Buttmunker

I've held off reading this because of all the harsh reviews from consumers, but I just finished Silence of the Lambs and my interest in Hannibal Lector is rekindled.

My question is, does the novel explore the inner thoughts of Hannibal, from Hannibal's point of view? I saw the film version, and I'm pretty confident the film took a left turn from the novel, even without reading it. I could be wrong, of course.

Mutley Hyde

The Florence section of the book is great, Starling's reintroduction is a good read as well, and I even like the piggy section... but I hate the ending. I much prefer the movie ending, but that's just me.

Anyhow, no way does it stand up to Dragon and Silence, but hell, you might as well read it to come to your own conclusion. I think it's a worthy chapter in Lecter's history, and deserves a read.

And when you're done with that, read Black Sunday if you never have. Not Lecter, but another damn good read from Harris nonetheless.

Patman

I thought Harris went out of his way to write a novel that was darn near unfilmmable (if you filmed everything that was laid out in the novel), but with a little re-write, Hollywood found a way to film it, but I think I like the novel's ending more.

obscurelabel

(No spoilers)

There is some attempt to go into some psychological reasons for Hannibal's behavior that I felt were pretty half-baked. That being said, I really enjoyed the book, and mainly for the last section including the ending. I understand that people pretty much either love or hate the ending, but I thought Harris was pretty bold to follow that path with the characters.

Giantrobo

I'm one of the few who loved the ending. It had balls and it made sense to me.

Giantrobo

I had heard he wrote an "over the top" book because he wanted out of his contract or something like that.

Patman

Oh yeah, I got the impression that he dared Hollywood to make a film of the book he wrote (but of course, Hollywood did not completely follow the book to its ending because the marketing wizards knew it would not play well to the general public, which is too bad, because I dug the book's ending as well).

RevLiver

The book wasn't as good as Red Dragon and Silence, but was much better than the film version. I, too, preferred the book's ending. And I thought it went into Hannibal's inner thoughts quite a bit. Incredibly detailed sections on his "memory palace", his mental system for remembering every little detail of every fact he's ever come across.

I agree that I think Mr. Harris was writing an unfilmable novel. And really, he did. Besides changing the ending, the entire interior monologue about his memories was left out.

Mutley Hyde

Y'all are just nuts.

Crocker Jarmen

I thought this book was terrible. After the ten or 12 years between it and Silence of the Lambs, I couldn't believe my patience was rewarded with something Harris seemed to have written on a bar bet.

It wasn't so much the ending, but the entire tone of the book. Everything seemed so fluffy and (unintentionally) cartoonish. Villiams from American Gladiators, man eating pigs... Where was the intensity and gripping story of Harris' other books. I guess a lot of people liked it. I really envy them.

I stick hold to the idea that the only reason Harris had for writting this book was him sitting over his keyboard cackeling 'I dare you to make a movie outta this!'

Billman

It's awful

retihsuhnt

I actually like the book, the last 150 pages I had to read in one sitting because I sure as hell was not going to sleep with those images going through my head (Im a very visual reader, not the best thing to be when reading Harris). Like the others have said Dragon and Silence are better, but Hannibal has its positive points.

And there is no way the MPAA would have allowed Hannibal the book to be put on screen without an NC17 rating.

Yes there is a decline in writing from the first two (2) books, but the decline is far less noticeable in Harris' writing than in Grisham.

bardevious

I guess I'm the weird one but........I actually thought "Hannibal" was the best of the three Lecter novels.

In fact, while I was reading it, I was struck with the sense that this novel managed to eclipse entirely being a mere "genre novel". For me, it actually approached the level of "literature", with all of the hoity-toity implications of that word ("Emily Bronte and Jane Austin are purveyors of literature, whilst Stephen King and John Grisham are mere novelists", that sort of thing).

Mind you, it's been a great while since I've read it, so I'm long on generalities and short on specifics (a convenient trick, one might suspect, although I plead ignorance to any such connivances), but I do recall being impressed by the extremes to which Harris carried the story- the world of this story was a world fully inhabited by his creations. It is a world where humanity has devolved, replaced by an atavistic sensibility with little hope of redemption. What is good, what is bad, what is evil, what is right/ wrong? Are there true moral standards, or are these "standards" mere tools to be levied by the powerful, used and summarily discarded whenever it's convenient? The line between hero and monster has necessarily been completely obscured, to the point where moral ambivalence is the only possible recourse in a world tossed on its head one too many times. I hesistate to say that it bears some resemblance to the real world, but.........



The problem I had with "Red Dragon" and "Lambs" is that there wasn't much ambiguity, in the sense that you knew who was who and what was what and where it was all going. To me, these stories exist within a particularily proscribed genre: Hannibal= evil; Clarice = good, with some slight shadings in there that managed to completely avoid this simple categorization. Yet, the sense of a strong "white" (moral goodness) and "black" (evil incarnate) still shone through in these books. "Hannibal", as noted above, eclipses all genres and defies easy categorization. Thus, whether or not it is actually a work of "literature", I do believe it is by far and away the most interesting of the three Lecter novels.

KitchenSink

I think the movie and book endings both sucked big time. At least in the movie she didn't turn into some milquetoast.

balancer

can someone please enlighten me as to the movie's ending? I didn't want to waste my time with it, since I despised the book's ending. It's been a while, I just remember feeling incredibly gypped. I was really enjoying it for what it was, then it all turned to shite.

Crocker Jarmen

Hannibal the movie ending:

Mutley Hyde

Well, it's better than in the book where

Giantrobo

I disagree.

movielib

I'll give you your points. But those things do not automatically make it good. The fact that made the book ending suck as far as I was concerned.

At least the movie refused to as Harris did.

Personally, I think Harris did it just to piss people off and to make the movie that much harder to make.

Josh-da-man

I'm in agreement.

Mutley Hyde

Well, you just wrote the ending better than Harris did, Josh. I guess it could have worked for me, even with my comfortable, middle-class worldview , but the chapter just felt rushed as hell, like it was thrown together in haste. For such a radical turn of events, I don't know, I guess I'd like to have seen it developed a little more fully rather than just having it thrown out there like it was. The writing in that chapter (forget the chain of events, I'm just talking the writing, the narrative itself), is, I believe, so subpar to anything else Harris has written before. A very sorry note to end on, I think.

chanster

Its pretty well know that Harris indeed was pissed off because the publisher forced him to hurry the novel..so he just ended it that way to piss everybody off...its semi-interesting but wholly unbelievable.

movielib

Poor guy was so rushed, it took him eight years. IIRC, he missed several contractual deadlines as it was.

rfduncan

I have read this book twice. The film kinda stunk. The book's ending is great.... Poor Barney.

Giantrobo

Yeah no kidding