Analysis: Setting

ANALYSIS: SETTING BACK NEXT Where It All Goes Down Paris, 1482 Hugo is oddly specific about when and where this story takes place. In fact, Time gets the first line of the novel: "Three hundred and forty-eight years, six months, and nineteen days ago, the good people of Paris awoke to the sound of all the bells pealing in the three districts of the Cité, the Université, and the Ville" (I.I.1). The emphasis here is on the past—the really, really precise past. You won't find any "A long time ago, in a galaxy far far away…" here. We as readers get the sense that if Hugo is going through the trouble to be so darn exact about the date, then we're actually about to read some "real" history. The setting helps us out in this regard; after all, who hasn't heard of that magical, make-believe kingdom of Paris, France? But why 1482? Why not 1481, or 1483, or 1526, or 1642? Because Hugo is so specific, it behooves us to really look at what was going on around 1482 that would make it relevant to the story. So here's your "What was happening in 1482 in France?" cheat sheet: The Hundred Years' War between England and France had ended in 1453 (it's referred to occasionally in the novel), and Louis XI had ascended to the French throne in 1423. He died in 1483, as the novel mentions, which means that the story takes place at the very tail end of his reign. Louis really wanted to consolidate the power of the monarchy, because as it was France was ruled by some really powerful dukes who were basically mini-kings. A particular thorn in Louis's side was the Duke of Burgundy, Charles the Bold, who owned a big chunk of the east of France, including Flanders. Louis defeated Charles and got these territories in 1477, but there were some complications with this guy Maximilian I, so basically the Dauphin (who was twelve years old) and Maximilian's daughter, Margaret of Flanders (who was three), had to be betrothed so that Louis could keep this territory. This history might sound try and distant and pseudo-relevant, but it's actually all over the novel. Think about it: the first scene of the novel is of Gringoire's play, which deals with the Dauphin's marriage to Margaret of Flanders and is attended by some big-wig Flemish ambassadors; and there is a long chapter towards the novel's climax of Louis XI strutting around the cage of one of his opponents and talking about how France really ought to have just one king. This novel is fraught with discussions about centralized state power, who has jurisdiction over what, who determines justice, etc. But Hugo also has the benefit of hindsight, and he loves to use the events of the past as harbingers of the future. So, for Hugo in 1831, the major recent historical event would have definitely been the French Revolution of 1789. In that year the Bastille, which, in the novel, is where Louis sits comfortably as he talks about the power of the monarchy, was stormed and destroyed by a mob. Four years later, the King of France (Louis XVI) was executed via guillotine. But then along comes a little general named Napoleon Bonaparte, who crowns himself emperor from 1804 to 1815. After Napoleon, however, France is back to monarchs again. So really, Hugo seems to be contrasting a period in history when state power was absolute, to a period when that absolute power had been seriously called into question. Hugo also loves to contrast the physical layout and architecture of the Paris of yesteryear with the Paris of the 1830's, showing us how impossible it is to stop the tide of change from working its magic/destruction. There is also a whole chapter devoted to the printing replacing architecture in the fifteenth century, so 1482 also represents a major turning point in history when the status quo of the church is going to be severely shaken up (see our Symbols, Imagery, Allegory section for more on why the printing press is so great). In short, time is really important to this novel. Check out our Themes section if you want some more convincing. ANALYSIS: NARRATOR POINT OF VIEW BACK NEXT Who is the narrator, can she or he read minds, and, more importantly, can we trust her or him? Third Person (Omniscient) WARNING: Do not assume that the narrator of this novel is Victor Hugo. Sure, he may constantly remind us of how he is writing the novel in the 1830's, like when in Book VII.IV in the middle of the narrative he mentions a bit of graffiti from 1829. Sure, he keeps referring to "the reader," as if aware of the fact that he is the writer. But we at Shmoop are here to tell you to ignore every bit of your intuition. Now, it may not seem immediately harmful to assume that Hugo is the narrator. But instead we're going to suggest that you assume that the narrator, while he is clearly the writer of the novel, is also a character as well. There's a really good reason why you should do this too. The narrator of The Hunchback is a really opinionated guy. He makes a lot of sarcastic comments about the characters and the way things were run way back in medieval Paris (which you can read more about in our Tone section). But we don't want to assume that those opinions belong to the real flesh- and-blood Hugo for the simple fact that there are novels out there in which we're not supposed to trust the narrator's opinion. Sometimes, we get books where we're supposed to know that the narrator is taking a stance that is the opposite of what the writer agrees with. Take a book like Pride and Prejudice, for example, which back-handedly makes fun of everyone's obsession with marriage and money by pretending to also be obsessed with marriage and money. So it's a good rule of thumb to just always maintain that distance between a narrator and a writer. Which brings us to another point about why the narrator is in fact a character and not Hugo: the Author's Preface. In it, the author claims that he was inspired to write the novel based on some medieval graffiti that he saw one time at Notre-Dame. This fun little anecdote might be true, but there is also nothing preventing it from being completely made up. Its real purpose is to help situate the novel in "reality." We as readers know that the novel is fiction, but we suspend our disbeliefand pretend for a while that Louis XI really did visit a made-up character like Frollo one night in 1481. So while it's completely plausible that Hugo's narrator is just Hugo, we need to recognize that this is still a work of fiction and that there is nothing stopping Hugo from making things up and claiming that it is real. It might only be "real" in the world of the narrator. Everything is fair game in fiction QUASIMODO BACK NEXT Character Analysis There's Something About Quasimodo Quasimodo is the hunchback—you know, the one from the title. He's deformed, he's ostracized, and he's the bell- ringer of Notre-Dame. He's also got a heart of gold, if you'd just give him a chance to prove it. There have been so many representations of Quasimodo in pop culture it's ridiculous. We're not just talking about the Disney movie either, which, for all of its awesome musical numbers, totally G-rates the story. (What, you mean all that death at the end of the novel is too much for toddlers? Pshaw). There's just something about Quasimodo's grotesqueness that captures peoples' imaginations. Early filmmakers found him really appealing, as well; we're guessing they were jumping at the chance to try and create the ugliest person imaginable, which is what Lon Chaney attempted in 1923. The image of him clambering up the sides of the great cathedral with Esmeralda dangling off his back is pretty much iconic. But if you think that pop culture has taught you everything you need to know about The Hunchback of Notre-Dame, think again. Most people assume that Quasimodo is the protagonist of the novel, and in many adaptations,he is. But we think of him as sharing the stage with a number of protagonists (see our "Character Role Identification" section to learn why). Still, one thing is for certain: more than for anyone else, we feel compelled to root for this guy. Maybe it's because he can't seem to get a break, what with that unsightly visage and all. Maybe it's because everyone loves a character who's misunderstood. Or maybe it's because, out of all the characters in the novel, we feel like Quasimodo is the only one capable of pure, genuine love. He's the ultimate ugly-on-the outside, beautiful-on-the-inside character. Even Disney can't make him escape his looks. How could you not feel for this guy? A Face Not Even a Mother Could Love Quasimodo's defining feature is his ugliness—and we mean defining, as in his entire character is based around the idea of his ugliness.

Load more