Hannibal Rising discussion

"Hannibal Rising" is (one hopes) the final chapter in this franchise. I am halfway through it, just as I was when I wasted my money on it about a year ago.

What Thomas Harris, who I respect mightily, seems to have forgotten is that villains are best when they are mythic--much scarier that way. The more you learn about them, the less scary, hence interesting, they are. "Hannibal Rising" is something akin to a film one could imagine with a shudder, titled, "Keyser Soze: The Early Years."

Actually, what I think is happening here is something I've noticed for almost any interesting villain who gets taken up by the film industry. There is a relentless effort (perhaps unconscious) to find a reason to justify exactly *why* the villain is as he or she is. I noticed it first with Tom Ripley, of Patricia Highsmith's five Ripley novels (collectively, The Ripliad). Films of the Ripley novels, like Jacob and the Angel, wrestle with Ripley's amorality (basically, his "career" begins with a desire simply to have what one rich kid has and to do anything to get it) by inventing explanations: he's homosexual ("The Talented Mr. Ripley"), he's a disaffected expatriate ("The American Friend"), he's a supercilious snob ("Ripley's Game"), he even gets caught ("Plein Soleil"). If you read Highsmith's novels, none of this is foregrounded as a rationale for Ripley's actions: he simply wants what isn't his. That's it!

The same thing seems to have happened with Hannibal Lecter. We keep getting fed (please forgive the pun) more information about the Terrible Thing that happened to his sister--and by the way, we don't need to be told that again in "Hannibal Rising," that's in "Hannibal," the previous novel. It's a clear attempt to make Lecter more sympathetic. Why? He's a villain.

I fear the same thing is happening to my current favorite villain, Dexter Morgan. Season Two of the Showtime series "Dexter" ended with the prediction that Dexter's famous "Code of Harry" (the strict rules his policeman stepfather schooled him in) no longer holds and he's going to invent a "new code" (?) Okay, I'll withhold judgment until I see it (and until I read the fourth novel, just released)--but please, don't do this again (neither you, Mr. Harris, nor the producers of Dexter). Keep the villain a monster who keeps you guessing: he's much more interesting that way.

Agree totally with what you say. As well as the need to justify is the need these days to explain. A need to leave nothing about a story or character unexplained, as if it is somehow not allowed to leave any loose ends or mystery

I cannot say I agree with your reviews of the Hannibal series. I've read all the books Thomas Harris has written, and I felt Hannibal Rising was a tale that needed to be told. Like your comments, many of my friends never understood why I liked Hannibal and maybe that's because I see him for what he is and not by what he does.

Hannibal was always misunderstood, but there is something lovable about this character. For me, his super intelligence drew me to him right away. I'm a sucker for smarts, and that made me love him when I was introduced to him in the Red Dragon. Thomas developed Hannibal in such a way that he didn't overpower the reader nor over burden his readers, like some authors I know, James Patterson, who writes a book every minute of the day. Thomas made us wait, and I felt it was well worth it.

Because we had to wait years in between the books, it was natural, I thought, that he revisit the death of Hannibal's sister so that it could build you up to what we were about to discover about the serial killer. I know most don't like Hannibal, but I always did. And by liking someone that most feel should be hated, doesn't take away from the strength and power that character possesses.

And Dexter should wish to be as intelligent as Hannibal. Dare I say, Hannibal has a beautiful mind, and he kills those that need to be extinguished--no matter how you cut it (no pun intended).

There are real serial killers that are hailed and loved, and those individuals killed just for sake of doing it, unlike the Hannibals and Dexters of the world--at least they channel their murderous appetites for a good cause, if you can call it that. Bravo to Thomas Harris for being one of the most prolific writers of our time! James Patterson should take a page out of Thom's book. Go away for many years and come back stronger than before, and people would have more respect for the work you produce!

I too do not agree that this is a bad book, I really liked it -- excepting a few sections. I found the concept of profiling Hannibal to find out what made him tick to be fascinating. Pretty much based on what the FBI does. Often I found the prose to be oddly elegant. Hated the villains and wanted them dead. I, oh so wanted them dead. I reveled in their deaths and the manner of them - so when Hannibal kills them he is not evil to me, but a human representative of the Goddess Nemesis. Where it fell slightly apart for me was the pseudo romance with his aunt by marriage. That did not work for me, it was not the fact that he had a romance, it was the awkwardness that did not work, her character did not seem to have as much depth as the others. Oh Harris tried to give her depth, but she left me bored. Although, I think Harris was trying to tie into the fact that her Japanese upbringing made her civilized and polite, and that Hannibal responded to that level of civility. Frankly, I reveled in Hannibal's taking revenge upon his tormentors, and I enjoyed the book. I have it here at my desk right now. It is a primer, in a way, of how a serial killer is created, albeit few of them are as brilliant, or as aristocratic, as Hannibal Lecter. This is a book that shows the genesis of a serial killer. It shows why Hannibal could not turn away from his programming, and why he later became what he became. However, Harris shows the noble motivation behind the horrors. Hannibal only seems to have killed people who, to show my southern roots, 'needed killing'... I enjoyed the read. Thanks Mr. Harris for showing me how Hannibal Lecter was made, not born. I find mysterious and totally amoral killers boring. I like layers, like in a baklava, to my villains, the more Byzantine the better.

I think it's unfair to say it wasn't needed. some people do prefer a back story for a villain so their actions caqn be justified or understood, but then other people prefer limited info so they can build their own individual back story.

there are a lot of villains around and some are better off without a back story provided because the entire dark past it what gives them their punch. At the same time other villains are better with a back story because their actions seem too random.

Hannibal Lecter didn't necessarily need the back story but it did give some insight to his true beginnings. i liked the book but it wasnt a necessary inclusion.

just thought i'dd add i liked the way he kills the butcher :P

This was my least favourite of the books, I just felt that we learned enough about Dr Lecter in Hannibal and this book really doesn't add much to that.

It was still an enjoyable read though.

I don't know, I think it is the history buff in me that craves answers to the why when and how. I thoroughly enjoyed this book and the other Lector books, I thought they were very entertaining and this one in particular because it answered many questions that were only hinted at in the previous books.

Usually I agree that villains are more scary when they are inexplicable. I don't agree that this book was a mistake or that it made Dr. Lecter any less scary. It's quite clear that this is the only book in which he is a human, at the end the transformation to Monster is complete. Therefore in the rest of the books he is not a sad man pining for his sister and riddled with regret for her death, he is a Monster out for revenge.

We again see a glimmer of the Human Hannibal at the end of Hannibal, when his desire to have Mischa back almost overwhelms him. But he is still Monster Hannibal, hedonistic and capable of terrible things.

It definitely wasn't on par with Silence and Hannibal, but I think its worth a read and is a story that fit into the series as needing to be told. I do get your points about over exposure on the villains though. I don't think that hurt my perception here, but I read the series in an order of sequence this year. I'm sure if I read it last after the other three books, I wouldn't have cared as much.