Many a time, while reading Harris’s novels, one finds that words such as socio-path, monster, murderer, cannibal, the other, and even the devil, could be used in order to describe Lecter. The main characters of the books and films often argue who Lecter is and what to call him. One may be aware that he is a cruel serial killer and a cannibal, but what his motives are and what hides in this criminal mind is a mystery without an easy answer. This is how Will Graham describes Hannibal in Red Dragon:
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 [...]. [The psychologists] say he’s a sociopath, because they don’t know what else to 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 (Harris 2009: 63–64).
In Hannibal we read:
His ego, like his intelligence quota, and the degree of his rationality, is not meas-urable by conventional means. In fact, there is no consensus in the psychiatric community that Dr Lecter should be termed a man. He has long been regarded by his professional peers in psychiatry [...] as something entirely other. For convenience they term him “monster” (Harris 2009: 157).
As far as nomenclature is concerned, it is difficult to choose one particular word that could classify Lecter, as his monstrosity seems to be overshadowed by the aesthetic traits of his character. However, even without aestheticization, Hannibal Lecter would be an intriguing character. Karen Halttunen claims that it was already in the nineteenth-century when readers took great interest in descriptions of violent assaults, which evoked both repugnance and fascination (2001: 78–79). Mark Seltzer calls this phenomenon a “wound culture” (1998: 1).
On this account, if Lecter were devoid of his aesthetic traits, he would still be appealing, but also appalling. Trauma, shock and the wound are the ingredients that create a “wound culture,” and Lecter provides us with all of the above.
However, due to aestheticization the readers and viewers not only derive pleasure from a “bloody spectacle” (Halttunen 2001: 83), but they also appreciate deeper levels of engagement with the character.
It is undisputable that Hannibal Lecter is a monstrous serial killer and a sav-age cannibal. Notwithstanding these gory personality traits, Lecter is a character whose alluring power seduces the readers and viewers. John Goodrich writes:
“Despite his most obvious and terrifying features, Dr. Lecter’s character is pro-foundly mysterious. Although his disturbing personality traits – he is a killer and a cannibal – stand out, they are not the heart of the character” (2008: 38).
Lecter is aestheticized in many ways both in the novels and in the films. He is presented as an aesthete, a highly intelligent and eloquent scholar, connoisseur of art, music and cuisine as well as a person with an exquisite sense of humor and, paradoxically, a murderer with a moral code, someone who prefers to “eat the rude” (Harris, Hannibal 2009: 102).
Hannibal Lecter is a highly intelligent person. He is a polyglot speaking fluently in an old Tuscan dialect and reciting Dante Alighieri from memory.
He is also a polymath; he mastered many subjects apart from medicine, such as advanced physics, and in Hannibal we read that not many mathematicians could follow his calculations (Harris 2009: 508). Additionally, Lecter “transcended the limits of the human mind” (Oleson 2006: 33) by creating a memory palace with a thousand rooms (Harris, Hannibal 2009: 295). His sense of smell is impeccable and synesthetic. He has a vast knowledge about wine and cuisine and “appreci-ates the finer things in life” (Messent 2000: 26). During his stay in Florence, he changes his name to Dr. Fell and becomes the curator of the Palazzo Capponi by killing a former one. However, “he has killed hardly anybody, except his pre-decessor, during his residence in Florence” (Harris, Hannibal 2009: 156), since he found peace there and “feels resonance with the palace” (Harris, Hannibal 2009: 157). In his article “Consuming Homicidal Art,” John McAteer writes that even though Harris created many homicidal artists, such as Tooth Fairy (Red Dragon) and Buffalo Bill (The Silence of the Lambs), it is Hannibal Lecter who is unique and may be perceived as a classic “aesthete” (2016: 101).
James Oleson names Hannibal Lecter a “socially competent” killer (2005:
194), since, for a killer, he is exceptionally developed when it comes to social, emotional, cognitive and behavioural skills. Concerning his relations with other people, Lecter is always, apart from his killing phases, a charming gentleman.
Mrs Rosencranz, his acquaintance from the board of the Philharmonic, describes
Lecter as “an extraordinarily charming man, absolutely singular” (Harris, Han-nibal 2009: 352). During his conversation with Special Agent Clarice Starling, Lecter admits that “discourtesy is unspeakably ugly” to him (Harris, The Silence���
2009: 28). Even Barney, his warden at Baltimore State Hospital for the Criminally Insane, says that “Dr. Lecter had perfect manners, not stiff, but easy and elegant”
(Harris, Hannibal 2009: 102).
Lecter’s vast knowledge and social competence are not the only elements of his character that draw us to him. Above all, Lecter is a brilliant musician; he plays Bach’s Goldberg Variations without sheet music and plays it “not perfectly, but exceedingly well, with an engaging understanding of the music” (Harris, Hannibal 2009: 154). He is particularly keen to any sounds that are out of tune.
Messent writes: “Two forms of his taste, one admirable (cultured) and the other (for human flesh) abominable, meet when the ‘infuriately inept’ viola player in the Florence Orchestra goes ‘oddly missing,’ to be savoured, we can assume, at least in part, by Lecter in the form of edible delicacy” (2000: 26).
Music, especially Bach’s Goldberg Variations, is often used to aestheticize the portrayal of Lecter. The goriest scene from Demme’s The Silence of the Lambs is aestheticized by diegetic music, precisely Goldberg Variations. Not only is the music an element that presents the act of killing like a piece of art rather than carnage, but also Lecter’s reaction to the music, the way, in which he enjoys it by closing his eyes, focusing on particular sounds and conducting an invisible orchestra, evokes an aesthetic response to his demeanor. Cenciarelli observes:
Lecter is radically split, lost in contemplation of the artwork, seemingly forgetful of the carnage he has created. The camera places much attention on the elegant weaving of Lecter’s hand, which [...] adds a theatrical touch to his musical engagement. [...] The aftermath uses a number of typical devices to represent the intensity of Lecter’s act of listening: the long take, the slow movement of the camera, the gradual enlargement of the field of vision (2012: 121).
The viewers see Lecter covered in blood, which looks as if it was paint. At first, the spectators do not see the result of the murder; throughout the murder scene they can only see Lecter – during the “killing” or “painting.” This technique helps to draw the viewers’ attention not to the victims, but, instead, to the mur-derer – the artist. The artist who specializes not in creation, but in destruction (Black 1991: 14). Both the readers and the viewers can easily notice that Lecter is
particularly interested in music and appreciates its beauty. Therefore, one’s per-ception of the protagonist is, by all means, influenced by Lecter’s love for music.