Esmeralda's destiny

What a book...I really enjoyed from 1st to last page, Hugo made a great job!
But one thing is maybe a little unreal in this novel. When Esmeralda waited for her to be hanged for killing Phoebus, and she knew he was alive; actually he was captain of those soldiers, not some nomad, he was well known so why than didn't she or anybody else(Pierre mostly, he was really clever) said:''Wait a minute, but he is alive, so she didn't killed anybody and there are no reasons for her to be hanged!''
I am aware of democracy or non-democracy of those days, but there is surely something what could be done, no matter of Claude Frollo's power. Brave Quasimodo just wasn't enough...

Moderators, please change thread's topic in Esmeralda's destiny, my mistake, sorry.

You want the thread's title "Esmeralda's destiny" ?

Yes!:crash: :crash: :crash: :crash:

Well, Esmerelda was first arrested for the murder of Phoebus. But it turned out Phoebus's stabbing was not fatal; so she was charged with attempted murder, not murder. And in many countries attempted murder is treated the same as murder.

But Pheobus was aware she didn't stabbed him, someone else did that.

Phoebus probably did not want to defend her or be more involved in the situation than he had to be because it would beg the question of what he was doing with a gypsy in the first place.

Pierre could do that. He was smart and liked Esmeralda a lot; he could ask Frollo for help. Frollo was very powerful, he could help them.

P.S. I know am overreacting about this, sorry! :)

Pierre liked her goat better. ;)

But yes, I agree they could have been more reasonable/logical than they were in dealing with her sentence. But can we really expect logical thinking from people who think that deformity is a sign of Satan and that advanced knowledge is evidence of sorcery?

Hahaha, not overreacting at all, it's good to have a lively discussion. :)

Well, Pierre was really educated, I don't think he had such stupid prejudices. Looks like Pierre and Frollo were only smart mens in Paris in those days. Pitty. And also Quasimodo could give her to Gipsy King and she would be saved! And then someone will say she was selfish???

Quote:

---

Well, Pierre was really educated, I don't think he had such stupid prejudices. Looks like Pierre and Frollo were only smart mens in Paris in those days.

---

He was educated, but in a time when even educated people were superstitious. Probably less so than the common people, but still. Frollo was probably the least superstitious because he dabbled in alchemy without thinking it is sorcery but rather "science." There might have been other smart men in Paris at the time, maybe even smarter/more logical/less superstitious than Pierre and Frollo, but the novel only focuses on these characters.

Quote:

---

And also Quasimodo could give her to Gipsy King and she would be saved!

---

I think Quasimodo wanted her to stay in the Cathedral because there she would have sanctuary, but on the streets she would be subject to being caught again. I also don't think he quite understood or believed that she would be protected anywhere else. He did not recognize the vegabonds as her friends when they stormed the Cathedral to save her but thought they were coming to kill her.

Quote:

---

And then someone will say she was selfish???

---

What do you mean? I think she was selfish mainly in regards to Phoebus (she thought only of her own feelings and failed to even comprehend how much trouble her mother went through to try and save her when she shouted Phoebus' name in her mother's cell). But I'm not sure I'm following what you mean by her being selfish in the context of our recent posts.

Actually, my last post was more or less sarcastic or irony, not sure...
I agree with everything you said after that :)

That's the only thing I don't like in Hugo, although it's not his fault - lack of realism; or no possibility to save poor Esmeralda.

I completely forgot to mention this before, but even if they managed to clear her of the charges of murder/attempted murder she was also accused of witchcraft, and that would be difficult to disprove in those times.

And for them to approve!

I finally got to look at the forum again (finals were brutal at university).

It was surprisingly easy to find "evidence" for witchcraft in those days. Someone just had to say you're a witch and you're basically doomed. Also, her goat could perform clever tricks that led some people to think she was controlling it with witchcraft.

You fancy Esmeralda don't you? ;) :D

:lol: No, I just don't like when someone is so attacked and hated without good reason.(Like Javert in Les Miserables)

Yes, I know, many years ago I read many books about witches but there were some ''smarter'' reasons then smart goat. Like smart cow or horse :lol:
But, she actually didn't have any enemies?