Hannibal Lecter, the genius monster from Thomas Harris's The Silence of the Lambs has fascinated millions of readers and film viewers.

Do you think Anton Chirgurgh has the same power of attraction?

If you remember the reviewer who wrote "America sure loves its mass murderers" , can we compare the fascination the two killers may have on readers?





http://www.amazon.com/Silence-Lambs-Thomas-Harris/dp/B0006HQIR6/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1207384154&sr=1-1

My thoughts may be influenced by having seen both characters in the movie versions however I was really curious about Anton Chigurh's need to involve fate (the coin toss) and his seeming unwillingness to watch the victims die.

Hannibal Lecter on the other hand seems pretty gleeful and present during the process, somehow.

Anton Chigurh doesn't have the egoic charisma of Hannibal Lecter and in some way as powerful as he is, seems like a victim himself. Anton is a more mythical character to me somehow.
jcd

Hello jcd,

Thanks for your input.



I haven't seen the film, but it is of interest to us of course.

Fate is definitely something we need to discuss, I hope somebody will take the bait.

In the novel, Chigurh is not mentioned as unwilling to watch his victims die, he just seems to be totally unfeeling.

I agree that "gleeful" would characterize Lecter when committing a crime, whereas Chigurh remains impassive.

Now your idea about Lecter's charisma... Does he fascinate us more than Chigurh?

Or let's put it this way: Do you remember a French villain called Landru who killed many women after World War I (and was immortalized by Charlie Chaplin in "Monsieur Verdoux")?
When Landru was put behind bars, his adoring female fans went on writing love letters to him (this is fact, not Chaplin).

So my question is: if this was real life, would adoring fascinated women write to Lecter in jail? Would they write to Chigurh?
And why be sexist: would men write?


And about Anton Chigurh being a mythical character for you, can you explain?


And now, jcd: welcome to Booktalk!



Would you like to write an introduction to tell us a little about yourself, in the "Introduce yourself" threads?

Hi Ophelia,

Thanks for the welcome!

I think women would write to Lecter but would leave Chigurh very much alone. Men would probably admire Chigurh more, but would be afraid to write. No one wants to risk being on Chigurh's radar!

I don't think Lecter is more fascinating, but more human. Chigurh is scary on a level that makes people avoid talking about him.

We can recognize ordinary human motives in Lecter's behavior, more like a normal guy with faulty wiring. Chigurh is something scarier altogether - nothing human about him.

In the film, when Chigurh kills someone, he often looks away and seems almost resigned and distant. He seems like a machine, beyond death and trapped in his unending role. More like the mythical grim reaper than a man with a job.

jcd about Chigurh:

.


I like this, thanks!

I agree, women would keep well away from Chigurh-- I wouldn't even dare think of him as "Anton"!


And this brings to mind: as I read I thought the one respect in which women (or anybody else) have nothing to fear from Chigurh is rape.

This is a contemporary novel full of the worst villains imaginable and there is absolutely no sexual tension of any sort-- the good characters are rather romantically in love, and the bad ones attend to their jobs single-mindedly.

Lecter savors his victims (sorry). Chigurh uses a slaughterhouse cattle-stun-gun most of the time which is to say his victims are less than human. He would never have a friend for dinner (sorry again).

I don't see Chigurgh as being supernatural . . . he's just a very very dangerous man with a very ugly mind.

But at the end of the book we don't really know if he's been stopped . . . he could be dead somewhere, or about to die. Then again, he could be planning on a comeback . . . I wonder if the author will make a sequel?

I was glad that Bell decided to quit - he needs something more peaceful to do.