The Hunchback of Notre Dame (novel)/YMMV


 * Alternative Character Interpretation:
 * This happens the most to Quasimodo and Frollo. In the book, Quasimodo is rather mean and hates most people. In the films, he is usually put in a more sympathetic light. The exact opposite usually happens to Frollo. In his book form, he is, for the most part, benevolent but sexually frustrated, and his transformation into a villain is tragic. However, in the films he is made into an all-out evil, sexually depraved monster from the start.
 * Phoebus gets this treatment as well. In the 1923 and Disney adaptation he is put in the role of a pure love interest for Esmeralda. However, in the book he was kind of a jerk, who was just interested in her for sex.
 * Die for Our Ship: Frollo/Esmeralda fans of any of the adaptations are eager to kill off Phoebus for the sake of this impossible ship. Then again, even if you don't support this ship, almost every Hunchback fan would gladly see Phoebus die (discounting the Disney version, where Phoebus is actually awesome).
 * It Gets Better: For all its strengths, the book could afford to shave off some of its exposition.
 * Values Dissonance:
 * Sexual obsession in a priest? Bad, wrong, dangerous. Sexual obsession of a man in his thirties for a sixteen-year-old girl? No prob.
 * Also, this is not an anti-racist story. The Parisians' mistreatment of Esmeralda is treated as literary irony: they're wrong to treat her as they do, because she's really one of them. Their treatment of real "Gypsies" is completely excusable: it's clearly established that "Gypsies" really are dangerous -- thieves and con artists who will readily steal children. If you think Victor Hugo loved gypsies and was protesting their mistreatment, go and read The Man Who Laughs.


 * Back to