#ilovedancy

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 don’t want to get into a discussion about whether Hannibal was really checking out Will’s butt in “Oeuf” or not, or whether the ladder scene actually has any real sexual meaning. Been there, done that enough while the show was airing, and it’s way back in my meta tag if anyone gives a shit about going to look. Which they probably don’t. 

I didn’t state that deep affections exclude sexual attraction, that the capacity of the characters to feel “affection that transcends touch” pertains in any significant way to the question of sexual attraction, or that their relationship should be “limited to non-sexual interaction.” 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 “several trains of thought” and that their relationship, should the show continue, will probably not be limited to non-sexual interaction. (I didn’t 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 I’m going to maintain any integrity and quality in what I do, then it absolutely, 1000% does matter that the show “never went there.” 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 they’re not themselves meta. 

All interpretations are not created equal, and I would be wildly hypocritical if I didn’t 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 it’s there. Heading in that direction but getting sawed off at the knees before crossing the finish is not there. 

As a meta writer, you don’t 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. 

The season was awful and the ending was so trite. They are trying so hard to be THAT show, gripping, compelling, but it just comes off as boring. Their storylines are all over the place. Character motivation doesn’t make sense. And as much as I hate Eddie/Sarah, it was so awkward to keep the three leads apart all season. Now that was just…odd, especially for a second season. It was like watching 3 very boring shows together.

You know, the more I think about it the more it makes me “angry”. I can’t believe someone looked at the plan Goldberg had and gave it the green light. There was so much potential and they managed to waste it all with their bad decisions ( to me Eddie being “magic” is the worst one ) and their awful writing. 

I hope that after this mess someone steps in and give this show the direction, substance, coherence and consistency it lacked this season.

ilovedancy replied to your post “2.13 aka someone take the pen away from Goldberg”

Cal's still the best part of the show, but honestly, they spent too much time on Cal being after Sarah. The whole lovesick puppy thing gets really boring when Sarah looks like she can barely stand him most of the time. It's just odd? Why her? Literally *NOTHING* special at all. Cardboard character.

Yeah, it’s hard to find them interesting to watch and empathize with his feelings with the way they made her behave. And I don’t mean that Sarah had to ‘love’ him back ... just make her act choerently?

If they wanted to keep the dynamic they had in season 1, then they shouldn’t have made her be disgusted by him since the first episode and they shouldn’t have made her know about Silas until the end ( the shaman’s death being what opened her eyes about Cal would have made more sense than Forest, right? ) and use Mary if they needed something to create conflict between them  -  this way their interactions wouldn’t have been so unrealistic, inconsistent and forced and, also , maybe this thing they try so hard to push about Sarah being ‘influenced’ and ‘blinded’ by Cal ( pfft ) would have had some basis.

Why her? Because the writers decided that she is special. And I have the feeling that they genuinely think she is a strong, complex and intriguing character.

The sexual comment was about Will and Hannibal both being in sexual relationships in the show. It's not about some interpretation of the ladder scene. This is not something I wish to debate either. I made my point crystal clear and I stand by it. It's not about me projecting something into the text that isn't there. Both Hannibal and Will were sexual on screen. They had sex. Therefore, what isn't proven is that somehow their sexual nature would change simply because the show ended before they were actually in a relationship with one another. We saw their long courtship. We never saw after that courtship. But we did see both were sexual beings. That’s my only point.

Then what you’ve got here is a non sequitur: it does not follow that because they had sexual relationships with women on the show that they would have a sexual relationship with each other. It also does not follow that because they had sex on screen that they’re conventionally “sexual beings.” That doesn’t follow even for ordinary people, let alone people with deviant psychologies like Hannibal and Will. 

So, again, in order for me to support that Hannibal was actively sexually enough interested in specifically Will that Hannibal might have expressed it in ways that Will could pick up on--which is what the question was asking--then I have to provide evidence that Hannibal was actively sexually interested, IN Will, AND that he was sexually interested enough to broadcast it to Will, AND that Will could or did pick up on it. That’s a burden of proof I can’t meet because I have to provide evidence, and I don’t have enough. 

And just to be clear, my actual claim was not that Hannibal (or Will--frankly, I didn’t discuss Will at all, since that wasn’t what the question was asking) was void of sexual thoughts or attraction to Will, but that his drives lie in different directions. All I said was that, relative to the lofty aims Hannibal has in mind, sexual interaction just is way down the priority list--probably too far down for Will to have picked up on it before season three. By the time we get to season three, their grief, jealousies and isolation from each other because of their various breakups get in the way. Sex is kind of a luxury you can’t afford when you’re just desperate to get your loved one to love you back again.