Customer Reviews

Hannibal

5 star:		(719)
4 star:		(498)
3 star:		(413)
2 star:		(461)
1 star:		(695)

 

 

I can't recall a more elegant thriller than "Hannibal"-- in its careful, restrained use of language, its well-drawn characters, and especially in its commanding use of painstaking research. The book is replete with interesting facts about medicine, history, forensics, zoology, animal husbandry, medieval literature, art, cooking, the city of Florence, the Italian language, classical music, and wine-- all presented with Thomas' sure, confident touch.

This is not a conventional sequel, and many fans of "The Silence of the Lambs" will surely be horrified by this book's extremely shocking conclusion. Those in particular who regarded Clarice Starling as a feminist icon (including, perhaps, Jody Foster) may feel betrayed. However, I think Harris should be commended for his courage. The easiest (and most profitable) thing for him to do would have been to give us a "Silence of the Lambs" rehash, tailor-made for another blockbuster film adaptation.

Most of the plot concerns Mason Verger, a meat-packing tycoon and an early victim of Hannibal Lecter. A child molester whose victims include his own sister, Verger is as diabolical in his way as the doctor himself. Paralyzed and disfigured by his brush with Lecter, he is planning an elaborate and ghastly revenge-- which Harris describes with a morbid lyricism worthy of Edgar Allen Poe. The conflict here is between two monsters: one attractive (Lecter), one unattractive (Verger). Harris subtly encourages us to root for Lecter, giving "Hannibal" a moral landscape far more ambiguous, more disturbing, and more ironic than most thrillers.

Although I'm saving my pennies for the hardcover version, the 6-hour audio abridgement that I was lucky enough to find at my local library features a nicely understated reading by Thomas Harris himself-- speaking in a craggy, Mississippi-inflected voice that made me think of Mark Twain.

Being one of Thomas Harris' most dedicated fans, I purchased this novel upon the day of its release and eagerly gobbled up every sinewy morsel. After finishing, completely in awe of Harris' work (as always), I was astonished that so many had been disappointed, even appalled, by this offering. Speaking as one who has gone as far as to seek out and purchase first editions of all four Harris novels, I can say this..."Hannibal" was NOT as good as "The Silence of the Lambs"...this much is true. Then again, "The Silence of the Lambs" wasn't as good as "Red Dragon" was. But "The Silence of the Lambs" was still a fine novel and a fitting sequel to "Red Dragon"...just as "Hannibal" is a fitting final entry in the series. What Harris has given us here is almost a parody, a caricature of Lecter as he appeared in the first two novels...and why not? Now that Lecter is free, is it not plausible that he would be behaving quite differently than he did while confined? As for one reviewer's note that Lecter has been transformed into a "psychopath-wizard-pharmacist-scholar-surgeon"...well, apart from being a wizard, Hannibal has always been skilled in anatomy (see the previous books for further elaboration on this point) and his training as a psychiatrist would certainly explain his knowledge of pharmaceuticals...and who can deny that the good doctor has ALWAYS been a scholar? So, why is it that the same readers who believed Lecter capable of accurately depicting the Palazzo Vecchio and the Duomo (as seen from the Belvedere, mind you) solely from memory find his actions and capabilities in this novel so far-fetched? Lecter's intelligence, let us remember, has never been successfully measured by any standardized testing. As for Starling's actions in the book's closing chapters, she WAS under the influence of heavy drugs when she first bonded, shall we say, with Lecter...and, after learning the reasoning behind Lecter's cannibalism, she felt a certain kinship with him, and even an empathy for this man who was initially described to her as a monster. And what this novel does so brilliantly is to bring to light the root source of Lecter's psychosis...something which had always been the subject of fierce doubt. After all, people don't become serial killers (much less CANNIBALISTIC serial killers) without reason. And the childhood trauma experienced by Lecter as a child in WWII Europe certainly explains well enough why the doctor has such a taste for human flesh. And let's not forget that Thomas Harris didn't HAVE to write this novel. He was at the peak of his popularity with "The Silence of the Lambs" after the film version prompted many to pick up the novel at their local bookstores...he had written three #1 best-selling novels, all of which were adapted for the screen, and he was living the good life in Italy, feeling no financial or career-oriented pressure. He never had to write another word as long as he lived. He had earned his living, and he'd certainly made his mark. This novel was a GIFT from Mr. Harris to us, his loyal fans worldwide. It's a gift which I, personally, had been waiting YEARS for...and I loved every word of it...

I've waited ten years for the sequel to The Silence of the Lambs; ten very patient years because I believed the longer the wait, the bigger the payoff. Wrong. If Thomas Harris spent the last ten years meticulously writing this latest installment, I'll eat my liver. Now hang on, I don't mean to say this is a bad novel, in fact it will make a tremendous movie. That's the problem...it read like a screenplay. The characters I grew to know in the last novel just didn't seem real enough and I didn't really feel anything about anyone. The writing seemed rushed, and as a whole rested on the laurels of Silence of the Lambs, of which there were many references. On the other hand, the story is pretty darn good. So this is a mixed review...great story, disappointing writing. To be frank, I first smelled trouble when the highest accolades came from Stephen King, whose endorsements I take with a truckload of salt. I recommend you read it, just don't set your hopes as high as I did and you'll enjoy a good story. And be sure you have an Italian-English dictionary on hand for those annoying non-translated passages.

I don't know if Thomas Harris was aiming for the funnybone or not when he wrote Hannibal but he had me rolling on the floor! It's refreshing to read an author who doesn't take himself or his characters too seriously. Hannibal "The Cannibal" Lecter has become such a part of our culture (is there anyone who doesn't recognize the name?) what else could Harris do with him but take him over the top? Hannibal's "dinner party" scene near the end is a perfect example -- could any serious-minded author have written that? Whether you were a fan of Silence of the Lambs or not you must read Hannibal if only to find out why Jodi Foster refused to play the part of Clarice in the upcoming movie (I don't think you'll blame her!). If nothing else, you'll get a good laugh.

While Silence of the Lambs is the best film in the Hannibal series. Hannibal by far is the best of the book series. Actually it's a masterpiece, if you can handle it. The way Harris develops plot and character is amazing. It is by far the weirdest and strangest. With characters who are disturbed, crooked, or cannibals this book is not for the faint of heart. The story his Harris's best and the themes are the most thought-provoking.
The story begins with the downfall of Clarice Starling (one of the best developed character in books today); a drug bust goes wrong, Crawford can't defend her anymore from injustice, and Hannibal Lector once in a while sends her letter. Her world is falling apart and you feel for her. Meanwhile Mason Verger, a child molester who Lector deformed has revenge on his mind and will pay anything or anyone to hunt down Lector alive so he can, well you'll see. Then there is Pazzi an Italian detective who hasn't had a big break for a couple of years and decides to hunt down Lector to get Verger's fee, little does he know how cunning Lector really is. And finally the controversial ending that everyone talks about. Its shocking and unexpected, if you haven't read about it yet, I'm still not sure if I like it, but you will think about for days.
The world is a dark place even for those who are good, is there light or redemption, or is there just death and mayhem. These are questions the book raises. Almost all the characters are the definition of grey; both good and evil are inside them. Its makes you look at yourself and what you have become. And what about all the biblical undertones? Powerful, masterful, and amazing, Hannibal will shock and haunt you for weeks. It might even make you think.

Thomas Harris lured me into this book with his reputation ("Silence of the Lambs") and kept me there, albeit reluctantly, with his skills as a writer. Unfortunately, in the case of "Hannibal," the plot leaves a lot to be desired. The whole thing was so bizarre that I had to finish it just to see how it turned out, but did I like what I was reading? Not so much. I'm referring specifically to the ending, which I thought was absolutely ridiculous. I can't accept that the Clarice Starling readers have come to know, admire, and even love, would ever run off with Lecter.

As far as the other characters are concerned, the new ones are so far over the top as to be completely unrealistic (Mason and Margot), and most of those we remember from "Silence" behave in ways that are just too outrageous to be credible. I finished this book and just sat with my mouth open, unable to believe what I had just read. "Sex is a splendid structure they add to every day," is not a sentence I ever wanted to read about Starling and Lecter. It's just...wrong. Granted, these are Harris' characters and he can do with them what he likes, but I think he dropped the ball on this one.

My last complaint: Harris' clumsy attempts to explain the origin of Hannibal's evil. He should have left well enough alone. To me, it is much scarier *not* to know why Hannibal Lecter is the way he is; it leaves open the possibility that it anyone could become such a monster. I imagine people had their own theories, and when something like that is left to the reader's imagination, it can assume many shapes. When Harris gives us Lecter's backstory, as unusual as it may be, he forever closes the door on our possibilities, and thereby reduces Lecter as a villain, although he does perhaps become somewhat more sympathetic a character. I don't think we needed to know *why* Lecter is evil; it is enough to simply know that he is.

It's hard to say what went wrong with this novel. The raw materials for a great sequal to 'The Silence of the Lambs' are all there. Our favorite characters are back; perhaps not in the situations we imagined them, but true to their natures nonetheless. The initial situations are believable, and consistent with the world Harris created in his previous novels. As the novel progresses, however, it spirals farther and farther away from believability. I suppose that's my complaint. What made 'Red Dragon' and 'The Silence of the Lambs' so engrossing and terrifying was plausibility. We all hope that we don't know anyone like the Tooth Fairy or Buffalo Bill, but we know that we might. 'Hannibal', on the other hand, reads more like a grotesque James Bond novel than anything else. The villain is a physically repulsive man of limitless wealth and influence, surrounded by henchmen who are drawn in caricature. The action in the last third of the book grows increasingly fantastic, to the point that I expected to find, in the last chapter, that the book was all a fevered dream of Agent Starling's. The ending was not at all what I wished for in this novel. Still, an unexpected conclusion can be effective if it is consistent with what we know of the principal characters and the world they inhabit. I simply could not believe that the resolution of the story in 'Hannibal' could be drawn from the actions of the main characters. It seemed driven by outside forces (i.e. Harris' imagination) with no regard for the net result.

One more annoyance. There is a scene in the novel which places Hannibal Lecter in the middle seat in the coach section of a trans-Atlantic flight, next to an annoying small boy. This had great potential to be gruesomely funny. Instead, not only did the scene come to an unsatisfying close, but it served no purpose in furthering the plot. I felt cheated, and I suppose that is as good a characterization of my feelings toward the book as a whole as any.

If you liked Silence of the Lambs, let it end there. You will thank me later. This story has none of the horror, none of the compelling drama. The only it had in common with its predecessor was that it used the same names. Apparently if you use the same names from book to book you dont have to use their same personalities. I was severly disappointed with Thomas Harris' fourth attempt.

I don't see how anyone can give this book 5 stars; I debated between 1 and 2. I read this book over the summer with three friends. Three quarters of the way through we all had a tough time with the basic plot: a past, living victim of Lecter's cannibalistic tendencies wants him dead. His answer: hire someone to catch him and feed him to a group of really hungry pigs. Somehow the author made it believable, so it worked. But the last few chapters were so incredibly disappointing each of us confessed we were screaming back at the book. It seems Harris either didn't know how to end this book, or he simply ended it this particular way because he knew the book would turn into a movie and that audiences would appreciate this ending. By now you are wondering what the ending is if you haven't read it...I won't tell you but if you are dying to know, borrow it from a friend who had to pay good money for it. Harris' writing is spectcular, yes, and he weaves together a good story--but the character Clarice seems downsized in personality whereas I was almost becoming bored with Lecter. I hate to say it, but I wish I never read this book.

Let me say at the outset: I love Thomas Harris's work. I have read and listened on audio to Red Dragon and Silence of the Lambs multiple times. I did not care as much for the movie Silence of the Lambs, because I thought they got elements of the Lecter/Starling relationship wrong.

Well, the movie didn't get it nearly as wrong as Mr. Harris himself in this novel.

Although the novel is completely engrossing (and will gross you out), I simply didn't believe the ending. I could very well have accepted it if I could have seen the logical development of Clarice's character moving in that direction. I was left thinking "Why?" I was sorry to see Clarice come to such a sorry end. I genuinely liked her. And, I would have continued to like her if I could have seen her character developing in that direction. But it was almost like I was moving along the road South, then all of the sudden - OOPS! I'm going East! It was awkward and poorly developed. It was not that it was a surprise ending - it was a poorly contrived surprise ending.

I was very intrigued by the development of Dr. Lecter, and recognized that I was "rooting" for him. I wanted to know more about Dr. Lecter after reading the two earlier works, especially about how he developed his predeliction for cannibalism and torture. The background on the Tooth Fairy and Buffalo Bill were some of the best parts of their respective books, and part of what I felt was missing in the move adaptation of "Lambs." Harris does almost as well here, though I wanted more.

Mason Verger was a revolting and fascinating villain. I easily was more sympathetic toward Dr Lecter.

There was lots of Harris's trademark detail and atmosphere. I did not resent the time spent on Florentine history and art, but I wish he had spent equal time developing Dr Lecter's past, and also on developing the Clarice plot so that the ending made sense.