8 Comments

“Even when it looks like I’m losing, I secretly have the upper hand at all times, due to my Interiority”

Oh thanks a LOT for calling me out :)

Expand full comment

Okay I gotta say that as a trans lady I am *fascinated* by your analyses of the Hannibal-Will dynamic through a transmasculine lens. Because, tbh, though I've long been aware of the show's popularity among transmasculine folks (as evidenced by the bulk of works under the trans!Will tag on AO3), I have never gotten the "why." For my part, the most obvious queer reading of Bryan Fuller's Hannibal is as a forced-feminization story for people too dignified to admit to being into that kind of thing. And as a result, it's been nebulously confined to my guilty pleasure box, and has been a source of some angst, the kind which must needs be associated with enjoying a narrative with problematic! underpinnings.

Like, here we have a nominally cis, heterosexual man who is nevertheless smol and woman-sized, who is good at FEELINGS and who is constantly shown up by Hannibal's LARGENESS, his sheer Scandinavian bulk, etc and who is like, symbolically fucked by Hanni in every way it is possible to symbolically fuck someone? Put another way, Hannibal is the story of a classic European ubermensch (suave, cosmopolitan renaissance man) who meets a fey, twitchy, effete "man" who is full of piss and vinegar and staggering levels of potential fuckability and that man is like, (to Will:) I will now make u my wife. And then the show is the long, slow process of Will being stripped of the meager trappings of his masculinity, With Will kicking and screaming every step of the way. In short, Hannibal is a classic heterosexual romance in which a man comes along and asserts his will/desires onto an initially-resistant female love interest who later caves to the pressure and accepts her fate, but one where the woman is played by a man who is forcibly made into a bride and where lovemaking is replaced with murder.

Which, unfortunately, feels kind of morally bad? Like, I don't want to love a show that's about a woman-by-proxy's agency being torn from her piece-by-piece by a dude who is able to do so in part because he possesses the exact same traditionally masculine traits the hero lacks: great physical strength, a willingness to commit brutal acts of violence without remorse, etc, etc. And then there's the whole isn't-it-kinda-gross-to-metaphorically-associate-being-gay-with-doing-a-murder thing!

And yet, your reading of Hannibal as, in fact, a depiction of t4t energy pulls me in like a fruit fly to a glass of honey. I want to believe; I really do-- especially as an angular transsexual of Northern European descent with a penchant for both purple prose AND overly elaborate meals cooked for myself. And yet-- And yet--

Look, I'm willing to take a risk and open up my heart once more. Just so long as no one stabs it with a linoleum knife.

P.S. If you're right about this than we have no choice to include Cate Blanchett's Carol (and Rooney Mara's Therese) as an iteration of the exact same energy. In fact, there is without doubt (and I feel this in my bones) a Hannibal Lector-- Carol Aird continuum, although what I must do with this information I know not yet.

Expand full comment

" In short, Hannibal is a classic heterosexual romance in which a man comes along and asserts his will/desires onto an initially-resistant female love interest"

but! but! the reason I enjoy the Jane Eyre parallels so much is because Jane Eyre is a classic heterosexual romance in which a small unassuming woman comes along and dominates a large cruel & ridiculous man right down into the ground! this sets the paradigm for all the classic heterosexual romances to follow (of which I maintain there have been several. three or four, at least.) His eye offends her so she plucks it out, and then, only then, will she have him: only when he is beaten burned down & remade in an image she finds acceptable. he is hard but brittle & must be broken; whereas she is unbreakable by all but death.

Hannibal-the-show, so emotionally similar in many ways, has a little more latitude with who is in charge. because of the heterosexual landscape of JE, in JE it MUST be Jane who dominates, Rochester cannot be permitted to hold the reins, he simply cannot be trusted with them. they are little more locked into the roles; they can't help but be; Jane might like to take her foot off his neck but she can't allow herself the pleasure. but Hannibal never promises you Will's victory too far in advance; it makes you wait and wait and wait unbearably for the tables to be turned. but they are turned, in the end. What you say about the forcible-bride-taking is true--aside from any masculinity-stripping aspect to Will's torments, which I don't see--true right up until the turning of the seasons (2 to 3) and then it is not true at all anymore, it is in retrospect just the agonizingly slow climb up to the height of the roller coaster before the drop & the screaming. I grant that it is agonizing to get there & that not everyone will think the reward worth it. but I think the agony makes the reward sweeter.

both Will and Jane are profound spiritual masochists, and the other kind of masochist as well. but that is not to say they are submissive in the least degree. they are both bullied from all sides, unfairly and repeatedly; bullied, not dominated. but they don't forgive it, they hold grudges well, and they do prevail.

Expand full comment

Hannibal, to the tune of That Which Shall Not Be Named:

Hannibal: You're a sadist, William.

William: I'm a wot

Expand full comment

Oh, this is great! I always tend to think of my transmasculine 'readings' of anything as at least half projection, rather than the way things are, if that makes sense; I think Hannibal's fussiness and emotional withholding has big Mean Mommy energy in the best possible sense, but I also see his Monstrous Rochester Husband side too.

For whatever it's worth, I don't worry about enjoying a show full of murderers; I don't look for moral guidance in fiction, which is part of why I've never really understood arguments about this-or-that fictional romance as being either 'bad' or 'good.' Which is not to say that you should simply ignore discomfort or resistance as a viewer, or that a t4t analysis needs to be redemptive in order to be interesting or pleasurable, either. I'm in FULL agreement with a line of continuity between Carol and Hannibal, and Will and Therese -- one can so easily imagine Hannibal saying "We're not ugly people, Jack."

Expand full comment

Reading this triggered a cascade of memories of SHEETS and VOLUMES written by myself and others about Hannibal and Will in the last 7 years (yikes tempus sure does fugit) on tumblr, so for the sake of spoiling this virgin discourse STAY OFF TUMBLR. bc so much of all *gestures* this is going to get SOoOOOOoooo much clearer as the seasons progress from "Are we a procedural? I think we are" season 1 to "*David Lynch locks the door of the premises behind himself shutting out all logic forever*" season 2 to "TURN UP THE QUEER OPERA TO 11" season 3

Expand full comment

I'm almost certain that this analysis is so perfect as to be sacred, and that a shrine must be built around it.

Expand full comment

Thinking of what I can contribute without spoiling anything... look out for water - sweat, rain, blood, river - Will's element; and fire, Hannibal's element. They will establish their screen presence more and more from episode to episode.

Expand full comment