Talk:Hannibal Lecter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hannibal Lecter article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
Hannibal Lecter was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: August 2, 2007
Warning Please read and understand Wikipedia:Attribution, and secondarily Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Citing sources, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources before making additions to this article, or making suggested additions on this article's talk page. Additions made without references which meet this criteria may be deleted as vandalism. Blogs, emails, fansites and statements made on the radio do not meet this criteria.
See talk page guidelines.
Maintained The following user(s) are actively contributing to this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources:
VorangorTheDemon (talk • contribs • email), CyberGhostface (talk • contribs • email)
This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.

Contents

[edit] Books vs. movies

There are differences from the books and movies. The article mentions the storyline in the movies and not the books. cgl. --205.211.237.189 03:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Modus Operandi

The section asserts three different supposedly distinct aspects of Lecter's M.O., but where do these three come from? Are they cited in the novels? Or were they the interpretation of the editor who wrote them? If the latter, then it's clearly non-NPOV, since the distinction between the three is arbitrary. For example, why are retribution and discourtesy seen as mutually exclusive? "Retribution", after all, is Lecter's motive for a killing, but discourtesy is the offense that Lecter feels was commmitted against him or others. The offense committed by a serial killer's victim is not an "m.o." This is underscored by the fact that Lecter's killing of Paul Krendler is mentioned in both sections. Similarly, "poetic justice" is neither the offense or the motive, but the style in which Lecter killed some of his victims. This needs a rewrite, or a citation of sources from the novels. I've read most of Red Dragon, for my part, and don't recall this breakdown of his murders. Nightscream 00:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

How many people did Hannibal kill in the four novels? I think that would be quite interesting to know. I can remeber 18 off hand. If someone could check that would be helpful.

It has been checked in an archived discussion, it is 28. Dr. Hannibal Lecter 22:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Should the number of his victims be added somewhere in this page? --(Unsigned)
Well, it's not exactly certian how many people he's killed. So no, also the number of people that he's killed is not important. He's a serial killer, that's all people really need to know. --VorangorTheDemon 19:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Well i agree with the above unsigned person, as this is a page about hannibal lecter and he is most famous for killing people, then a rough estimation for the number for his victems should be included in this page.

[edit] uncertain

Noticed this:

"He simply describes himself as being evil, stating that psychiatry is "purile", and wrong to categorize different kinds of evil as different behavioral conditions. Lecter then supports this by stating that the inconsistencies in his behavior are traits of pure evil, and that he does not possess a behavioral abnormality."

and wasn't convinced by it from reading the books. He asks Starling whether she thinks he is evil, and when she says she thinks he has at least been "destructive" he agrees with her, but he doesn't seem to have enough of a sense of right and wrong himself to classify himself as evil or good particularly. I don't know what anyone else thinks?

CO.

To me it seems strongly implied. I just don't understand a possible alternative why would he ask her if she thought that he was evil; and then upon hearing her answer about how he wasn't, counter it? In other words, what I picked up from that is him asking her if he was evil, she said she didn't believe in evil, he pretty much told her she was wrong. That to me suggests that he thought of himself as evil, and told her indirectly that he believed that he was. However, I could be wrong, but that's how I interperated it when I read the book. Perhaps a re-word of that paragraph would be more appropriate, feel free to do so. --MajinVegeta 20:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I dont think he is actually evil, he was warped due to hs childhood trauma though at the end of hannibal is showen to be tamed by love. He also only mostly kills people wo greatly disturbe him or are a danger to him. So (l think) hes really just a fucking screwball who asks Starling what she thinks to mess her up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.64.4 (talk) 22:17, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hannibal Lecter or Dr. Hannibal Lecter?

I'm somewhat divided on this one, what should the name in the opening paragraph be? I know frequently Harris referrs to him as "Dr. Lecter" or "Dr. Hannibal Lecter", but not in Hannibal Rising. He is just referred to as "Hannibal Lecter". Any suggestions? --MajinVegeta 05:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why this is an issue. He wasn't referred to as "Doctor" in Hannibal Rising for the simple reason that he wasn't a doctor yet. Technically, he's "Count Hannibal Lecter." Since he is a doctor in all the other stories that take place later in the timeline, that's why he is properly referred to as such. Nightscream 16:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
The reason why I asked is because I've edited it several times to just Hannibal Lecter, and someone always switches to "Dr. Hannibal Lecter". I'm switching it back, thanks for the opinion. --MajinVegeta 20:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I haven't noticed one way or the other on WP, so I'll ask: is it policy to not include such titles in the Intro? Nightscream 23:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

woah all this information is very helpful these ppl are very smat by the way i am an unknown person —comment added by 24.252.113.121(t/c)

[edit] Why Lady Murasaki Left

Just finished Hannibal Rising, and I'm pretty sure that Grutas revealing that they fed him the broth from cooking his sister while he was unconcious wasn't why she disowned him... She calls Grutas a liar, and tells Hannibal to turn him over to the police and come away to Japan with her, and then he adds "your lips were greedy on the spoon", and Hannibal snaps and starts carving Ms into Grutas face and body, and turns back to her covered in blood. She stares in horror, he says "I love you", and she throws herself off the boat. Later, she goes to visit him in the holding cell, and senses he's completely shut off inside. She writes him a letter, enclosing a burned twig from Hiroshima her father had given her, and returns to Japan. I'd consider revising, if there's no argument, as the article is currently misleading, suggesting some kind of disgust on her part for what was forced upon him as a child, rather than what he'd chosen to become as a young adult. 140.185.215.122 12:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)Steve

In fact, I just read the summary for the film, and it is far mroe accurate. I have made some changes, i hope they are acceptable. 140.185.215.122 13:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)Steve
She leaves Hannibal because of what he becomes. She sees him as so overcome by his obsession that there's nothing left in him to love. I will veiw the changes that were made, and perhaps revise them where it seems fit. --VorangorTheDemon 19:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Your take and mine seem inline. I just disagreed with the "He is shocked to find out that he ingested her remains in the broth they fed him. Lady Murasake leaves him when she finds out." 140.185.215.122 16:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)Steve
Well, I think I recall it being subtlly stated in the Book of Hannibal Rising. --VorangorTheDemon 23:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


Hi. There is a section commencing; Hannibal was a model patient for his first year. I think it may be good to mention something about his activities in prison, such as painting and his use of the memory palace. I think these are elements that are important to the character. DanCartar 08:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Willgraham.jpg

Image:Willgraham.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 Wikipedia: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 11:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Failed GA

This article about a fictional character is not up to standards for a wide array of reasons. The article treats the character like a real person, establishing a "biography" section for him (which is still unwarranted despite being identified as a fictional character in the section heading). What needs to be done instead is to write an out-of-universe section which details the character's appearances in the books, films, and what-have-you. Furthermore, the Infobox details Lecter as a real person, filling out certain attributes appropriately; see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#Infoboxes and succession boxes for more information.

The "Diagnosis" section consists of original research (disallowed on Wikipedia), as it is apparently written from an editor's perspective. Such a section needs to be backed by independent, secondary sources that meet both verifiability and reliable source criteria. (Academic studies of the fictional character would be best.)

I would suggest researching this fictional character more based on interviews, credible reviews, academic studies, literature. Go to the film articles in which Lecter has appeared to see if you can retrieve any references that are Lecter-centric for usage. Also, please take a look at the following fictional characters' articles: Jabba the Hutt, Palpatine, Jack Sparrow, and Jason Voorhees, for an idea of what is appropriate for a high-quality article about a fictional character. For the record, I consulted with Bignole to critique this article for ways that it needs to be improved, and his recommendations have been included in this review. If you have any further questions, feel free to contact either of us. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Another note: This is not a comprehensive review; only the major issues have been broached here. There are other issues with the article as well, such as the insufficient rationales for the non-free images and the selection of external links. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Well I can see why it failed. The article's changed quite a bit since the last time I edited it. I added most of that stuff that Erik stated but it's since been removed. I majorly cut down the bio a while back too, but it seems that people have since reverted those edits and added it all back. Also I will say it's really hard to get info about the origin/inspiration of Hannibal Lecter because Harris is not an interview person. VERY, VERY few interviews have been done with him. Plus I totally agree with the diagnosis section being WP:OR; completely, not only partially. Harris stated that Hannibal had no diagnosis because he wanted him to be unique. Beyond that, there's really not that much interview/review/literature info on him. But I do remember reading somewhere that his last name "Lecter" reflected his love for books. In RD, he's originally seen to have a serious obsession with Books, but it kinda shifts focus afterward. --VorangorTheDemon 23:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Character Plausibility?

I’m not going to sabotage the article, but I do have a recommendation. Could someone who’s interested (and hopefully qualified) post a section discussing the actual plausibility of the character in light of historical precedents? Hannibal Lecter annoys me because he’s so far-fetched and implausible, and either despite or because of this the public just loves him. His ability to murder and cannibalize implies a failure to properly internalize social norms and mores, a process that may well continue into the formative years outlined in the fourth novel. I’ve had experience with intense mental aberration, so I can say that someone of Hannibal’s psyche would have a very reflexive awareness of how convoluted his mind is. Hannibal is just another Raskolnikov, only much more far-fetched in his failure to properly come to know himself.

I think it’s of note that two commonly-cited inspirations for his character are Albert Fish and Ed Gein, both perverts and, IMO, morons. I think the Leopold and Loeb case would be relevant. -Sethomas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.130.15.9 (talk) 10:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course the character is far-fetched and that's the fun of the novels. Just a suggestion but maybe you shouldn't be characterising Hannibal as a serial killer. He's a brilliant child who had the extraordinary opportunity to be personally tutored by a great scholar. If the war had passed without incident he would have doubtless become a dazzling polymath and great connoisseur of art, music, cuisine etc. He would have probably married and continued the Lecter line and ensured Mischa was married to a good husband. His capacity to love was destroyed by the horrific trauma of losing his family and his inability to prevent Mischa's murder and consumption coupled with the neurological damage sustained when flung aside trying to save her. TheMathemagician (talk) 16:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't recall Gein or Fish ever being legit inspirations for Hannibal. Gein probably inspired Buffalo Bill (for obvious reasons) but as for Hannibal? I don't see the comparision.
Unless you have documented sources, arguing about Hannibal's realism in the article would count as original research and POV]. (BTW, I don't see how Hannibal is 'implausible' just because he doesn't fit the norm of other serial killers. There are dozens of serial killers with vary intelligences and psyches.)--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mistake on his child hood

i corrected a mistake that i found appalling i am sorry if you guys do not agree but Hannibal Lector being my favorite fictional character in the world i think his story should be correct after killings Grutis he did not go to the united states he went to Alberta Canada to kill the final member of the Russian soldiers and then proceeded to go to the united states to study psychology. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Po0ners01 (talk • contribs) 03:51, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

Well you're right ... but i think you were taking the text too literally. He did journey to the US to study and then work and live. The trip to Canada was just a little a diversion to resolve some unfinished business. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.129.121.63 (talk) 13:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aliases

Was Lloyd Wyman an alias? I thought he was simply some poor sap Lecter wasted in the airport underground carpark after killing the ambulance staff. Lecter may have checked into the hotel using the name Lloyd Wyman but that was just impersonating a real person whose wallet he'd stolen, not technically an "alias". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.129.121.63 (talk) 16:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It is considered an alias because Lecter used it as his own name (willingly or unwillingly), that's what an alias is. I don't know if he ever introduced himself as "Lloyd Wyman", but he probably did for business circumstances. --VorangorTheDemon 08:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Film Section Cleanup

The film section contains two references that need citation and are poorly written. I have tagged the beginning of the section in question with {cleanup-section} and {unreferencedsection} The information needs to be removed, or it should be rewritten if sources are cited. A rewrite is dependent on whether the information is relevant and verifiable. -- OranL (talk) 10:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More on Lady Murasaki

I have just re-classified her from "Step-aunt" to "aunt-by-marriage" under the "relatives" section if that's alright by everyone. Not050 (talk) 18:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Not050