GARY. C. MOORE:
Dear Tali Sarnetzky,
Yes, I agree RED DRAGON was not planned as
the beginning of a trilogy but the lean yet
tantalizing remark about Dr. Lecter not fitting
the profile of a psychopath, or more politically
correct "sociopath," would have
been hard to let go of especially for a veteran
police reporter wanting to follow out the
real chain of cause and effect leading to
certain acts. You state in your letter, "But
I also noticed some inconsistencies in the
three books. I believe in Red Dragon it is
mentioned that Dr. Lecter raped several college
girls. That doesn't fit his general attitude
in the next two books." I do not remember
the rapes. Could you give me a chapter reference
or page number (with edition information)?
What I picked up on in RED DRAGON as be inconcongruous
was his petty and unnecessary nastiness toward
Will Graham. Though they were opponents and
enemies, the later Lecter would have respected
the relative intelligence of Graham's ability
and not reacted that way. Kill him, yes,
like the police in Tennessee in SILENCE OF
THE LAMBS, but not trivial revenge. Big time
revenge against profoundly nasty people,
and I do mean "profound", also
yes, but that is one of the interesting things
about Harris - and dangerous.
I do not think you will ever get an interview
with him. One 'fan' list moderator was jumped
on by a family one of whose members was a
victim of a serial killer, and soon after
that the list essentially stopped activity
(I have not checked it lately). Writing about
serial killers who get their full just deserts
is one thing, but writing about one you make
essentially into a hero is going to make
such people terribly hurt and outraged. It
is probably bad enough being just an ordinary
writer about serial killers. And, as to any
such 'glamorizing' of such people, they have
a real point. But making a statement about
such a thing and showing there is a real
problem here, and there is, is one thing,
and acting upon it with real balance of judgment
and appropriate consideration of what is
actually said is another. It would be next
to impossible for someone personally involved
with an actual occurance. However, glamorizing
evil people in other areas of our society
(now certainly world wide and far from just
the USA) who also cause the destruction of
peoples' lives from rock stars to sports
figures to prominent politicians, has become
accepted fare hardly worth commenting upon.
So, in a horrifying way even in saying so
to myself, why is glamoring a serial killer
any different from glamoring a serial killer
as scientist or politician in the United
States such as those in the 1950s who permitted
radiation experiments on unknowing and unwilling
American citizens?
This is part of what Thomas Harris is all
about. He hates power mad, unrestrained politicians
who are real psychopaths. Almost by accident,
he invented on his own a seeming psychopath
in whom, in himself also of necessity, he
discovered someone with perfectly clear,
rational, but terrifying judgment. This has
to do with the desire to believe in the values
one has been taught to believe in, and their
horrible shortcoming one makes oneself try
to ignore except that evil people keep repeatedly
taking advantage of them. They not only do
not patently not work at all, but are used
like perverted surgical tools not just to
murder people but to so twist and wreck good
peoples' lives, turning them in into pits
of eternal, utter blackness, that one wonders
how anyone could imagine a just and loving
God existing that permitted such truly and
permently evil things from happening that
even a God could not correct in in the best
of heavens.
A writer such as Harris is alive is alive
and can be verbally and physically attacked,
however totally misconceived the motives.
So I do not think you are going to get an
interview. Ironically, writers who said the
same thing in an even more open fashion who
are dead and beyond the reach of misaimed
vengeance are considered harmless and school-wise
totally boring classics like Fyodor Michaelovitch
Dostoyevsky and Friedrich Nietzsche. Dostoyevsky
created some truly awesome 'villains' comparable
to Dr. Lecter. He was also a "born again"
Christian, and please nobody tell me only
ignorrent and uneducated Christians take
that title. It is a fundamental of the whole
NEW TESTAMENT and makes it meaningless without
it. It touches on possibly the most fundamental
desire in all of humanity - a disgust with
what one really is in fact and a desire to
become someone or something better and more
grand. The very ambiguity of Dostoyevsky's
thinking, the complex elements of his biography,
can lead to the saintly Aloysha of THE BROTHERS
KARAMAZOV or Prince Myshkin of THE IDIOT
or the saintly/satantic Stavrogin, comparable
to Lecter, of THE POSSESSED or the nerdy,
slimy, insignificant Smerdyakov (the 'fourth'
Brother Karamazov, the product of the rape
of a retarded woman, whose name I have read
somewhere in Russian means something like
"shit-head") who, however, actually
acts upon what Ivan Karamazov preaches: "If
God does not exist, then everything is permitted."
And, of course, Ivan is absolutely horrified
at the consequences of his words. The point
is, about being reborn, this is precisely
what the "Toothfairy" is trying
to do in RED DRAGON and also many a religious
leader, Peter the Hermit being one who is
actually a substantial cause of our present
troubles, and which our political leaders
do not understand in the slightest to the
point of using the word "crusade"
as a positive and virtuous discription of
what our forces are doing not knowing anything
of its real history whatsoever. This is why
whenever it seems we should have accomplished
something, it always turns out we have not
because we do not understand our own or other
peoples history which they so vividly are
aware of and act motivated by in the present
beyond our comprehension. No one understands
why Bosnia and Kosovo are problems that have
not been solved and now requires our troop
presence there for all of the forseeable
future. The Yugoslavs, and that term is sad
but intentional, understand it vividly, and
until that understanding is deepened and
changed, nothing has changed.
We need to be aware of this. On the other
hand, we bring out explicitly what people
with power and money do eagerly and often
with impunity. Thomas Harris is not responsible
for any one's harm. If anything, maybe he
has caused someone who would do harm to think
more profoundly about their motivations.
But, of course, no one will probably ever
know about that.
More to the point, Dr. Hannibal Lecter cannot
be the object of a fan club. He is a mirror.
In a mirror, one has a reverse but perfectly
true perception. If it is reverse, though,
how can it be true? But just as Dr. Lecter
has such a clear understanding of the real
situation of the people he analyses on his
couch and in his articles, for these efforts
to be accurate, he has to have an accurate
perception of himself. And this is not some
deep, dark, hidden secret but something perfectly
clear right on the surface of things. But,
like Johathan Deme and Anthony Hopkins, we
want it to be a product of some kind of "sickness,"
not a reflection of reality even if that
same reality is clearly evident around us
every moment of our lives. It is very hard
to maintain a belief than things will eventually
come out well when it is clear and at hand
that they are not, never, have, and never
will. The double vision this requires is
that Deme and Hopkins can describe Lecter
as a psycopath and yet still portray him
accurately on film. Unless they have a self-hidden
understanding of the reality of the situation,
how could they do this?
Tali Sarnetzky <vze4w6c2@verizon.net wrote:
Hi Gary. You bring up interesting points.
I myself am interested in the same issues,
since I want to write analysis of the trilogy.
(Being an English Literature major...) I
have never seen anything on the web of that
kind. My personal plan is to try and contact
Mr. Harris and ask him these questions in
person, though I might not succeed, since
he has refrained from being interviewed.
I have heard assumptions as to the real life
crime stories on which he based several characters,
Dr. Lecter and Buffalo Bill among them, but
I have my doubts about it. I personally see
Dr. Lecter as a symbol. But I also noticed
some inconsistencies in the three books.
I believe in Red Dragon it is mentioned that
Dr. Lecter raped several college girls. That
doesn't fit his general attitude in the next
two books. That brought me to believe that
this trilogy was not meant at first to become
a trilogy. I truly think Harris wrote Red
Dragon as a separate plot. Only later did
he see the potential of developing Dr. Lecter's
character and the character of Clarice, as
well as their relationship. Thanks for opening
this discussion.
Tali. The name is Rabbit - T. S. Rabbit.
----- Original Message ----- From: "gospode"
<gospode@yahoo.com To: <lovinglecter1@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 5:12 AM Subject:
[Loving Lecter
1 ] SERIOUS STUDY OF THE THINKING OF DR HANNIBAL
LECTER
To those who know: I want to learn more about
the real background of Thomas Harris' thinking
in creating Dr. Hannibal Lecter. If anyone
knows of philosophically analytic or serious
literary treatments of Harris either amongst
the messages of this site or else where,
would you please inform me?
Thomas Harris makes it perfectly plain starting
with RED DRAGON that Dr. Lecter is not insane,
that is, irrational, out of control, compulsive
but precisely and knowingly deliberate in
his choices. In HANNIBAL, Harris reveals
Dr. Lecter does have a code of ethics by
which he selecxts both his victims and the
people he likes. In part, it is knowing what
the real consequences of your actions are
and accepting them fully without regret or
equivocation, i. e., if you kill someone,
you may be killed or severely punished in
return. But this is far from systematically
worked out in the book. However, that it
is worked in Thomas Harris mind is perfectly
clear from numerous observations throughout
the trilogy (I have not and do not plan to
read BLACK SUNDAY - should I?). The Italian
detective's delemma he worries through in
HANNIBAL as to whether to betray his honor
as a policeman or betray Lecter for the reward
is concluded by a fascinating twist on Marcus
Aurelius. Aurelius is quoted as saying one
should not act morally for rewards and recognition
from others because that, in reality, is
just as venal as doing it for money. If one
acts good to obtain a reputation of being
good that is ephemeral and ethically empty
since one is not acting out of the rightness
of the principle by itself that needs no
recognition or acknowledgement of any sort
from others. The "rightness" of
a principle is suppose to be based on pure
reason alone, not even to make oneself feel
good about oneself. All such 'reputation'
values are soon forgotten by others ("What
have you done for me - lately?") and
are really of no substantial value to them
in the first place. Aurelius wants one to
act morally for substantial and solid reasons.
He means by this the rational order of things
which because it is rational is good. The
detective, however, sees the pointlessness
and futility and self- deception of this
and concludes his honor as a policeman is
worthless and that the right thing to do
that has substance and solidity is to sell
Lecter.
Thomas Harris' references to Matteo Ricci
and Frances Yates' "Memory Palace"
based on ancient retorical techniques revived
and retranslated in the Italian Renaissance
is a method of self discipline. Honesty,
naked, simple, and brutal is highly valued
by him but for very solid reasons. The same
applies to politeness and courtesy.
There were some extremely interesting sites
of commentary, especially on SILENCE OF THE
LAMBS from a liturature professor at Rutgers
University that seem to have been deleted
from the web. If anyone knows about such
quality sites (beyond simple biography of
Harris and his bibliography alone), I would
like to know about them.
Thank you for your consideration.
'Sincerely' Gary C. Moore
