Hannibal

Rating:
Summary: A bit of a disappointment
Review: After more than a decade's wait, and after surviving the inevitable hype surrounding it, HANNIBAL, the sequel to the excellent SILENCE OF THE LAMBS, proves to be somewhat of a let down. Although it's undeniably well written and a page turner as well, HANNIBAL is flat, and unsatisfying. After SILENCE, the motivations behind the actions of Special Agent Starling and Dr. Lecter don't seem to be true to the previous book and left me scratching my head. While I'm not saying don't read this book, don't go into it believing all the hype either.

Rating:
Summary: Hmmm...
Review: Well, my review pretty much follows the general consensus. I liked it a lot up until the last hundred or so pages, and then it just became so weird and unbelieveable that I didn't know what to think. Mr. Harris certainly isn't a bad writer, but I'm not sure what his point is with the ending. I thought there were too many extraneous sub-plots, I thought the ark with Barney and Verger's sister was wholly un-necessary. Although I thought the Italy scene was awesome, especially the part when Lecter kills Pazzi. For any of you that have seen "The Silence of the Lambs", the Pazzi death scene will be akin to the scene when Lecter suspends the guard from his cage with his guts hanging out, that scene will definitely stay peoples minds. The revenge plot was a little over-elaborate, although I can see how a bitter victim could have imagined such a "fitting" end to his enemy. I still don't think Starling would have ended up the way she did. Anyway, I'm hoping the movie will be a little better.

Rating:
Summary: Who are the morons writing reviews for this book?
Review: In reading reviews of this wonderful book with a wonderful, poignant ending, I realized that I must write a second review of it. This book is a mirror of modern day humanity: Frustration with the social injustice going on, society's willingness to ignore injustice against anyone but straight, white, middle to upper class men! This frustration in Clarice's case leads to horrific, "dangerously sane" insanity!

Clarice's Hannibal character is COMPLETELY true to her to her character in the BOOK Silence of the Lambs! Maybe her Hannibal character is not true to her MOVIE Silence of the Lambs character. I invite my fellow reviewers to read the actual book Silence of the Lambs, they'll see that Clarice's character from book to movie is completely different: Different motivations, different personalities, different experiences. The Clarice in the book was naive, idealistic, tough as nails, angry, and multi-faceted, unlike Jodie Foster's movie rendering as a one dimensional, savvy, down to earth woman who's going to make it to the top and never lose faith! Come on, my fellow reviewers! Life is NOT a bowl of cherries and Hannibal delivers that fact horrifically and poignantly. Life is not black and white, Dr. Lecter=Bad/Clarice=Good. Come on! If you want Bad v. Good go watch a cartoon! If you want a heart-warming, one dimensional lie that will leave you feeling superior go someplace else! If you want a deep three dimensional world of characters who, no matter how bad they are, you feel compassion for, because they are HUMAN, go get Hannibal now. I understand that this will make some people uncomfortable, but that's what makes Thomas Harris a master storyteller and humanist.

For my fellow Hannibal reviewers: Please actually READ the book before you review it! Don't just listen to Girl Scout Jodie Foster or one of your friends who've heard of the ending and then decide to write a negative review because the ending doesn't make you feel superior enough, different enough, from these very human characters who do horrific things. Everyone who has actually read the book can tell that you haven't read it! Also, please READ The Silence of the Lambs, as opposed to watching the movie, before you say that Clarice's Hannibal character is "not true" to her Silence of the Lambs character, that's ignorant! Clarice's Hannibal character is not only true to her Silence of the Lambs character, but her actions in Hannibal are actually predictible, if you READ The Silence of the Lambs!

For those who want a generic, horror, dime novel, for those who want to feel superior, for those who have no culture, for those who have no compassion, and for those who want inhuman, one-dimensional characters whose "badness" we can take because they're inhuman, plastic, and so different from "us," like, it seems, most of the reviewers of this book, don't read this book.

Rating:
Summary: Give me strength!
Review: If the movie script is true to the book, no wonder Jodie Foster turned it down. The edge-of-your-seat psychological suspense we've come to expect from Mr. Harris' previous works was conspicuous by its absence, the violence was gratuitous, and the ending was ludicrous. Borrow the book if you must, but don't pay money for it.

Rating:
Summary: A Gourmet Treat
Review: I found this novel to to the best of the three by Mr. Harris about Hannibal Lector. I particularly enjoyed the teasing out of parallel developments between Lector and Starling, which explains why he was originally attracted to her. I will not give away the ending except to say that the villian gets his just deserts.

Rating:
Summary: Exquisitely frightening
Review: I loved the book. Of the three, Hannibal is my favorite. Why? Because in the book we are finally told the reason for Hannibal's predatory facet and the reason is plauseable. Hannibal graduates from being just a one-sided psychotic killer to a dramatically complex monster who can charm and horrify in the same instant. Harris fleshes out Starling's character too--she is now older and more jaded than when we saw her last. The FBI has not been kind to her and her 15 minutes of fame from Jame Gumb is long gone. She relies on her wits and her inner strength to survive a bureau that eats its own.

The controversial ending will cause many readers some heartburn, but you have to look deeply into Starling's character to understand it. Starling has been fighting her father's memory, fighting her poor Southern upbringing, fighting for respect and for her life in a job that is so deeply entrenched as "men's work." And the battle is never won. In the end, Hannibal offers Starling the peace of forgetting, the peace of never fighting ever again. It is an allogorical finale. Starling can wake up if she wants to, but when we leave her at the opera house in those final pages, she is sound asleep. But she is smiling as she sleeps.

Rating:
Summary: Loved it! It was sick, twisted and delightfully edible.
Review: Once the reader can get past their pre-determined relationships with the characters that readers met in Silence of the Lambs and just let the author take us on his diabolical road trip, you will be rooting once again for the bad guys and the complete ruination of the so-called good guys. Harris gleefully leads us like a cow with a ring in our nose through twists and turns, all the while planting little seeds of what is to come. The reader will already be saying, "no, that cannot be happening" but with a turn of a page or to, not only are we there but we are delightfully appalled at the outcome. Read it with someone you love!

Rating:
Summary: only for those who have read 'silence of the lambs',
Review: this book come with a very unexpected end,my be this is the only one probable.the loss of the Clarice Starling as a detective is great one ,her charecterization is superb,but in the end there is to much of the surprise ,maybe auther need to exeplain few things.the 100th chapter of the book is simply crazy.we hope to hear more about Dr. and Starling.but the conclusion is that you never want to miss this book

Rating:
Summary: Oh, waiter, another truffle!
Review: If you are a wine connoisseur, or if you relate to love stories of hideous, cannibalistic serial killers who elope into the Brazilian night with gunpowder-damask'd ladies (or if you fancy villains who have no flesh on their face--only a goggly eyeball), then "Hannibal" is for you.

This book has two meager things going for it: the final, hair-raising dinner scene (no pun intended); and the character Mason Verger. But these items themselves are not worth your 600-page perusal. (They weren't worth mine, anyway.)

If "Hannibal" were an architectural structure, it would be a building half-destroyed by the wrecking ball. I find it extremely difficult to imagine any author working years on this story. I think Harris should retire from his profession, and perhaps begin a French catering business.

Certainly anytime one entertains ideas or stories of 'Ultimate Evil,' important thoughts are sprung to mind. Hannibal Lecter is (OR WAS) a character that really makes (MADE) us examine certain theodicies and the problem, the phenomenon, of evil. But Harris ran a magic realistic pen through his sketch of Dr. Lecter, and made what had been a fine portrait of the Devil Incarnate into a fuzzy, nonsensical image, that when turned upside-down looks like the Easter Bunny with nasty fangs.

I think William Styron's words regarding evil are much more relevant: "Real evil is gloomy, monotonous, barren, boring." If you really want to study Evil, I would recommend reading, and then contemplating, Styron's novel "Sophie's Choice."

After reading Harris' "Hannibal," I am convinced the author is only a pulp populist capitalizing (or perhaps, cannibalizing) on society's fascination with stylized grotesqueness. But what does he care? He has enough money to buy all the truffles and super-charged Jaguars in the world.

(I hope Anthony Hopkins can somehow redeem Harris' mess in the film version of the book!)

Rating:
Summary: Adagio - a transitional piece
Review: Writers of "thinking people's horror" novels face an interesting challenge. Once a franchise viably captures the public's imagination, readers demand sophisticated, exciting innovations on a familiar theme. However, as the bar gets raised higher and higher, and as readers become de-sensitized, most series inevitably go stale or become far-fetched. Think, for example, of the sagging work of Canadian author Michael Slade, who like Thomas Harris, writes about brilliant serial killers with a flair for ingenious, over-the-top gorefests, replete with historical context and arcane erudition. The difference is, Thomas Harris takes a very long time between installments; and therefore, Harris fans are justified in believing they deserve better.

The Hannibal Lecter series reached this "what next" juncture in the last decade, with The Silence Of The Lambs. At the end of that novel, readers were left with the impression that the series would follow a Hannibal Lecter let loose on the world, free to travel and kill in new and creative ways, in diverse and exotic locales, while staying one step ahead of the law - a cannibalistic version of Anne Rice's globetrotting vampire superstars.

In writing Hannibal, Mr. Harris was clearly cognizant of the need to keep his series unpredictable. His choice of plot does accomplish that objective -- but in ways that may leave fans feeling disappointed.

Instead of a dashing Scarlet Pimpernel of cannibalism, Hannibal Lecter 3.0 is a stuffy, academic type, ensconced in a low-key arts curator job in Italy, indulging his appetite for fine arts and foods, rather than for people. Indeed, one almost suspects that Lecter's violence is justified under a reluctant vigilante ethos -- that he'd gladly not bother a soul, as long as he's left alone under protective cover, free at last to pursue his arts research. Lecter's charisma is dim here (as an offbeat analogy, compare Harrison Ford's roles today with his Han Solo character in Star Wars).

This plot judo gives Mr. Harris license to turn many tables on us. First, he dials down Lecter's threat quotient to purely reactive mode, morphing Lecter into an almost sympathetic character motivated by a desire for anonymity and a need to heal the scars of his own childhood.

Having put Lecter in neutral, Mr. Harris stokes the fires of dementia in a Class A nemesis, Mason Verger - an abominable child abuser and clever manipulator of political power, whom Lecter had horribly (justly?) victimized in times past. Driven insane by a need for revenge, and suitably well financed, Verger insists on bringing Lecter out of his shell; but the author executes this plot strand too laboriously, telegraphs his intentions too obviously to be particularly disturbing. Third, the author reduces the FBI to Mason Verger's tool -- a bunch of infighting, incompetent bureaucrats, venal and corrupt, concerned more with media politics than with apprehending criminals. Allegorically, the real monster in Hannibal is not Lecter, but "the system" -- wealthy bad guys and the goverment that colludes with them.

As if all this were not enough, Mr. Harris puts Clarice Starling on an emotional intersection course with Hannibal Lecter. The results of that strange alliance will strain the credulity of even the most flexible-minded reader. Even the author's elegant prose and stylized horror scenography backfire, lending an aura of John Cleese-style formal absurdity to a final dinner episode that was supposed to horrify.

All in all, at this point in the series, fans of Thomas Harris probably deserved an outrageously wild and energetic novel. Instead, the author decided to give us the literary equivalent of an Adagio. Therefore, Hannibal leaves open some questions that may be more interesting than the novel itself. Is Hannibal the beginning of the decline in the Cannibal series? Did Thomas Harris "go Hollywood"? Or is he transitioning into fresh, creative new territory? Let's hope we don't have to wait ten more years to find out.