Talk:Thomas Harris

Hannibal Rising
I just read Hannibal Rising. The story is the backround story for Hannibal supposedly becoming a "monster killer". The probelem lies in that the story makes him human - a boy turned man, out to get revenge on those who killed his entire family in what seems to me very unhuman and monsterous ways. Seems reasonable to me. He does divert into killing to defend others he loves against what could be argued as those with less than human qualities. In other words he developes a desire to get the bullies in life. Though his methods are extreem, so were his experiences which set the stage for the "movie" he chose to be his life - one where he is not a vicim of the bullies of life. And THAT is the story of Hannibal. It is not a story about a "serial killer", per se. Totally dissapointed in and annoyed with the book and the author, I will avoid the movie and forget I ever read it so I can still be thrilled by his other books and movies about the enigma of heartless, soulless, mindless killers.

What would have worked was a story about the human gone "bad" for understandable reasons which were understood by those who knew his story, but those characters in the book betrayed him and chose to call him a monster. It was a shock to watch them turn their backs on him. I feel for Hannibal, and I cannot judge him as he is judged in this novel by the author nor those characters close to him. I am sad for him. Am I the only one to feel his pain?Crewella 20:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)( 132.160.66.62 20:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)(jennwilds@yahoo.com)1/11/07 132.160.66.62 20:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

How great an idea is it to spoil the ending of Hannibal?

Not good it makes people want to read when they are so into the book once you ruin it they won't read it anymore.

More people hated Hannibal than loved it? Based on what? The film made over $400 million around the world. It has a 6.3 rating on imdb (which doesn't sound that impressive but it means more people thought it was good than bad). Scott197827 19/2/2006


 * I edited the article to remove the POV and the spoiler.
 * 4.228.90.185 20:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Red Dragon
Why is there no mention of the "Red Dragon" movie adaption of Red Dragon (not Manhunter) starring Edward Norton? --Just some random guy who is too lazy to make an account

Police beat
Does anyone here know what 'covering the police beat' means? I'd really like to know. Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ACAbrahams (talk • contribs) 09:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

Local journalist dealing with crime, with contacts in the local police. BTW Hanibal Rising is a work of profound literary genius in my experience.86.151.42.52 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Profound literary genius? Are you kidding! The prose style was sophisticated and well written, I grant you, but the story was full of continuity errors (i.e. no mention of Hannibal's polydactyly), entirely shallow and filled with thinly drawn characters you don't much care about doing woefully unoriginal things. Basically, it was just a trashy, ho-hum and frequently exploitative gorefest devoid of the substance, dark wit and riveting suspense of Harris's previous thrillers. --Heslopian (talk) 02:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Thomas-harris.jpg
Image:Thomas-harris.jpg 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 insure 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Thomas-harris.jpg
Image:Thomas-harris.jpg 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 insure 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) 02:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

what's Harris' latest project?
Is there any intel on what TH is currently working on? 86.163.108.115 (talk) 19:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

i have the original 4th draft of the silence of the lambs manuscript
i have the forth draft screenplay by ted tally    signed by both jodie foster & anthony hopkins came all the way from la california :) wondering if anyone may know where i can se what its worth in austin,tx? if so plx email me at faithramos99@yahoo.com  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.20.107.130 (talk) 03:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

James Ellroy inspired by Harris
Well known crime novelist James Ellroy published an introduction to a combined set of his (Ellroy's) 3 Hopkins character novels in which he states that he was inspired by Harris (L. A. Noir, 1998, isbn=978-0892966868). Paraphrasing, Ellroy wrote that he wrote "Blood on the Moon", read Harris' "Red Dragon", decided that Harris' Will Graham was written far better than he had written Detective Hopkins and he (Ellroy) wanted a 2nd shot at writing a better Hopkins character. Thus came "Because the Night" and "Suicide Hill" which Ellroy thought were better due to the influence of his having read Harris' "Red Dragon". This information should be generally shared. The source is from Mysterious Press' hardback combining of the three Ellroy novels with Ellroy's purpose-written introduction. Coincidentally, to this (anonymous) contributor, the infromation I convey had personal meaning in that I had said to people how my two favorite fiction writers were Ellroy and Harris of "Red Dragon". I went on to say that "Harris was kind of an Ellroy just..." Little did I know that there was an actual connection between the two authors. And what a connection! Again, Ellroy wrote subsequent novels with the Hopkins character -- for the very reason that he was inspired to do as well as Harris had done with his Will Graham. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.123.216.30 (talk) 19:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Bibliography link showing
I found the link for the "Silence of the Writer" article I thought I entered the link legitimately, just added a url slot plus link but for some reason it shows can someone explain to me how to fix this type of thing? Moon822 (talk) 03:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ You added one character too many - GroveGuy (talk) 04:11, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Reverts
VictimOfEntropy, regarding this revert:


 * If by "grammar errors" you mean the single typo, obviously we have no disagreement there. That is a 5-second fix and not worth bringing up.


 * In 1968, he moved to New York City to work for Associated Press until 1974 when he began work on Black Sunday. What is Black Sunday?


 * The version you are restoring contains excessive quotes that can instead be paraphrased to no loss of information. See WP:QUOTEFARM. Please re-examine these long quotes and see if you still think they contain critical information that must be stated in the speakers' words and cannot be paraphrased.


 * We don't need to say "Little is known about Harris's personal life". That borders on original analysis - we can just say he's private and provide the information we have on his personal life that we have. But more importantly, I can find no source for this claim. It is cited to "Bolivar, 2012" but no further information is given about what "Bolivar, 2012" is. Googling "Thomas Harris Bolivar" only produces this obituary for Polly Coleman Harris, which does not provide the information about Harris's personal life. Per WP:BURDEN, the burden is on the editor who adds or restores claims to provide citations.

Please reconsider your revert. Popcornfud (talk) 13:06, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I just re-added the “his debut novel,” part. Those quotes cannot be paraphrased without loss of information, no. The quotes add a lot of color to the article. And the fact that the public knows very little about Harris’s personal life is self-evident, and interesting. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 13:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "Those quotes cannot be paraphrased without loss of information, no" For example?
 * "the fact that the public knows very little about Harris’s personal life is self-evident" If it is self-evident why do we need to say it? Please address the lack of citation as anything without a citation can be removed. Popcornfud (talk) 13:21, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "the fact that the public knows very little about Harris’s personal life is self-evident" If it is self-evident why do we need to say it? Please address the lack of citation as anything without a citation can be removed. Popcornfud (talk) 13:21, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

They contain information about Harris that was removed by your edits. Valuable information (which we have very little of) about his character and the life he leads. And I don’t understand what you’re referring to about the citations—they’re there. I didn’t put them there (as I don’t know how to add them), but they’re there. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 13:30, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * OK so you're not being specific about what valuable information I removed, just contradicting me with no further explanation, that's not helpful.
 * Regarding the references, the claims you want to keep is just cited to "Bolivar, 2012" but there is no indication of what this is (a book? an interview? an article?), where it was published, where to read it, or if it exists at all. Popcornfud (talk) 13:42, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding the references, the claims you want to keep is just cited to "Bolivar, 2012" but there is no indication of what this is (a book? an interview? an article?), where it was published, where to read it, or if it exists at all. Popcornfud (talk) 13:42, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Fine, don’t see why I have to state something that you already know, but: You removed the information that his partnership with Pace Barnes is a long-term one, and the part which says that Harris is a good person, and the fact that he's done the Le Cordon Bleu exams, and the part which tells us just how happy cooking makes him. And almost every citation on this page is just like that, as well as the citations on most Wikipedia pages I’ve seen. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 13:51, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I also don’t see why it’s so important to you to remove information from this article. There’s no reason for what you’re doing. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 13:51, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think that "valuable information" is valuable. If we say someone has a partner we assume they are long-term (ie not a girlfriend or something). Harris's publisher saying that Harris is "one of the good guys" is not enlightening encyclopaedic information, it is vague and open to interpretation. I paraphrased the cooking information by saying "he enjoys cooking", perhaps we could re-add the Le Cordon Bleu information.
 * Regarding citations, I urge you to read WP:UNSOURCED. It will explain why I am questioning the claims made in this article and help you understand why they may be removed. Popcornfud (talk) 14:01, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding citations, I urge you to read WP:UNSOURCED. It will explain why I am questioning the claims made in this article and help you understand why they may be removed. Popcornfud (talk) 14:01, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

But *why* remove them when there aren’t any indications that they’re untrue? I just told you that they *are* sourced in the same way that the entire article (and pretty much every other Wikipedia article, too) is sourced. I don’t understand the goal of your sudden onslaught. I’ve been the unofficial guardian of these pages for a year and a half, checking on them almost every day, and some of them almost every hour, all that time. And now you’re suddenly here trying to remove information that no one else has ever had any issue with. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 14:14, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Everything on Wikipedia needs to be cited to a reliable source that readers can check to verify the information is true. This is a fundamental pillar of Wikipedia. Information that is not cited to a reliable, verifiable source is subject to removal.
 * If you are seeing examples (here or elsewhere) of information that is uncited, or cited badly, that doesn't mean it's fine to do that, it means those are examples of editors and articles not following Wikipedia policy. Articles should follow Wikipedia policy.
 * Some of the claims we are discussing are cited to a source that is only given as "Bolivar, 2012". This citation has no further information about who or what "Bolivar" is and no further explanation about publishing, author, where to read this source or if it exists. As I explained above, I can't find any indication of what this is, or how to read it, and Googling does not produce any clues. This means that, unless you or someone else can solve the mystery here and demonstrate that this is a reliable, verifiable source after all, claims cited to that reference may be removed.
 * As I explained above, I can find a 2012 obituary for "Polly Coleman Harris" cited to the Bolivar Commercial (which is also cited in the article). However, this obituary does not contain the information in question. I have a feeling the claims cited to "Bolivar, 2012" are being attributed to that obituary by mistake.
 * Is anything here still unclear? Popcornfud (talk) 14:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Aha, I am mistaken! The claim is actually cited to Hoban, which is fully supported by the bibliography. Although what I'm saying about Wikipedia policy is still true, you can strike out my concerns about the citations in this article. I misread the citation. Apologies for the confusion. Popcornfud (talk) 14:35, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * As I explained above, I can find a 2012 obituary for "Polly Coleman Harris" cited to the Bolivar Commercial (which is also cited in the article). However, this obituary does not contain the information in question. I have a feeling the claims cited to "Bolivar, 2012" are being attributed to that obituary by mistake.
 * Is anything here still unclear? Popcornfud (talk) 14:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Aha, I am mistaken! The claim is actually cited to Hoban, which is fully supported by the bibliography. Although what I'm saying about Wikipedia policy is still true, you can strike out my concerns about the citations in this article. I misread the citation. Apologies for the confusion. Popcornfud (talk) 14:35, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Aha, I am mistaken! The claim is actually cited to Hoban, which is fully supported by the bibliography. Although what I'm saying about Wikipedia policy is still true, you can strike out my concerns about the citations in this article. I misread the citation. Apologies for the confusion. Popcornfud (talk) 14:35, 8 November 2020 (UTC)