Rating: Summary: As daunting as life itself Review: Hannibal is a great book.There is one thing about great books: everyone can find something in them. Judging on the sample of reviews I had time to read, it is also the case with Hannibal. If you have not yet seen the movie, do not go. The movie is a sloppy job intended to scare. The book is much more of a discussion. If you have not read The Silence of the Lambs, do it. Do not skimp on time - you will enjoy Hannibal more if you savor the details of its language, the complexity of its characters and the subdued references to the Silence. Hannibal is a mature writing. Harris does not seem to be much interested any more in hunting the monster. He is rather amused with exploring his Frankenstein, poking from time to time beyond the surface, every time wary of the danger to slide into the abyss of Lecter's soul. That is probably why Lecter's personal story in this book is like the shaking of hand on a drawing that deserves to be spotless. Do not go deeper than you are allowed to... In Hannibal, Harris makes some tough decisions. Many changes happen to people and places, comparing to the times of the Silence. The changing preferences of the author are also easy to recognize. Original Dante comes to replace FBI slang. Quantico surroundings transform into the landscape of Florence. Psychology goes into philosophy. The world of technique disappears, history and art taking the free space. Just like cheese getting aged, wine getting mature, people getting seasoned. It might seem weird not to mention Clarice Starling. Yet this is exactly what makes the book so great - the story manages the author, not the way around. Harris wanted her to be in to star. Instead, she is inferior to the context, pulled out for use whenever needed. So are the other human characters. Because Hannibal addresses issues of superhuman nature, something we are not supposed to know, only to guess. So there is a lot of guessing there, complemented with facts from the surface. In the end it is still much more of a fairy tale, luring us all along with scenes changing from pain to beauty. There was not much beauty in the Silence, but there was quite some craving for it. Harris somehow did not hit the balance right, in the hindsight. Now he does. One of the few books that deserve to be on any shelf, Hannibal must be translated with care. I skimmed the German version and was disappointed. It may take years to get good interpretations - in other languages, in movies, in reviews. For now, you'd better read the original English text. Do you share Marcus Aurelius' belief that the future generations are not any better than the passed ones? Then start building your own memory palace. In the end, there was much more order in the past, as Lecter learned from some theorists. But does the past contain answers to some of our most desperate inquiries? A good analysis always leaves you with more unanswered questions than before. "We can only learn so much and live." Read this book -- you will not regret it.
Rating: Summary: The novel "Hannibal," reconsidered Review: The film version of Thomas Harris' novel "Hannibal" opens today and so it seems somewhat appropriate to reread the novel and take a stand on the book as a whole and its controversial conclusion in particular. I had heard the Harris would never write anything until he could believe it, which is a useful bit of authorial insight to have while reading the novel. Hannibal Lecter first appeared before "Silence of the Lambs" as a minor but pivotal character in "Red Dragon," which suggests that while the good doctor would be around that did not necessarily hold true for Clarice Starling or Jack Crawford. But the conclusion of "Silence" made it clear that there was a significant bond between Clarice and Lecter, such that neither would be able to let the other go. Wisely, Harris does not force the premise. Lecter is keeping in touch and Clarice is trying to track him down, but it has been seven years and nothing is really happening. However, what neither knows is that there is a third party who wants to take advantage of this tenuous connection in the form of the living corpse, Mason Verger. It is these behind the scenes machinations that threaten Clarice's place in the world, even though they are someone dubious actions taken by rather melodramatic characters. Certainly no one in their wildest dreams could have predicted the ride on which Harris takes his characters. Lecter is the title character, but once again the key transformation in the novel belongs to Clarice Starling. "Hannibal the Cannibal" was an exotic figure in "Silence" because he was incarcerated, and with Buffalo Bill out skinning his humps and Dr. Chilton being an insufferable ass, there were better people to fear and hate in the book. The various effronteries that caused Lecter to kill and fillet his victims are not always quite clear in "Silence," but Harris provides ample justification for Mason Verger's drug-induced self-mutilation way back when. Lecter leaves Mason alive, not just because his punishment is to live with what he has become, but also because otherwise there is no story. As Lecter's only living victim, Mason has a claim on revenge and as one of the filthy rich he has the means to create his own revenge fantasy fit for inclusion in Dante's "Inferno" by having Lecter eaten alive by giant pigs. But for the reader the true villain of the piece is Deputy Assistant Inspector General Paul Krendler, who might be helping Mason track down Lecter but who also take too much pleasure in ruining Starling's career. Krendler is more than Chilton's evil twin because his actions threaten Starling and everything she hold dear, so it is not surprising that he becomes the most particular target of Lecter's final act of insanely inspired appropriate action in the novel. Although it is not as clear in the film version as in the novel, there is a love triangle dynamic at work in "Silence" between Clarice, Lecter and Crawford. But this is more than the heroine caught between the angel on one shoulder and the devil on the other, because for each man the conflicting loves of a father for a daughter and a man for a woman are both at play. The emotions between all three are strong even if they are not precisely quantifiable. However, while Lecter is free to roam it is Crawford who is effectively removed from the picture by a heart attack. The problem is that one of the key ironies is that Lecter is more fascinating in captivity. In "Silence" it was his whispering to Meggs all night long and the photo of what he did to the nurse that provide the undercurrent of horror to his conversations with Clarice. In "Hannibal" he does the same thing to some degree only with Mason's sister Margot. The sense of restrained power is gone and in its place we have a Lecter who simply sends his mind elsewhere as he bids his time. Meanwhile, Starling is left in even worst shape as one she is slowly but surely stripped of all support. Her vulnerability is part of a complex ploy to lure Lecter to her side, but it also echoes the climax of "Silence," where it is Clarice alone who has to deal with Jame Gumb. However, this time she is painfully aware going in that she is all alone on this one, with no clear idea of what to do if and when she rescues Lecter. However, that choice is forever taken from her. At the end of "Hannibal" what we have is not an ultimate meeting of the minds between Clarice and Lecter but rather a perverse role reversal. Through the circumstances of her attempted rescue of Lecter from Mason's plot, Clarice essentially becomes his captive and then his ultimate act of creation. From this vantage point we look back on Clarice's life and see that her psychological struggle has indeed been a search for a father figure and not for a lover. Being freed from the psychological trauma of her anger over his death--as a trained F.B.I. agent she knows that he got himself killed by being stupid--might not make her a suitable lover, but Lecter is clearly more interested in a consort. The objections by those who see the pair of them living out the rest of their lives as a happy couple misses the mark, and projecting a worst case scenario onto the novel's ending is just plain wrong. Under girding this all seems to me to be a desire by Harris to put the characters to rest. There is certainly not as much promise of another story to be told as there was at the end of "Silence." Starling always proved herself capable of playing by Lecter's rules, but the idea that she could surprise him seems insufficient to suggest while she becomes so important to him. After all, on one level is she is simply the first woman he has seen in eight years. Ironically, in trying to explain Lecter, the author seriously undercuts the character. We find out the "why" behind Hannibal the Cannibal, but in justifying this grand creation Harris takes away a large measure of the mystery and the fear. Explaining Lecter takes away from our fascination. Naming his childhood trauma might create some sort of equity between Lecter and Starling, but in the final analysis the idea that they should or even could be equals is what many readers have been rejecting. By the end of "Hannibal," Starling has become an empty vessel into which Lecter pours his essence. If this is a perverse love story it is "Pygmalion" with a touch of "The Bride of Frankenstein." Starling does not live happily ever after with Lecter. By the end of this novel she no longer exists.
Rating: Summary: Horror Story or Gourmet Magazine? Review: I'm not a big fan of horror stories or movies, but with all the buzz about the movie, I decided to pick up this book. Unfortunately, I was disappointed. The book gets close to being scary, but unfortunately it constantly retreats back into a laundry list of upscale clothing, art, food, literature and wine. Reading this book didn't make me scared, it just made me want to buy a new tailor made suit, visit an art museum and go out for a gourmet dinner (or better yet, prepare a gourmet dinner). The only real horror in this book was trying to guess what wine Hannibal would choose for his "gourmet" cannibal meals. Red Dragon and Silence of the Lambs were scary, this is just commercial.
Rating: Summary: If you loved the first two, do NOT read this book. Review: I devoured both Red Dragon and Silence of the Lambs in a matter of days, but after reading this novel, I wish I had just stopped there. This book....this book is not like its predecessors. It is a work that could have been something much more than what it was. Red Dragon and Silence were both very well done, intelligent thrillers with solid plots. Here....the story seemed disjointed. Mason's pursuit of Hannibal takes up the main focus of the plot, but that seems secondary to the subplot between Clarice and Hannibal, which seems secondary to the inner workings of Hannibal's mind....in the end, we're left with a mess that resembles more of a big budget action film (all bang, no bite) than a serious thriller. I would have liked to seen more development with Hannibal. It was fascinating to see inside of his mind, from his memory palace to his memories of his beloved sister Mischa, and I wish Harris had given us more of this, as I felt it helped the reader better understand just what kind of monster Lecter was and how he had become that way. The ending, however, horrified me, but not in the way it was meant to. I was simply incensed at what Harris did with Starling. She was such a strong, powerful character in Silence of the Lambs, and to see her be turned into nothing more than Lecter's puppet....it angered me, and cheapened the character. Unforgiveable, in my opinion. I wouldn't recommend this book to any potential Harris fans. Stick with Red Dragon and Silence of the Lambs--they are brilliant works in the genre, and much more satisfying than this latest offering.
Rating: Summary: Poor effort Review: While I was reading this, I couldn't help but think that this book was hurried just to give the movie-going public a movie to see and the movie industry a box office winner. There were too many almost cheesy references to The Silence of the Lambs. Did nothing happen of any interest in the lives of the main characters in the seven years between Silence and Hannibal that the author could have described? Did the world forget about Hannibal Lecter in those seven years? Seems pretty hard to believe. The pigs were completely unnecessary to the story. The kidnappers, who were supposed to be the best in the world, were no better than the Three Stooges. It was also difficult to have any sympathy for many of the supporting characters given the fact they were, if not equally evil, then just plain bad people. I gave this book two stars because the book was a page turner. It just seemed as though the author was forced to produce. Unfortunately, he did only for the publishing and movie industry not for the reading public.
Rating: Summary: Good, but too much Review: "Too much" does not refer to the gore, as I expected that. What there was too much of was detail. This was basically a good book, and we find out much regarding Hannibal Lecter's origins, motives, and fascination for Clarice Starling. The part of the book in Italy is what drags at times. I think all of the story-lines belong there, but some just move too slowly. Mason, the new villain in this book, might be worse than Hannibal. Perhaps, it is the going back and forth between the Mason story-line and the Italian story-line that makes this book drag. I wonder if separating the two, into two completely different books, would have been a better idea. I won't give away the ending, for those of you who have not yet read (or seen) Hannibal, but it is horrifying (in a quiet way) but sadly inevitable, given how the book starts. Overall, I recommend Hannibal, but don't expect it to be Silence of the Lambs or Red Dragon. Good, but not great. I wish I had the option to give 3.5 stars.
Rating: Summary: "...I'm giving serious consideration to eating your wife." Review: Wow. I saw the movie and then read the book... Maybe I did them in the wrong order but hey, what can you do? The movie was great, and the book was 100 times better. What a twist ending! Read it, read it, don't put it down! Have the lambs stopped screaming?
Rating: Summary: Review for Hannibal Review: This was a really good book, I read it two or three times. I don't think that little kids should read this but it is a good book for the older people. It is very well written. The athor of Hannibal has a good taste in words, he has also has written many other good books so get out there and get a good taste of reading.
Rating: Summary: Brain Damage Review: *sigh* I've read Red Dragon and The Silence of the Lambs, and this is by far the worse of the three. It reminds me of my experience with Micheal Chrichton. I'd read Congo, Sphere, The Andromeda Strain, and Jurrassic Park when I picked up a copy of The Lost World. Not only was the book contrived and poorly written, but Chrichton actually took the pains to contradict his last book (the vision of the T.Rex), causing it all to come across as fluff. Hannibal is in the same gutter: both this and The Lost World are hartily written, money-grubbing commercial sell outs, based upon the success of a film. I never did finish The Lost World. Hannibal I finished. I didn't realize as I was reading it how bad it exactly was. Only in retrospect . . . Hannibal's story is wasted: he simply tries to fit in so as not to be caught. Harris should have explored the possibilities, but he doesn't. The "Mind Palace" attempts to do this, but unltimately seemed silly and pointless. The great dialogue between Hannibal and Starling is gone, replaced with uninteresting characters (Verger and his sister) and manhunting. The man-eating pigs are out of place, meant to be menacing but nearly comical in their oddness. My reaction to the pigs and their trainers are similar to my reaction of the book as a whole: Why??
Rating: Summary: The best SILENCE OF THE LAMBS knockoff ever written Review: How does one reinvent the wheel? How does one create, a la Praxiteles, a character as realistic and engaging as Hannibal without becoming a victim of the audience's expectations? Indeed, how much does the reading public own of a franchise and how much control does the author have a right to exert before betraying widely held expectations? These are questions that will no doubt be debated as long as stories are still published and HANNIBAL will often be brought up as both point and counterpoint during these arguments. In the case of HANNIBAL, the reading public is forced to make a choice: Would they prefer to let the chips fall where they may and be grateful for Thomas Harris's latest (and last, it appears) Lecter novel or do they legitimately have certain proprietary rights? Harris is a pragmatic enough individual, I would guess, to not give a damn what the readers think, as long as they continue buying his books. The story's been told and it is as good as cast in stone. If the reader rightfully expects that Harris's narrative gifts have not been atrophied in the ten-year hiatus since SILENCE, then they will not be disappointed. The Florentine historical asides are welcome and provide a tight elliptical sense of justice that befalls Pazzi. The pacing will not disappoint the reader, either, unless they're accustomed to 60,000 word Mac Bolan slam bang shoot-em-ups. Since Harris is such an immensely talented writer, even the straight action sequences (I'm thinking primarily of the Drumgo bust gone bad) are better written and structured than many written by those who specialize in it. It will also surprise the reader that they will find themselves rooting for the captive Lecter and hoping that Starling will rescue him from the pigs. This is largely because the true villain in HANNIBAL, Mason Verger, is a creation borne of true literary genius. This is a character, a pedophile, who reduces underprivileged children to tears with a few malicious comments then drinks their tears in a martini glass. Such iniquity we cannot picture Dr. Lecter indulging in. If one expects to find answers regarding Hannibal's provenence as a serial killer and cannibal, then, once again, this story will not disappoint. One finds themself completely absorbed in the flashback scenes in which Hannibal Lecter's sister is killed and cannibalized (backstory that's completely ignored in the movie, unfortunately). Far from robbing Lecter of his mystique, this serves to enrich his character. Not providing a logical psychological explanation for Lecter's unique protocol would appear to be a dodge. But if the reader expects that Lecter will continue killing as he did in the good old days, with Starling once again helplessly wondering to where he'd escaped, then the reader will run up against a wall. This is the bone of contention. The now-infamous dinner scene, portrayed with a fair amount of fidelity in the movie, gives us some elegant but cheap laughs and the weirdness only escalates in the closing chapter in Buenos Aires, when Agent Starling's subjugation is complete. One feels that Harris felt himself a victim of his own creations and sought to change them as radically as possible and thereby avoiding the onus of writing another Lecter novel. It was a tragic and anticlimactic end to one of the best female detectives in modern commercial fiction. No wonder Jodi Foster, on this basis alone, wanted nothing to do with the sequel. She, too, as with countless other readers, took a proprietary interest in Agent Starling. HANNIBAL ends with possibly the best closing line in this decade but it is not nearly enough to counter balance what could've been an even better book than SILENCE.
|