Talk:Red Dragon (novel)

Novels: Crime Mid‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Crime task force.

Horror

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Plot

I've just read the book, and the plot section here seems to be of the movie and not of the novel. i.e. Graham never got the last letter from Lecter, Crawford intercepted and incinerated it; they didn't recover the Dragon's scapbook from the fire, but from a locker and Graham didn't read it, Crawford told him they found it when Graham was at the hospital; etc. --201.243.238.49 (talk) 20:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)........[reply]

Question:

After the statement that the Silence of the Lambs story is a reworking of Red Dragon's is inserted "citation needed." Why? The section goes on to describe in detail the characters and major plot points that are parallel between the two stories.

Batman144 19:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Silence of the lambs

"Thomas Harris’ own The Silence of the Lambs is itself a reworking of this story[citation needed]: Both stories feature a not quite full-fledged FBI agent in pursuit of a serial killer. Both serial killers have a strong self-loathing and kill to facilitate a “transformation” into something they feel is more powerful than their current state. Both protagonists must visit Lecter several times to gain enough insight to catch the killer."- Will Graham does not "visit Lecter several times" in the novel he actually only meets with him on one occasion--The Dominator (talk) 00:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Good catch. (For the 2002 remake, the screenwriter admits having to cook up an excuse to have Graham revisit Lecter.) --Batman144 (talk) 01:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

......however, Graham does have a phone conversation with Lecter after the prison visit. (Graham is told if man does as God does enough times, man becomes as God is.) So, Graham needed further insight from Lecter before catching Dollarhyde. The original sentence should have read something like, "Both protagonists must speak with Lecter more than once to gain enough insight to catch the killer." --Batman144 (talk) 02:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the phone conversation only happens in Manhunter. In the novel, Hannibal's dialogue appears in a letter sent to Will. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.135.1 (talk) 21:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Themes Section

The Theme analysis for this article is excellent, but it might be worth including a comparison between Graham and Starling's character. I recall reading a section examing Lector's relationship with the two (e.g. talking with Graham as an equal, while treating Starling as a student), but it is no longer there. --134.159.97.130 (talk) 02:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Drag01big.jpg

Image:Drag01big.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First Sentence

Why does the first sentence of this article say that it features Hannibal Lector when he is only a minor character in this novel? 12.216.166.246 (talk) 00:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It still features him, and he does play a fairly significant role.--CyberGhostface (talk) 03:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that it depends on your definition of feature. Lecter is not as central to the story as he is in SOTL, Hannibal, and Hannibal Rising, but he does play an important role. My copy of the book has the cover line "Meet Hannibal Lecter for the first time" and Harris included an intro that explains how the Hannibal Lecter character was developed. 47.137.178.203 (talk) 05:50, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was Not done. No consensus. — Aitias // discussion 18:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Following an previous move of this page I am opening a discussion as to whether this page should be at Red Dragon per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. There are two possible moves. 1) Red Dragon (novel) moved to Red Dragon with dab page remaining at Red dragon (disambiguation) and Red dragon redirecting to Red Dragon, or 2) Red dragon (disambiguation) moved to Red dragon, Red Dragon redirecting to Red dragon and Red Dragon (novel) remaining. Tassedethe (talk) 15:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it shouldn't be. Is the novel the obviously and overwhelmingly most common use for Red Dragon? Not while D&D remains popular and Wales remains above the sea. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see this as the primary topic. The book itself implies that the mahjong tile should be it. 76.66.196.229 (talk) 22:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Remember, we have two options here; either the novel goes here, or the dab should. FWIW, if someone said "red dragon" to me, I'd think of the film/book. However, if consensus determines that the novel/film doesn't meet the conditions for a primary topic, then I'm not opposed to the dab page moving to Red dragon. Parsecboy (talk) 22:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Since Red dragon (lower-case d) already redirects to Red dragon (disambiguation), I think it's obvious that Red dragon should become the disambiguation page. Red Dragon (upper-case D) already redirects to the novel, so the novel and the redirect should be swapped. It already has a disambiguation hatnote to the disambiguation page. Aside from a rather obscure cheese, it appears that the novel and film are the only ones that actually have the title Red Dragon without qualifiers. So in summary: Swap Red dragon and Red dragon (disambiguation) and swap Red Dragon (novel) and Red Dragon. Those are the least disruptive changes. •••Life of Riley (talk) 03:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't think so, since whether it is small or large, several of the entries for large D fall in the dab page. 76.66.196.229 (talk) 07:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In general I would oppose having the primary topic be a disambiguation page, which to me would only be appropriate if there were many barely notable subjects of the same name, making it impossible to choose any as a legitimate primary. I also disagree with automatically making a movie based on a book the primary topic just because it gets more views - let people find out that there really was a book called Gone with the Wind, for example, on their way to finding out what they really want. After all, the purpose of an encyclopedia to educate. Also, using a lower case letter to disambiguate is not appropriate, and has been corrected. Whether the novel or the film is used as Red Dragon is immaterial, but it should be one or the other and not a redirect. 199.125.109.19 (talk) 03:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There are many red dragons in fiction and symbolism, including the national symbol of Wales. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support option 2. No evidence for primary topic status is presented for any article; both main articles should disambiguate per this option. --Rogerb67 (talk) 23:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Lector vs Lecter

Why is it spelt two different ways in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.97.127.199 (talk) 22:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The current article is correctly Lecter. The misspell could have been the result of the name "Lecktor" used in the first movie. With other books that became movies, some editors who saw the movies edited the book pages and introduced errors since books seldomn translate directly to film. I suspect it happened here. (I know the question was posted 6 years ago, but it is a recurrent problem and I hope answering now might help others.) -- Naaman Brown (talk) 18:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reba McClane

Serious question, why is everyone in this article referred to by their last name and McClane is called Reba? Is this normal? I think the naming should be consistent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Browncoat101 (talk • contribs) 03:29, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. All subsequent reference to "Reba" have been changed to "McClane". 47.137.178.203 (talk) 05:57, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]