Rubric: "In this essay I will ..."
So I was scrolling Reddit reading some discussions about “Hannibal” and characters in general, and I was flagger bashed by the comments about Clarice.
“If you enjoy the powerful portrayal of Starling, then I strongly recommend you stay away from the sequel, "Hannibal". The ending in particular goes so much against Starling's character, and is so far out of line with the way she's been portrayed, that you will be horribly disappointed.”
Well, where to start. First of all, I don’t really have anything against the commentator, plus I actually think we share one vision in common. Clarice really changes in the “ Hannibal”, but I think that it is fair to point out that It's been seven years since the previous book, “TSOTL”.
We as humans are constantly changing and not standing still; it's only natural that Clarice is no longer the familiar character from the last book. She grows as she should ? 😅
Second thing that confuses me is the remark about Starling not being “powerful” anymore.
My question is, what is powerful?
It seems that everyone already has an idea of how her life should have turned out, and when their expectations do not coincide with reality it is a reason to say that there is something wrong with her, that she has become a weakling.
If we follow this author's logical chain, then if Clarice had stayed in the FBI and not run off with Hannibal, she would have stayed strong that way.
I honestly don't see the point of it. It seems to me that in this way she would only please others, including some readers, but certainly not herself.
For me she is a deep character, with her problems and feelings and I can find logic in her actions, but all in order:
Generally at the end of Silence of the Lambs I think the future looked promising. Clarice caught and neutralised Buffalo Bill while still at the academy and saved the Senator's daughter! What an incredible career awaits her?!
But in the next book, we're faced with reality. It's been seven years, but Clarice still hasn't joined Crawford's department. If my memory serves me correctly, in the first book he himself said that usually before joining his department, there should be about seven years of practice. But given the fact that Starling solved a problem that no one else in his team could, there's got to be some sort of grace, right?
In fact there was no grace at all.
We see that no one really appreciates Clarice, quite the opposite.
And I'm not even talking about Krendler now, and how easy it was to set her up and how no one but Jack tried to do anything about it.
At the very beginning of the third book,during the operation when she kills five people and Evelda Drumgo, who apparently first pointed a gun at her, everyone was well aware of the circumstances, that the principle of "you or them" applies. But Clarice was still a scapegoat, despite her reputation and her loyalty to the FBI. I realise it was all in the papers, but I don't believe anything could have been done. But it has shown one more time how undervalued she was.
Also, I'm of the opinion that for her, her work was a cage. It wasn't some sort of vocation or soul work. We all know (as does Starling herself at the end of the book) that Clarice did it all to make her father proud, and to silence the lambs, of course.
So given all of the above, I want to summarise that for me the outcome of the book was not the destruction of Starling's character, quite the opposite.
I believe it was a release from a burden she had been carrying for too long. It gave her a chance to start living, for herself.
P.s and I don't think I need to remind you the way Hannibal treats our special agent.)
Write your opinions in the comments if you have any!<3
Also,I want to thank anyone who responded to my previous post, I don’t I would write this one,if it weren’t for you❤️🔥
