Hannibal Rising

I have so many things to review . . . I’m on a review backlog with all the other things I’ve been doing.

Hannibal Rising

SPOILERS

As I mentioned in my earlier review of this film, there is a certain danger in trying to over-explain where a character comes from, how he originated. Part of the mystique of Hannibal Lecter is that he seemingly has no cause for who he is. To paraphrase Hannibal: No one made me, no circumstance created me. I am.

Nevertheless, Thomas Harris tries to give us some sense of why Hannibal became “Hannibal the Cannibal” as opposed to, say, a brilliant doctor, writer, artist, etc., praised by society. I read that Harris made the decision to create a backstory for Hannibal under duress: the studios said: Either you write the backstory or we will find someone else who will. With this pressure, Harris decided to tell Hannibal’s story as he wanted to. And although it lifts some of the mystery, it is still a great novel.

As in the film, the novel follows Hannibal in his early life as a small child. He has a sister, Mischa, and the two children are closely bonded. Their bond is obvious. As Hitler’s forces are driven out of Europe, a renegade group of wannabe SS soldiers hide in the quarters of Hannibal’s family. His mother, father, tutor, and servants are killed. Hannibal and Mischa survive and are held captive by the SS men. As the winter comes, the men find food a scarcity. Again, as in the film, the men kill Hannibal’s sister for food, insisting that she was sick already and was soon to die anyway. Better to murder her than for her to suffer and waste away. Hannibal tries to follow her and the men slam his arm in the door. Another boy is trapped with them although his situation is not well explained.

Hannibal is rescued when the Soviets take control of his land. Lecter Castle becomes an orphanage and Hannibal lives there as a teenager. He has gone mute except at night, when he has horrible nightmares. Hannibal is teased by the other boys and does not have friends. At last, Hannibal’s uncle comes for him and Hannibal is to live with his aunt and uncle in France. As Hannibal is mute, he does not tell his uncle what has happened to Mischa and that she will never be found.

Hannibal’s uncles passes away but Hannibal bonds with his aunt and starts to come out of his shell. Hannibal is so bright that he is accepted to medical school at a young age and excels at his school work. But his nightmares persist. Meanwhile, a butcher insults Hannibal and his aunt. Hannibal takes revenge on the man for his rudeness by killing him. His aunt helps Hannibal to cover up the murder and Hannibal escapes arrest but just barely. The police inspector befriends Hannibal’s aunt and keeps a very close watch on Hannibal, knowing he must have been responsible for the crime.

Again, as in the film, Hannibal systematically kills every man who took part in the murder and consumption of his sister. The French policeman, Inspector Popeil, who has been following Hannibal concludes that Hannibal has taken justice into his own hands. At last, he charges Hannibal for the crime of murdering the butcher. In an odd twist, Hannibal becomes a kind of folk hero and goes free by popular demand. He was, after all, killing war criminals that the courts didn’t punish—why should he rot in jail for that?

Hannibal is off to America, chillingly, to begin a residency at Johns Hopkins Hospital. Before he does, he makes a quick stop in Canada to kill the last remaining war criminal on his list. With that, the reader shudders as she thinks of the illustrious career to come.

Some of the elements of this novel are pretty cool. I mean, it is neat to see Hannibal before he was as we think of him in SOTL. Little touches—like him getting maroon-colored eyes from his mother and him showing kindness to his sister and to the animals at Lecter Castle—did a lot to re-humanize Hannibal. But it kind of sucks to reduce him to a man out for revenge—the stereotypical psycho who goes psycho because of terrible abuse perpetrated on him as a child. Blah. We’ve heard that story too many times before, both in fiction and in reality. I found the narrative itself great . . . but the reduction of Hannibal to something explicable I found sad and disappointing in its own way.

END OF SPOILERS

Hannibal and Mephistopheles

So I also read a book called Evil: A Primer by William Hart and in this book, Hart calls Hannibal Lecter an equivalent of Goethe’s Mephistopheles for the 21st Century. Upon reading this, I recoiled and thought, “No way. What the hell is this guy thinking?” (No pun intended.) Hart says it as though it is a thought easily observable and easily proven. But that’s not so—at least not if you know Old Mephy like I know Old Mephy. So what’s the deal? I tossed this around in my head and still, I’m not sure of the comparison. I want to work this logical problem by hammering it out. So here’s what I think you can put on the plus column:
Both are bon vivants
Both are extremely intelligent
Both are uncannily perceptive
Both enjoy playing the role of instigator
Both have their own senses of justice and what it means to measure out that justice to others
Both engage in activities considered criminal and immoral
Both are keenly able to use the art of persuasion to sway others
One could argue that Clarice Starling becomes to Hannibal what Faust is to Mephistopheles’ in Goethe’s rendering of the legend
One could argue that both Hannibal and Mephistopheles represent human stagnation (reference Hannibal’s obsession with the stopping of time to bring Mischa back)

But of course there are differences:
Hannibal is human; Mephistopheles is a paranormal entity with supernatural powers
Hannibal sometimes goes beyond instigating and takes direct action himself; Mephistopheles’ goal is to goad Faust into taking the actions that will destroy him (Faust)
In Goethe’s rendering, Mephistopheles is a being used by God ultimately for the good of humanity; Hannibal perhaps he thinks his actions are beneficial but are not

Hmm. Well, it seems my plus column is larger than my minus column. Maybe there’s something to Hart’s notion after all . . . Maybe it is that Hannibal is a *version* of Mephistopheles for the 21st Century rather than being his true equivalent as it appears that their philosophical goals are disparate. Interesting food for thought. Evil: A Primer is a book I would recommend, by the way, for anyone interested in the basic construct of the philosophical conundrum: how do good and evil coexist? Or, if God is purely good how did he create evil? The book is not going to give you an answer to this, naturally, but it has some cool banter on the topic. It’s worth checking out.

Still VERY busy with house stuff. If you've been there before, you know what it's like.