Category Archives: Classic

(Originally published January 25, 2009)

As many of you know, Victor Hugo’s classic novel “Les Miserables” has been one of my favorite books of all time ever since I read it last summer. Since then, though, I haven’t really sampled any of Hugo’s other works…even one of his most well-known novels, “Notre-Dame de Paris.” The original title was eventually anglicized to become “The Hunchback of Notre-Dame.” Anyone with a passing understanding of great literature will recognize the name of one of the protagonists…the hideously misshapen Quasimodo, named for the Sunday on which he was found. However, there’s really much, much more to this classic story than one might first suspect.

Set in the 1400s, the novel follows the lives of four main characters: Quasimodo, Captain Phoebus de Chateaupers, Archdeacon Claude Frollo, and the beautiful gypsy dancer Esmeralda. Hugo expertly analyzes the thoughts and motives of each of these characters, especially Frollo and Quasimodo.

Abandoned to the mercy of the church while only a child, the malformed Quasimodo was raised by a young priest with a deep fascination for the mystical…a priest who would later become Archdeacon Frollo. Quasimodo was rapidly put to work as a bellringer, which eventually caused him to lose his hearing: however, his deformed body hides a caring, generous heart desperately yearning for love. While in many ways he possesses a childlike innocence, Quasimodo is a fearsome enemy when provoked…as is demonstrated by his pivotal role in the novel’s climactic battle scene.

Conversely, Archdeacon Claude Frollo’s calm, religious exterior belies his cruel and twisted soul. Obsessed with power, he dabbles in alchemy and other esoteric occult practices…but when he sees the beautiful dancer Esmeralda for the first time, his manic passions are given a new purpose: to possess – or destroy – the girl who has captivated him. He will stop at nothing to achieve his goals…even murder.

Frollo’s lurking evil is sharply contrasted with Esmeralda’s naivete. Little more than a girl, she cannot fully comprehend the depth of human corruptibility…until she meets the vindictive Frollo. Hugo uses Esmeralda as a tragic figure to represent the loss of innocence…a message which becomes even more developed as the story continues. She is so blind to the real world that she cannot even see when she is being exploited. Enter Captain Phoebus de Chateaupers – a handsome-yet-morally-bankrupt army commander with a casual disregard for human decency. Esmeralda is captivated by his physical attractiveness and unable to see the flaws in Phoebus’ character…and ultimately, her blind, unthinking devotion leads to her undoing. Once again, Hugo uses Phoebus as a foil to another character…in this case, Quasimodo. One is ugly while the other is handsome – but Phoebus is heartless, whereas Quasimodo is loving and gentle.

I won’t spoil the ending of this marvelous novel…if you want to find out what happens, read it for yourself. 🙂

VERDICT: 10/10
A supremely excellent work by one of the greatest masters of the written word. VERY highly recommended.

(Originally published January 22, 2009)

Leo Tolstoy’s “War and Peace” is considered a classic. I’m not exactly sure why. If it were published today, it likely wouldn’t have gotten past a sharp editor. Some parts of it are definitely worth reading (and highly memorable) but the book is dragged down by tedious passages of lengthy historical commentary. It’s sort of like one of the really, really bad G.A. Henty novels.

The book follows the story of the Rostov family – respected members of the Russian aristocracy. In a lot of respects, the domestic scenes mirror those in Jane Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice” in the sense that they focus little if at all on the poorer members of society. Since the book is set in the time of the Napoleonic Wars (specifically, Napoleon’s invasion of Russia) it avoids a lot of the controversy surrounding the later Russian Revolution. Political diatribes are (luckily) absent from the narrative.

The main characters are Pierre (a wealthy Russian gentleman afflicted by alcoholism and a desperate search for a purpose) and Natasha Rostova, a young Russian countess on the cusp of womanhood. As the story progresses, most of the other characters fade into the background. This could have been because Tolstoy allegedly based Pierre’s character on his own life, but the lack of well-developed supporting characters really hurts the book.

The book’s best moments come between pages 300 and 500. These are the ones that really get into Pierre and Natasha’s characters and make the reader care more about what happens to them. Several deliciously evil villains (including a Mr. Wickham-like character and a coldly beautiful femme fatale) add to the increasing tension. The “war” aspect of the title fades into the background, and this is actually a good thing.

Tolstoy can’t write battle scenes like G.A. Henty or Bernard Cornwell – he relies on complex descriptions of military strategy that bog down the plot. A slew of cardboard characters (with overly-similar names) do nothing to advance the story and merely confuse the reader.

Unfortunately, Tolstoy doesn’t continue to deliver the excitement of his earlier chapters. The book’s denouement is tedious and drawn-out, explaining in detail things that would have been better left to the reader’s imagination.

I love reading classic literature. In most cases, I think a true “classic” will be both readable and meaningful. While “War and Peace” does contain some interesting insights on human nature, these few moments come at the expense of a truly compelling story or sympathetic characters. And that’s not even mentioning the laborious pages of history that encumber the narrative. Overall, “War and Peace” might be a good choice for a summer day when you have nothing else to do, but when it comes to truly powerful classic literature, authors like Victor Hugo and Charles Dickens are better bets.

VERDICT: 5.5/10
A decent book with some interesting moments, but probably not worth your time.