Talk:Hannibal Lecter/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

I.Q. ?

Where on the novels or the films is "explicitly revealed" Lecter's I.Q. to be 200+?? If I get no response I may remove it.

I think it was in Red Dragon but I don't have the book with me.--CyberGhostface 21:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

IQ claim needs a source, please put the quote here before reverting Karwynn 15:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Karwynn, in "The Silence of the Lambs" it is stated that his intellect was not measurable by any means known to man (on the scene when he first meets Senator Martin, when they size up each other), there is another similar quote in "Hannibal" but nowhere I remember reading a number. Rebel.crusader 23:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

In the novel, Hannibal it says that Lecter's I.Q. was not calculable by any means yet known to man. It's from a read of 5 years ago so I remember correctly.. the I.Q. answer is mentioned in the book at the part where Lecter is thinking about what Dr.Stephen Hawkings said about time getting to a point where it may start to run backwards, and Lecter is writing down or doing in his mind some mind-bogglingly complex math formulas connected with Hawking's theories (or something like that).. and the book says something like there was literally only a handful of people on the whole planet who could have understood what Lecter's formulas said and meant. Dirk Diggler Jnr 16:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The statement that his IQ was "not calculable by any means yet known to man" could be interpreted in different manners. One interpretation is that his intellegence is literally incomprehensible, where a second is that this is a situation somewhat similar to IQ testing for autistic savants. That is, that IQ tests may not be an accurate way to determine Hannibal's intellegence, and, although brilliant, his intelligance need not be beyond human understanding. (I am not stating that this character has autistic tendencies, I am only drawing a comparision) 66.24.236.62 22:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Quote from Silence of the Lambs Novel: Pg:199

Senator Martin and Hannibal Lecter considered each other, one extremely bright and the other not measurable by any means known to man.

Nothing definitive, unfortunately. --Majinvegeta 06:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, as Dr. Lecter seems to keep himself informed on advances in psychology, it could be assumed that he uses this knowledge to avoid being submitted to psychological testing, possibly including intelligence quotent testing. If so, then his intellegence would be nearly impossible to determine. 66.24.234.136 00:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Sociopath

Hannibal is not a sociopath. Whoever keeps on reverting my edits, please stop.--CyberGhostface 01:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed: please note Clarice's allusion to the point: "I am still wating for the shallowness of affect".

Without diving too deeply, those suffering from antisocial personality disorder tend to display winsome characteristics that are insincere and shallow-handed; Clarice's observation tends to suggest otherwise in Lector.

Obviously the presence (or lack of) this behavioral component does not necessarily illuminate or destroy the notion of Lector with APD, yet it appears to be Clarice's wink in that general direction....

Unless I am missing something; is there other evidence supporting / contradicting this idea?

Thanks, Aaron 12.8.2006

Lecter isn't anything specific. Harris did this intentionally to make him unique from other fictional serial killers. Yes, he does display psychopathic behavior, yes he does display sociopathic behavior (what the hell's the difference between the two anyway? There's no confirmed definition that specifies their differences). A sociopath is the closest thing that does explain his condition, even though he lacks certain characteristics.--Majinvegeta 04:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Harris called him sociopath, didn't he? So he is a sociopath. Don't forget that Hannibal is a fictional character and Harris is the one who created him, not us, even if Hannibal (or rather Harris..) afterwards fails to show those special characteristics. 87.110.154.39 18:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC) Chris

No, he never did, at least in the context of the third-person narrative. He had one or two characters such as Chilton refer to him as such, and that was largely because no other term applied.--CyberGhostface 18:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I think the only two people to mention a condition were Chilton and Graham, but Chilton ("pure sociopath") is no where near as smart as Hannibal or the image he passes off as himself. The other mention is by Graham, but he even says that they thought he was a sociopath. He said that he failed to show signs of sociopathy and he was just branded a sociopath because they didn't have a word for him. (This was at the briefing room scene in Red Dragon in Atlanta, it was also in Manhunter. I don't think it was in the film Red Dragon, as I believe that scene was replaced with the restaurant scene, though I think they still convey the same message in the scene.) Dr. Hannibal Lecter 19:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thomas Harris probably has the genes of Asperger's syndrome

Nobody knows what is the problem with Hannibal Lecter only because Asperger's Syndrom is almost totally unknown. It is not my intention to write here a long discussion, but just to point out to anybody who wonders about this, if you want to understand Hannibal Lecter/Thomas Harris, read about Asperger's Syndrome. Asperger's Syndrome (A.S.) is a combination of abnormally high logical intelligence plus zero social intelligence. But the condition is genetic, and the genes affect also other family members, and it is among the siblings of A.S. sufferers that you find people strikingly similar to Hannibal Lecter regarding abnormally high logical and social intelligence, and other neurological abnormalities. I know this because I suffer from A.S. myself and "Silence of the Lambs" and Hannibal Lecter have been discussed extensively in our (now defunct) user group.

Hehe...identifying with Lector is kind of a confirmation bias. I agree that Asperger's Syndrome is possibly what Lector "suffers" from, yet I do not agree that the data in the books or movies is conclusive enough (without direct mention of the disorder, ideas quickly become speculative) to make a convincing argument.

Thanks, Aaron 12.8.2006

I would highly doubt that Dr. Lecter has Asperger's syndrome, as he seems much higher social intellegence than most people with this disorder, who generally tend to have average to above average intellegence, but varying degrees of social ineptitude. Hannibal, however, has both high intellegence and social refinement. Further, Dr. Lecter seems to have a callousness moreso associated with antisocial personality disorder than with Asperger's, as many individuals with Asperger's may exhibit a flat affect, but are not neccisarily devoid of interpersonal connections, something Lecter seems to lack more or less as well (even if his character did not meet enough criteria of this APD to be formally diagnosed, and it was basically the only diagnosis that was similar enough to his behaviors.)

On a side note, I recall reading on a different site (the name of which excapes me) that Hannibal allegedly shows symtoms of Post traumatic stress disorder in Thomas Harris's novels. Whether or not this was intended or not by Harris is uncertain.

Here is a similar article http://www.albany.edu/scj/jcjpc/vol13is2/Oleson.pdf

• "I am still waiting for the shallowness of affect". I disagree with the strict APD application (it sounds to me like this is where you essentially are heading).

I like your Post-Traumatic Stress suggestion: it seems like Lector embodies many of the qualites (moreso perhaps than APD or Asperger's) that PTSD maintains.

I think Lector is to remain an enigma; a Tom Bombadil, if you like. It might be interesting to flesh-out the hypothesis that, owing to his advanced intellect, Lector has a unique personality type: maybe not even exhibiting a disorder at all. Obviously a controversial premise, but a premise nonetheless.

Lecter has good social intellegence, that would present an issue when associating this syndrome with him. Lecter can choose when to interact socially and when not to. People with AS don't seem like they have that ability. --Majinvegeta 04:32, 18 Janua:ry 2007 (UTC)

As someone with the disorder myself, I can say from personal experience that Lecter does NOT have Asberger's syndrome. He's a psychopath. I know many people with psychopathic disorders, and am very familiar with both conditions. Asberger's syndrome has been confused with psychopathy since Asberger first called it Autistic Psychopathy, because both disorders deal with a supposed lack of empathy. But in reality the two disorders are completely different. Autistic people lack what is called "social intelligence." They desperately care what other people think, want to be liked and loved, want to express themselves to people, but can't because they find it difficult to read the body language that are necessary for social interactions. Psychopaths, conversely, have exceptionally high social intelligence; they often appear very charming and almost bewitching in their ability to make people like them. Psychopaths like Ted Bundy and Richard Remirez, who had admitted to the most disgusting rapes and murders, still managed to gain huge female followings, even among the nursing staff, who found themselves drawn to them for reasons they couldn't explain. Psychopaths can often display every possible emotion, because they are very good observers and mimics and can copy to a striking degree every bit of body language that people use to convey sympathy, love or compassion, but the difference is that they don't feel sympathy, love, or compassion. They are shells. They have no conscience or love in them whatsoever, unlike autistic people, who feel both these things, but can't express them. That is the difference. Serendipodous 11:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

That was some very useful and interesting information Serendipodous, and I feel good that you (personally) can shed light on this subject. But the only issue is that if what you say is true about psychopaths (I don't doubt it), then Lecter doesn't fit seemlessly into that condition either. The flaw is that Lecter does feel love toward certain people, his deseased sister Mischa being a prime example of this. And in the book, he even feels compassion toward Margot Verger, Mason Verger's disturbed sister. --Majinvegeta 16:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Lecter's sister predates the event which triggered his psychopathy. I don't think Lecter feels compassion; he has said so many times, particularly in Hannibal, in which he said something like, "There is no room for mercy at my table." He does what he does because he wants to show himself as morally and intellectually superior to those around him. He sees himself on the same plane as the Greek gods; he has power beyond a mere mortal, and is therefore in a position to pass final, lethal judgement on those he deems unworthy. Serendipodous 17:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

But when exactly did Lecter become a psychopath (if he is indeed one)? If the event that triggered it was his sister's death, then that doesn't make any sense because the reason he started killing was to avenge her, that had to come from his devotion toward her. Lecter displays suffering on the plane when he's returning to the United States in the book Hannibal. He has a flashback of Mischa and screams out on the when he remembers her decaptitation. Starling also asks him near the end of the book if his mother breast-fed him, when he says yes, she then asks him if he would ever give up the breast to Mischa. He said he would've done it gladly, implying that he would choose his sister's life and well being over his own. Remember, he states this in Hannibal, which takes place decades after Mischa's death. And even though he has somewhat questionable methods for Margot to overcome Mason's abuse, he is devoted to her well being. Torturing Mason is evidence of this, even though he harms Mason, it was intentioned as retribution for the abuse that he pushed on Margot. Somewhat of vegence, just like what he did for Mischa. I'm not saying that what he does is justified, just should be examined more closely. These murders aren't random, their intentions come from Lecter's selfless devotion.--Majinvegeta 03:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd hardly use the word "selfless" when speaking of Lecter. Lecter, like all serial killers, is a fundamentally selfish being. He seeks to appease his own sense of injustice and vengeance on the world that destroyed his sister; a world of intellectually inferior, uncouth philistines unworthy of his mercy or consideration. He is an epicure of the highest order; seeking out aesthetic pleasures artistic and sensual at every turn, and only the best. His "higher morality" is merely an extension of that desire. Lecter may exhibit something like sympathy, but he has never demonstrated anything like pity (he would see that as a weakness), mercy or compassion. It's important here to understand what the word "compassion" means. Compassion is the three-eights wrench you lend to the guy who ran over your bicycle yesterday. If someone ran over Lecter's bicycle, his life expectancy would thenceforth be measured in microseconds. As far as I know, Lecter has never forgiven anyone of anything.Serendipodous 03:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree, but you still can't ignore what he told Clarice what he would do for his sister. And in my opinion, that is genuine selfless devotion to the fullest. Again, it depends on your point of view and how you interpret this "devotion". Not to assert that Lecter is not a psychopath, it's just that he displays subtle traits that don't fit with the typical traits of the condition. I agree though, psychopath is probably the most accurate discription of what he is. I think I read somewhere that Harris intentionally made Lecter not fit perfectly with any condition. This was simply to make Lecter unique compared to other fictional killers. Most fictional killers can easily be identified into specific conditions while with Lecter, it is more difficult. And it is because of the difficulty in diagnosing him: That's the whole reason why we're having this discussion in the first place. We are debating the question: If there was a condition that he had, what exactly would it be? I personally think that Lecter is a combination of several, but with an emphasis on a psychopathic disorder. --Majinvegeta 04:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Age when his family was killed and year of his birth?

I found quite an inconsistency, in the book Hannibal, It states that he was 6 when his family was killed and his sister was cannibalized. This is also stated the same thing on the Red Dragon DVD (Lecter's FBI file, which follows the book canon, not the movie one), and that his family was killed (same year in the article), this leads to controversy of his age because in Hannibal Rising, it states that he was born in 1933 and was twelve when his family was killed. That is quite an inconsistency, maybe an error? Which age should we use? Majin Vegeta

Harris recently stated 1933 is Lecter's official birthdate. Good eye for inconsistencies, though. 71.243.175.126 04:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree, Lecter could've lied about the dates, but that still doesn't explain how during his flashbacks in the book HANNIBAL, he remembers being six when they took Mischa from the barn. He would lie to trick others, not himself. Also, Mischa was four when she died in the book HANNIBAL, not six like it suggests in HANNIBAL RISING. Something's fishy, maybe because HANNIBAL RISING was a movie script before it was converted into a book, and probably followed the movie canon, and did not rely on the facts presented in HANNIBAL. A lazy excuse could be that Lecter lied, but it can't be passed off as simply as that, considering the inconsitencies.--Majinvegeta 04:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Note that the French Wikipedia article has a January 20, 1933 birthdate. Is there any source to support this? --Anshelm '77 14:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

LONG article

This article is painfully long, and it seems to have a lot of indirect information in it. Is there any possible way that we could remove some of the stuff on Lecter' heritage? Some of that stuff is cool to know, but it is too detailed, and takes too long to read through. I was wondering whether or not we could discuss chopping it down? I recently re-cut an article that was about as long as this one, and it came out pretty good. Majinvegeta

Chesapeake-Baltimore

Now this may not seem like a very big problem, but when you put it all in front of you it is. It has been noted that in reprint copies of Red Dragon, the name of the hospital Lecter is in is changed from the Chesapeake State Hospital for the Criminally Insane to the Baltimore State Hospital for the Criminally Insane. However, this change is only in that print of the novel, and I believe that there was at least two more prints of the novel since then, both with Chesapeake readded, one of which I own. Also, Lecter's cell is described quite a bit differently in Red Dragon (from what we are told, it looks just like it did in Manhunter) than in The Silence of the Lambs. I think the only solution must be that the hospital was renamed and had quite a renovation over the years, probably between 1978 and 1983, the dates at the end of Red Dragon and the beginning of The Silence of the Lambs, as most recently stated by Thomas Harris. 71.241.177.108 01:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

It could be, however, that is ASSUMING that the name was changed and ASSUMING that the hospital had rennovations. Therefore, it is speculation, and can't be added to the artcle. To add other discrepencies, look at Lecter's birthdates, in Hannibal (The novel Flashbacks) he was born in 1938, being that he was six when his sister was killed, but it strangely changes to 1933 in Hannibal Rising. And NO, the fact that he supposedly lied about his birthdates doesn't make sense either because in the flashback that he has in the Book Hannibal (which is from his point of view), he remembers being six years old when his sister died. He lied to others about his age to trick them, by doing that, he wouldn't trick himself..... :/ Majin Vegeta

In Hannibal Rising they mention that he really was born in 1933 and that he did change dates to confuse profilers, but you make a very good point: why would he think that? It could be so he kept it in his mind so he could say it to a profiler, but I don't think Lecter would need to keep it in his head to remember it. He might have been thinking from his memory palace and it was his edited version, but that is a rather odd scenario. Also, you know that the hospital must have had renovations because the only real thing that the cells have in common are the nylon net and the bars. The cell as described in Red Dragon very closely matches Manhunter, while the cell in The Silence of the Lambs (with the exception of the bars and the net and its location in the hallway) seems to match the one in its film adaptation. The cell in the film Red Dragon is rather inaccurate, however. Plus, it is confirmed that there must have been renovations between the time of Red Dragon and Silence as Lecter, in Red Dragon had his cell in a seperate room and his cell did not have a sliding food carrier, but probably either a lockbox like in Manhunter or else everytime anything was brought into his cell, such as food or the phone, was, unlikely, put in the long way such as when the phone is brought in Red Dragon. 71.243.181.204 22:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree, and even the inconsistencies of his faith. In Hannibal Rising, he is clearly an Atheist, but in the Flashbacks he has in Hannibal, it clearly states that he believes in God's existence, but harbors a bitter hatred toward him. These are two completely separate beliefs. I personally believe that whoever wrote the movie Script of Hannibal Rising made these inconsistencies, I don't believe that Harris had much to do with it. --Majinvegeta 01:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Harris is the one who wrote the script, lol. 71.243.141.131 00:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

LOL! Well then, I guess Mr Harris doesn't pay attention to what he writes in other books!--Majinvegeta 01:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of that, I noticed something quite peculiar. Hannibal Rising and Silence are written in the tense of the novel's time period. Red Dragon and Hannibal are written like they take place at the time of authorship. Harris has released an official chronology, which supposedly means that in the case of contradictions between the chronology and the books, the chronology nukes the book, so the chronology is correct. To state an example, Hannibal is written like it takes place in 1998, when Harris was working on the novel. Following the chronology from Silence, it would take place in 1990. The chronology implies that, for instance, the FBI birthday would be 82nd rather than 90th. 71.243.141.131 03:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, it also appears that Hannibal Rising nukes everything else where there is a contradiction, even the chronology. As for Hannibal's atheism, maybe he somewhat regained his faith later on. He seems to even trust God again toward the end of Hannibal. 71.243.141.131 16:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree, even the dates in the movies are all out of whack. If you go from Red Dragon (Lecter's arrest in 1980) but then look at Pazzi's computer screen in the movie HANNIBAL, Lecter supposedly escaped in 1991. From his arrest in 1980, to his supposed escape in 1991, that is 11 years incarcerated. He was only incarcerated for 8. Silence the movie takes place in 1988, making it 1998 in the movie Hannibal. In the novel, HANNIBAL takes place in 1990, but the last chapter takes place in 1993. About the religious bit, I agree, but I don't believe that he was ever an Athiest. This could've been an error in Rising. In Hannibal (during the flashbacks) it states that he aknowledges the existence of a careless God, while in Rising, it is clear that he aknowledges no God at all. --Majinvegeta 20:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

One more issue of chronology and dating; In HANNIBAL the book, aren't there clear references to the Clinton Administration? Janet Reno is alluded to (when the Federal Attorney General is mentioned in the book, the pronoun used is "she"), as well as the Lewinsky scandal. Since the latter occurred in 1998 (when the book was written) and Clinton himself didn't take office until 1993, this further mucks things up. 68.55.127.10 03:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Does Lecter ever eat human flesh in the novels?

One recent editor added a comment that Lecter never actually eats human flesh on screen in the films, but does he in the novels? I can't remember a scene that actually depicts Lecter consuming human flesh. Serendipodous 20:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Lecter eats part of Pembry's left cheek in The Silence of the Lambs. 71.243.181.204 03:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, in the Hannibal novel, Lecter AND Starling both eat Krendler's brain. She is drugged of course, but does it willingly none the less. He is never seen doing it in the movies, unless biting counts. (LOL! That is debatable). He eats people in the novel Hannibal Rising as well, he eats some dude's cheeks.--Majinvegeta 01:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, you could just read the novels and find out for yourself. But it is pretty interesting that Silence of the Lambs refers to him as "Hannibal the Cannibal" but never actually depicts him eating people. (A couple of previous acts of cannibalism are referred to, including one where he served human sweatmeats at a dinner party.) Harris created Hannibal as a cookie-cutter bad guy with no redeeming qualities, but with each novel he gets a little more sympathetic. Isaac R 01:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Was it not depicted in the movie "Silence of the Lambs", and also the book "Hannibal", that he opened up a guy's skull with a saw and ate his brain? - Will

List of Victims

Can someone give a list of all of Lecter's victims, specifying the pre-America, pre-incarceration, and post-escape victims, and which were confirmed by the FBI? I know many, maybe even all, but I just can't think of them. It would be helpful if someone did. Thanks. 71.243.181.204 03:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll try and do a list from memory. Feel free to amend with any additional bits. Serendipodous 13:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Pre Chesepeake:

• Paul Momund
• Enrikas Dortlich
• Zigmas Milko
• Petras Kolnas
• Meuller
• Gassmann
• Vladis Grutas
• Bronys Grentz

Chesepeake:

• The victim sent to a mental hospital in Denver
• The census taker
• The buried Princeton student
• Mason Verger (attempted)
• Benjamin Raspail (the last)
• Will Graham (attempted)
• Four others

Incarceration

• The nurse (attempted)
• I.J. Miggs (drove to suicide)
• Boyle
• T.W. Pembry
• The ambulence crew

Post-incarceration

• Lloyd Wyman
• Frederick Chilton (assumed)
• Curator of the Florence museum (assumed)
• The viola player at the Florence orchestra (assumed)
• Roger Le Duc, aka "Gnocco"
• Rinaldo Pazzi
• Paul Krendler

Two things. The most important is that "lists of victims" is unencyclopedic. They hold no context in an encyclopedia. Second, Wiki is not a forum, so we really shouldn't indulge such behavior (no offense to anyway, especially the Anon, who probably doesn't know any better). Bignole 14:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, sorry Bignole, I will try not to do stuff like this again. Thanks Serendipodous. 71.243.181.204 15:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Huh, but this must mean that the article is wrong. Even not counting the assumed murders and not even counting Miggs, there is still over 21 murdered people. Also, was Verger counted in the nine pre-incarceration victims? 71.243.181.204 15:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the nurse he attacked counts, he just wanted her tongue, I don't think that he ever intended to kill her. And don't forget about the pick-poket guy in HANNIBAL that he stabbed in the street. Verger does count as a pre-incarceration victim, however, I don't think that he really wanted to kill him either, just make him suffer. In the books, Lecter felt bad for Mason's sister after Mason had viciously raped her, so out of "courtesy", Lecter made him do those things to himself. I think the article should state that he has at least 14 victims, we could sort out which ones he actually kills and leave it at that. There is no guarentee that he killed Chilton (Which we all know that he probably did) and there is no Guarentee that he killed the Viola player in the Opera. --Majinvegeta 02:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The pick-pocket incedient wasent even an attempted murder all he tried to do was to castrate him though failed and If Im correct hit him in the liver. Still a murder by definition. Isaac Witte 04:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Also he diddnt kill Mason Verger in the movie his servant killed him at hanibbles suggestion. Also the special fetures of the movie Red Dragon tells about the death of the viola playerIsaac Witte 04:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It says that Hannibal attempted to kill, but he didn't. Also, it is never explicitly stated that he killed the viola player. 71.243.141.131 14:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone cranked up the number in the Body Count section. I will revert it, but if they were correct, could you please list these extra victims? Dr. Hannibal Lecter 14:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Chop Down?

I've said this before, I know, but nobody responded. I truly believe this article is in serious need of chopping down. There are too many details about indirect information. I just wanted to know what you all think about it, and if it is decided, if you could help with it. --Majinvegeta 18:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Not that I'm not calling the kettle black here, (I am) but your additions in the last few days have actually made the article substantially longer. I think we might as well accept the fact that this article is long and is going to get longer when the last Lecter novel is published. He is the main character in four novels and that means we have a lot of information to draw on. Serendipodous 13:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree, but that's why links can be made to main articles. For example, I don't think it's important to know what model of tank and plane killed his parents. And I did subtantially cut down his childhood section, and I chopped down the ancestry one last week. The ancestry one rambled on about the Visconti family and their rule of Milan. Yup, Cool. But that info doesn't relate to him directly. I agree, some of my contributions have indeed made the article longer, but I suggest rewording the same info and possibly removing some. I understand that Lecter is the main character of four books, But I just cut an article down the article on a main character of a series that spans about 450 episodes, and somehow, the article came to just under 25kb. And it's a good article too, informative and too the point. I don't see why we can't do it to the Hannibal Lecter article. --Majinvegeta 14:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that you guys are writing this like a biography, and it shouldn't be. He's a fictional character. His "appearances" in films and novels should be just that; they should be quick synopses of what happened. The rest should be "out of universe" information about how the character was developed. Please read WP:WAF, it tells you what to do, and it even lists several character articles for reference. Bignole 14:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Hannibal an Atheist?

I notice that Hannibal Lecter is listed under fictional Atheists, but he is not an Atheist. Atheists don't believe in the existence of a God; Hannibal does, he just doesn't believe in what the Bible teaches. --Majinvegeta 07:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Hannibal says unequivocally in Hannibal Rising that there is no God. Serendipodous 09:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see it now...but that's odd. He makes so many references to God in the later books: Like telling Clarice that Typhoid and Swans came from the same God. Also telling Graham that "Just last week he dropped a whole church roof on 34 of his worshippers just as they were graveling for him."--Majinvegeta 15:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Hannibal was definitely an atheist when he was young. I think he probably isn't really an atheist by the time of books later in the chronology, but he seems to want God not to exist. By the time of Hannibal, he may even have his faith renewed, as his experiences with Clarice toward the end seem to have a sort of religious feel to them. Hannibal even participates in some religious acts voluntarily, such as when he receives Communion and when he says Grace at the dinner with Clarice and Krendler (though the second may just be showing a "good example" for Krendler). 71.243.181.204 16:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree, Hannibal Rising arouses many inconsistencies. and I think during his Flashback in the Book Hannibal, he simply loses faith and actually starts hating God, but that doesn't mean he stops believing in the existence of God. Here's The quote: HANNIBAL pg 291:"Since this partial answer to his prayer, Hannibal Lecter had not been bothered by any considerations of a deity, other then to recognize how his own modest predations paled beside those of God, whose irony matchless, and in wanton malice beyond measure." This is saying that he hates God, not that he doesn't believe in him....interesting. But in Hannibal Rising, when speaking to Mischa's grave, he says "We take comfort in knowing that there is no God".--Majinvegeta 16:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think we should refrain from classifying him as an atheist. By the end of Hannibal I think he may even have his faith renewed. 71.243.141.131 01:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I will leave this discussion open for anyone who wishes to debate, if no one replies, then I will remove him from the fictional Atheists. --Majinvegeta 01:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Good idea.  :-) 71.243.141.131 23:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Norman Fell?

I was just wondering if Norman is the real forename of Dr. Fell. I can't find reference to support that claim.--Majinvegeta 16:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

For some reason I thought he took the name from the fictional detective Dr. Gideon Fell but there's absolutely no evidence. Salmanazar 22:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that his forename is ever stated, even in the books. I can't find it. --Majinvegeta 17:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Age?

Is age really important? I don't think it is, I believe that only the birth date is fine. I removed the one from the Clarice Starling Article, Info like that only adds length to the article. If people really wanted to know their ages, I believe they are perfectly capable of figuring it out for themselves. --Majinvegeta 06:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, sorry. That was me. I won't do that again. Dr. Hannibal Lecter 16:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, least it's better then putting "monkey" in there or something as someone once did. ;)--Majinvegeta 16:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Picture

I'm sure someone can produce a better picture than the one currently in the infobox. Preferably, the picture should be from Silence. The one in the infobox makes him look old and it isn't how most remember him. Dr. Hannibal Lecter 13:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree, the original picture on this article was from Silence, but it was the REALLY up close face shot one from the forth meeting. Sure that one was a cool picture, its just you could only see his face, not his actual appearence. Not to mention it was fan edited, they colored his eyes red because that's how they're explained in the books. I uploaded a picture a couple days ago and added it to the Silence movie article, I'll see if I can find a better one.--Majinvegeta 15:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

If you saw the new one, that was one I uploaded. This one is from Silence.--Majinvegeta 16:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Can we have a vote? I like the Red Dragon one, but if I'm in the minority, we can keep the new one.--CyberGhostface 19:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Vote
Red Dragon

• CyberGhostface

Silence

• Majinvegeta
• Dr. Hannibal Lecter

I don't care what pic we use anyway, it's just that a Silence pic would more display his iconic appearence. Regardless, it's not like the average person who clicks here will notice that this is him from Red Dragon, Not Silence, at least their clothes are the same. --Majinvegeta 00:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

You have a point. However, he is clearly significantly older in Red Dragon. Maybe someone could find a pic better than both of them. I couldn't, as I am almost a total basket case in doing that sort of thing. Dr. Hannibal Lecter 03:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Kind of odd, isn't it? They guy's such an icon and good pics of him are hard to come by. I agree he looks considerably older in RD. They were supposed to digitally de-age him, but didn't. I don't mind his appearence in RD anyway, I think he looks better in certian ways.--Majinvegeta 04:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

You are definitely right. I won't go into a big huge search to find a nice pic, but if I do happen to find one that everyone likes, I will try to upload, but have someone else format it since I am so bad at it (seriously LOL). Dr. Hannibal Lecter 00:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Number of novels?

The first paragraph states that Dr. Lecter appears in five novels. I can only find reference to four. What is the fifth one? Deckchair 16:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, whoever wrote that was probably thinking of the number of movies but said novels. Another novel is planned, but very few know this. Its name and release date haven't been released though, and it isn't even known if Harris has started it yet. Dr. Hannibal Lecter 17:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

And it's not even known if it's a Lecter book so it shouldn't even be mentioned in this article until that's confirmed. On one hand Harris has only written Hannibal Lecter novels for more than 25 years but on the other hand he HAS written a non-Lecter book ("Black Sunday") so there's really no telling until it's announced and based on the time between previous Lecter books we won't know for sure for several years.GuruAskew 23:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure Harris could write a non-Hannibal novel - if he wants to write off millions of dollars. I think it's safe to assume that he won't do that. Isaac R 01:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's only 4: Red Dragon, Silence, Hannibal, and Hannibal Rising. A movie was made based off of Red Dragon called Manhunter. But that movie was remade into Red Dragon.--Majinvegeta 15:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Real or Fictional?

I don't get it. Last time I saw this article, Hannibal was listed as "fictional". Now he's listed as "real". I don't get it. Somebody clarify this!--989 RVD 00:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Its vandalism. Hannibal is obviously not a real person. Gdo01 00:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

He's listed by most sources as fictional, but who knows who or what inspired his character? I personally believe that his characterization was, in part, derived from the infamous Phantom of the Opera(Leroux's original). Why? Well, for one thing, both Erik(main character of PoTO) and Hannibal are extremely intelligent as well as extremely murderous, skilled in a wide variety of things, have the ability to speak many languages, have strange colored eyes(gold for Erik, red for Hannibal) and heightened, animalistic senses, and have lived in many different countries. Also, both experienced a traumatizing and horrific childhood in which they were without parents(although unlike Hannibal, Erik never met up with any more of his family after his separation from them, however it came about). The thing that made me form the strange connection was the fact that both Hannibal and Erik were in possession of a horse named Cesar. Perhaps it's only a coincidence, and a completely insignificant and trifling one at that, but I can't help but think that it's a very interesting thing to consider. Truthfully there are more differences than similarities between Hannibal and Erik, especially personality-wise, and obviously, look-wise.

A fictional character inspired by real people is still fictional. And please sign your posts. --Isaac R 19:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Is the list of victims really necessary?

I mean, we already have a chunk of the article explaining Lecter's relevant murders...do we really need a timetable of how Lecter killed them in gory detail? It seems a little too trivial and fancruftish to me...--CyberGhostface 23:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

You are right. It could get a bit out of hand if not maintained. While I would like to keep it as an obsessive inclusionist, you make a good point in saying that it might not be needed. Dr. Hannibal Lecter 05:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I think is a good idea to have the victim list. i think is important to Hannibals history. Thay02 14:14, 23 Febuary 2007

How is it relevant? We already have a section detailing his rise to murder...why is a list of how he killed certain people notable?--CyberGhostface 20:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thats just my opinion. It may not necessarily be relevant but i like to be able to simply look on the list for a victim rather than search through the text. really it doesnt matter to me, i have my own list made, but i see it as being there for others that may not know that much about hannibal. anyway thats just my opinion. Thay02 23:03, 23 February 2007

I removed the list of victims. The whole thing is largely fancruft and trivia. Knowing that Hannibal kills and eats people and some examples of who he's killed is more than enough for an encyclopedia on his character history.--CyberGhostface 23:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I will, for now, remain neutral on the subject. If someone re-adds it, however, with a good reason, I won't remove it until another counter-example is given. Dr. Hannibal Lecter 00:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a list of H's victim's is fancruft and trivia. But in case you hadn't noticed, Wikipedia has plenty of both. It also has a lot of useless lists. ;) Isaac R 01:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I noticed. And if they were on articles that I frequent, I'd work to remove those as well.--CyberGhostface 01:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Ummm it says Hannibal attacked the nurse in 1976 but in silence of the lambs doctor chilton says 1981 check if you dont belive me

O, I believe you. You are correct, but in the books it was 1976, but in the movies it was 1981. There is a five year discrepency between the book dates and the movies dates. This article is dated based on the book series, not the movie one. There are faults in the movie dates, and the book dates are the original dates anyway --Majinvegeta 02:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Major alterations to the Article?

I was thinking about doing some major alterations to the article, maybe shortening it and adding stuff to other articles in this series to make up for the stuff I want to take out of here. I just feel that this article is way too long, and because of the length, it's hard to stay focused and read through the entire thing. I mean, come on, how many of us have actually sat down and read this article all the way through? I bet you not many of us. I think that it should focus more on Thomas Harris's development/ the iconic image of the character rather then give a full biography of him. He is a fictional character anyway, and this article being the way it is violates some Wikipedia regulations regarding fictional characters. I would like to hear some ideas on this, do you think this is a good idea? I'd like to see what you guys think.--Majinvegeta 14:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It's been a week since I posted this discussion and no one has replied. I assume none of you have a problem with this? Please get back to me, because I think it's better for the article, but I want to know your opinions first. --Majinvegeta 01:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I haven't been frequenting this article lately, but I agree that some revisions could be helpful. If you need any assistance let me know.--CyberGhostface 01:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks CyberGhostFace, nobody's really been here in a while it looks like. I just feel that there is too much here, and the article is painfully long. Expect major alterations to this article, even though reverting will most likely happen, I will tell you if I need help! :) --Majinvegeta 23:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I will help as well if needed. I am sorry I did not respond before-I was away. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dr. Hannibal Lecter (talk • contribs) 04:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

If you haven't noticed, this IS an article on Hannibal. Article = Biography, in most cases. I sat and read every word.

I understand that, but he isn't a real person, therefor writing a complete biography violates Wikipedia's regulations on articles of fictional characters. Articles based on fictional characters are supposed to focus on the actual fictional development of the character rather then his history. This would contrast an article like (example) Napoleon Bonaparte, who did actually exist, therefor needs a biography. --Majinvegeta 03:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)