Talk:Hannibal (Harris novel)

Plot Inaccuracies
the synopsis of the plot is inaccuracte in places —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.105.216.102 (talk) 01:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There is incorrect information, irrelevant information and a lack of information all in the plot description. In particular, this paragraph.
 * "Lecter is captured by Verger's men, and Starling pursues them, determined to bring Lecter in herself. One of Verger's men is able to shoot her full of tranquilizer as she releases Lecter. The wild boars break through the barricade separating them from Lecter, but they lose interest in their intended prey when they smell no fear on him, instead going after Verger's men. In the confusion, Lecter carries the unconscious Starling to safety, and escapes with her. At the same time, Margot forcibly obtains Mason's sperm by sodomizing him with a cattle prod, and then kills him by shoving his pet Moray eel down his throat. Lecter, who had briefly treated Margot after her brother abused her, has urged her to blame the murder on him, which she does by leaving one of his hairs at the scene."

Starling was not "...determined to bring Lecter in herself." She had realised that Verger's men were going to torture him which Starling believed to be too cruel for anyone, so she went to save him and take him to the police instead. The statement makes you think that Verger's men intended to do the honorable thing and that Starling just wanted to take all the credit.

The wild boars do not break in. They were let in by Lecter. He was in the barn and opened the gate, keeping himself and Starling safe behind the gate. Once the boars were eating Verger's men, Lecter walked out of the barn through them. They didn't bother attacking him because they smelt no fear on him.

Margot obtained Mason's sperm after she realises that all of his men are dead. She pays off one of the last men, and kills the final man who would protect him. Everything after (and including) "Margot forcibly" is accurate.

Does someone want to correct the plot description? Littleleeroy (talk) 10:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Timeline removal
I removed the section on the timeline discrepancies.

It reads as subjective conjecture, while I'm not disputing that events may not correllate, and Harris himself has stated his own retconnings, at the least this would better figure into a page on Hannibal himself or one about the series of novels.

TotalTommyTerror 17:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Hannibalcover.gif
Image:Hannibalcover.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Polydactyly?
Polydactyly says :
 * 1) Hannibal Lecter, the fictional psychiatrist and serial murderer, had a sixth finger on his left hand. Its removal is crucial to the plot of the novel Hannibal.

Yet this is not mentioned here? ✏✎✍✌✉✈✇✆✃✄Ⓠ‽ (talk) 16:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Synopsis? If you can call it that...
The synopsis is weak - isn't there someone out there who can provide at least a few more paragraphs; the "Red Dragon" and "Silence of the Lambs" Wikis have considerably more material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.37.202.1 (talk) 17:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Synopsis oddities
I've just changed a couple of points in the synopsis which were clearly inaccurate. There is one other, but i will hold off on changing it immediately, as i could be wrong. Currently one section reads '' Using a regimen of psychotropic drugs and behavioral therapy, Lecter attempts to brainwash Starling, hoping to make her believe she is Mischa, returned to life. She ultimately proves too strong, however, and tells him that Mischa will have to live on within him''; i believe that this is incorrect and should be changed. It does not appear that Lecter is trying to make Starling believe she is Mischa; the text is quite clear that he somehow believes that Starling might provide "a place in the world for Mischa", which seems to imply Starling may have to die, not be fooled. Discuss? Or shall i change it? Cheers, LindsayHello 12:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you, that's not what happens at that point, and it should be rephrased. Lecter wants to create a "place in the world" for Mischa and he decides the best place in the world is Starling's. He does use drugs and hypnosis to brainwash Starling, but not to make her believe she is Mischa; that's too simplistic. Instead, it is to divest Starling of her own neuroses and unresolved issues, hence the presence of her father's skeleton and Paul Krendler, who Lecter believes represents Starling's relationship with the law. By making her highly suggestible she undergoes a process in which she is able to let go of her allegiances to conventional morality and she gladly eats from Krendler's brain. This means she's on a plane closer to Lecter now, no longer fears or reveres the law, and the act of consuming the flesh symbolizes that. After that they have the conversation about the teacup; Starling is able to outwit Lecter for the first time then, and plays onto Lecter's own insecurities about the role Mischa played in his early life by alluding to the fact that he had to let go of her mother's breast, and offers her own as one he doesn't have to give up. Lecter probably lets her do this. By doing so Starling is basically saying, maybe you don't want Mischa after all; your own attachment to her is fraught with ambivalence. Sdicht (talk) 14:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hannibal (Harris novel). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719215210/http://www3.isrl.illinois.edu/~unsworth/courses/bestsellers/search.cgi?title=Hannibal to http://www3.isrl.illinois.edu/~unsworth/courses/bestsellers/search.cgi?title=Hannibal

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:27, 29 October 2017 (UTC)