Well, *if * there had ever been such a book, it would probably be because the characters behave in ways that are completely implausible and just flat out wrong, given what we have read about them up to this point.
The book does exist.
It was written by the same Thomas Harris who wrote The Silence of the Lambs.
And the ending, uh, rocks.
Silly people.
IF there had ever been such a book. Which, of course, there isn’t.
Many years ago I read an essay in an anthology from TREK magazine which talked about “characterization rape”–Some fan writer writes a story in which Captain Kirk falls in love with Ensign Jones and the Captain retires and they live happily ever after, when of course the “real” Kirk, however many old flames and alien babes of the week he might have, always had as his first love his ship, which he would never give up for anybody. The idea behind the phrase is an author who takes a character–usually someone else’s character, of course–and makes him or her behave in ways that that character, as already established, would never do.
So, I think Thomas Harris committed “characterization rape” against his own characters. Particularly Clarice Starling of course, but in a weird way against Hannibal Lecter too. Hannibal Lecter goes from being this educated, refined, terrifyingly intelligent, yet utterly monstrous, cold-blooded, and essentially Satanic figure of pure evil, to being this guy who just wants to enjoy the finer things of life and natter on about history and culture and only eats bad people and is kind to little children and just wants to be wuvved. And as for Clarice Starling–the smart, strong, competent, brave FBI agent–well, good Lord.
“Then Hannabal Lecter said ‘------ you you ------ FBI agent, I will kill you you ------!’ And the FBI agent stabbed him with a knife but Hanibal Lecter just laughed and said ‘You are realy in for it now you -----’ and then he bit him so his teeth met in the flesh, for he was fighting for his very life now, and the FBI agent said ‘----- you, you ----- sereal killer Hannibbal Lecter, I am going to kill you now, you ------’.”
All due respect, ME, this is the kind of possessive fan-admiration of a work that must drive authors up a tree. *People * undergo changes every day, modifying behaviors, their outlooks on life-- but it’s unacceptable for *characters * to?
Plus I think you exaggerate Lecter’s “metamorphosis.” All the sequel did was put him a slightly more human light, by virtue of the fact that he was now essentially a protagonist. But he was still a feckin nut job.
Wow.
No wonder you’re a Mod.
Next time someone calls you a dukey butt, I’ll tell 'em, “No, not completely.” 
I couldn’t find the part in Penrod’s literary effort where his protagonist and antagonist switch places.
Perhaps it’s in Penrod and Sam?
Having read Hannibal, I agree that Lecter is never portrayed as heroic, just slightly less monstrous. Yeah, Thomas Harris was just milking his earlier work for a few more bucks, but please, don’t surrender your credibility by pretending that Hannibal was on the same level of badness as Highlander 2. (If you haven’t seen Highlander 2, you can’t possibly imagine just how low the production values were, or how huge a departure it was from the original movie. It really is stunningly bad.)
I disagree completely with this.
What, do you want to read book after book with the exact same theme? They both underwent personality changes because of having met one another. They always had a weird love thing going on, even when she was vowing to catch him early on. He clearly had a thing for her from the moment he met her and she grew attracted to him as a father figure.
He had nothing to lose in prison, so why not be the crazy killing machine he was? Outside of prison, he has every reason now to live a better, more normal life with Clarice, which is what he wanted all along. He’s a crazy sick bastard, but people marry serial killers in prison IRL. Not at all unheard of. It’s a crazy damned world.
I think you’re going too far the other way.
One of the FBI guys Harris studied about profiling serial killers did some sort of study about killers who “turned” women to help them. I think Harris was exploring this theme, just as he explored the profiling aspect in Red Dragon.
I too was initially annoyed at the characted change, but he wrote the book. If I could do better, I’d be published.
A Tale of Two Cities is a great book, even if I think the Scarlet Pimpernel should swing in on a rope one the last page and save whats-his-name.
(Note: MEBuckner will be ablt to identify this literary reference, too)
I don’t thing he did it just to make money; he wouldn’t spend years researching and writing them, but churn them out like Stephen King if that were the case.
Sidney Carton.
I’ve always thought it would make much more sense, and be much more dark and interesting, for Lecter and Will Graham to run off together, but I guess he had to re-write it. 
How was Clarice Starling out of character in Hannibal? The whole point was Lector broke into her mind and soul like a safecracker. Kept her on psychotropic drugs for weeks, took on her dead father’s identity in her mind, and literally served up her most hated enemy on a plate. It’s called brainwashing, and if you think someone who has total control over you for weeks, months and years can’t f*** your skull, guess again.
This is a good point, and often overlooked. I think part of the problem is that the ending is so sudden and strange - the offending passages in question only take up a few pages at the end, if I recall correctly (Hannibal is the only Harris novel I have not read more than once).
My comment about Will Graham, the questionably-empathetic profiler whose face Lecter carved up, wasn’t entirely just a slash fanfiction joke. The whole book felt more like Graham than Starling, and even before the end I thought perhaps it was a “trunk” book and Harris changed the characters and tacked on the end because Starling was so popular, movie-wise.
Or an Apache helicopter.
Hannibal’s theme was consistant with that of **Red Dragon ** and Silence of the Lambs. All three dealt with a metamorphosis “midwifed” by Lecter. Dolarhyde was transforming into The Red Dragon. Jame Gumb was transforming into a woman (or trying to). Hannibal’s part in their metamorphoses was greatly limited by his being imprisoned at the time. In the third novel, Clarice is the one who transforms into her true or higher self. She does so with Hannibal’s direct help and guidance. Imprisonment aside, Hannibal didn’t aid Dolarhyde or Gumb as he did Clarice because he didn’t have an fascination with either of them as he clearly did with Clarice.
There was nothing in Hannibal that didn’t follow from what we had already seen. If Lecter behaved differently when free than he did while imprisoned, why should that be a surprise? Real people behave differently in prison than they do when free. If Clarice is a different person, then that should raise no eyebrows either. In Silence she is young, idealistic, and has what looks like a brilliant FBI career ahead of her. At the time of Hannibal, she is older, more cynical, and quite bitter at having had her career systematically sabotaged every step of the way.
Good points, Scumpup.
I felt that if Lecter had managed to meet Dolarhyde “Avid Fan”, he would have killed him and devoured some part of him with a saucy little Cianti. I think it was Crawford who said each of them wanted to kill the other.
Bearing out your idea of Starling’s metamorphosis is the death of Crawford; her mentor was replaced by Lecter.