May I call you Victor?

I once read a review of The Hunchback of Notre Dame that made the claim that the characters are two dimensional, and the plot cliche. I was not much surprised at this comment because I found the same thing to be true myself. But I would not say that this is necessarily a criticism of the book, rather I found it to be an observation that only rendered the work all the more fascinating. If indeed it is not our limited understanding, or our own failure to read more into the novel, that keeps the Characters underdeveloped, if indeed Claud Frollo is only a priest being tormented by lust, Esmarelda a naive although kind hearted orphan, Pheobus a womanizing soldier and Gringoire a complacent failure, then what, I would ask, makes this book a long admired and adored classic? (please pardon my incorrect spellings) <br>I first read the book when I was 15, over summer vacation. When I was 18, I went camping with my college roomates and one of them brought along the copy of Hunchback. Just seeing the cover of the book again rekindled my interest in Quisimodo, Frollo, La Esmerelda and the rest, and I began to feel myself haunted by images of midievel Paris, until finally I couls stand it no longer and reread the book myself, looking for deeper meanings I had missed the first time around.<br>Now I find myself in roughly the same place I was at 15. The Characters are still two dimensional, and at the same time terribly evocative, and I keep wondering why? <br>Please, if anyone has any comments feel free to e-mail them to me!<br>thanks.