her crush, was even worse. Arrogant and plain dumb, but handsome. Had nothing to give to the reader. Claud Frollo, archdeacon, is a little bit interesting character who is the main villain here. But his hectic decisions (“she should die so I will do everything in my power to execute her but I kinda love her so I must save her but she doesn’t want me therefore I’ll execute her) are kind of annoying. Ugh, man, just decide. And then there’s Quasimodo, the only sane person in this circus and Esmeralda is way too stupid so she basically trolls her savior.
I expected it to be a great story of undying love with the strong female lead. Instead I got a story of teenage crush and bunch of people who died because of this. The only interesting plot twist was with Esmeralda’s mother, but it was too obvious though.
It was hard to believe that Hugo could write something so pointless. The main reason behind all this nonsense is beautiful description of Paris and Notre-Dame and that is all. Not a fan of reading about architecture though.
I was tempted to give this novel 3 stars on Goodreads, but gave 4 because it’s Hugo.