Talk:Hannibal Rising

Published?

Should we really have pages for novels that haven't yet been published?DS 13:55, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why not? It is quite eagerly anticipated. --Oldak Quill 19:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Sure it gives people an insight of what's to come from their favorite scary films and/or books.

delay?

why the delay? I thought it was set for an xmas 05 release? (131.130.121.106 22:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC))

Sorry, but I got this novel on preorder via Barnes and Noble, and they've recently informed me that it's not coming out til January 2007. SuperDT 09:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Hannibal's Faith in God

I recently added something in the Contradictions section that was removed. It stated how in Rising, Lecter was an Atheist, and in Hannibal, it stated how he had a "malice" or fierce hatred toward God. Here is the quote that from Hannibal supports my claim: (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, who is in irony matchless, and in wanton malice beyond measure."

This states that he feircely hates God (malice beyond measure), and in order to hate something, you have to believe in its existence. So he did believe in God as Stated in Hannibal, but it stated he was an Atheist in Rising. In Rising, after he buries Mischa, he says: "We take comfort in knowing that there is no God". This is a condradiction as far as I'm concerned... Interesting. --Majinvegeta 04:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

You've misinterpreted the quote slightly. It doesn't say that Lecter feels "malice beyond measure" towards God; the "wanton malice" it refers to is God's own (in other words, nobody is more wantonly malicious than God, at least in Lecter's opinion). Fivepast 09:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I apologize for the misinterpretation, but that part and the bit before it still proves that he aknowledges God's existence. He aknowledges the fact that there is a deity with "wanton malice beyond measure". Other Evidence: "Other then to recognize how his own modest predations paled beside those of God". This says it all. He recognizes that his desires don't influence God's decision, and in order to know that that his desires don't influence God's decision, he has to aknowledge the existence of God. (Don't worry, I'm not a crazy Christian preacher or anything, I'm actually quite the opposite.) --Majinvegeta 17:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it's easiest to assume that in the years between Hannibal Rising and Hannibal, Lecter changed his outlook on such things. Fivepast 20:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not really true that you have to believe in God to believe in "His own", because whether you believe in God or not, you cannot deny that people are alive that believe in Him, and it is more poetic to say "...those of God, who is in irony matchless, and in wanton malice beyond measure." than to say "I hate the people who believe in a God that doesn't exist, because I am an atheist." -- 151.203.22.196 18:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I always assumed that he was an atheist in Hannibal. If an atheist were to complain "Why would God let 9/11 happen" as many have done, that doesn't mean he's achknowledging that God exists. I just thought it meant that after his prayers to save Mischa went unanswered and she was instead murdered that destroyed his faith in God. It never struck me as a contradiction.--CyberGhostface 19:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Not sure about anybody else, but "Hannibal had not been bothered by any considerations of a deity" would, in plain English, mean he did not ever even think of god, aside from how cruel he coudl be. Leaves it sort of more "agnostic" then "atheistic". He gave up on god, but maybe when he first did, it was a "There is no god." Years later, learning more and more, he's accepted a "if there IS a god... he's an evil and vicious bastard" take on things. 140.185.215.122 13:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)Steve

Animal abuse "out of character"

I have a major problem with that claim.

First of all, it comes from some fan's annotations. That's not a reputable source in the least.

Secondly, and more importantly, "Red Dragon" is the original work that establishes the character.

Any subsequent portrayal of Lecter that FAILS to incorporate elements from said original work would be the one that's claimed to be "out of character".

I just don't see how you could possibly say that the way a character is ORIGINALLY written is "out of character".GuruAskew 20:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm using a comicbook comparision here, so hopefully that won't offend your sensitivities.

When the Green Goblin was introduced in Spider-Man, there was little known information about him and he came off as a bit of a buffoon. Later, as his character was developed and was given more backstory, it was revealed that he was a murderous sociopath. As such, many of his early appearences seemed out of character in contrast.

The same thing goes for Hannibal. When he was first introduced, I don't think Harris knew much about him. Later, as he wrote the character, he (presumably) realized some earlier concepts didn't ring true. Red Dragon's Lecter isn't the definitive Lecter. The definitive Lecter, as much as you hate to admit it, is whatever Harris wants it to be.--CyberGhostface 04:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

No, Thomas Harris is capable of making mistakes and fudging facts just as much as any other mortal human being. Establishing an element of Lecter's character and later disregarding it is no different than the first "contradiction" listed where Lecter's age in "Rising" undeniably contradicts Lecter's own inner thoughts in "Hannibal". It's Harris's responsibility as a writer to keep his facts and continuity straight and he's failed at that and that is the purpose of this section of the article, because there are clearly several examples of it in "Rising".

As for this annotations guy, I really fail to see how his opinion on the matter is the least bit important. I mean, I could write a theory about how Hannibal Lecter secretly performs in a KISS cover band on the weekends and I wouldn't expect that to be noted on Wikipedia.GuruAskew 04:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

How's this for a compromise? I'll remove the bit about him being out of character if you remove the bit about Rising being invalidated by Lecter's offhand comment in SotL. Does that sound fair? Both are rather opinionated.--CyberGhostface 04:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure the SOTL comment could be rewritten in a way that's less-POV but the line is certainly in contradiction with "Rising" and it should be noted somehow.GuruAskew 04:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I also want to note that as opposed to Mr. Random Annotations guy practically every negative review of "Rising" (which was the overwhelming majority of them) cited the discrepancy with that "Silence" quote as a major flaw and contradiction in "Rising".GuruAskew 04:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure that the quote, taken out of context, has been used as fuel for many critics. But take in context...Lecter has just met Starling. He clearly holds her in contempt. Why should he be truthful to her and reveal to her something of that magnitude, to event hint it?

Lets say in Hannibal, Lecter's origin is neglected. No mention of Mischa is made, and he uses the same "I happened" mantra, even after Lecter and Starling become lovers. THEN...in Rising, Mischa being eaten is shown. THAT would be an inconsistency, because there'd be no reason for Lecter to hold something off that magnitude.

But I don't see any contradiction with Lecter's comment in Silence.--CyberGhostface 05:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

But as I said, unlike the random Annotations guy this contradiction WAS noted by many, many people of note: professional critics. One needs look no further than a Google search for +"Hannibal Rising" +"I Happened. You can't reduce me". The New Yorker. Time Magazine. The Guardian. The Washington Post. Surely if these people noted and objected to it it's worth noting here.GuruAskew 05:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Again...a line taken out of context in a conversation between a noted liar (and he is, when it suits his purposes) in his first meeting with someone he clearly didn't trust. I've mentioned how it wouldn't be out of character for Lecter to withhold his traumatic childhood from her. And that usage of the line wasn't "Rising is now invalidated because of this line", it was just using that as an example of how Lecter was in Silence and how most of his mystery was being taken away.

Mentioning "Rising"'s mixed reviews wouldn't be unencyclopediac as long as it was done in a neutral manner. But I don't think it deserves its own tidbit in the trivia section. Rather, there should be a critical response section showing both sides.--CyberGhostface 05:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Lecter has never been portrayed as a liar, especially not to Clarice Starling.GuruAskew 05:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Certainly not after he had gained respect for her. But in their initial conversation in which he said that line he had nothing but contempt.

And doesn't the whole Billirubin affair (which wasn't to Clarice, but still) count as a lie somewhat?--CyberGhostface 05:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I was addressing that and went to post it and got an edit conflict. Here's what I was writing:

No, even when Lecter manipulates to the point where it could be considered lying there's an overwhelming amount of truth. His most blatant "lie" is the misinformation he gives to Senator Ruth Martin re: Buffalo Bill's true identity. It's 100% accurate save for the name. In any case there's no precedent for Lecter being dishonest to the extent necessary to reconcile this discrepancy.GuruAskew 05:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Save for the name, which he uses to intentionally mislead them because he has nothing but contempt for them. But that's beside the point. I don't consider what he said to be Clarice to be a blatant lie. For one thing, despite his past, Lecter probably likes to think of himself as completely responsible for the way he is and not dependent on his past. That, and again, I don't see why Lecter would tell someone he just met that he had nothing but contempt for at the moment. Its open for interpretation either way. I agree that Harris made a number of contradictions in Rising...I don't think the comment in Silence is such a big one that it deserves its own mention, despite what some critics have said.--CyberGhostface 05:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Anyway (and this is the last thing I'm going to say tonight because I really need to go to sleep), could we ask for an outside person for mediation what they think as we both have clearly different opinions?--CyberGhostface 05:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

You might not think it's big enough for a mention but I do and several professional critics do so there's no doubt in my mind that it's worth noting.GuruAskew 05:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

If we ever make a "Critical Reception" section that shows both sides, we could add "Some critics have pointed out that Hannibal's line about not reducing him to a set of influences in Silence is arguably contradicted by Harris exploring his past" or something along those lines in a neutral manner. Stating as fact that Rising is invalidated in the inconsistencies section is POV and original research.--CyberGhostface 16:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

GuruAskew, I must say you are being quite uncivil. In addition to that, CyberGhostface is correct. This whole thing is like when someone makes a correction to a previous incorrect statement. Plus, it was not the narration saying the sadism statement, but a character, obviously leaving more room for error. Also, the statement in the beginning of Rising states that Lecter lied about his past, meaning that Graham could have plausibly said that and likewise could have plausibly been wrong. GuruAskew, the author decides the canon, not the reader. 71.243.141.131 19:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Right. For all we know, they could have gotten this information from Lecter himself in an interview with a psychiatrist, and he could have easily given them bullshit information to throw them off for his own amusement.--CyberGhostface 19:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Lecter is too advanced to fall for a psychiatrist's tricks anyway. The anonymous IP that left the comment about uncivility etc. earlier is me. I created an account. Dr. Hannibal Lecter 23:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, Graham is not infallible in his profiling... that's why he needed Lecter's help. I know the film wasn't 100% accurate to the novel, but, in Red Dragon, Graham also refers to Dolarhyde as being "freakishly strong, probably a body builder." Whiel Ralph Fiennes looked great and all, he was hardly a body builder, and he was only shown benching slightly more than what could be assumed to be slightly more than his body weight (he was putting up 255 the first time we see him on screen, hissing with effort). I weight 205, am hardly any kind of body builder, and that's what I was benching yesterday. 140.185.215.122 13:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)Steve

Um, no, the prologue (which I just reread no more than 3 minutes ago) says, and I quote:

"Hannibal, who altered DATES (emphasis mine) freely to confound the authorities and his chroniclers."

As for the reliability (or unreliability) of "Red Dragon", there's really no merit in trying to poke holes in it. You can sit and try to jump your brain through hoops trying to make sense of the mess Thomas Harris has made with the character as originally written or you can just look at the errors he clearly and undeniably made (like Mischa's death occurring at age 6 like in Hannibal as opposed to Rising's portrayal of age 12) and arrive at the reasonable conclusion that he simply doesn't care about maintaining the integrity of the character as originally established. I mean, it speaks volumes that that passage in the prologue even exists. It's nothing more than a preemptive excuse for the many inconsistencies that follow. GuruAskew 05:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

...or you could just arrive to the conclusion that over the span of thirty years, Thomas Harris's vision of Lecter has changed. The errors aren't as big as you say they are, and while its clear that this wasn't planned out, it isn't that hard to fit them in with the rest of the series. Saying that he doesn't care about the integrity of Hannibal is a rather far-fetched accusation.--CyberGhostface 14:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I agree with you completely. Over the past 30 years Thomas Harris's vision of Lecter HAS changed but I (along with many other people who read and disliked "Hannibal" and "Hannibal Rising") think that his changed take on the character has completely destroyed the character as originally written. I'm certainly not in the minority when it comes to this opinion (I mean, I'm not the one that created the "contradictions" section) and if a large portion of the fanbase feels this way it should certainly be incorporated into the article in some way.GuruAskew 04:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

GuruAskew, why can't you see one of the many points that CyberGhostface is trying to make? Lecter obviously wouldn't say to a profiler or psychiatrist, "When I was a child, I liked to torture animals because I had problems." If anything, for him to say that and tell the truth would be out of character more than anything. Dr. Hannibal Lecter 16:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

No, there is no "obvious" point here. "Red Dragon" treats the animal sadism as if it were fact and furthermore the character has always been portrayed as overwhelmingly honest and the best example anyone can produce of him stating a full-blown lie is when he gave a false name to an otherwise accurate description of Buffalo Bill.

As it stands there's nothing in any of the books to cast doubt on the credibility of that remark UNTIL "Hannibal Rising" and therein lies the contradiction and that is precisely what that section of the article is for.GuruAskew 19:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is an obvious point here. Lecter would never do that. Red Dragon never, EVER treats the sadism as a pure fact. Graham is the one who says that Lecter tortured animals, and it's obvious that he wouldn't know without questioning Lecter. Lecter has NEVER been overwhelmingly honest. He changed dates and purposely deceived psychiatrists who tested him (which is, by the way, the only way they would find out about any sadism towards animals), he "cheated" on tests administered to him so nothing could be told. He sat through a whole lie detecter test, lying the entire time without being caught. And my edits are NOT original research. They build on exactly the nature described of Lecter in the books: deceitful, devious, and, in a way, always in control. Dr. Hannibal Lecter 21:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

While I hate to be the devil's advocate here, if your research or facts can't be specifically cited or proven it counts as original research. Arguing that Lecter was lying about abusing animals, while probable considering that its false, would count as original research as its largely speculative and nothing to indicate it. I agree with you, but we should keep the facts just the way they are with little opinions.--CyberGhostface 03:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

You have a very good point, CyberGhostface. However, in both Red Dragon and The Silence of the Lambs, Dr. Chilton explains how Lecter is too sophisticated for testing and easily lies when testing to get a desired result. Dr. Hannibal Lecter 13:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

So now you're using one of the most inept and non-credible characters in the series to support your own opinion? Give it up.GuruAskew 01:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Can we just mention the inconsistency in the article and be done with it without any additional commentary?--CyberGhostface 03:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Why do you have to be rude about it GurAskew? Seriously, read this. Anyway, to the point: Chilton may be very inept, but he was there. Anyway, for the sake of having no edit war, we can have no extra commentary, now that I have been asked in a civil manner by CyberGhostface, I have no problem. However, GuruAskew, please keep in mind that Hannibal Rising is part of the series as well. Even though you may not have liked it, it is still in the series' canon. It certainly doesn't mean that even though Lecter's origin wasn't specified until 1999, he wasn't European in Red Dragon. Also, just because one character is "credible" in some cases, it doesn't mean that every single thing they say is true, or that a less "credible" character says every single thing false. Sorry, but please don't be so uncivil and yourself POV-ed. Dr. Hannibal Lecter 01:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Major characters

Should seperate pages be set up for major characters in this book, such as Inspector Popil or Vladis Grutas? 66.24.234.136 01:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Contradictions

I've removed the section. Either someone cites sources where people give these as examples of contradictions or they can't go in the article.

You can't take one fact from one book, another fact from another and then say you think these are contradictions. That is original research. AlistairMcMillan 22:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

No it isn't if they actually contradict eachother. I'm not trying to be rude, but it is true. Dr. Hannibal Lecter 23:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but there could be many different explanations that explain away these "contradictions".

Hannibal is nice to some swans and a horse, doesn't mean he is nice to all animals. He treats some people really nice, killing others because he thinking they have wronged the ones he cares about. Why do you guys think it is so unbelievable that he might be sadistic to other animals while still being kind to the swans and horses. This isn't a contradiction unless one of the books somewhere says explicitly Hannibal is nice to all animals.

The thing about Mischa's teeth in Hannibal was a nightmare. Since when have nightmares all been perfect recreations of actual events?

These "contradictions" are all taking two "facts" and assembling them in a certain way. Other people could assemble them in other ways.

Either find some "reliable source" that states these are contradictions or the section needs to come out. AlistairMcMillan 23:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think most, if not all of them, could easily be explained away. However, one particular user gave me quite a bit of crappola about it. However, I really cannot blame him, as it could lead many to think that their POV isn't being represented while the POV of others is. Also, while I wouldn't consider adding explanations and/or removing the section as original research, it is probably the closest thing to it and therefore could lead to larger arguments here. Dr. Hannibal Lecter 23:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Everything here is supposed to be sourced. If these contradictions can't be sourced, and make no mistake they are someone's analysis so they have to be sourced, then the section needs to come out. AlistairMcMillan 23:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

You don't need a source if the evidence is right there in the book! If two facts contradict each other, they are contradictions. In one book it says one thing, and in the next it says another. Making up reasons to tie the loose ends together is whats original research, not pointing out the loose ends themselves. For example, there is NOTHING to indicate Hannibal tortured animals in the context of Rising. Saying, "Well...since he's mean to people, that must mean he's mean to animals as well" is SPECULATION. Stating that in Red Dragon he was sadistic to animals, and pointing out a contradiction in which he does not in a later prequel is FACT.--CyberGhostface 00:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

In Hannibal we are being told about a dream, in Hannibal Rising we are being told about things that are actually happening. Your experience may vary, but I believe that for most people dreams tend not to be hi def pixel perfect recordings of previous events. It is more than reasonable for Harris to deviate from the dreams he wrote about in Hannibal. And not only that, but the nightmare vision of Mischa's teeth on the plane even makes sense, since Hannibal had been having that vision (storing it in his memory palace) for about a decade before discovering it was false. It is perfectly reasonable for it to still be there, locked in his memory, even after discovering it to be false.

Anyway like I said before this is all irrelevant. The question is simple. Who is saying these things contradict? As far as I can tell that person is you.[1] Please read WP:VERIFY. Either come up with a "reliable source" who thinks these are contradictions or they have to come out. AlistairMcMillan 02:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

A reliable source? How about the books themselves? Thats where I'm getting my information. The fact that the books contradict each other should be more than enough proof. Stuff like this which can be proved by the books themselves don't need any other sources. Making up excuses is what counts as original research.--CyberGhostface 03:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

This argument is ridiculous... Ted Bundy and other real life serial killers were known to be sadistic to rodents and sometimes cats... but were dog lovers, and had pets kept in perfect health at different points in their lives. Hannibal is profiled by Graham in Red Dragon as being sadistic to animals in his youth. This, if taken as fact, means he was sadistic to animals. Not all animals... not all the time... it doesn't go into detail... but it means that Graham's take on Hannibal is that he was sadistic to animals. Hannibal liked swans and horses, and never killed and ate the mastiff at his uncles. This does not contradict that he was sadistic to animals... The novel merely omits any scenes of him torturing rats with a hacksaw, or pulling the wings off of flies. The stool pit image was in fact concurrent in both books... Sure, he later found that image disproved by the actual discovery of his sister's remains, but the fact that he doesn't sit up from the dream in Hannibal and go "Ha ha, silly dream... You were disproved on page blah blah blah of the prequal, when I found her teeth in a TUB, not a stool pit!!"

Realize, also, that Hannibal Rising established Lecter as having memory difficulties as a result of trauma, and that the book is also presented by its intro as being us (the readers) stepping into his memory palace. If, in fact, his memory palace is incomplete, and perhaps corrupted by his traumas, then Rising is only as accurate as can be attributed to Hannibal's self-admitted damaged psyche. 140.185.215.122 13:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)Steve

Oh, please. Yes this argument is ridicilous, but only because of all the people looking the other way and making assumptions. We're not talking about real life, we're talking about fiction. I could give a damn if some perverted rapist liked animals one second and lit them on fire the next because that has nothing to do with Hannibal.

As it is now, in Red Dragon there is a reference to Hannibal torturing animals. In Rising, in which we see all the major events ranging from Hannibal's childhood to young adulthood, he doesn't do anything of the sort. Simple fact, simple contradiction. Even ignoring that there was no stage in young Hannibal's life where he would torture animals, saying that he might have and that Harris merely neglected to show it counts as original research. Therefore, as one fact is presented as one thing in one novel, and something different in another, its a contradiction.

As for the dream...the stool pit was in both books. But in Hannibal the vision wasn't meant to be false. In Rising it was. Again, this is different from the established fact from the original novel, and is thus a contradiction.--CyberGhostface 14:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

As admitted previously, I haven't read Hannibal yet, so I can only go by what is presented thus far here, and I wasn't under the impression that the stool pit dream was focussed on overly much beyond him having a dream. If there was some commentary to it being something he remembered, vice just a dream, then that does seem like a ridiculous oversight on Harris' part. MAJOR contradiction. The animal thing, though, just doesn't seem like a very big deal. No other reference to it is made between Red Dragon and Rising, and it was sort of an off hand comment in Dragon. It's worth mentioning in the way it's written, as I fully expected him to kill the swan when it first threatened he and Mischa in Rising, and was slightly surprised at the highly sympathetic light in which hannibal was painted in the book, but I really don't think there's much to this. It IS a contradiciton, that Graham THOUGHT Hannibal was sadistic to animals, and Rising shows no evidence of this, but, cannonically, that just sounds like Graham was wrong. I say keep it in there, I'm just chiming in on the argument itself, which is going a little beyond what is necessary for the sake of the article.

I'm just glad to see the summary written better than it was in the Lecter article, where it essentially implied Lady Murasaki left Hannibal because he ate his sister. 140.185.215.122 17:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)Steve

The animal thing isn't a big deal. I'm actually glad that they ignored Hannibal's torture of animals. However, it IS a change and contradiction from Red Dragon. Saying that "Um, well, since he's both nice and mean to certain people, that must apply the same for his treatment of animals, and that he tortured them during his childhood even though there's no evidence to suggest it otherwise" like AlistairMcMillan did is original research.--CyberGhostface 19:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Hannibal Rising Cover.jpg

Image:Hannibal Rising Cover.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 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 00:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The mask

I haven't read Silence of the Lambs in a while, but I thought that the mask was first introduced in Silence of the Lambs, and that it was a newly discovered use for a modified hockey mask. Someone more familiar topic might want to look into this. dr.alf 12:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, the mask in here is different. Its the lower half of a samurai mask. Obviously its supposed to remind you ofthe famous restraint mask from Silence, but its not the same one--CyberGhostface 13:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC). But for the record I don't recall it being in the book, it was only in the film.

Six fingers

In 'Red Dragon', Hannibal has six fingers on his left hand. This appears to have been omitted in later works. Does anybody have views on this point?--86.44.145.34 (talk) 15:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

It's only omitted in Rising.--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Renaming Page to Hannibal Rising (novel)

Since there is a film version and other books have (novels) Doremon764 (talk) 03:24, 16 April 2023 (UTC)