willgrahamcracker2013:
this has to mean something right?
or maybe im crazy
Both scenes are depicting Will’s death. He died in that kitchen, a part of him was gutted. We saw the stag die there, and Abigail. Hannibal killed the superficial aspect that tied them to each other, and aborted out of Will the lies. Will, prior to Mizumono, was still in denial about himself, “the wrong thing being the right thing to do was too ugly a thought”. Only after he revives from that that he faces the truth, “I wanted to run away with him”. He had to go through a process of rebirth after Mizumono, searching for Hannibal, facing himself, facing Hannibal in order to face himself, and he still decided to shut his true self out. So in Wrath, we see the image mirrored because it is his true death. He’s not alone on the floor now, he’s on the arms of love and truth and acceptance. They’re both death scenes, but one is death of illusion, the other is death of shame. In one he dies alone, by clutching to his illusions. In the other, he dies willingly, clutching to the only truth.
Will being OCD makes so much sense, it's crazy that we never considered it as much as all other mental disorders, thank you for pointing that possibility out!!
The sad truth is that it’s not considered because a lot of thoughts have been normalized, like feeling paranoid that you are bad and will be punished, that god is judging and watching you etc. Religious people think this is not only normal but expected. This is just a pathology. It’s an illness that needs treatment and unfortunately society has normalized this. So we don’t see OCD as more than the person obsessed with cleaning, and that whole stereotype.
Will is not only OCD with morality, but his alcohol addiction is also a part of an OCD behavior. Addiction functions, in certain parts of the cycle, as obsession. Unfortunately that wasn’t as explored on the show, but I think it was clear from the subtext (also I think in the book it’s a lot more obvious).
What is your take on the timeline of Anthony Dimmond? The whole season moves so quickly, I don't have a good sense if *Meet--"Untwist"--Murder* all happen in 2 days or 2 months.
Oh. I never thought about it. I always assumed it was meet (a month or so) then untwist (a few days) then murder. Season three is very weird with time, on purpose. All I know is that a year passed when we see Hannibal in the first episode, according to Bryan. And if I’m not mistaken Will takes 8 months to recover. It’s all very murky.
thedeathofthelamb:
Oh, I’d like to talk about this.
Hannibal’s relationship with consent seems to be driven less by external social norms and more by his internal sense of aesthetics and personal mythos. In the world he has created for himself, “consent” is not tied to moral imperatives. Instead, it’s an aesthetic and relational ideal.
He seems to see desire as something to be cultivated, not demanded or forced outright. In sexual matters, he likely finds coercion to be inelegant, he wants to be wanted, and so he would consider true desire (even if he manipulates it) as the ultimate form of “consent.” For him, sexual violence would be an aesthetic failure because it signifies that he did not succeed in making himself an object of authentic desire.
But, beyond sex his notion of consent is amorphous, maybe even non-existent. He does not value the integrity of another’s will or mind because he sees himself as the ultimate arbiter of meaning. He sees his manipulations not as violations but as acts of creation: he’s sculpting, refining, guiding someone towards their “true” self (at least as he sees it).
And Hannibal’s love for Will is expressed as a desire to break him open and remake him. He believes that Will’s “true self” is waiting to be liberated from social conventions. In his mind, the manipulations and violations he performs on Will, psychological, emotional, physical, are not coercive but revelatory. He doesn’t conceptualize these acts as violations because he does not see Will’s existing self as authentic or complete. Will’s resistance is part of the dance; to Hannibal, it is not “non-consent” but a sign of the layers that must be peeled away.
So sexually consent to him is aesthetic triumph: being desired is the highest expression of his seduction. Psychologically consent is irrelevant because he’s “liberating” the other, not violating them.
In his worldview consent is not a moral necessity but an aesthetic ideal, and violation is only ugly if it is graceless or if it fails to produce beauty or transformation.
This is, of course, entirely from within Hannibal’s own perspective. He lives in a hall of mirrors, where all definitions are recast to reflect his own mythic self-image.
Hi! I saw your reblog on the poll post about Hannibal’s opinions on consent— I wanted to say thanks for putting how I’ve always thought of his view on it into words in such a succinct and elegant way that I’ve never really been able to articulate, lol. The fact that you mentioned that he wants to be wanted in terms of intimacy, romance and sex and disregards consent otherwise as he sees fit is so important to me because it makes sense with his drastic reality of being lonely and feeling hollow while also prioritizing control and not truly connecting with most others. Hannibal and Will both have very complicated relationships with intimacy (ha). He does have human needs, that’s why the show went the way it did at all, he just deals with them in purposefully inhuman and inhumane ways. Non-sexual metaphors of sex in the show are so prevalent! And that makes a lot of sense combined with this view of his view of consent. True union and genuine desire creates vulnerability, there is safety and the mask of aesthetics in only the allusions to it. And for a man whose life is so centered around hunger and the filling of empty spaces, the fact that desire is more potent when it’s not yet satisfied is doubly true. He does like the chase. Hope my epistolatory ask isn’t too much— love your meta!! 🫶
Not too much at all! I love diving into Hannibal’s mind, trying to make sense of what doesn’t make sense in the normal world. We’re always bound to find perspectives that makes us ponder about ourselves, instead of simply judging or being appalled. His elegance is strange and cruel, but boy is it intriguing!
Will’s obsession with Hannibal and his inability to quit him are analogous to the compulsive nature of drug addiction. In this essay I will—
Milk do you think Fuller chose an actress who wasn't attractive on purpose as Molly? Not to shit on Nina, she's objectively not conventionally attractive, but she's also not Will's type (considering Alana whom he was actively trying to get with and according to Dancy was very interested in).
I am pretty sure he chose her because of the dynamic she had with Hugh Dancy on Venus in Furs. But regarding Will and Molly, yes, I think the intention was to show there was no heat/passion there, taking into account that they deleted all of the more intimate interactions between them from the final cut.
Will would never choose, at that point, anything that ignited a flame in him. Molly was mourning and so was Will, that’s why they bonded. That and I suppose lifestyle similarities.
The argument of whether Abigail was a ghost or a projection is limiting. When viewed through a metaphysical lens, we see that time itself is nonlinear everywhere except in material reality. This theme of temporal nonlinearity recurs throughout season three. In the process of dying, what many understand as the afterlife is not a distinct place, but a trance state, a timeless experience induced by chemicals in the brain. Consciousness in this state can encounter their mind’s ideas of heaven, hell, or hauntings.
When a haunting is perceived, it appears to occur after death in the material realm, yet in actuality, it unfolds in the dying moment. Consciousness becomes less tethered to the physical world, magnetizing itself to a place or a person, a point of attachment. A ghost, then, is both an echo of a spirit and a projection of the mind. The astral realm is shaped by the subconscious; a thousand psychics might enter the same haunted house, each encountering something different, yet each experience remains real. In the astral, everything becomes malleable, shaped by the viewer’s perception. They tune into a particular frequency, Abigail, for instance, and in the absence of material evidence, the mind fills in the gaps. So, it is simultaneously a ghost and a projection.
In this episode of having seriously unserious fun psychoanalyzing Will Graham: why was he so eager for Abigail’s validation? Why did he crave to be perceived by her as a protector and traditional father figure?
Will’s yearning to be seen as Abigail Hobbs’ protector isn’t rooted in paternal love or selfless care. It’s an instinct born from his own ceaseless fear, a projection of his inner child, tainted by the suspicion that he himself is bad, monstrous, or corrupted. In Abigail, he recognizes not the girl herself, but a reflection of his own innocence under siege: her vulnerability mirroring his own. She becomes a token, an externalized emblem of the child he still feels he is.
This isn’t an overt or conscious calculation. Rather, it’s an unconscious compulsion. If Abigail chooses him, even for a moment, it suspends Will’s own fear, he feels safe by becoming safety, if only in that fleeting instant. Yet because this drive is ultimately about him, not her, it generates a profound dissonance. Abigail feels it: the disquiet of being seen not as herself, but as a screen for someone else’s need. She senses the forced nature of his attempts, how they skip the slow dance of mutual trust and instead leap straight into an anxious claim of “I’ll keep you safe. I am father.” Like hello who are you sir?
This dynamic poisons their connection before it can begin. Will’s efforts don’t resonate as natural or earned; they feel like an imposition, a strange intensity that can’t be reciprocated. Beneath the surface, she can tell she’s not truly being seen, she’s being used to soothe a fear that doesn’t even belong to her. And so his attempts, though well-meaning on the surface, become hollow performances that fail to bridge the gap between them.
This dynamic of projecting one’s own fear and vulnerability onto another in order to feel powerful or safe extends well beyond Will. It’s a pattern visible in the archetype of the “mama bear,” particularly in women who self-proclaim loudly and repeatedly that they’d do anything to protect their children (in a strange way that isn’t just motherly behavior but an identity signaling, like the “boy mom” phenomenon).
When these declarations come unprompted, boastful claims of “no one touches my kid” or “I’d kill for my child”, they reveal this pattern. They’re not just affirmations of love; they’re a way of masking a personal sense of weakness, fear, or powerlessness. In many cases, this is especially pronounced in women who have been in abusive relationships, single mothers, or who carry a sense of having been made small by their past. The child, then, becomes a token, an innocent, untouchable symbol of the self they couldn’t protect.
The paradox is that this fierce posturing doesn’t truly serve the child; it serves the parent’s need to dissociate from their own fear and claim an identity of strength they otherwise struggle to inhabit. The child becomes a proxy for safety and value: “If I can protect you, I must be strong.”
The child is no longer a child, they’re a totem for someone else’s fight with their own vulnerability.
thedeathofthelamb:
Will’s Empathy Might Something Else.
The capacity to empathize, especially when it shows up as mirroring (which Will does and it’s confirmed on the scripts), can stem from a defense mechanism rooted in the fear of rejection or abandonment. Empathy might not necessarily be about “feeling with” the other in a pure sense, but rather about detecting, and adapting to, and mimicking others in order to remain safe, accepted, or invisible. It’s not conscious, and it’s not manipulative, it’s a form of survival intelligence, hence why in the script he seems to do it mostly (not always) accidentally.
Keep reading
Astonishing that Will Graham was never prescribed anything. I personally would have tried at least some lithium.
slowly returning to this place. If you have suggestions of topics you’d like to see here, let me know please <3
Can I make a request? I would love to hear your take on ER surgeon Hannibal and also as mentor (to Alana perhaps). How do you imagine his co-workers saw him, what he showed of himself to them and etc? Thanks in advance and sorry for bothering :)
All smiles and nods, eyes wrinkling above his mask covered lips as a nurse enters the room. The gentleman, the sweetly intimidating doctor Lecter. They all want him, to be him, to be under his touch, through a scalpel or in bed. His gaze is addictive, his praise is the high. Whoever’s jealous doesn’t have the courage to show, he’s respected as if he were the god of the hospital. The good doctor Lecter, so handsome, so skillful, so interesting, so strange, so kind. Someone notices something, not enough to put him in risk but close enough for comfort, so he seduces them, they fall for it, he collects affairs, broken hearts. He can’t help but seduce, even when he hates the object that is seduced by him, he still cannot bring himself to be anything but seductive. Was probably pleased with Alana, not because she’s inherently interesting or impressive, but because she’s generally attractive, not intelligent in his level but enough to ask interesting questions, and flirtatious. He loves to flirt. Can’t resist it.
1) I am so sorry for using you as a sort of "Hannibal Wikipedia" or something, but I trust your opinion the most for analysis and such.
2) What is your take on Beverly as a character? Do you think her death was unnecessary, and could she have helped Will if Hannibal had kept her alive?
(again sorry and also if that has already been discussed <3)
Like all female characters on the show, Beverly unfortunately doesn’t have much depth, so it’s hard to truly analyze her in the narrative. Because at the end of the day, she served the same purpose as the others: just a device to further male characters.
Her death was technically necessary cause she found out about Hannibal so what else would they do? Of course it made zero sense since no one would do what she did alone. That was completely stupid and contradicts the character as a highly intelligent person.
Could she have helped Will? Depends on what you mean by help. Help him get out of prison and frame Hannibal? Yes, had she called someone to come along or at the VERY least told someone exactly where she was going or left them on the phone while there (so many possibilities 🤦♀️). But helped Will in general? No, only Hannibal was able to do that because he was the only one that saw Will.
Also, thank you so much for your trust in my analysis and you’re never bothering <3
So, based off the show, we know a fair amount about the way Hannibal views his victims. I don't think Will shares his mindset, exactly, but likely has a lot in common with it simply due to how intertwined their behaviors are.
I was curious: How would you say Will views his victims? (In the show's canon and/or post-TWotL).
PS, it's so good to see you around and posting again! :) 🌹
Cool question! I think we see a little bit of that in canon. Will has a righteous type of profile. I wouldn’t say he’s a vigilante but he definitely has some of those qualities. Now, whether that’s only because he feels less guilty targeting the “bad guys” is a whole different story.
I think there’s a reason why Will admired the Ripper in a way, and I believe it’s because they both dislike inelegance. Hannibal certainly has a lower tolerance, but Will seems to despise people who are crude, which to him seems like a type of abrasive behavior that lacks poetry or a sense of purpose that goes beyond the mundane.
If he followed his instincts he’d probably kill everyone hahaha! But I think if he was to choose, then he’d see his victims as unworthy of existence, as polluting reality in some way.
Hello milk, not sure if you answer this but I'm curious what kind of therapy does Hannibal use in his session? Same with Bedilia and Alana. Hope you understand what I'm saying :)
You mean their approach? There is a post here about that, yes, but only on Hannibal. I believe we came to the conclusion that Hannibal doesn’t use any specific approach, neither does he fall into a therapist category, and more so of a philosopher, that uses some of Jung’s framework.
Though I’d add Antonin Artaud (theater of cruelty), and a “perverse” reading of Lacan (desire as truth).
Bedelia goes for Lacan (language as the unconscious), Riviere (masking, identity), and Foucault (power disguised as care).
Alana has a more humanist psychology framework. But her arc shows how even the most “principled” frameworks collapse under proximity to chaos. Her psychology becomes political.
Why do you think Chiyoh pushed Will off the train? And why didn't she kill him when she shot him, if her goal was to protect Hannibal?
I don’t believe her goal was to protect Hannibal. If that was it, she would’ve done something more efficient to stop Will from going to him. She also didn’t do much when he got caught in the Verger’s estate, aside from helping when he already had helped himself. She’s more of like a hawk. Offers some help, but she won’t save your life.
When she pushed him off the train, she kissed him and told him there were other means of influence, but that he’d only understand violence. She used the kiss to distract him, showing just how blind Will can be when offered affection, how he trusts too much, lets his guard down, then pushed him to prove her point. Ultimately I believe she was trying to make his journey to Hannibal harder, so that he could see for himself if he truly wanted to move forward or not.
When she shot him, I think she was doing the same, but also for Hannibal. Trying to show the exact same thing: that he lets his guard down when offered affection, and that he shouldn’t.
I think her line is so important, tbh. I think it actually defines the entire show. You could influence through love, but some people will only understand violence. You can only get through them through violence. They’re so deprived of love that they cannot recognize it unless it is entangled with violence.
