[Ask a Hannibal fan author] Raw vs Cooked

[CheertheSecond]

Most gore artworks I have seen about cannibal food displayed raw human meat being consumed. I guess it has the advantage of making it easier for their audience to recognise the visceral of cannibalisation.


Just to be sure, I want to ask. Which is better to write about? Raw or cooked humans? For what reasons? For goriness purposes and evoking all the uncomfortable feelings from the audiences, of course.

 

[Ssthat]

My viewpoint on cannibalism is an act of desperation as opposed to an act of pleasure. I think the idea of the meat being raw very well conveys that idea of desperation, showing a lack of capability or means to even cook the meat.

 

[RepresentingDesire]

Cannibalism can be as well a act of pleasure, a good made dish would be perfect.

 

[Prince_Azmiran_Myrian]

Even cannibals should eat Well Done.
If not, then they are truly cooked.

 

[SternenklarenRitter]

Raw is certainly gorier, but cooked is more intellectually disturbing. A cannibal eating raw flesh reinforces their insanity, that they are other/evil/separate from you. But a cannibal that eats cooked people is one who demonstrates rationality and civilization. They prove that they are like you, they could be your neighbor, attend your house of worship, even babysit your kids, but you might never find out.