The Ending of "Hannibal"
Simona Lewis
shocked by the ending. But then I realised I must have missed something. So
I went back and carefully re-read the book. And sure enough, there were many
clues.
What follows is my understanding of the last 100 pages of the book. I am
interested in what you think, but please don't flame me. Thank You
Simona
SOME SPOILERS FOLLOW:
Throughout the book, Clarice Starling becomes more and more isolated from
others around her. This isolation culminates towards the end, when Clarice
is getting ready to leave her house one last time before she goes after
Lecter. She sees that there is nothing in the house that is "her" - she has
no one, no photos no momentoes, nothing.
Crawford is ill and distant - he is preparing for death. We see that in the
way he keeps making connections to his dead wife - sleeping on her side of
the bed, etc. Brigham is already dead. The FBI dumped her. There is only
Ardelia, who has her own life.... and Lecter.
Lecter is the only one who expresses any concern for her - to the point
where he endangers his own, otherwise carefully covered, existence. But
Lecters concern comes out of understanding and desire to control, not out
of
empathy. Starling never mistakes it for what it isn't.
Similarly, she goes to save him not because of anything she feels for him -
indeed she almost turns back in the forest - but because it is her
compulsion to save those she can save. Starling is a Christ like figure - a
figure of goodness and of sacrifice. Notice the Christ-Starling references
throughout the book. For example the Christ on Lecter's watch has Starling's
face. On several occasions Harris refers to Starling's age as Christ's age.
And, most importantly, she is shot by the dart and "dies" at Christmas.
She must do what is right, is compelled to do what is right, even though it
means sacrificing herself. "The world will not be this way within the
reach of my arm" she says. She does not expect to survive but she does it
anyway, because she MUST.
When she is shot with the dart, she is as good as dead. She is dead. No one
will come after her. No one will rescue her. FBI believes she helped Lecter
by warning him. Her gun is at the crime scene. She cannot go back. She is
alone. She knows this when she wakes up in Lecter's house.
Lecter drugs her for two reasons: to control her and to remake her in his
image. He wants to free her from the confines of guilt, conscience and fear.
He wants to make her see the world as he sees it. The dinner party with
Krendler is a test: either she will go through with it and allow Krendler's
death - in which case he was successful, or she will baulk, in which case he
has failed and will kill her next.
I believe he means to kill her right after Krendler - because he rewinds the
crossbow. He tells her he intends her place in the world for his dead sister
Mischa.
But Starling turns the tables on him by suggesting he should vacate
his own place for his dead sister - in effect that he himself should die -
and this is where Lecter knows that he has succeeded. After Starling's
suggestion: "Dr Lecter seemed pleased.....Perhaps he felt a vague concern
that he had built better than he knew." It is at this point that Lecter
himself knows that there is an unpredictability to Starling, that he doesn't
entirely control her.
He has presided over her growth from the cub he once described to Barney, to
a full grown predator. They are now on equal footing. She frightens him. She
is like himself. She is his partner. They are not romantic partners, but
rather partners in necessity, partners in crime.
For her part, Starling cannot leave Lecter. Where else could she go? Their
common crime of murdering Krendler binds them.
And, most of all, there is an undeniable connection between Starling and
Lecter. I find it hard to label this connection. I can only describe it as
purity. They are identical in their integrity. Their essence is pure. They
don't lie - they are honest to themselves.
Compare them to other characters, like Pazzi or Verger or even Crawford, who
convince themselves that what they are doing is somehow justified or
necessary. Neither Lecter nor Starling ever do that. Unlike Verger or Pazzi,
they seek no false absolution.
Based on their experiences, they see the world for what it is: a terrifying
place. Lecter has accepted this and treats it with a kind of whimsical
oversight. Starling treats it with trepidation.
He allows her to overcome this, to see things as he sees them. Before their
dinner, which is the apex of her revelation he tells her: ..."You will see
what is just, you will say
what is true.....pity has no place at this table. If remarks are passed that
are unpleasant in the instant, you will see that context can make them
something between droll and riotously funny."
Starling represents goodness integrity and honesty. But unfortunately for
her, all of the institutions, which are supposed to represent goodness are
corrupt and hypocritical.
This includes God, who is described as "in wanton malice beyond measure".
At one stage Harris compares the FBI to God, and he also says that God does
not help the suffering. FBI no longer helps the suffering either - those who
wield power, are corrupt. At Quantico"...even its entrance seemed
crooked..."
Thus God is corrupt, the forces of good are corrupt.
Is Lecter then, the true face of evil, or is he merely a being lashing out
in inner agony?
Perhaps he is Satan - after all the Gypsies recognise him as such. Whatever
he is, he never seeks to justify himself. Unlike God, he never seeks our
submission, faith or worship. He sees himself for what he is and seeks to
break out. He wishes, literally, to reverse time, for his sister to live and
for his inner pain to stop. Does this make him more or less evil than the
forces of good?
So it is a question of where evil lies and who is truly evil - is it God or
is it the fallen angel (Dr Fell)? Perhaps Satan, is merely an outcast being,
full of inner agony, deserving not our hatred and fear, but merely our pity.
If that is so, where does true evil lie? Who is truly to blame, hate and
fear?
This is an old theological argument. Your answer depends on your own
viewpoint.
Perhaps the answer is that good and evil are not inherent, but ascribed.
If it all seems too far fetched, you must remember that good and evil can
only be
defined in relation to one another. One is, what the other is not. They are
the two sides of the same coin, good and evil, Yin and Yang, Hannibal
and Clarice....
Leesa25
still think Clarice represents good, not with the naive blindness that her SOTL
character did but she is still good, and Hannibal is pure evil. I thought
Harris had humanized him too much and had made him somewhat heroic but through
discussion and my own rereads I have come to the conlcusion that Hannibal is as
evil as ever. He has corrupted Clarice through drugs and mind control. Even
though she has stopped the drugs, I think he still has her under mind control.
Evil has conquered good. He has brought her to the dark side and the tea cup is
symbolic of this. When evil rules, chaos reigns and so long as the teacup
remains in pieces, as Clarice is at this point since she has been emotionally
and psychologically broken apart by Lecter, their "relationship" will be fine.
Until, as Harris said, Clarice wakes from her sleep (if in fact she sleeps).
Also,
They are not romantic partners, but
rather partners in necessity, partners in crime.
The book specifically states that sex was a regular part of their
relationship.........
YodaBeavis
still think Clarice represents good, not with the naive blindness that her SOTL
character did but she is still good, and Hannibal is pure evil.>>
My interpretation of the whole trilogy is that one of the main points is that
there is no such thing as purity of good within a person, at least without
great naivete'. It was certainly one of the main points of Red Dragon. The
Hannibal ending was nothing but natural.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mike Maguire
yodab...@aol.com
Palindrome page: http://hometown.aol.com/yodabeavis/recipe/index.htm