Esmerlda's Character

I'm sure that if you have seen any film adaptions of Notre Dame De Paris the characters have the very same basis:
Quasimodo:Tormented because of his appearence, exceptionally kind.
Frollo:A lustful preist, still maintains some good but loses himself because of his sexual obsession.
Esmerelda:The kind gypsy who befriends Quasimodo.

But why is Esmerelda always viewed as kind? In my opinion, Esmerelda was completely two-faced. I mean, look at the scene where Quasimodo took two vases, an worn down pot full of beautiful flowers (Repersenting himself) and a beautiful pot full of dead flowers (Repersenting the Phoebus' lack of morals). She went up, grabbed the dead flowers and pinned them against her chest. It's understandable, her not loving Quasimodo, but she could at least so some decency towards him. Being afraid of his terrfying apperence was okay, but even after he saved her she still yelled and demanded to see Phoebus. Also her treatment of Frollo was exceptionally cruel, when Frollo poured out his heart to Esmerelda, she cursed him for being old and ugly. I laughed when Esmerelda died in the novel, the b-word deserved it. Quasimodo didn't deserve his tragic end however, I only wish he would have gotten a true friend before his death, not la Esmerelda, who only tolerated him because she would have been dead otherwise.

I never watched neither movie or cartoon so I'll stick to this novel.
I see you don't like Esmeralda :D
She was afraid of Quasimodo, he was too ugly; you would probably be afraid of Frankenstein no matter if he saved your life 1min before. I can understand you admiration for poor Quasimodo, but I don't understand Frollo's situation. Imagine yourself: a 70 years old ugly fat nun pouring out her heart to you and talking to you about her sick love to you???How would you react? Have mercy on her or you would be shocked and disgusted?
I think you would also, between dead and some ugly stranger, picked help of Quasimodo just like Esmeralda did .

Hmmm. Good answer. But the thing I don't like was the fact she taunted Frollo. I can understand a poor reaction to both the hunchback (And I actually am used to the so called 'abnormal'. So I probably assumed that everyone would react more along my lines.) Another thing is that if you know an emotionally unstable person is in love with you (Quasimodo) you don't go around screaming at them to bring you the hottest guy in Paris or talking about how wonderful that person (Phoebus) is.
I get your point, and I would certainly be terrified of Franky, but not Quasimodo, like I said eariler, I'm used to physical abnormalities. But I believe there is a great difference from being scared and unsure to what Esmerelda did. I personally believed that Esmerelda was fully aware of the emotional impact she had on Frollo and Quasimodo. I think she was aware that the beautiful Phoebus was a jerk, and that the grotesque hunchback was actually kind. But I believe she either was to busy trying to reach her goals, decided it wasn't worth the effort, or just enjoyed being cruel that she didn't act on it. Esmerelda was bright, but that doesn't change the fact that she was cruel. (Opinion)

Though you are a good debater! :)

Hmm, I have to agree with Fuzzer, but I see your points too Bazarov.

I always found Esmeralda (in the novel at least) a very selfish, shallow, and irritating girl. It almost seemed out of character for her to help Quasimodo by giving him water on the pillory.

No one can really blame her for not loving Quasimodo romatically/sexually, but she did not even respect his devotion to her, much less consider him a friend.

Not to go off-topic, but Bazarov, you mentioned Frankenstein. Frankenstein's creature had the fact that he was stitched together from seven different corpses working against him. That plus the fear people have of death, and especially the "undead" or reanimated corpses, did little to endear him to people. He was in fact not malicious to begin with, but became so after being treated with cruelty, fear, and prejudice.

Quasimodo, while also treated with fear and contempt by the general populace, was at least a living, breathing (though unusually shaped) human being. One would think after all he did for Esmeralda, she would get the point that he meant her no harm. She did not have to pretend to have any sensual feeling towards him but she did not need to rub in the fact that she was tipsy on the very thought of Phoebus.

As for Frollo, he was far from 70 years old, fat, or ugly. He was about 35 (maybe 36?) at the time of the story, but had gone partially bald and grey prematurely and had stern features. That is not really that bad, as appearances go. If she had had a few brain cells to rub together, she could have had Frollo eating out of her hand during his confession without either deceiving him/leading him on or becoming intimate (at any level) with him.

And did anyone else want to slap her [hard] when her mother almost succeeded in persuading the guards that Esmeralda was not in the cell and then she starts shouting for Phoebus (who had probably forgotten her at that point)?

Sorry for my long ramblings, good thread you have here!

You have perception of Quasimodo's look from movies and cartoons. He was ugly there, but nothing special. Today we don't see physical abnormalities like something disgusting but in 15th century it was terrifying. And Quasimodo was described like ''ugly like Satan's son, you can't imagine someone that ugly'' etc.
If Esmeralda was so stupid (and she was) to like that jerk Phoebus, you cannot expect her to consider greatness of Quasimodo's kindness; she only saw his outstanding ugliness.
I used Frankenstein like a symbol of something that causes great fear in normal people, like Qausimodo also did. His non-human look stopped people even to think about his merits.
Claude perished because of his love, and wasn't nice at all, especially with picture of Phoebus in Esmeralda's mind and her lack of brain cells stopped her to turn that situation in her way.


P.S. I am very glad that I can finally discuss about this novel. :)

I'm not sure why you assume I have an image of Quasimodo only from the movies, but it is not the main image I associate with him. I read the novel before seeing any of the movies, so I tried to go by his description in Book First, Chapter 5:

"We shall not try to give the reader an idea of that tetrahedral nose, that horseshoe mouth; that little left eye obstructed with a red, bushy, bristling eyebrow, while the right eye disappeared entirely beneath an enormous wart; of those teeth in disarray, broken here and there, like the embattled parapet of a fortress; of that callous lip, upon which one of these teeth encroached, like the tusk of an elephant; of that forked chin; and above all, of the expression spread over the whole; of that mixture of malice, amazement, and sadness. Let the reader dream of this whole, if he can."

That said, everyone will form an image to suit their own imagination. I personally don't like any of the movie versions, they are not grotesque enough, and Disney tries very hard to make him "adorable." In the musical Notre Dame de Paris, the singer/actor Garou makes him nearly handsome. Ah well, what can we do?

It is very true that our standards today towards physical disabilities are very different from those in the 15th century, and maybe it is that which makes us more sympathetic to Quasimodo?

Quote:

---

If Esmeralda was so stupid (and she was) to like that jerk Phoebus, you cannot expect her to consider greatness of Quasimodo's kindness; she only saw his outstanding ugliness.

---

Exactly, I mentioned her inability to appreciate his goodness/kindness as evidence of her shallowness. :)

I am also glad that I found this forum to analyze the novel with fellow readers who enjoy a good discussion. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NovelWorm

"We shall not try to give the reader an idea of that tetrahedral nose, that horseshoe mouth; that little left eye obstructed with a red, bushy, bristling eyebrow, while the right eye disappeared entirely beneath an enormous wart; of those teeth in disarray, broken here and there, like the embattled parapet of a fortress; of that callous lip, upon which one of these teeth encroached, like the tusk of an elephant; of that forked chin; and above all, of the expression spread over the whole; of that mixture of malice, amazement, and sadness. Let the reader dream of this whole, if he can."

---

I am sorry, but I can't imagine that!:D

I can't say I liked Quasimodo, I felt sorry for him. He was kind only to Esmeralda, so I really can't say he was a kind person.

Quote:

---

He was kind only to Esmeralda, so I really can't say he was a kind person.

---

He was also extremely devoted to Frollo and it is mentioned several times how "no dog, no horse ever loved his master more" (not exact quote) than Quasimodo loved Frollo. Of course, their relationship is shaken by Frollo's neglect of his adopted son, and both of their obsessions with Esmeralda which put them in a sort of competition.

He was not generally a kind person because no one was kind to him. Society mocked, taunted, and humiliated him, or they were running away screaming in fear. He can't be expected to be kind to people who are so cruel to him for all the 20+ years of his life. No matter how patient a person can be, they'll give up on humanity after repeatedly being treated like that. He was traumatized and that made him malicious to the general populace, but he was capable of extreme kindness to those who showed him even a little compassion.

You're really liked this novel, hah?:lol:

Well, I am not questioning why he isn't kind and you're right about that; society was very cruel to him. But man should be kind to those who aren't kind to him also. His kindness, which couldn't be given to all humans canalized on Esmeralda; and it was too great. He couldn't control it, she couldn't accept it and instead of salvation to both they suffered and finally died.

Quote:

---

You're really liked this novel, hah?

---

Haha, just a little! ;) :)

Quote:

---

He couldn't control it, she couldn't accept it and instead of salvation to both they suffered and finally died.

---

I agree that the strength of his devotion to her was more than either could handle (maybe another type of person would have handled it differently and successfully), but I don't think it was the cause of their suffering and death.

The main cause would be the triangle between Frollo/Phoebus/Esmeralda. Actually, I blame it mostly on Phoebus/Esmeralda. If they had not met that night, Frollo would not have had a reason to fly into a jealous rage and stab Phoebus, so Esmeralda would not have been charged with (attempted) murder. Of course, Frollo is just as guilty because he did stab the captain; and even if that had not transpired he would have found something else to blame Esmeralda for (e.g. witchcraft). So all three (Frollo, Esmeralda, and Phoebus) were equally to blame.

So out of all the insanity that ensued, Quasimodo's devotion was the least problematic.


p.s.
Thanks for sharing your ideas on this!

ok, i may be a bit late with a reply (two years later), but here goes:

let us not forget that the charaters of Hugo are mainly ordinary people living in extraordinary circumstances, i.e. forced by destiny to play a role in situations that do not generally occur. In such a case, Esmeralda should be "judged" through the series of events that happened. Her love for the desired man can be seen as pure and misunderstood (or not accepted) by the other characters, but one can see that HE also belongs to a higher class than HER, so if one thinks that getting out of the situation she was currently in/finding some stability in an otherwise crazy gypsy life, he may not be completely out of line. I do not mean that she is an opportunist or that her love has interests, but, then again, how much can you resist dancing for strangers and sleeping under the naked dark blue sky?

Also, let us not forget that Esmeralda WAS raised by gypsies and her behavior towards the hunchback, the priest and the poet (and, why not, towards Phoebus himself) is somewhat influenced by her upraising. That is to say, a gypsy way of looking at things, not prying too much in the depths of other people's souls, taking things as they come, etc. She was not a gypsy by blood but she must have been influenced by living so far among them. Also, the circumstances she is in, the new tumult of life and the danger of the situations, are making her act in that certain way.

Novelworm said in an earlier post "Actually, I blame it mostly on Phoebus/Esmeralda." I, personally, blame it on the era they lived in, and i think this is what Victor Hugo was trying to depict, and not only in this novel. Let us not forget the digressions he makes in all his books, the attention paid to depicting a colorful image of the era(s), which are there for quite good reasons. The characters, good, bad, with superficial or deep insights on life, are all victims of their centuries and of the general mentalities.

Better late then never, right?

Hmm, I might have phrased that in a confusing manner. I did not mean to say that Pheobus and Esmeralda purposely brought about tragic events. By "I blame it on Phoebus/Esmeralda" I meant that their relationship was the major catalyst for the suffering that followed, not that they were guilty of causing the drama deliberately. Of course, Frollo can't be separated from that catalytic pairing, so it becomes a triangle.

Of the four (Esmeralda, Frollo, Phoebus, Quasimodo), Quasimodo was most often dealing with results of situations the other created instead of creating them himself (eg. He never would have crossed paths with Esmeralda if Frollo did not specifically order him to abduct her.)

And while I do agree that all people are a product of the time and society they are raised in, we can't take all responsibility from the individual.

Hugo, however, does tend to create archetypal characters to illustrate the mindset of a time period, and with the exception of Frollo all are relatively static.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NovelWorm

Hugo, however, does tend to create archetypal characters to illustrate the mindset of a time period, and with the exception of Frollo all are relatively static.

---

How about Pierre Gringore? Would you call him an archetype of that time?
I think Pierre was the most original disinterested lover and deserter of Esmeralda. If he had not helped Frollo at Notre-Dame, Esmeralda would have stayed with Quasimodo. At dawn when they arrived at the shore, he could have easily saved her along with the goat. He fell for her only for a short while and offered her his love and got rejected; he loved the goat instead; and then he decided to love stones. Replace the goat with any pet, stones with any video games or sports, and then you will find such men in our time.

Was not he who informed the mop where Esmerald was to save her in token of her saving him? He tried reluctantly, cowardly, and unsuccessfully to deal with the situation.

The archetypal characters are not just archetypes of a certain time period (although they are that too, to an extent), but of humans in general. I wouldn't call any of them pure archetypes, Frollo and Gringoire especially, but most of them are static in varying degrees.

I found this thread infuriating. Blaming Esmeralda for rejecting Frollo and wanting to hurt him? He plagued her existence by condemning her performances, calling her a witch (a charge with a likely death sentence), had her arrested in order to profess his love, and then decided to torture her. Frollo is one of the most amazingly evil hypocrites of world literature. Bottom of the barrel scumbag. There is nothing terribly surprising in her misguided and overly-idealized love for Phoebus either. She was a teenager with no experience of "romantic love" except, judging by her reaction to Gringoire's advances, for fighting off prospective rapists with a knife.

Gringoire is an opportunist and a coward, of course.

I think you missed the vital point Hugo made regarding Frollo. The point of his character was not having an evil guy in the book. That was never Hugo's purpose. He has no evil guys. He has only people who are regarded evil in certain circumstances, but cannot help being so.

Frollo starts to fall in love with her and thus uses his power to 'have' her. She, in her angellic womanhood, resists and rather dies than to offer herself to this man. But he cannot be seen giving her grace as he has himself declared she is a witch. So now, he has finished up killing the greatest love of his life. He was going to torture her, but don't forget that most probably cracked before they started things... I mean, who is going to reasonably say that he has flown around with the devil on his broom, and such things, if there is another alternative? Certainly if you know that you'll have to die for it. But running from the pain of torture was good enough to begin with. So, torture... I don't think Hugo ever intended him that evil. That was the system.

So, scumbag... I think Phoebus was a greater scumbag than Frollo ever was, Frollo was an unfortunate victim of the times, like Esmeralda and Quasimodo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiki1982

I think you missed the vital point Hugo made regarding Frollo. The point of his character was not having an evil guy in the book. That was never Hugo's purpose. He has no evil guys. He has only people who are regarded evil in certain circumstances, but cannot help being so.

Frollo starts to fall in love with her and thus uses his power to 'have' her. She, in her angellic womanhood, resists and rather dies than to offer herself to this man. But he cannot be seen giving her grace as he has himself declared she is a witch. So now, he has finished up killing the greatest love of his life. He was going to torture her, but don't forget that most probably cracked before they started things... I mean, who is going to reasonably say that he has flown around with the devil on his broom, and such things, if there is another alternative? Certainly if you know that you'll have to die for it. But running from the pain of torture was good enough to begin with. So, torture... I don't think Hugo ever intended him that evil. That was the system.

So, scumbag... I think Phoebus was a greater scumbag than Frollo ever was, Frollo was an unfortunate victim of the times, like Esmeralda and Quasimodo.

---

Kiki, I think it is you who may be missing the point. Frollo and his ilk are not victims of the times, they are the creators of the times. Remember, the essential image and theme of the novel: the spider (Frollo) and the fly (Esmeralda) trying to reach the sun (Phoebus). Within this framework, Frollo is a predator using the power society has ceded to him (the web, which, however, he helped spin) in order to rape (coercive sex is rape) a teenage girl. He accused her of being a witch because he couldn't take responsibility for his own sexual impulses and found it more convenient to blame the victim—he was a hypocrite just like many modern-day Christian ministers who can't accept their homosexuality and end up excoriating others for their own perceived defect. This, however, is a generous interpretation of his character. It is equally plausible that he only made the charge as part of the coercion. If he couldn't have her, no one would.

Hugo did have characters who were rotten to the core (Thernadier, Frollo) without any discernible extenuating circumstances.

I have more to say but must get to an appointment. Stay tuned . . . And thanks for caring enough about Hugo to respond.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WyattGwyon

Kiki, I think it is you who may be missing the point. Frollo and his ilk are not victims of the times, they are the creators of the times. Remember, the essential image and theme of the novel: the spider (Frollo) and the fly (Esmeralda) trying to reach the sun (Phoebus). Within this framework, Frollo is a predator using the power society has ceded to him (the web, which, however, he helped spin) in order to rape (coercive sex is rape) a teenage girl. He accused her of being a witch because he couldn't take responsibility for his own sexual impulses and found it more convenient to blame the victim—he was a hypocrite just like many modern-day Christian ministers who can't accept their homosexuality and end up excoriating others for their own perceived defect. This, however, is a generous interpretation of his character. It is equally plausible that he only made the charge as part of the coercion. If he couldn't have her, no one would.

Hugo did have characters who were rotten to the core (Thernadier, Frollo) without any discernible extenuating circumstances.

I have more to say but must get to an appointment. Stay tuned . . . And thanks for caring enough about Hugo to respond.

---

Hugo wrote for a social purpose, and in that purpose he always opposed the notion that a person is predestined to be bad or good (physiognomy). In Hugo's mind a man or woman had reasons for being corrupted, if they turned out evil. He expressed this in Le Dernier Jour d'un Condamné, opposing the death sentence.

Thénardier, nor Javert, nor Frollo are rotten to the core. The latter two do things, because they were taught that that was the way and they think things are logical until they face the consequences. Thénardier is an even sadder case because he needs to cheat people to live. He is not a bad man, but was forced into crime because of society. He was not as strong as Jean Valjean in that respect, but also not so lucky. He never met anyone who was so good to him as the bishop of Digne. He was never so lucky as Jean Valean to invent or find a new process of making things which gave him a lot of money. He had two children and a wife to support, a B&B that went out of business and no trade... He has to feed his children. And then what?

But back to Frollo. Yes, Frollo may be the spider, but a spider is also evolved the way it is. It cannot help making a web and certainly not that it should eat. What lands in the web is a matter of pure accident. That's the way it is. People also need food. Should they stp eating because otherwise they kill animals? Once, in his Contemplations, Hugo said he loved spiders and nettles, because nothing lives up to and everything spoils their dreary wishes. Indeed, both are not demanding things, but they will thrive. As it is, Frollo has been really somewhat coerced into going into the church by his parents. Even before he knew what sexuality was and then he falls in love, with a gypsy of all people! That is filth, both in terms of his celibate and normality. Gypsies are a no-no. He is not vindictive or jealous, but just covetous. He has been placed in a web (the rules of society and the church) and will have to live by it. He is not independent.

At any rate, the argument about priests is a non-argument as problems in those terms are not caused by the celibate, but rather by not enough will power. And because of the fact that in former days, homosexuality was not accepted or even talked about, naturally homosexuals thought they were abnormal and were probably destined for the church. Of course, why else were they not falling in love with women? It must be. But the fact they have a celibate is as bad for them as for a heterosexual. I don't see what that has to do with Frollo in the least.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiki1982

Hugo wrote for a social purpose, and in that purpose he always opposed the notion that a person is predestined to be bad or good (physiognomy). In Hugo's mind a man or woman had reasons for being corrupted, if they turned out evil. He expressed this in Le Dernier Jour d'un Condamné, opposing the death sentence.

Thénardier, nor Javert, nor Frollo are rotten to the core. The latter two do things, because they were taught that that was the way and they think things are logical until they face the consequences. Thénardier is an even sadder case because he needs to cheat people to live. He is not a bad man, but was forced into crime because of society. He was not as strong as Jean Valjean in that respect, but also not so lucky. He never met anyone who was so good to him as the bishop of Digne. He was never so lucky as Jean Valean to invent or find a new process of making things which gave him a lot of money. He had two children and a wife to support, a B&B that went out of business and no trade... He has to feed his children. And then what?

But back to Frollo. Yes, Frollo may be the spider, but a spider is also evolved the way it is. It cannot help making a web and certainly not that it should eat. What lands in the web is a matter of pure accident. That's the way it is. People also need food. Should they stp eating because otherwise they kill animals? Once, in his Contemplations, Hugo said he loved spiders and nettles, because nothing lives up to and everything spoils their dreary wishes. Indeed, both are not demanding things, but they will thrive. As it is, Frollo has been really somewhat coerced into going into the church by his parents. Even before he knew what sexuality was and then he falls in love, with a gypsy of all people! That is filth, both in terms of his celibate and normality. Gypsies are a no-no. He is not vindictive or jealous, but just covetous. He has been placed in a web (the rules of society and the church) and will have to live by it. He is not independent.

At any rate, the argument about priests is a non-argument as problems in those terms are not caused by the celibate, but rather by not enough will power. And because of the fact that in former days, homosexuality was not accepted or even talked about, naturally homosexuals thought they were abnormal and were probably destined for the church. Of course, why else were they not falling in love with women? It must be. But the fact they have a celibate is as bad for them as for a heterosexual. I don't see what that has to do with Frollo in the least.

---

I didn't imply that Hugo believed anyone was predestined for evil. Frollo was not always evil—he made a conscious decision in choosing evil. Contrary to what you claim, his actions prove unequivocally that he was motivated, in part at least, by jealousy of Phoebus and vindictiveness toward Esmeralda for choosing him. By saying he is rotten to the core I am not speaking about his past but of his character and actions in the novel's present. Most things that are literally rotten to the core, like fruit, the source of the metaphor, were sweet initially. Frollo chose to abandon his deepest beliefs and devotion to God for the sake of lust—and that is all it was. There is no basis for talking about love in this case. Frollo lacked the wisdom and experience even to comprehend romantic love, let alone feel it in a normal way. You claim that "he has been placed in a web (the rules of society and the church) and will have to live by it. He is not independent," but in the case of Esmeralda he had complete freedom of action. He was perfectly free to leave her happy and unmolested but was driven by his twisted lust toward rape and brutality. He chose evil and got the fate he deserved.

I think you may have misunderstood my thinking on the priesthood. Hugo's point about religion in general and priests in particular seems to be that their tendency to repress sexuality inevitably leads to hypocrisy and corruption. Hugo's view of the clergy seems to have been quite negative. With the exception of the bishop of Digne, they are not portrayed in a positive light in his novels (e.g., the Reverend Ebenezer Caudray in Toilers of the Sea)

Thernadier started out picking the pockets of corpses before he had a family to support. He only has a wife at all because he lied to her family and everyone else who would listen about his allegedly heroic character, while concealing his criminal tendencies. He only had the capital to start his B&B because, out of cowardice, he lied to a wealthy officer whose pocket he was picking. He is a fraud, a liar, and a thief. For all we know, these traits could be rooted in his sloth and desire to get things for nothing. I see no reason to attribute any good qualities to him or to see him in a sympathetic light. Javert is another case—but I didn't bring him up or condemn him. He is a symbol of a great societal evil—the blindness and inflexibility of the law—but not evil in the same deep and corrupt way as Thernadier and Frollo.

Just an historical note: Clergy and monks were well-aware of homosexuality in their ranks and even had terminology for discussing homosexual lovers within their communities. The term "special friendship" was used in such cases to indicate same-sex sexual partnerships among monks and nuns.