| ||||
| ||||
12th of February 2004 This heavily relies upon the websites Mary
Jo Watts set up,and then deleted or
hid,
on Silence of the Lambs and Hannibal formally at http://complit.rutgers.edu/mwatts/sol/silence.html
as well as Pentaone’s The Hannibal Library available at http://www.pentaone.com/hannibal/redann1.shtml . RED DRAGON, printed Putnam hardback 1981, [Dell paperback
June 1990] See picture of Blake’s real RED DRAGON at THE HANNIBAL LIBRARY
Revelations 12:3-4 -- And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads. And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born. (see page 119 Dell “Across the first page, in large letters he had illuminated himself, were the words from Revelation: ‘And There Came a Great Red Dragon Also . . .’”) Epigrams to Thomas Harris’ Red Dragon One can only see what one observes, and one
observes only things which are already in
the mind. – Alphonse Bertillon [Alphonse Bertillon and Ear Prints Note: For an illustration of anthropometry, please click here. For a good description of “Bertonage” and “anthropometry” please go to THE HANNIBAL LIBRARY @ http://www.pentaone.com/hannibal/redann1.shtml Pentaone gives one much more information than one needs as, for instance, here where Bertillon’s system has little I, at least, can see relevant to the quote from him that seems to point altogether toward something philosophical as it stands by itself, rather than what Bertillon may have had it mean in whatever specific context it originally had. There are a number of things Pentaone writes extensively about that has no interest to my pursuit of understanding the philosophy behind the ethical thinking of Doctor Lecter which intrigues me so much. But, on the other hand, it is there to pursue further if I find a relationship of more importance than I originally thought. Also, Pentaone points out correspondences that seem to have no importance initially but may very well develop into something more important the further I get into the other novels. I will note these because Thomas Harris has a confusing way of relating things that seem superficially to have no relation at all, yet he went to the trouble to relate them seemingly arbitrarily. This happens throughout the trilogy.] William Blake . . . . For Mercy has a human heart, Pity a human face, And Love, the human form divine, And Peace, the human dress.
--------------William Blake, Songs of Innocence [Complete text: Songs 18 The Divine Image
To Mercy Pity Peace and Love, All pray in their distress: And to these virtues of delight Return their thankfulness. For Mercy Pity Peace and Love, For Mercy has a human heart Then every man of every clime, And all must love the human form, Cruelty has a Human Heart, And Jealousy has a Human Face, Terror the Human Form Divine, And Secrecy the Human Dress. The Human Dress is Forged Iron, The Human Form a fiery Forge, The Human Face a Furnace seal’d, The Human Heart its hungry Gorge.
--------Songs of Experience (A Divine Image)* *[Thomas Harris’ note] After Blake’s death, the poem was found
with prints from the plates of Songs of Experience. It appears only in posthumous editions. Textual Note by David V. Erdman from THE COMPLETE POETRY & PROSE OF WILLIAM
BLAKE, Anchor Books, revised edition, 1988, page
800: This poem, illustrated by a youthful
blacksmith hammering a human-faced sun on
his anvil, was etched by Blake but found
in only one copy printed by him . . . the
poem is an “Experience” reversal of the third
stanza of “The Divine Image” in Songs of Innocence . . . replaced by “The Human Abstract”,
a subtler contrary . . . None of the published
Songs of Experience is quite so simply and symmetrically antithetical
to its counterpart in Songs of Innocence. GARY C. MOORE: RED DRAGON does not seem to have been designed, initially,
as the beginning of a projected trilogy further
developing the character of Doctor Hannibal
Lecter. There are a number of small contradictions
between it and the other two books in the
series. But, most of all, the character of
Doctor Lecter, when Thomas Harris started
writing the book, resembleds a typical villain,
it seems, and, as the book proceed, developes
more and more while leaving imbedded inconsistencies
behind. Lecter’s sense of whimsy and revenge
is more petty toward Will Graham than seems
necessary compared with the more interesting
standards of politeness and rudeness of SILENCE and HANNIBAL. Petaone, in THE HANNIBAL LIBRARY though, does a good job of relating Will
Graham’s reaction of “rudeness”, which seems
relatively slight compared to the other characters
Lecter exacts his revenge from, to his fear. The development of Doctor Hannibal Lecter
was possibly at first not to be as extensive
as Francis Dolarhyde’s, and only later started
taking on a life of his own to the point
of overshadowing Dolarhyde. The interpreter
becomes more important and dangerous than
the interpreted. Dolarhyde is transforming
into a deity of sorts, and Lecter, at first,
is the master of “monsters” from a distance
that diminishes after Lecter betrays him
and as he becomes more and more entangled
with Will Graham. I have noticed that the language changes
in the later third of the book. It starts
out as a thriller horror story, but even
right at the beginning is already rises above
the tone and taste of BLACK SUNDAY which I found unreadable. The characters
are far more appreciable and identifiable
with, even the ‘monsters’.The language gets
more poetic, sharpens its intellectual imagery,
and develops greater philosophical, psychological
and ethical depth, leaving behind the simple
theme of identity between Will Graham and
Dr. Lecter for developing the possibility
of the psychotic Dolarhyde deliberately forcing
a conscious free will opposed to his psychosis,
which speaks to him in the dominating voice
of his grandmother. Dolarhyde realizes the
house, with all that is in and associated
with it, is the core of the DRAGON persona.
He uses his trip to St. Louis to confront
the persona with defiance. When he seriously
considers suicide as a way to rescue Rachel,
he realizes, in the face of at-hand personal
and imminent death, that the DRAGON persona
no longer speaks from his own desires, is
no longer an acceptable last resort against
an unacceptable and even more irrational
“world” he no longer is merely a response
to, that now goes against his deepest desires
and his real self interest of which only,
at this moment, does he begin to have a clear
realization. Because this is a rational decision
within an irrational context imposed by family
values one can never completely escape from,
I shall be referring to the psychiatric theories
of R. D. Laing of whom Sartre, the arch-Cartesian
rationalist said, “like you, I think—I regard
mental illness as the ‘way out’ that the
free organism, in its total unity, invents
in order to be able to live through an intolerable
situation,” from REASON AND VIOLENCE: a decade of Sartre’s
philosophy 1950-1960 by R. D. Laing and D. G. cooper, Pantheon
Books, 1971, page 6. A great writer I am finally getting into
because of someone’s comparison of Thomas
Harris to her is Flannery O’Connor. They
are both ‘southern’ writers and both write
about grotesques or ‘monsters’. I believe
I will find many other things to connect
the two writers with, but their approach
to religion, even Catholicism, is one of
them. Some have found an atheist tendency
in Harris. I do not think it is that simple.
Both writers concentrate their imagination
on seeing, in a way far more literal than
metaphorical, what is concrete reality. O’Connor
says in her essay, “The Fiction Writer and
His Country”, “In the greatest fiction, the
writer’s moral sense coincides with his dramatic
sense, and I see no way for it to do this
unless his moral judgment is part of the
very act of seeing, and he is free to use
it.” Thomas Harris in “Foreword to a Fatal
Interview”, the new preface to RED DRAGON (2000) says, “To write a novel, you begin
with what you can see and then you add what
came before and what came after . . . I could
see the investigator Will Graham in the home
of the victim family . . . I went the home,
the crime scene, in the dark with Will and
could see no more and no less than he could
see . . . There was no question that something
had happened. You must understand that when
you are writing a novel you are not making
anything up. It’s all there and you just
have to find it.” In “The Church and the Fiction Writer”, she
writes, “The writer learns, perhaps more
quickly than the reader, to be humble in
the face of what-is. What-is is all he has
to do with; the concrete is his medium; and
he will realize eventually that his fiction
can transcend its limitations only by staying
within them . . . The Catholic writer, in
so far as he has the mind of the Church,
will feel life from the standpoint of the
central Christian mystery; that it has, for
all its horror, been found by God to be worth
dying for. But this should enlarge not narrow
his field of vision . . . What matters for
him here is that his faith not become detached
from his dramatic sense and from his vision
of what-is . . . The average Catholic reader
. . . by separating nature and grace as much
as possible . . . has reduced his conception
of the supernatural to pious cliché and has
become able to analyze nature in literature
in only two forms, the sentimental and the
obscene. He would seem to prefer the former,
while being more of an authority on the later,
but the similarity between the two escapes
him . . . When fiction is made according
to its nature, it should reinforce our sense
of the supernatural by grounding it in concrete
observable reality . . . To look at the worst
will be for him no more than act of trust
in God; but what is one thing for the writer
may be another for the reader. What leads
the writer to his salvation may lead the
reader into sin, and the Catholic writer
who looks at this possibility directly looks
the Medusa in the face and is turned to stone
. . . A belief in fixed dogma cannot fix
what goes on in life or blind the believer
to it.” I think here we have been introduced
to uses of the words “supernatural”, “God”,
“sin”, and “salvation” wholly new and unfamiliar
to us . . . and savagely unsentimental. She would have read Thomas Harris’ novels
with great appreciation, and would no doubt
have been willing to have the ending of “The
Fiction Writer” be used as a motto or epigram: St. Cyril of Jerusalem, in instructing catechumens,
wrote: “The dragon sits by the side of the
road, watching those who pass. Beware lest
he devour you. We go to the Father of Souls,
but it is necessary to pass by the dragon.”
No matter what form the dragon may take,
it is of this mysterious passage past him,
or into his jaws, that stories of any depth
will always be concerned to tell, and this
being the case, it requires considerable
courage at any time, in any country, not
to turn away from the storyteller. Chapter 1: Page 13 [Dell paper 2]: He smashes the mirrors and uses the pieces. Mason Verger used the pieces of the mirror smashed by Hannibal (Pentaone). Page 15 [4]: "Jack Crawford heard the
rhythm and syntax of his own speech in Graham’s
voice. He had heard Graham do that before,
with other people. Often in intense conversation
Graham took on the other person's speech
patterns. At first Crawford had thought he
was doing it deliberately, that it was a
gimmick to get the back-and-forth rhythm
going. Later Crawford realized that Graham
did it involuntarily, that sometimes he tried
to stop and couldn’t." This is a very common modification of speech
known as convergence. The term refers to the processes whereby
two or more individuals alter or shift their
speech to resemble that of those they are
interacting with (Pentaone). Usually this
is based on the desire of admiration or ingratiation.
Inn Will Graham’s case, however, it is a
losing of his own personality to a dominating
other. Page 17 [ ]: "I'm a forensic specialist..." Chapter 2: Page 22 [13]: "He [Graham] could see and hear better
afraid; he could not speak as concisely,
and fear sometimes made him rude." Chapter 3: Page 41[42]: "Graham appreciated the
fact that Dr. Bloom had never displayed professional interest in him. That was not
always the case with psychiatrists." Chapter 4: Chapter 5: Page 48[51]: December 23rd Clarice Starling's birthday is December
23rd (Pentaone). Chapter 6: Page 61[68]: "One is on a respirator at a hospital
in Baltimore. The other is in a private mental
hospital in Denver." We learn in Hannibal that the one on the
respirator is Mason Verger. Lecter's other
surviving victims (the one in Denver and
the nurse) seemingly disappear without a
trace (Pentaone). Dell 68-71 [Buddy Springfield, Birmingham,
Alabama, chief of detectives talking to Will
Graham] Springfield: “You didn’t like it the other
day when I asked you about Lecter, but I
need to talk to you about it . . . What made
him do it, how was he crazy?” . . . “He did it because he liked it. Still does.
Dr. Lecter is not crazy, in any common way
we think of being crazy. He did some hideous
things because he enjoyed them. But he can
function perfectly when he wants to.” “What did the psychologists call it—what
was wrong with him?” “They say he’s a sociopath. He has no remorse
or guilt at all. And he had the first and
worst sign—sadism to animals as a child .
. . But he doesn’t have any of the other
marks,” Graham said. “He wasn’t a drifter,
he had no history of trouble with the law.
He wasn’t shallow and exploitative in small
things, like most sociopaths are. He’s not
insensitive. They don’t know what to call
him. His electroencephalograms show some
odd patterns, but they haven’t been able
to tell much from them.” “What would you call him?” Springfield asked. Graham hesitated. “Just to yourself, what do you call him?” “He’s a monster. I think of him as one of
those pitiful things that are born in hospitals
from time to time. They feed it, and keep
it warm, but they don’t put it on the machines
and it dies. Lecter is the same way in his
head, but he looks normal and nobody could
tell.” “A couple of friends of mine in the chiefs’
association are from Baltimore. I asked them
how you spotted Lecter. They said they didn’t
know. How did you do it? What was the first
indication, the first thing you felt?” “It was a coincidence,” Graham said. “The
sixth victim was killed in his workshop.
He had woodworking equipment and he kept
his hunting stuff out there. He was laced
to a pegboard where the tools hung, and he
was really torn up, cut and stabbed, and
he had arrows in him. The wounds reminded
me of something. I couldn’t think of what
it was . . . This sixth one had two old scars
on his thigh. The pathologist checked with
the local hospital and found he had fallen
out of a tree blind five years before while
he was bow hunting and stuck an arrow through
his leg . . . Lecter had treated him first—he
was on duty in the emergency room . . . I
thought Lecter might remember if anything
seemed fishy about the arrow wound, so I
went to his office to see him. We were grabbing
at anything then. He was practicing psychiatry
by that time He had a nice office. Antiques.
He said he didn’t remember much about the
arrow wound . . . and that was it “Something bothered me, though. I thought
it was something Lecter said, or something
in the office . . . So I went back to see
him . . . We were talking and he was making
a polite effort to help me and I looked up
at some very old medical books on the shelf
above his head. And I knew it was him. “When I looked at him again, maybe my face
changed, I don’t know. I knew it and he knew I knew it. I still couldn’t think of the
reason though. I didn’t trust it. I had to
figure it out. So I mumbled something and
got out of there, into the hall . . . I was
talking to the police switchboard when he
came out of a service door behind me in his
socks . . . I felt his breath was all, and
then . . . there was the rest of it.” “How did you know though?” “I think maybe it was a week later . . .
It was Wound Man – an illustration they used in a lot of
the early medical books like the ones Lecter
had. It shows different kinds of battle injuries,
all in one figure. I had seen it in a survey
course . . . This sixth victim’s position
and his injuries were a close match to Wound Man.” “Wound Man, you say? That’s all you had?” “Well, yeah. It was a coincidence that I had seen it.
A piece of luck.” See “Wound Man” at THE HANNIBAL LECTER LIBRARY GCM: There are several important themes here
found throughout Harris’ books. Dr. Hannibal
Lecter does not fit the profile of a psychopath,
that is, a psychiatric terminological pigeon
hole. He does not like bow hunters because
they cannot usually make clean, instantaneous
kills. [Something related happens in HANNIBAL after he sees a bow hunter, Donnie barber,
watching a film during a gun show where he
is shopping for cooking utensils. He overhears
two game wardens wishing they could get him
“out of the woods for good”. Barber plays
and replays a video of the bow shooting of
a mule deer that does not die right away.
(revise pp. 293-5) After they find his body,
another game warden says, “He don’t bother
to track nothing after he shoots it,” (page
308). Lecter’s whimsy engages him to perform
a Norse ritual, the “Bloody Eagle”, on Barber’s
body (Norse ritual page 305). “It’s a Norse
sacrificial custom,” Starling says. To whom
is the sacrifice offered? There is only Barber
and the mule deer present. Though inconclusive,
this would tend to argue very much implicitly
against Will Graham’s unconfirmed statement,
“He had the first and worst sign—sadism to
animals as a child”. The theme of “monster” develops in contrast
to calling Lecter a “sociopath” that will
develop throughout the trilogy. At the end
of page 6 [hardback 7 paperback] in SILENCE OF THE LAMBS, Crawford calls Lecter "a monster"-
“I know he’s a monster. Beyond that, nobody
can say for sure”, which makes Lecter into
an unknown identity. The definition from
the Concise Oxford English Dictionary is : 1. an imaginary creature, usu. large and
frightening, compounded of incongruous elements.
2. an inhumanly cruel or wicked person. 3.
a misshapen animal or plant. Pentaone remarks, “Cruelty to animals seems beneath Hannibal
for some reason.” And I agree with him. Graham,
to a degree, contradicts this when he says
of Lecter, “He wasn’t shallow and exploitative in small
things, like most sociopaths are. He’s not
insensitive.” This may be merely a remnant of the initial
characterization of Lecter by Harris. Pentaone
also says, “It seems a little odd that Lecter
was on duty in an emergency room. The psychiatric
ward of a hospital would seem to be more
appropriate. Although we know Dr. Lecter
is skilled at removing the sweetbreads of
his victims (and even their craniums), any
additional training Dr. Lecter may have had
is never mentioned.” But a third year medical
student does everything including both emergency
room and surgery even if they are specializing
in psychiatry.] [Dell 71] "If you don't believe me,
what the hell did you ask me for?" “I didn’t hear that” “Good. I didn’t mean to say it.” Chapter 7: [Dell 83] “I thought you might be curious
to find out if you’re smarter than the person
I am looking for.” “Then, by implication, you think you are
smarter than I am, since you caught me.’ “No. I know I’m not smarter than you are.” “Then how did you catch me, Will?” “You had disadvantages.” “What disadvantages?” “Passion. And you’re insane.” “You’re very tan Will.’ Graham did not answer. “Your hands are rough. They don’t look like
a cop’s hands anymore. That shaving lotion
is something a child would select. It has
a ship on the bottle doesn’t it?” Dr. Lecter
seldom holds his head upright. He tilts it
as he asks a question, as though he were
screwing an auger of curiosity into your
face. GARY C MOORE: Here is the rudeness Lecter
revenges himself on Graham when he bluntly,
and incorrectly by his own thinking, calls
him insane (“Dr. Lecter is not crazy, in
any common way we think of being crazy.”).
The “passion” I need to think more about.
In general Dr. Lecter has “passion” about
every thing and goes about the whole of life
with what in another style of more acceptable
living would be considered a ‘healthy jest’.
“Crazy people” are fundamentally unhappy
whereas “normal people” merely have unhappy
episodes in their life that they have overcome
and put aside. [Dell 86] “Do you know how you caught me?” Graham was out of Lecter’s sight now, and
he walked faster toward the far steel door. “The reason you caught me is that we’re just alike” was the last thing Graham heard as the
steel door closed behind him. He was numb
except for dreading the loss of numbness
. . . He had the absurd feeling Lecter had
walked out with him. He stopped outside the
entrance and looked around him, assuring
himself that he was alone. From a car across the street, his long lens
propped on the window sill, Freddy Lounds
got a nice profile shot of Graham in the
doorway and the words in stone above him:
“Chesapeake State Hospital for the Criminally
Insane.” As it turned out, The National Tattler cropped the picture to just Graham’s face
and the last two words in the stone. GARY C. MOORE: Read at one level, this is
far too simplistic view. But Thomas Harris
actually does much more. He not only delineates
that Graham fears Lecter is right, but demonstrates
the external world also views Will Graham as a freak. What is actually
made clear in other places in the book [
], similar things may happen to people, but
they make different choices and do not turn
out to be “monsters” even though circumstances
of upbringing and human nature itself are
alike. Chapter8: [Dell 87-89] “Lecter sat up. The man might
have been civil. His thoughts had the warm
brass smell of an electric clock . . . He
turned up the lights and wrote a note to
Chilton asking for a telephone to call his
counsel. Lecter was entitled by law to speak
with his lawyer in privacy and he hadn’t
abused the right. Since Chilton would never
allow him to go to the telephone, the telephone
was brought to him. [Lecter by deception
gets Will Graham’s phone number and address.]
Lecter felt better. He thought he might surprise
Graham with a call sometime, or if the man
couldn’t be civil, he might have a hospital
supply house mail Graham a colostomy bag
for old times’ sake.” GARY C. MOORE: Something more drastic comes
of this than what is stated. Does this refdlect
a changing character for Dr. Lecter on Harris’
part? 78-79 [91] “Dolarhyde never said “yes,” as
he had trouble with the sibilant /s/.” Pentaone
says, “A sibilant is a synonym for a frictive.
They mean the same thing . . . Why mentions
both sibilants and fricatives is strange.
In Hannibal, Mason Verger also has trouble with fricatives.” Chapter 11: Freddy Lounds writes, “Federal manhunters
. . . have turned to the most savage killer
in captivity for help . . . Dr. Hannibal
Lecter . . . was consulted this week in his
maximum-security asylum cell by ace investigator
William (Will) Graham . . . What went on
in this bizarre meeting of two mortal enemies?
What was Graham after? “It takes one to catch
one,” a high federal official told this reporter.
He was referring to Lecter, known as “Hannibal
the Cannibal,” who is both a psychiatrist
and a mass murderer. OR WAS HE REFERING TO
GRAHAM???” GARY C MOORE: Lounds goes on to say Graham
himself “was once confined to a mental institution
for four weeks” . . . “after he killed Garrett
Jacob Hobbs, the “Minnesota Shrike”. Pentaone
here, to some people, may have seemingly
and inexplicably referred to the English
philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) wrote
LEVIATHAN. But Hobbes’ view of human nature as “innately
selfish” as “a natural right” is very, very
relevant to Thomas Harris and Doctor Hannibal
Lecter. What I have said so far should make
that obvious. But there is much more to it
than that, and this is relevant also to Francis
Dolarhyde. For Hobbes also says, that being
in this situation of “natural right” and
wholly free expression of selfish desire
leads to “a war of all against all” where
each and every person, if they even survive,
are miserably unhappy as in Hobbes’ famous [8] Hereby, it is manifest that during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition called war, and such a war as is of every man against every man. For war consisteth not in battle only, or the act of fighting, but in a tract of time wherein the will to contend by battle is sufficiently known. And therefore, the notion of time is to be considered in the nature of war, as it is in the nature of weather. For as the nature of foul weather lieth not in a shower or two of rain, but in an inclination thereto many days together, so the nature of war consisteth not in actual fighting, but in the known disposition thereto during all the time there is no assurance of the contrary. All other time is Peace. [9] Whatever is consequent to a time of war, where every man is enemy to every man, the same is consequent to the time wherein men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them withal. In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain, and consequently, no culture of the earth, no navigation, nor use of commodities that may be imported by sea, no commodious building, no instruments of moving and removing such things as require great force, no knowledge of the face of the earth, no account of time, no arts, no letters, no society, and which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death, and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. LEVIATHAN, chapter xiii. This is a portrayal, on the one hand, of the most extreme form of warfare, that which is actually conducted in one’s own heartland, killing the heart. Or, it is a description of what people actually endure in the midst of it. It is an ideological description of the English Civil War. But as such it is a description of war itself as endured by those on the spot, not on the sidelines observing as we Americans have so often done. As such it is also a description of human nature reduced to its fundamentals, without any law except the natural law of tooth and claw. That is what we are Hobbes says. We are nothing, absolutely nothing without the crushing force of the authority of law. Only force can answer force. [10] . . .Does he not there as much accuse mankind by his actions, as I do by my words? But neither of us accuse man’s nature in it. The desires and other passions of man are in themselves no sin. No more are the actions that proceed from those passions, till they know a law that forbids them—which till laws be made they cannot know. Nor can any law be made, till they have agreed upon the person that shall make it. [The Latin version of 1668 adds: But why try to demonstrate to learned men what even dogs know, who bark at visitors, sometimes, indeed, only at those who are unknown, but in the night at everyone?] But war is still the nature of man with natural
right, laws are inventions, fictions to curb
that destructive nature. [13] To this war of every man against every
man, this also is consequent: that nothing
can be unjust. The notions of right and wrong,
justice and injustice, have there no place.
Where there is no common power, there is
no law; where no law, no injustice. Force
and fraud are in war the two cardinal virtues.
Justice and injustice are none of the faculties
neither of the body, nor mind. If they were,
they would be in a man that were alone in
the world, as well as his senses and passions.
They are qualities that relate to men in
society, not solitude. Therefore we have here the pre-cursor of existentialism and Dostoyevsky’s Ivan Karamazov saying, “If God does not exist, then everything is permitted.” Or Jacques Derrida saying, I believe the force and the necessity (and
therefore in a certain irreversibility) of
the act by which Heidegger substitutes a certain concept of Dasein for a concept of subject still too marked
by the traits of the being as vorhanden (occuredness, presence at hand), and hence by an interpretation of time, and insufficiently questioned in its ontological
structure . . . The time and place of this
displacement opened a gap, marked a gap,
they left fragile, or recalled the essential
ontological fragility of the ethical, juridicial,
and political foundations of democracy and
of every discourse one can oppose to National
Socialism in all of its forms (the ‘worst”
ones, or those that Heidegger and others
might have thought of opposing to them).
These foundations were and remain essentially
sealed within a philosophy of the subject.
One might quickly perceive the question,
which might also be the task: can one take
into account the necessity of the existential
analytic and what it shatters in the subject
and turn toward an ethics, a politics (are
those words still appriopriate?), indeed
an “other” democracy (would it still be a
democracy?), in any case toward another type
of responsibility that safeguards against
what a moment ago I very quickly called the
“worst”? POINTS . . . Interviews 1974-1994, Stanford, 1995, page 266 Appropriately enough this is from an interview entitled “Eating Well’, and goes very well to show us, along with Hobbes (for what he is discussing is precisely ontological), what Thomas Harris is doing with Doctor Hannibal Lecter. And, after reading Hobbes and Derrida, one can see there is even a more terrible person than Francis Dolarhyde, Doctor Lecter, or Jame Gumb. And that person Thomas Hobbes would immediately point out to be Paul Krendler, the man who perverts, and destroys, the law to such an extent that Clarice Starling can no longer find ‘law’ within the government or F.B.I., and which then logically releases her from all obligation to an absolutely dead letter. Krendler shows the limit where corruption in government and law can and cannot be tolerated, the past point where they become nothing, ceasing to even be the fictions they initially were. If law and government no longer protect your life and property, you no longer owe it any loyalty whatsoever. All you can do is hide like Barney, like Clarice, like Lecter. There is only death out there in the open waiting for you. Another British philosopher I shall just
touch on here, but necessarily so, is David
Hume. He shares Hobbes’ view of human nature,
which seems only to be seen externally, but
shows, ‘innocently’, that this same “war
of all against all” is also the internal
nature of human nature, the core of so-called
‘identity’, ‘self’, ‘soul’, etc. A person
can only govern oneself as a parliament of
voices. And there must be one person given
supreme, but far from absolute power. Hobbes
“nature of man” lives within just as it lives
without. Identity changes from moment to
moment. It is merely a convention, a legal
fiction that we are the same person we were
born. Even common sense says that is utterly
ridiculous. And Hume’s project is to A) find
what a human mind actually knows – which
is next to nothing, and B) how humanity works
in society. Regardless of one’s situation,
one finds oneself ‘agreeing’ with what most
other people say out of political necessity
even when one knows it is logically questionable
or even downright wrong. Things that are
unbearable to live with much be amended politically.
Which means the members of parliament, internal
and external, must have civil discourse that
permits the “other” to express their views.
This is Hannibal Lecter’s politeness, an
open space for proper and unobtrusive expression,
emotionally appropriate and acknowledging
the “other’s” feelings, a universally recognized
standard of good taste that tastes good.
Or else wise not. [Dell 119] “Across the first page, in large
letters he had illuminated himself, were
the words from Revelation: ‘And There Came
a Great Red dragon Also . . .’” “Pages between the clipping were covered
with Dolarhyde’s writing – black ink in a
fine copperplate script not unlike William
Blake’s own handwriting.” [Dell 120] In Dolarhyde’s mind, Lecter’s
likeness should be the dark portrait of a
Renaissance Prince.” [Dell 121] “Dolarhyde felt that Lecter knew
the unreality of the people who die to help
you in these things—understood that they
are not flesh, but light and air and color
and quick sounds quickly ended when you change
them. Like balloons of colr busting. That
they are more important for the changing,
more important than the lives they scrabble
after, pleading. Dolarhyde bore screams as a sculptor bears
dust from the beaten stone. Lecter was capable of understanding that
blood and breath were only elements undergoing
change to fuel his Radiance. Just as the
source of light is burning. He would like to meet Lecter, talk and share
with him, rejoice with him in their shared
vision, be recognized by him as John the
Baptist recognized the One who came after,
sit on him as the Dragon sat on 666 in Blake’s
Revelation series, and film his death as,
dying, he melded with the strength of the
Dragon.” Chapter 12: [Putnam 106, Dell 129] “Graham knew he was
angry at Randy because he feared him.” [Dell 132] Asian Studies gives analysis of
Chinese ideogram Graham found carved on tree
in back of the Jacobi’s house on page 92
[111] Chapter 13: Putnam 111 [Dell 135] “Crawford put Chilton
on hold. He stared at the two winking buttons
on his telephone for several seconds without
seeing them. Crawford, fisher of men, was
watching his cork move against the current.
He got Graham again.” 113 [139]: Beverly Katz in Hair and Fiber
Section of the FBI Laboratory says of Crawford’s
wind blown hair when he leaves, “See you
later,” katz said, “Love your hair.” Dr. Lecter says, at the Memphis airport,
to Senator Martin, “’Love your suit’, he
said as she went out the door,” hardback
page 185. 114 [140]: “a pair of hands” – It seems coincidental,
all these mentions of Pairs of hands, which
have no real connection to Albecht Durer’s
etching. However, it is too appealing to
ignore either. Chapter 14: [Dell 145]: on the Tooth Fairy toilet tissue
note: “’It was in the middle of a paragraph full of compliments,’ Graham
said. ‘He couldn’t stand to ruin them. That’s
why he didn’t throw the whole thing away.’
Again, this seems too petty an observation
of Lecter on Graham’s part. 126 [156]: “Dear pilgrim, you honor me. .
.” [157] “Bless you, 666.” Chapter 15: Chapter 16: 145 [183]: Sargeant Stanley Riddle – Samson’s
riddle? [191]: “she tracing eights on the back of
his neck with a finger.’ Chicken snake at
end of book? Mason Verger’s eel? Chapter 17: [192] “ Crawford: ‘The cupboard is bare,
Doctor.” Dr. Bloom studied Crawford’s simian face
and wondered what was coming. Behind Crawford’s
grousing and his Alka-Seltzers the doctor
saw an intelligence as cold as an X-ray table
. . . Bloom: ‘You’ve met Molly?’ Crawford: ‘. . . She’d be glad to see me in hell with
my back broken, of course. I’m having to
duck her right now.’ Bloom: ‘She thinks you use Will?’ Crawford looked at Dr. Bloom sharply . .
. ‘Graham likes you. He doesn’t think you run
any mind games on him,’ Crawford said. Bloom’s
remark about using Graham stuck in his craw. ‘I don’t. I wouldn’t try,’ dr. Bloom said.
‘I’m as honest with him as I would be with
a patient.’ Crawford: ‘Exactly.’ Bloom: ‘No, I want to be his friend, and
I am. Jack, I owe it to my field of study
to observe. Remember, though, when you asked me to give you a study on him, I refused.’ Crawford: ‘That was Petersen, upstairs, wanted
the study.’ Bloom: ‘You were the one that asked for it.
No matter, if I ever did anything on Graham,
if there were ever anything that might be
of therapeutic benefit to others, I’d abstract
it in a form that would be totally unrecognizable.
If I ever do anything in a scholarly way,
it’ll only be published posthumously.” Crawford: ‘After you or after Graham.’ Dr. Bloom didn’t answer. Crawford: ‘One thing I’ve noticed-I’m curious
about this: you’re never alone in a room
with Graham, are you? You’re smooth about
it, but you’re never one-on-one with him.
Why’s that? Do you think he’s physic, is
that it?’ Bloom: ‘No. He’s an eideteker—he has a remarkable visual memory—but I
don’t think he’s psychic. He wouldn’t let
Duke test him—that doesn’t mean anything,
though. He hates to be prodded and poked.
So do I.’ Crawford: ‘But—‘ Bloom: ‘Will wants to think of this as purely
an intellectual exercise, and in the narrow
definition of forensics, that’s what it is.
He’s good at that, but there are other people
just as good, I imagine.’ ‘Not many,’ Crawford said. Bloom: ‘What he has in addition is pure empathy
and projection,’ Dr. Bloom said. ‘He can
assume your point of view, or mine—and maybe
some other points of view that scare and
sicken him. It’s an uncomfortable gift, Jack.
Perception’s a tool that’s pointed on both
ends.’ Crawford: ‘Why aren’t you ever alone with
him?’ Bloom; ‘Because I have some professional
curiosity about him and he’d pick up on that
in a hurry. He’s fast.’ Crawford; ‘If he caught you peeking, he’d
snatch down the shades.’ Bloom: ‘An unpleasant analogy, but accurate,
yes. You’ve had sufficient revenge now, Jack.
We can get to the point. I don’t feel very
well.’ Crawford: ‘A psychosomatic manifestation,
probably,’ Crawford said. Bloom: ‘Actually it’s my gallbladder. What
do you want? . . . You’ve decided to stick
Graham’s neck out, haven’t you? . . . I don’t
want you to misinterpret this, and normally
I wouldn’t say it, but you ought to know;
what do you think one of Graham’s strongest
drives is?’ Crawford shook his head. Bloom: ‘It’s fear, Jack. The man deals with
a huge amount of fear . . . Fear comes with
imagination, it’s a penalty, it’s the price of imagination.’ GARY C MOORE: I have bypassed for the moment
the planning to drive Dolarhyde to suicide
or a desperate act that will betray him which
is behind all this. Dr. Bloom says here he
is not suicidal because he is so careful.
He does not want to be caught. He wants to
preserve his life. But see pages 362-367.
There he wants to preserve Reba McClane’s
life too at any cost including his own life.
That is not normally to be expected in a
serial killer killing for the motive of religious
ecstasy as described on pages 120-121. It
also provides the grounds for calling this
a truly great novel since the struggle to
preserve this independent point of view from
his dominating psychosis is convincingly
and rationally described. The motivation
for voluntarily subscribing to the psychosis
has been brought into extreme questioning
and it is no longer Dolarhyde’s but something
more and more external to him and, in the
locale of the grandmother’s home still overwhelming. “Eidetic memory” is synonymous with “photographic
memory.” It is NOT just a superior memory.
Simple ‘superior’ memory simply has to do
with organizing information. “Eidetic memory”
remains in the present tense as an actively
projected memory. It is also only temporary.
Its detail also differs from person to person.
Eidetic memory is terminated by blinking
or turning away from the projected image.
If not terminated, it fades. It is more common
in children. Russian psychologists speculate
that adults memorize through the organization
of words, and therefore lose eidetic ability,
whereas children are more image dependent.
Naming may interrupt eidetic memory. Eidetic
imagery may be distinguishable from visual
imagery. Eidetic images seem to be much more
detailed. They are dependent on exterior
stimuli whereas visual imagery, mental picturing,
is not. However, not even visual imagery
is perfectly understood. For much more, see http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro00/web2/Arnaudo.html -- especially “WWW Sources” at the end. Note the necessity for projection and immense
detail in eidetic memory, which, in turn,
can possibly directly translate into Dr.
Bloom’s “What he has in addition is pure
empathy and projection.” This would mean
it is a further projection than usual and
not something that is just added on. “Perception’s
a tool that’s pointed on both ends.” Through
eidetic memory, perception takes on the added
qualities of empathy and projection on a
physical plain. This is involuntary as in
the case of Will Graham. He is a fictional
character it is true. But it should be obvious
that perception is “always already” projective
since its automatically implies, either from
the configuration of the brain or simply
from common sense traditions, an ‘external’
world of which there can be no purely logical
or experiential confirmation. You “always
already” have the desire to understand other
people’s feelings as a matter of ‘common
sense’. An “eidetic memory” would etch such
qualities into a hardwiring of the brain
as with Will Graham. Or, as David Hume says,
if it can be rationally imagined, it is rationally
possible. Pentaone makes the good point that Dr. Hannibal
Lecter is also an eideteker because he can draw Florence and Clarice’s
face—two objects he loves or will come to
love—like Dolarhyde—that is, for two supposedly
hard-wired insane people that cannot change,
through love, they do change—from memory. “Suicide was Bloom’s mortal enemy.’ But Dr.
Lecter could use it as an acceptable cure
for Multiple Miggs per Pentaone. Chapter 18: Chapter 19: 166 [211] “With these he offended me.” Chapter 20: 168 [215]: “The Perseid meteor shower was
due soon, and he must not miss it. ‘And his tail drew the third part of the
stars of heaven, and did cast them down to
the earth . . .’ (Revelation 12:4) His doing in another time. He must see it
and remember. [218, 222]: “ ‘I am not a man. I began as
one but by the grace of God and my own Will,
I have become Other and More than a man.
You say you’re frightened. Do you believe
that God is in attendance here, Mr. Lounds?
. . . You said that I, who see more than you, am
insane. I, who pushed the world so much farther
than you, am insane. I have dared more than
you, I have pressed my unique seal so much
deeper in the earth, where it will last longer
than your dust. Your life to mine is a slug
track on stone. A thin silver mucus track
in and out of the letters on my monument.’
The words Dolarhyde had written in his journal
swarmed in him now. ‘I am the Dragon and you call me insane? My movements are followed and recorded
as avidly as those of a mighty guest star.
Do you know about the guest star in 1054?
Of course not. Your readers follow you like
a child follows a slug track with his finger,
and in the same tired loops of reason. Back
to your shallow skull and potato face as
a slug follows his own slime trail back home. ‘Before Me you are a slug in the sun. You
are privy to a great Becoming and you recognize
nothing. You are an ant in the afterbirth. ‘It is in your nature to do one thing correctly:
before Me you rightly tremble. Fear is what
you owe Me, Lounds, you and the other pismires.
You owe Me awe.’ ” GARY C MOORE: This is an important passage. This is a clear statement of apotheosis, which, considered as any real change of reality, is irrational. Dolarhyde both ‘sees’ in a projective, creating fashion and is seen as the center and meaning of the universe, hence the meteor showers to record his advent. But what was ‘advented’ in 1054? Also, seeing is very important. The words swarm: the self is particles. Dolarhyde’s acts are primarily committed to endure in the minds of others through time. Though definitely irrationally megalomaniacal, they are acts of rationally directed artistic creation. And, as Abhinavagupta says, the experience of artistic creation, as santa rasa, the “rasa of peace” as
| ||||
 MORE BY MOORE ON HANNIBAL LECTOR |
