Rating: Summary: Compared to his earlier books this stinks to high heaven! Review: _Silence of the Lambs_ and _Red Dragon_ were truly terrifying books, and Dr. Hannibal Lecter was a malevolent and frightening presence at the heart of each novel. _Hannibal_, however sucks, it doesn't even come close to the quality of the earlier novels. Rather than being a shadowy figure of evil, with a taste for human flesh, as he was in the earlier novels, Lecter is now portrayed as a man of the world, a psychologist who mutilates his patients (just the really bad ones), knows a lot about higher mathematics, Florentine art and Renaissance Italy, and has a taste for the finer things in life which sometimes includes human brains served fresh at the dinner table. All of this of course is not because Dr. Lecter is evil, no it is because he had a traumatic childhood (And this week on Springer, people whose traumatic childhoods turned them into cannibalistic serial killers). As bad as the portrayal of Lecter is the portrayal of Clarice Starling is even worse; in _Silence of the Lambs_ Starling is naive yet tough, a pawn in a sick contest between FBI Agent Jack Crawford and Lecter. Despite her naivete and the fact that she is being used by both Lecter and Crawford, Starling does manage to come out on top. However, in _Hannibal_ Starling is portrayed as a burned out FBI agent whose career has gone badly at the agency. I find it hard to believe that a woman who had managed to face down a cannnibalistic serial killer and kill another serial killer would have difficulty dealing with the idiot machinations of Paul Krendler, a Justice Department bureaucrat who is Starling's chief nemesis in this book. The ending of this book also portrays Starling in a light that is totally false to the way she was portrayed in _Silence of the Lambs_. I won't spoil it, but it is difficult to choke down. If you absolutely have to read this then borrow it from a friend who has already thrown their money away, or check it out from the library or as a last resort wait for the paperback.
Rating: Summary: No wonder it took Harris 11 years to write this! Review: Harris surprised me. I didn't think there was anything too shocking left, but I was wrong. In retrospect, it's hard to imagine that anyone could overshadow Hannibal in his sociopathy but this is truly a macabre Cinderella ending to a nightmare.
Rating: Summary: An imaginary conversation Review: Editor: Uh, Tom, your agent gave me this package that supposedly contains the new book "Hannibal" and, for the life of me, I just don't get it. Is this the finished product?T.H.: Hey, it's been what, eleven years, and the public's salivating for something new, anything with the words "Lecter" or "Starling" or better yet, "cannibal". Don't you get it? I used lots of big words, wrote elegantly about these places in Italy, and spiced it up with the hokiest gore I could think of. They'll, pardon the pun, eat it up. It doesn't have to make sense, nor does it have to be a qualified follow-up. Just print it, throw it out there, and prepare to make a down-payment on your Hamptons getaway.Editor: But, Tom......T.H.: Hey, trust me on this...it's got my name on it, right? And it IS titled "Hannibal", right? It'll sell. In bunches. And I'll make it up to them with my next book, "The Return Of Mason Verger", and if that doesn't do it, then how about "Krendler's List", or....Editor: Oh, Tom, you're such a kidder. Let's do lunch.T.H.: Don't forget the fava beans. I'll bring the chianti.
Rating: Summary: disappointing Review: This book never really captured the imagination in the same fashion as "Silence of the Lambs". The book kept you somewhat involved until the last 50 pages then it feel apart, as if the author did not know quite where to go from there. The ending was unsatisfying.
Rating: Summary: masterpiece Review: very well written book about the depths of a complex man's mind. i was treated to descriptions of a lavish life filled with exquisite taste and, of course, a picture of a psychopath.
Rating: Summary: I want a refund! Review: A very disappointing book! The book starts off fast-paced. Then it stops and crawls along with the most boring narrative. I felt no suspense, tingles up the spine, or chills of any kind. Unlike "Silence of the Lambs". Thomas Harris has been away for seven years - presumably to write this book. One would have hoped that he would have taken the time to sharpen his skills and bring more of an edge to "Hannibal". Maybe Harris was hoping that we would not miss the edge because of his previous works. I, for one, wished that I could start all over again with "Black Sunday" and come to this point. I think I will.
Rating: Summary: Fast-Paced with a let-down ending. Review: I considered myself a Thomas Harris fan until I finished reading Hannibal. I thoroughly enjoyed both The Red Dragon and Silence of the Lambs. I must have romanticized Clarice Starling's and Hannibal Lecter's characters because they were unrecognizable in this, the newest book. The plot was beyond far-fetched! Trust your judgement. When it starts to seem a little odd, please know its going to get worse! I also disliked the character Mason Verger-the veggie with attitude! Nothing in the story seemed to gel. All elements of the story seem to chafe against each other. The one good thing about the book was the pace. It is very quick reading but when you get to the end you may wish you hadn't. Harris does leave an opening for yet another episode in the Clarice Starling saga. Let's just hope that Harris' heart is into it the next time!
Rating: Summary: Was this book written in half an hour?? Review: Who were these characters? These were not the same individuals that were in Silence of the Lambs. I was greatly disappointed that Thomas Harris felt the need to use violence for just shock value, as I thought the previous story had much expansive value. The ending of this book was unbelievable. Unbelievable, but not in a good way, a better word would be stupid. Can someone please tell me how to get my money back? This book is more than a waste of time; it actually decreased my intelligence. Did anyone notice that the picture on the back of the jacket bore a striking resemblance to the description of Dr. Lecter? Would you say over identifying with your character?
Rating: Summary: Most diabolical thing I've ever read. Review: This is a stunning book that will get inside your head in unexpected ways. It is also very disturbing, not least because of how it turns out. To put it in theological terms, Harris's Hannibal is a brilliant embodiment of Satan, as is pointed out on a couple of occasion by the minor Italian characters who dare to look into his eyes. But Satan has ways to capture people other than devouring them.... What I am confused by, however, is the shift in Harris's portrayal of Hannibal. In Silence of the Lambs, the doctor rejects any behavioralist understanding of himself, saying that he is an independent force of nature, unshaped by his enviornment or history, etc. That presumption is greatly weakened in the new book, and we see Hannibal as motivated by deeply rooted longings to turn back the clock. This new dimension to the account of Hannibal makes interpretation of the ending somewhat vexing...we're not sure whether Hannibal was a human all along or in fact purely satanic. Or both. In any case, it's disquieting. Don't bother to read w/o having READ Silence of the Lambs first. There are a couple of truly terrifying moments in the book, shocks that leap out even when you can guess impending disaster. I am glad I do not have to live with Hannibal Lecter in my mind as long as the author obvioulsy had to to create this incredible depiction of human evil. The concept of the "memory palace" used to describe Lecter's mind is also intriguing.
Rating: Summary: Decent book, absurdist ending Review: I must admit despite some inconsistancies (ex. when did Clarice become a world class marksman? Certainly not in "Silence of the Lambs!") I liked the first 450 pages of this book. Though I felt the descriptions in the Florence portion of the novel many times uninteresting and pedantic. Most readers would probably agree with me in that the Barney/Margot relationship was superfluous except as a plot device in the end. My problem, like many others, was with the ending. To describe it as Nihlistic would be kind. It is Absurdist!
|