ParanoidMoistoid t1_iudmwsp wrote

I think explicitly sexualising the dynamic between Will and Hannibal would obfuscate the nature of what characterises their growing intimacy - namely, the pull towards killing and the growingly synchronous way that Will and Hannibal view the "artistry" of their violence. It would be a waste of words to argue that there's nothing queer about the relationship, as Fuller explicitly frames the queer nature of their relationship in the article:

“It certainly started out as a non-sexual same-sex couple experiencing a greater intimacy than they’ve ever experienced before. Then being able to transition through that to an intimacy that was qualified as love. Then a physical intimacy between them, where they are both penetrating a man, that is a culmination of their relationship with each other. Then falling into each other’s arms and over a cliff."

However, it is allegorical, they aren't normative lovers because the relationship doesn't exist along normative lines. Hannibal is drawn because of Will's unique hyperempathic capacity to see the world through the eyes of a killer. He wants to erode Will's inhibitions and completely share his perspective and "art" with him - since Will is the only person who will ever be capable of understanding him. Everything else (love, sex, friendship, parenting Abigail) is just set dressing for attaining the end of extending his capacity as a horrifying, predatory force of nature.

I know Fuller states that it "became explicitly queer in terms of the conversation about loving each other and where that love was going to take them", but this is not love as we know it - it is love as Hannibal knows and experiences it. As they grow closer, it is probable that they will be taken to dark places (e.g. at the table with Bedelia), but the idea that they will have something resembling a normative romantic relationship doesn't square with the forces which bind them together.