ilovedancy replied to your post âDo you think Will is aware that Hannibal is sexually interested in...â
Hannibal and Will were both sexual on the show. I disagree with any meta that has Hannigram limited to non-sexual interaction just because the show never went there or because both H&W are capable of feeling affection that transcends touch. Just because their affections are deep, doesn't mean they exclude sexual attraction. I only agree that if you removed sex from the equation, neither would lose interest. But why would sex ever be removed from the equation is the Q!
I debated not answering this because I really donât want to get into a discussion about whether Hannibal was really checking out Willâs butt in âOeufâ or not, or whether the ladder scene actually has any real sexual meaning. Been there, done that enough while the show was airing, and itâs way back in my meta tag if anyone gives a shit about going to look. Which they probably donât.Â
I didnât state that deep affections exclude sexual attraction, that the capacity of the characters to feel âaffection that transcends touchâ pertains in any significant way to the question of sexual attraction, or that their relationship should be âlimited to non-sexual interaction.â In fact, I stated quite the opposite on most of these things: that sexual attraction was probably present, at least with Hannibal, on one of his âseveral trains of thoughtâ and that their relationship, should the show continue, will probably not be limited to non-sexual interaction. (I didnât say anything at all about the idea of affection transcending touch.)
Disagreeing with any meta is your prerogative, of course, but I do want to stress that as a meta writer, if Iâm going to maintain any integrity and quality in what I do, then it absolutely, 1000% does matter that the show ânever went there.â My job is to analyze what exists on the show, although that may be in context of things that exist outside the show. Headcanons are all well and good, and they may be defended by meta, but theyâre not themselves meta.Â
All interpretations are not created equal, and I would be wildly hypocritical if I didnât hold myself to that standard. Disagree if you must, but I stand by that conviction.
What I did say was that a thing has to actually be in the show for me to state that itâs there. Heading in that direction but getting sawed off at the knees before crossing the finish is not there.Â
As a meta writer, you donât start from a place where everything is included, and then have to justify removing things from that equation. As much as is humanly possible, you start from a place of nothing, no assumptions at all, and observe what has been built from the ground up. The burden is not on the meta writer to justify that sexual attraction is excluded. That burden is on the meta writer who would like to claim that it is included. Sex is not something that is an inherent factor in either the romantic equation in general or for characters in a non-realistic story dealing with issues of radically non-conforming psychology.Â
Put simply, if I make claims I canât support with specific references to the text, then Iâd suck as a meta writer.Â
















