Sometimes I end up reading book series in the wrong order. In this case, I started with Silence of the Lambs, pushed on through Hannibal and finished up with Red Dragon. I didn’t particularly plan this, but that’s how it went. Like many others my age, I picked these books up because I’ve loved the on-screen versions of Dr Lecter – both Hopkins and Mikkelsen.
I remember watching the Red Dragon movie many years go but I really don’t recall anything about it, so I was looking forward to a fresh experience. All I really knew about the book was that it was the introduction to Hannibal as a character, but I was under the impression that he was Will Graham’s therapist (thanks to the TV show). I wasn’t displeased at all to find out how wrong I was. I thoroughly enjoyed Dolarhyde and the book in general, but I am confused about something…
Essentially, I don’t understand Dr Hannibal’s inclusion in the story at all. I hope by now you all realise that I love him as a character and I’m super grateful he exists, but his role in this particular book doesn’t really make any sense to me. In short: Dr Lecter’s purpose in the book is to have 1 uncomfortable meeting with Graham, vaguely offer advice that frankly wasn’t huge, write 1 letter to Dolarhyde pointing him to Graham, and then write a couple letters to Graham just to freak him out. There’s no relationship between him and Crawford, he hardly helps the investigation, he didn’t really need to turn Dolarhyde to Graham (I’m sure the Dragon would’ve done that), there’s no great psychological manipulation of Graham from Lecter, etc.
His role in this story would make a boatload more sense if Hannibal and Will had the relationship of therapist and patient (as in the TV show) or at very least had some kind of cat and mouse hunt for each other before Hannibal was imprisoned. But as far as I can see, Will just knew he was guilty by chance on their first meeting.
The only possible answer to my question (that I can see) is that Harris was setting up Hannibal for the next few books, but honestly that’s a pretty weak argument considering how he’s almost irrelevant to every character. Wouldn’t a better set up be to give Lecter a little bit more substance to grow from? The other side of this coin iss that Lecter was incidental and Harris only explored that idea later. But if that’s the case, why on earth did he even include the character? I think what I’m trying to get at is that if I had read this book when it had come out, the entire existence of Hannibal Lecter would make no sense to me from a story-telling perspective in this book alone.
I loved this book but I am perplexed.
by cinnamonbunsmusic
2 Comments
I’ve never read the book but the Wikipedia article says Will and Lecter have a ‘dark past’.
Is there a connection you’ve missed? Was Will Graham not essential in Lecter’s capture?
There are two sides to it:
Harris strongly suggests that Graham is effectively the same as the serial killers. Lecter has this insight into Graham – no other character appears to understand it – and uses it to provoke Graham and allow the reader to understand Graham thinks the same way as the serial killers, is able to understand their motivations and *appreciate* what they get from killing. When Lecter points to this, Graham tries to hide from it. There’s a certain degree to which I expect Graham already knows what Lecter will tell him, but goes to Lecter to avoid having to acknowledge he thinks the same ways as the serial killers.
Having Graham previously capture Lecter also shows the reader that Graham is talented, skilled at his job, a force to be reckoned with and a suitable go-to for Crawford.
—
Just note that the *Red Dragon* movie (the second version with Hopkins) adds extra scenes with Lecter; that’s why half the audience is there. These scenes are not in the book, at least not from memory.