being a little puritan and shaming shit on the HANNIBAL fandom is quite the audacity, I gotta say. I mean the goddamn source material is dark af. There’s incest there. There’s fucking murder, cannibalism, but GOD FORBID fans explore that as well—oh go fuck yourself, sincerely
Shaming, particularly in the realm of kink or sexuality, is rarely about the object of shame. It is, more often, an act of projection. The individual doing the shaming encounters in another person a quality or expression they have learned to repress within themselves. Rather than confronting this internal conflict, they externalize it. They attempt to regulate their inner world by exerting control over the outer one, by silencing, mocking, or moralizing against the behavior that stirs their own disowned desires.
In psychological terms, this is a mechanism of defense. The shamer projects the unacceptable part of their own psyche onto someone else, and then punishes that person in an effort to distance themselves from the uncomfortable truth. This is not limited to kink; it appears wherever liberation confronts repression. The one who shames is often not disturbed by the act itself, but by the fact that someone else has given themselves permission to express something they themselves have buried. It is an affront not to decency, but to the fragile walls of their own self-containment.
In this dynamic, control becomes the strategy. If the other can be silenced, ridiculed, or coerced into shame, then the shamer does not have to witness the mirror. But what they attack is precisely what they have not integrated. The energy they direct outward is a symptom of an internal split, an unresolved tension between desire and identity. And so, shaming reveals more about the inner state of the shamer than it does about the one being shamed. It is not a statement of morality, but of psychic fragmentation.
Where one is whole, there is no need to shame.
When did hannibal lecter get a tumblr acccount
gonna take as…a compliment?
It does seem very strange that people who supposedly love the neo-gothic murder show would reject fictitious portrayals or meta-discussions of things that are shocking.
Because of the limitations of network TV, the creators of Hannibal worked in visual and narrative metaphor. Yes, the ortolan eating was a mutual blowjob, a vanilla sex act. Why wouldn’t there be metaphorical portrayals of things that are far more forbidden?
I think we can acknowledge that Garrett Jacob Hobbs was sublimating the incest taboo by killing and eating girls who looked like the daughter he was pathologically attached to. Look at how defensive Will becomes when Jack asks about why the dead girls weren’t sexually violated – he knows what’s up.
Hannibal ate his sister because it was the only way to possess her after death. That level of transgressive attachment would have found some other outlet had she survived. We see that plainly in the conclusion of the novel, Hannibal, when Clarice becomes his sister/lover.
I’m not saying these metaphors on the show are merely a censored substitute for the literal transgressions, but they evoke them.
On the topic of rape, what on earth do we think that Hannibal was doing when he forced a tube down Will’s throat, or when he stabbed him, or when he drugged him and cut him open in Dolce? One body-envelope violation stands in for another.
Let’s acknowledge that Mason Verger is a foil for Hannibal, because what he does and wants to do is vulgar, not refined. Both are utterly amoral creatures with money and power. Nothing is beyond them.
I’m just really perplexed by fans who can’t deal with this stuff.
Finally someone had the nerve to talk about Mason and Hannibal.
Mason served as a poor pissed juxtaposition. Simply because he was disgusting in a way that wasn’t refined.
Also, the whole “candy/chocolate” thing is crazy because I’ve seen many people not realize what it meant. So how can someone argue about the show’s metaphors when they didn’t even had the either nerves or permission to say “he is a rapist, a pedophile” straight up?
The problem with nbc Hannibal is that it is so insanely indirect and riddled with metaphor that a lot of people who lack media literacy cannot understand anything the show was trying to say, and they judge those who try to. But honestly it is a bit tiring just how indirect it is with certain things and not indirect with others that benefit a commercialized agenda. Re: lesbian sex between attractive women but not gay sex; useless heterosexual explicit romantic links, but no gay explicit romantic links even though that’s the undercurrent of the show.