Comments on: BOOKS 2 FILM >> Hannibal Rising

By: Rod Lott

Rod Lott — Fri, 15 Jun 2007 23:21:07 +0000

I remember reading somewhere that one of Harris’ stipulations in turning in RISING is that it had to be accepted as is — i.e. no editing. Don’t know if that is true, but it would explain your problem with it.

By: thomas conneely

thomas conneely — Fri, 15 Jun 2007 20:44:25 +0000

The most annoying thing about Hannibal Rising, (the ‘original’ book )is that it’s so badly written… rarely have I read a book so in need of a good editor, and sorely needing to exhibit a better command of written English. Perhaps the effect of simultaneously writing a novel and screenplay effectively ruined both? Harris is (or was?) a good writer of tense and relatively involved plots, but I found myself laughing aloud at some of the contrived, convoluted and downright silly plotlines in Hannibal Rising. Boo.

By: Mick

Mick — Mon, 11 Jun 2007 04:53:05 +0000

Just wanted to point out that Harris did, in fact, write the novel and screenplay more or less simultaneously. This is the same author who used to say he avoided seeing the Hannibal films because he didn’t want them to influence his work… “Sell out” is an over-used term, but here the shoe seems to fit.

My two cents’: “Red Dragon” was the best of the Hannibal novels, and he should’ve stopped with “Silence.” The 3rd novel, “Hannibal,” was a bloated pile of pretension capped off by an utterly incongruous ending that was clearly designed to shock and failed miserably. In this reader, it emitted only eye-rolling.

By: Warren

Warren — Sun, 10 Jun 2007 17:12:34 +0000

I don’t understand the comments from critics and others about RISING (or HANNIBAL) being a cash-in–if Harris was only interested in cashing in he wouldn’t have taken 11 years to write HANNIBAL and 7 years to write RISING–he would be churning out a book every year like all of the other hacks.

By: Rod Lott

Rod Lott — Sat, 09 Jun 2007 16:09:10 +0000

When I call the book “underrated,” I mean in the context that it’s not the worst of 2006, despite making so many lists of that nature. At the very least, it’s better than “worst.” Bear in mind, I haven’t read the other Lecter books yet (though I now own them), so I can’t compare it to past greatness. I can only judge it on its own.

If you read my review of the RISING novel from last winter, our opinions might actually appear more in line. An excerpt:

>>>Overfamiliarity: It’s for that reason critics have taken RISING to task as something of a cash-in – a sure thing for Harris’ coffers. Perhaps they have a point, in that Harris’ bibliography amounts to five books in 30 years, with all but one – his debut, BLACK SUNDAY – dealing with Lecter. Maybe it’s time for him to stretch and use his talents to come up with something as fresh and exciting as his first two or three times at bat, especially since he takes so many years between books.

Is HANNIBAL RISING scary? No. Is it essential? No. Is it entertaining? Most of it, yes. It’s an unnecessary but pleasantly diverting prequel; as literature, its edible equivalent may be some jelly beans with a nice Cherry Coke, but I can’t deny my sweet tooth. <<<

By: Jim Allcorn

Jim Allcorn — Sat, 09 Jun 2007 05:53:07 +0000

I’ve got to agree with Gal on this one.

Between Dino Delaurentis’s greed & Harris’s refusal to just let the charecter of Hannibal Lector go, what was once a chilling, enduring, iconic charecter has become basically a joke. Which has become quite sad to see really.

Old Dino’s inability to resist sqeezing the very last dime out of the charecter is to be expected, as it’s just what the movie business does. It’s to be expected.
But, it’s really too bad that Delaurentis has managed to take the enigmatic but talented author’s career down with him. Turning the once highly critically acclaimed novelist with gads of literary clout into a ( albeit VERY high priced ) movie tie in hack. What a waste …

Who knows what sort of classic thrillers Harris might have been able to produce for us had he stopped his Lector novels with SILENCE OF THE LAMBS & gone onto something fresh, rather than completely over examining the charecter to the point where he now retains absolutely not a hint of mystery left about him. COMPLETELY defanging the once chilling monster & turning him into some sort of a silly, misunderstood anti-hero. UGH!

Sad to think of all the raw power & the legitimate chills that were produced by the classic RED DRAGON & it’s brilliant follow up SILENCE OF THE LAMBS. One can not help but to wistfully wonder what other treats Harris may have had in store for us in his subsequent work had to not allowed himself to become a slave to his famous creation & those whom demanded just more of the same from him …

By: 60 in 3

60 in 3 — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 18:11:49 +0000

Bah, sorry to disagree with you, but I would recommend staying away from the book too. I really feel as though he was just trying to capitalize on the success of Silence of the Lambs. The last two books and three movies have been absolutely atrocious.

And why even try and make us sympathize with Hannibal? He was a monster in Silence. That was his strength. He may have been smart, witty and polite, but he was still a monster. Now we’re supposed to like him because someone ate his sister?

Bah!

Gal