Thomas Harris

[Dennis K]

A few days ago I checked out a copy of Hannibal from my local public library. I was motivated to do so after watching The Silence of the Lambs on AMC and Red Dragon on USA. Both of these movies are excellent (I had seen Lambs before, but it had been awhile) so I thought the next installment of the "Hannibal Lecter" trilogy would be a good read. Boy, was I ever wrong. If a book ever deserved to be called turgid, it's this one. Now I know this book is far from new, so you'll have to forgive me if I'm late to the party. I seem to recall a story when this book was originally released that part of the agreement that Harris had with his publisher, is that his books not be edited. Can this be true? Were his previous efforts so good that they would agree to let Harris dictate what gets published and what doesn't? Is Hannibal an aberration and everything else he has written really good, or are his previous works as bad and his publisher just saw the dollar signs connected to America's seeming love of the cannibalistic Lecter?

[Shem the Penman]

I liked Red Dragon a lot. Never read Silence or Hannibal.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

I found the start and the ending intresting.
The movie would have done better if it stuck to the ending.

But go read Red Dragon.
you'll see why an editor might say that.
Especially if you consider there weren't any books in that style around before it.

[Doodle Bob]

Is Hannibal an aberration and everything else he has written really good, or are his previous works as bad and his publisher just saw the dollar signs connected to America's seeming love of the cannibalistic Lecter?

Well, if you've read Hannibal, then you've read exactly a quarter of his complete works. Besides the "hannibal trilogy", he's only written one other book: Black Sunday.

Red Dragon and Silence of the Lambs are both very good reads (for thrillers). The movie Red Dragon -- which I found amusing the first time, but uncompromisingly dull the second -- follows the text very closely. But the more I think about it, the more I think that Ed Norton was really too much of a normal guy to play Will very well -- after all, this is someone that we're supposed to believe is only two steps away from being a psychopath himself.

[Karl J. Barnes]

Red Dragon and Silence of the Lambs are both very good reads (for thrillers). The movie Red Dragon -- which I found amusing the first time, but uncompromisingly dull the second -- follows the text very closely. But the more I think about it, the more I think that Ed Norton was really too much of a normal guy to play Will very well -- after all, this is someone that we're supposed to believe is only two steps away from being a psychopath himself.

Yeah, I felt Willaim Peterson has fine as Will in Manhunter. I just found Manhunter too Hollywood-ized.

[WSLer]

I seem to recall a story when this book was originally released that part of the agreement that Harris had with his publisher, is that his books not be edited. Can this be true? Were his previous efforts so good that they would agree to let Harris dictate what gets published and what doesn't?


You asked, "Can this be true?"

Sure, it can be true.

And if we were talking about Tom Clancy, then it would be true.

But we're not.

We're talking about Thomas Harris.

To shorten things up, it's complete moldy batshit.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

I'd say it's true.

Harris has brung in the dough, and critical acclaim for every book.

Except maybe this one.

didn't some one in the controverisal thread say he got damn near every comma of Silence where he wanted it?

[WSLer]

I'd say it's true.

Harris has brung in the dough, and critical acclaim for every book.

Except maybe this one.

didn't some one in the controverisal thread say he got damn near every comma of Silence where he wanted it?

No, it isn't true, at least in regards to Harris.

In fact, the only writer that is known both inside and outside the literary world for refusing to have/use and editor is Tom Clancy, as I mentioned in my previous post. One only needs to look at the semi-obscene length of his books to semi-figure that out.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

No, it isn't true, at least in regards to Harris.

In fact, the only writer that is known both inside and outside the literary world for refusing to have/use and editor is Tom Clancy, as I mentioned in my previous post. One only needs to look at the semi-obscene length of his books to semi-figure that out.

Do you know for fact it's not true, or just an assumption?

Curious is all.

[sheets]

A few days ago I checked out a copy of Hannibal from my local public library. I was motivated to do so after watching The Silence of the Lambs on AMC and Red Dragon on USA. Both of these movies are excellent (I had seen Lambs before, but it had been awhile) so I thought the next installment of the "Hannibal Lecter" trilogy would be a good read. Boy, was I ever wrong. If a book ever deserved to be called turgid, it's this one. Now I know this book is far from new, so you'll have to forgive me if I'm late to the party. I seem to recall a story when this book was originally released that part of the agreement that Harris had with his publisher, is that his books not be edited. Can this be true? Were his previous efforts so good that they would agree to let Harris dictate what gets published and what doesn't? Is Hannibal an aberration and everything else he has written really good, or are his previous works as bad and his publisher just saw the dollar signs connected to America's seeming love of the cannibalistic Lecter?

I've read that the reason Hannibal is bad isn't because of whether it was edited or not. He basically hacked it out deliberately as a "screw you" to all the people he felt were pestering him to write a Hannibal Lecter sequel. He knew it was going to sell huge no matter what so he put very little effort into it, except maybe the effort to make it offensive :)

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

I've read that the reason Hannibal is bad isn't because of whether it was edited or not. He basically hacked it out deliberately as a "screw you" to all the people he felt were pestering him to write a Hannibal Lecter sequel. He knew it was going to sell huge no matter what so he put very little effort into it, except maybe the effort to make it offensive :)

I disagree.

He put as much effort into it, but he didn't write the sort of story everybody wanted.
And how could he?
The others were very "realistic" (they at least felt it) police procedurals and character studies.
This one was about a Cannibal on the loose, who quite frankly couldn't lose.
People wanted to see hannibal eat people, and loved the anthony hopkins character in the cell.
So Harris let him loose, and instead of talking the talk, he made Hannibal walk the walk and it was disgusting and cruel.
He gave the people what they said they wanted.

I applaud the effort and didn't mind the book.

(he even threw in a Tarrantino style ironic use of music in the opening gun fight. I saw it as him holding the mirror up to the people who want a book about a cannibal winning.)

[DonC]

It wouldn't surprise me if it was true. Some authors are big enough draws that they can basically dictate what is and isn't in their books. Harris would be one of them. It's different, I'm sure, but Clive Cussler never does more than 2 drafts of his novels.

[WSLer]

Do you know for fact it's not true, or just an assumption?

Curious is all.


It's been talked about inside the literary world for over 10 years, and one of his secretarys who quit because of his "improper behavior and attitude" towards her has also verified it.

Apparently ever since they somehow got former president Reagan to write a back cover "blurb" for The Hunt For Red October, Clancy has thought he was the greatest thing shit hot greasy shit on rye toast, and along about his 4th book, basically told his editor to fuck themself.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

It's been talked about inside the literary world for over 10 years, and one of his secretarys who quit because of his "improper behavior and attitude" towards her has also verified it.

Apparently ever since they somehow got former president Reagan to write a back cover "blurb" for The Hunt For Red October, Clancy has thought he was the greatest thing shit hot greasy shit on rye toast, and along about his 4th book, basically told his editor to fuck themself.

Sorry, I meant in regards to Harris - I think there's a chance that he wouldn't have an editor ( or think he needs one) due to the amount of time he takes on his novels etc.

Just wondering if you knew for sure that he didn't have one....

And do authors have to listen to their editor?

[WSLer]

Sorry, I meant in regards to Harris - I think there's a chance that he wouldn't have an editor ( or think he needs one) due to the amount of time he takes on his novels etc.

Just wondering if you knew for sure that he didn't have one....

And do authors have to listen to their editor?

My bad.

No, I think Harris has an editor, but I think a lot of people have a horribly wrong idea about exactly what an editor on a book does, ie an author ala Stephen King, thomas Harris, etc.

The author of the book should actually be considered the editor, as they are the one who actually write the damn thing, including all drafts. And the editors at the major publishing companies usually work with more then one author at a time.

Do authors have to listen to their editors?

That's a seriously vague question.

Do they have to listen to their editors in regards to what?

Content?

No.

Plot?

No.

Length?

yeah, sorta.

An editor at a major publishing company isn't going to stand over an author and peer over their shoulder as the author types away on the computer.