Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

SlouchyGuy t1_j0wbf3c wrote

Reply to comment by TheRawToast in Pro-tip: If a well reviewed book has a Goodread's rating of around 3.5 then it's usually interesting by Proper_Cold_6939

Which is why when sequels have the same rating as the first books, it means that series is getting worse and worse

24

Frosty_Mess_2265 t1_j0wkg8u wrote

Interestingly, I noticed the Hannibal Lecter trilogy gets lower ratings from books 1-3. I think it's not because they're worse, but because they're more disturbing (which is obviously what Harris was going for). I remember finishing the last one and just thinking I'll never be able to unread that...

10

That-Requirement-285 t1_j0xrhle wrote

Generally it’s because the last books are much more over-the-top than the first two. Specifically Hannibal. The film also got a mixed reaction because of how ‘ridiculous’ it was + Clarice hooking up with Hannibal seemed to go against her character.

6

laconicflow t1_j0yc2fk wrote

I think the point is that Hannibal wins.

3

That-Requirement-285 t1_j0yc9gl wrote

No kidding but it felt like it was written by shippers.

I genuinely liked the last two books, and think Hannibal Rising got the worst reputation, but they’re not as good as the first two.

3

laconicflow t1_j0yhqvs wrote

I never read Hannibal Rising, just the other three, all of which I liked equally. the twist at the end of Hannibal was not something I soming one bit, I took it to mean he'd won, he's a bad guy and he won by brainwashing clarice, it wasn't that she'd always been in love with him.

Just my thought. Is Hannibal rising worth checking out?

1

That-Requirement-285 t1_j0yjrds wrote

It’s a Hannibal backstory that I think the author wrote mostly because he feared that somebody else would write it. It’s not as well-written as Red Dragon or Silence of the Lambs, but I think it tied in nicely.

1