Secret Psychopath: House of Cards' Claire Underwood

In the previous post I discussed how a psychopath like the Joker can fly under the radar by playing crazy.  I also mentioned that that isn’t the only way a psychopath can go unnoticed by the rest of society; they can also play subdued.  This is how most function without notice, by appearing and behaving like the average, everyday, person.  They have jobs, families, friends, and show the appropriate emotions at the appropriate times.  Admittedly there are still moments they slip into their more cold, calculating, and ruthless nature, but those times are often dismissed as a single event (even when it’s a repeated one) or a quirk.  …This seems to be what House of Cards’ main female protagonist - or will that be antagonist now? - Claire Underwood is able to do.

Claire's potential psychopathy is almost immediately dismissed in nearly every other discussion about her, which speaks to how well her psychopathy might be hidden.  Of course it’s easy to hide when your husband - Frank Underwood - is a man who kills by hand without compunction and drawls out charming asides that sound right out of Machiavelli’s The Prince.  Just because she’s not the most psychopathic doesn’t mean she’s not a psychopath.  All one need do is go down Hare’s Psychopathy Checklist to see that, at the very least, Claire has a surprisingly high number of the traits.

Glibness/Superficial Charm:

There is no doubt that Claire can be very charming when she wishes to be.  She is able to befriend those her husband can’t or shouldn’t for whatever reason and almost instantly become their best friend and closest confidante.  By season three it’s said Claire is more popular with voters than Frank.  The thing is, it’s all surface.  Claire’s kindness, her gentle demeanor towards others, her one-on-one talks of apparent openness and honestly, are generally only done to aid in her and/or Frank’s benefit.  She uses the secrets she’s told against the confessor and others and accumulates favors for herself and/or Frank through those friendships.  Once a person no longer proves valuable Claire loses all interest in turning on the charm for them.  (Please note that even if what she’s doing appears to benefit Frank more her mindset is consistently: what benefits Frank will ultimately benefit me.)

Grandiose Sense of Worth:

Others have suggested that Claire is actually a narcissist, which alone indicates that she has this trait.  While not someone constantly boasting her greatness or needing reassurance that she’s fabulous, like an actual narcissist would, Claire certainly believes it herself.  With no experience at all she insists Frank make her an ambassador - even when it means circumventing the standard Senate hearing - and is certain she’ll be great at the job.  When she’s not Claire proceeds to blame others and outside circumstances for her failings throughout her time holding the position.  When Frank later declares he never should have made her ambassador she counters: “I never should have made you president.”  …True, she had a major part in his success, but so did he.

Need for Stimulation/Prone to Boredom:

When discussing Frank’s marriage proposal Claire quotes him as stating: “Claire, if all you want is happiness, say no. I'm not gonna give you a couple of kids and count the days until retirement. I promise you freedom from that. I promise you'll never be bored.”  …For some that might not be the best way to go, but for Claire it was perfect.  She never wanted the simple life, or even happiness if it meant that she wouldn't be living a stimulating life.  Given the wording Frank’s proposal suggests that a boring life, or even just a simple one, was something Claire always worried she’d end up with; she needs excitement and stimulation.

Pathological Lying:

Claire lies directly, by suggestion, or by omission whenever she thinks it’ll benefit her.  She lied to the (previous) First Lady by suggesting that there was something untoward between her husband and a secretary to throw their marriage into turmoil, paving the way for Frank to take the presidency right from under them.  She lied to the public about her relationship with another man, Adam, to cover a potentially scandalous affair — Frank knew and didn’t seem to care much, but both understandably doubted the American public’s capacity for acceptance.  When the press discovered she’d had an abortion she claimed it was related to being raped and, from there, built an entire political movement concerning sexual abuse in the military.  (She’d been raped, yes, but the abortion occurred as the result of different circumstances.)  By the end of season three Claire even states that both she and Frank have been lying to themselves and each other…while not specific it’s easy to presume she’s referring to what each expected to get out of the other and their relationship on whole.

Conning/Manipulative:

This one rather folds into the superficial charm previously discussed given charm is what is most often used by a psychopath in order to con and manipulate.  Claire has no trouble using others to get what she wants and then dropping them when they are no longer useful.  From coworkers to lovers Claire has manipulated many into doing her dirty work or taking the fall from grace for her before discarding them for the next person or organization that’ll be of use to her.  Speaking of organizations I have a theory that her fierce dedication during the time she ran a non-profit aimed at building wells in African villages was all something of a long con…not only does it look good for her to have a life and career independent of her husband, but the better she does running such an organization the more she can promote her philanthropic success in future campaigns (for herself).  

Lack of Remorse or Guilt:

One of the keys to spotting a psychopath is their lack of remorse for what they do.  Frank is very clear in his lack of remorse, even if you suspect he has it he usually gives a snide aside to the camera to assure you he does not.  Claire is not as obvious, in fact there are times when she does seem remorseful - like when gay activist, Corrigan, killed himself in Russia - but that doesn’t necessarily mean she is.  What is read as remorse could also be a sense of defeat, frustration, or disappointment.  The problem is Claire gets no talk-time with the audience so, unlike her husband, we honestly don’t know what she’s feeling.

What is known is that she’s capable of doing pretty terrible things without any problems.  She’s not pushing people in front of trains, but she is pushing them to their emotional and mental limits…often times beyond.  She destroys the lives of her former lover, the (previous) First Lady and President, and even a fellow rape survivor to get ahead without thinking twice or looking back.  When a former employee at her non-profit dares to challenge her she cooly declares: “I’m willing to let your child wither and die inside you if that’s what’s required.  Am I really the sort of enemy you want to make?”  The answer is no, she is not, and more than that anyone who doubts the validity of her threat(s) probably hasn’t been paying close enough attention to Mrs. Underwood.

Shallow Affect:

Claire is known for her chilly demeanor so she certainly shares the flat affect that psychopaths are known for when they aren’t turning on the charm.  Most find her even colder than Frank much of the time and even when speaking about traumatic aspects of her past (such as her rape in college) Claire’s not one to get all that emotionally expressive.  Perhaps she would be more so if she got to break the fourth wall like Frank does, but it seems equally possible that she wouldn’t.

Callousness/Lack of Empathy:

Previously discussed traits such as her ability to manipulate and lack of remorse rather speak to her callousness and lack of empathy.  If she were truly empathetic she wouldn’t be able to do those things.  She’d feel too terrible as she shared the emotions of those she used, bullied, and ruined the lives of.  Even when she might share an experience, theoretically know how the other person might feel, she’s still not empathetic enough to not use them to her advantage…like when Claire pushed a fellow rape victim into telling her story so she could make her own political progress.

Parasitic Lifestyle:

This one’s a little tricky since Claire and Frank found one another while still young and, at least for much of the time, seemed to have a more symbiotic relationship.  They fed off one another, but it was balanced so that neither was really parasitic with the other.  Now that Claire’s discovered she’s no longer getting what she wants and/or needs from Frank and is leaving him we may see how she functions without a relationship like theirs.

Poor Behavioral Controls:

Frank is seen exploding in a rage more than a few times, but there are only two or three times total that Claire’s control over her behavior slips.  The first is at the Senate hearing for her confirmation as ambassador when she is not allowed to speak and snaps at one of the senators.  The second is her verbal slapping of Russian president, Petrov, for his upholding anti-gay laws in his country during a press conference.  The third is more of an almost when, while giving blood, she rambles and comes just shy of revealing things about her marriage she probably shouldn’t.  None of these are extreme and most are understandable - it’s easy to see anyone in her position doing the same things.  For the most part Claire doesn’t really have this trait as she tends to express herself in more subtle ways - like shutting the door for even more privacy - and even when behaving somewhat impulsively there’s a measure of control to it, as we’ll discuss later.

Sexual Promiscuity:

I’m not a fan of this one in general for it’s vagueness as to what might constitute promiscuity.  It can be seen as subjective and naturally brings up the classic what is promiscuous for a woman may not be considered promiscuous for a man issue.  That being said it’s on the list so let’s tackle it.  For a definition we’ll go with the Webster’s dictionary definition of not just “many” sexual partners, but picking those partners indiscriminately.  It’s hard to say what she was like prior to meeting Frank, but even while with him the trait at least partially fits just as it fits Frank.  One can argue she’s discriminating with her lover, Adam, given they appear to have enough of a history together she knows she can trust him.  No one can really say that concerning the threesome with her husband and their bodyguard, Meechum, though - she knows less about Meechum than Frank and Frank really doesn’t know much.  (It might also be of note that with both Adam and Meechum Claire seems capable of keeping emotionally detached so that, when no longer helpful, she can drop them without a thought, which does not necessarily qualify her as promiscuous, but may increase the likelihood that she is.)

Early Behavior Problems:

Given we don’t know much of Claire’s pre-Frank past it’s hard to say.  She could’ve had troubles, but it’s also possible that she didn’t.  It’s impossible to tell with the limited information we have.

Lack of Realistic Long-Term Goals:

Are any of us certain what Claire's long-term goals are?  We presume that she wants to be president herself one day, but I’m not sure that’s so unrealistic…after all Frank did it.  That being said, after all that’s occurred in Frank’s presidency thus far, it’s hard to imagine that the American public would vote either of them into office.

Impulsivity:

At first glance Claire doesn’t seem impulsive at all, but she does have her moments.  One of the clearest examples is in the first season when she disappears to Adam’s apartment and stays for a period of time.  While still a semi-calculated move (hence preventing it from qualifying for poor behavioral control) it’s not one she prepared for or told anyone about.  Claire just did it.  As mentioned previously Claire also impulsively went off-script at a press conference to condemn Russian president, Petrov.

Irresponsibility:

Claire is responsible when she wants to be, when it benefits her, but otherwise she isn’t.  When a vast majority of her staff at the non-profit needs to be let go Claire pawns the responsibility off on an employee…who she then fires.  Once the focus of her responsibilities are for Frank’s benefit more than hers she sorta starts slacking.  She’s less inclined to go through with promised campaign stops and, eventually, she stops altogether and without warning to anyone.  She even stops taking her husband’s calls. 

Failure to Accept Responsibility for Own Actions:

There are probably multiple reasons why LGBT-rights activist Corrigan commits suicide, but the nonstop insistence by Claire that he read the statement prepared for him didn’t help things.  It wasn’t all Claire’s fault, but it wasn’t entirely Petrov’s either although she certainly seemed to think it was.  Same holds for the Senate hearing on her potential ambassadorship: some did attack her (even after saying they wouldn’t), but she wasn’t in any way prepared or experienced enough for the position either.  What would be interesting to see is if Claire’s sense of responsibility will change now that she’s separating from Frank - will she still acknowledge the things she did during their time together or pass the blame off on Frank with claims of “I only did it for him”?  ...Honestly, unless it suits her better to throw him under the bus, I doubt it.

Many Short-Term Marital Relationships:

Claire notes that she had many proposals, but as far as we’re aware Claire’s only ever been married to Frank so it would seem this aspect of a psychopath is not something she has.  Whether that changes or not over time is impossible to say just yet.

Juvenile Delinquency:

Again, we don’t know enough about Claire as a young woman or child to speak with any authority on even the possibility of her having this trait or not.

Revocation of Conditional Release:

We’re not aware of her ever having been released from anywhere on any condition so this one’s probably a no.

Criminal Versatility:

While there’s no mention of Claire having a criminal record (expunged or otherwise) and none of the things she’s done have quite reached the level of being illegal she might still qualify.  Many things she’s done have been amoral - lying, intimidation, using others, betraying those around her - and, under slightly different circumstances, could be viewed as criminal acts.  She also likely knew about the murders of Peter Russo and Zoe Barnes, which would at least make her an accessory after the fact.

Because Claire is far more closed off and subtle than Frank it’s difficult to determine if she would qualify as a psychopath - she may be or she may fall just short of the official diagnosis.  But House of Cards writer, Beau Willimon, was once quoted as saying: “In many ways, I see Claire and Frank as the same animal: two people who are liberated in so far as they don’t bind themselves to any ideology or ethical standards. As people who do not feel they have to play by the rules, they really are completely self-serving – and they think that’s OK.”  …That statement heavily suggests that both Underwoods have the same potentially pathological psychology and, given many have (rightly) declared Frank a psychopath, then Claire would be one too.

Secret Psychopath: The Dark Knight's Joker

Psychopaths are not easy to spot; in no small part because they are masters of disguise, skilled at fitting in even when they stand out.  With the ability to read a room and the expectations of those within it they can follow social norms to fly under the radar or openly defy them to whatever advantages there might be.  Whichever they choose though rarely are psychopaths spotted for what they are.  It’s only if you look closely, dissect with a rational mind, that you can see beyond the surface behaviors to the true person beneath.  It holds in real life and it holds in the fictional world…there are a number of characters in TV, film, and comics that hide themselves behind either subdued or over-the-top behavior so that you don’t notice who, what, they really are.

The most likely to be missed are actually the ones that present as outrageous.  Those so wildly over-the-top that you can’t help but presume they have some severe mental issues.  Those like the Joker, who’s been labeled with everything from schizophrenia to general psychosis to just plain crazy without any diagnosis.  While understandable given the clown get-up, cackles of laughter, and tendency to really enjoy causing chaos whenever he can none of these diagnoses are accurate.  The truth is the Joker’s a psychopath.  A cunning, happy to subvert the status quo, creatively violent, remorseless, psychopath.  He knows the things he does are wrong, he just doesn’t care.  Murdering others, blowing up places, and generally terrorizing an entire city aren’t things that bother him and neither is the concept of any potential consequences for his actions.

Of course the Joker could do everything he does without the “crazy” clown get-up and giggles, but I think that’s where he’s actually the most cunning.  For starters it’s a built-in defense should he get caught and brought to court on charges - “I can’t be held accountable, look at me, I’m clearly insane!”  This defense is used even outside the courts when the Joker visits Harvey Dent after the explosions he caused that mutilated Dent and killed Dent’s love, Rachel Dawes.  When Dent declares that, physically there or not, the Joker is responsible as it was his plan the Joker replies: “Do I really look like a guy with a plan?  You know what I am?  I'm a dog chasing cars.  I wouldn't know what to do with one if I caught it!  You know, I just... *do* things.”  On the surface it’s a good argument because the Joker genuinely doesn’t look like he’d be capable of any sort of plan.  The truth is though the Joker is more than capable of incredibly complex plans as evidenced by the opening sequence of the film as well as the ferry “experiment” he set up pitting criminals against everyday citizens.  (Even while that one didn’t work it wasn’t an issue with a faulty setup, but instead the Joker underestimating the humanity of those in Gotham, law-abiding or not.)

The Joker’s surface appearance and behavior frequently leads to misconceptions by those around him that he can then use to his advantage.  The mobsters of the city don’t take him seriously to start, dismissing him as a nobody, a wack-job, and a freak.  They see him as useful in hiding their illegally obtained funds, but not as a threat.  Because of this the Joker is allowed to live, plot, and scheme for a significant period of time before any of the mob bosses decide he is more threat than asset and by then it’s too late.  By then the Joker’s obtained significant influence over the criminal underlings so that they turn on their bosses.  Even Batman initially makes the simplistic categorizing of the Joker as a just another criminal, one that’ll be easily captured once he figures out what the Joker wants.  Alfred has to point out that the Joker is not that sort of criminal, he’s not someone with a clear or even logical motive that can be manipulated to catch him.

Interestingly though, not even Alfred is completely correct.  He suspects that the Joker might be doing what he’s doing because he considers it “good sport”, which isn’t entirely accurate.  The Joker himself explains that he wishes to upset the order of society, to cause chaos, in order to prove (he presumes) people are only as good as their surroundings allow.  It’s still not the usual, still an intangible, thus still not something that Batman can easily exploit to stop Joker, but it is a motive beyond just some twisted fun.  The Joker is unlike any of the other criminals Batman has gone up against up to that point - he is intelligent, determined, unpredictable, and delights in the terrible results of the things he does.

There is also a more metaphorical reason for the Joker’s bizarre costume and behavior…it both calls attention to and subverts Batman as an icon.  It’s unlikely anyone or anything will get Batman’s attention faster than a “crazy clown” cackling as he terrorizes the city and it’s equally unlikely that said crazy clown will make people think of anything other than that other costumed citizen of Gotham.  Both men are hiding their true identities, both use theatrics to shock, and both are physically aggressive so that the only true difference between them is motive; the Joker to deconstruct the city and promote chaos and Batman to try to keep order and safety.  A key difference, but one potentially overlooked by terrorized citizens.

Up until the Joker appears in the Gotham of the Nolan trilogy the man in the costume was the hero while criminals stuck to either mob suits or functional, bland, outfits.  With the introduction of the proverbial Crowned Prince of Chaos that’s no longer the case; now the one hiding behind a cartoonish alias and mask can also be a terrorist.  This leads to Batman’s hero status being questioned: What do we really know about the Bat-Man?  Wasn’t he involved in a number of destructive and dangerous events around the city?  If this man’s presence can cause someone like the Joker to appear, do we really want him in our city?  Suddenly the few who’d been questioning Batman’s presence - both in need and helpfulness - become the many.  He’s no longer an unchallenged icon of vigilante heroism after the Joker…now he’s something darker, more suspect, and ultimately the one being hunted for multiple murders.

After doing enough damage that the golden boy and white knight of Gotham, DA Harvey Dent, must be killed by Batman after going murderously mad and Batman himself becoming public enemy number one the Joker is finally caught.  If identified as a psychopath he’d be deemed legally sane and thus responsible for all the crimes he committed…at the very least this would mean life in prison.  But because of his presentation, because of his bright clothing, wild makeup, and delighted giggles at terrible events in humanity, the Joker does not present as sane.  As such he is wrongly found insane and instead of prison is sent to the mental institution, Arkham Asylum.  Some might argue that the asylum is the worse place, but given how frequently people escape from there it seems the better to me.  So, again, the outrageous presentation works for the Joker.  He knows this.  It’s why he almost never shows his true self - a cunning, manipulative, psychopath completely aware of himself, his actions, and the consequences of those actions.

Ode to Sociopathic Love: Petyr "Littlefinger" Baelish

Many sociopaths have two relationship categories they put others into: the possessions and the exploits.  Both are important and the sociopath will work to keep both intact and in relatively good standing as long as the relationship remains beneficial...or at least does not become harmful.  Given sociopaths use everyone around them and can easily abandon even those closest to them without a second thought we need first to distinguish between possessions and exploits.  

Possessions are those the sociopath loves; the individuals they'll never completely let go, work to protect from others, and strive to both get and keep even if it might prove a risk to them.  For whatever reason those filed under possessions make the sociopath feel something consistently and deeply enough that they wish to keep them around even if they can't get everything they want out of the person.

The alternative is an exploit, which is pretty much everyone else that's useful to the sociopath.  They're to be taken advantage of until no longer beneficial and then tossed away like an empty carton of ice cream.  There's no feelings attached to these people and they get no protection outside what the sociopath might give to cover their own ass - basically if an exploit is still needed, but in trouble, the sociopath will work to help them only so they themselves don't fall into danger.  If lost in some way an exploit can usually be replaced or their absence worked around with little distress.

This categorizing of people is something Petyr “Littlefinger” Baelish does in the series Game of Thrones with the four women who end up closest to him - Catelyn, Lysa, Ros, and Sansa.

Catelyn (Tully) Stark definitely qualified as a possession to Littlefinger.  It's possible she started out as an exploit - an easily accessible highborn girl he could seduce and marry to raise his status - but at some point in their childhood Littlefinger ended up legitimately falling in love with Cat.  So much so he risked his life to try and win her hand when they were young.  The clearest indication she was a possession is that he never completely let her go.  Like Hannibal Lecter with Clarice Starling in a previous piece Littlefinger had no trouble functioning for years without her in his life, but the moment she reappeared his feelings seemed to return fully.  He betrayed her husband to remain safely on the winning side, yes, but also to eliminate the competition so it's no surprise he promptly suggested they get together after the man's execution.  That he made the overture while returning Ned’s body to her showed both his lack of empathy and almost single-minded desire to have Cat for himself.  (It's really a shame the show didn't explore his initial reaction to Catelyn's murder as it might've clarified his level of caring even further - loss of a possession may arouse signs of general upset, loss of an exploit little more than a shrug of the shoulders.)

A mirror to Catleyn is her younger sister, Lysa (Tully) Arryn.  Despite (or perhaps because of) a crazy obsession with Petyr she was never his initial target for seduction and marriage, but was kept as one of his exploits instead.  I'd say favorite, but that's a strong word...maybe most valuable?  Either way Lysa's someone he remained charming to so he could get her to do important and dangerous things for him - like kill her husband and blame the wealthiest family in Westeros for it, which just happen to be some of the catalyst events for the entire series.  While Petyr kept a physical distance from her for a long time he ultimately married her when it proved more beneficial to do so.  In exchange for the marriage Petyr became Lord of the Vale, thus adding another title to the ones he'd been racking up.  Lysa, on the other hand, got shoved out the Moon Door by Petyr when she tried to kill her niece, Sansa Stark, and started to spill every secret she ever kept for him in a jealous rage.  Littlefinger felt nothing for her; he had no trouble using and then discarding her once she ceased being valuable to him.  I have little doubt he was kind to her when they were children both to appear in a good light to Catelyn and set up a beneficial relationship to play upon later, but none of his interest in Lysa was remotely genuine outside what she could do for him.

As one of his prostitutes Ros was most certainly an exploit.  Someone to make money off of even after he seemed to trust her enough with extra duties and to tutor her in his business.  Perhaps he thought her more clever than others in his employ, but he never cared about her.  She was there to gather information on clients (like any other who worked for him), assist in his paperwork, and aid in running his business when he was too busy to be hands-on himself.  That was the extent of their relationship; he had no real feelings for her outside what she was worth to him.  Petyr himself confessed - in a calm, gently-toned, speech that rivaled one of Ramsay Bolton's giddy grins in shudder-worthiness - that she was an investment and if she proved a bad one she'd go the way of a previous woman he'd sold off to be tortured (presumably) to death.  True to his word the moment she was detrimental to him Littlefinger sold Ros to Joffrey to meet the same death-by-torture fate...though I doubt it ever haunted him.

Everyone knows that Petyr has a certain affection for Sansa Stark (let the creepyship flags fly!), but whether he'd qualify her as a possession or just a very special exploit is still yet to be seen.  Their story is ongoing and many of Littlefinger's actions involving Sansa can be read multiple ways: romantic, opportunistic, or both.  His frequent references to how much she is like her mother, Catelyn, can be seen as genuine overtures to a suitable replacement for his lost love.  It can also be seen as sweet-talking an impressionable young girl to make her feel special and cared-for in a dangerous place (or five).  Killing her tormentor, King Joffrey, and stealing her away from the capital could be seen as a heroic act, but those things benefit him as well.  Helping the Tyrells get rid of Joffrey worked to solidify his alliance with them and taking off with Sansa pretty much gave him a portable ace up his sleeve.  Marrying her off to Ramsay was a smart move for Petyr because it helps him cover even more of his bases as wars continuously break out, but it was ultimately a terrible one for Sansa.  The question is: did Petyr knowingly marry Sansa to a sadist rivaling Joffery without caring for her safety or did his simply miscalculate?  The truth is unless Petyr is made aware of Sansa's time at Winterfell and current status (whatever that may be, thanks cliffhanger!) it's impossible to tell.  But if she's a possession he will likely go after her to repair any damage to their relationship as well as seek revenge upon the Boltons if at all possible; if she's an exploit he'll likely still go after her so long as she's a valuable asset, but revenge is unlikely unless it benefits him as well.  Only time will tell…

Ode to Sociopathic Love: Hannibal Lecter

One of the most common arguments I hear against someone - real or fictional - being a sociopath is that the person loves someone else.  While I understand the presumption that a psychopath/sociopath cannot love, it simply is not true.  They love, just not in the same manner or presentation as the average/neurotypical person.  Theirs is a selfish, incredibly intense, love that can come and go seemingly at random…but it is love.  A love that a fair number of fictional “psychos” feel, including Hannibal “The Cannibal” Lecter.

There is little argument whether Hannibal Lecter is a psychopath; he’s a serial killer who cannibalizes and sometimes serves his victims to others after all.  He’s cool, calm, calculating, and enjoys playing with peoples’ brains (pun intended).  That being said there’s also little doubt that he feels intensely for FBI agent Clarice Starling.  In the movie, Hannibal, antagonist Mason Verger questions Hannibal’s interest in Clarice: “Does he wanna fuck her, kill her, or eat her?"  His assistant/caretaker, Cordell, replies: "Probably all three, though I wouldn’t want to predict in what order.” …Cordell is probably right.  More than anything Hannibal wants to possess Clarice - the exact manner of possession is something that he likely doesn't even know from one moment to the next.

At the end of The Silence of the Lambs Hannibal calls Clarice to say goodbye.  He wishes her well and seems proud of her accomplishment in becoming an agent.  He assures her that he will not come after her and holds himself to that promise; both of which might seem unlikely (if not impossible) for a psychopathic serial killer such as him.  Yet ten years pass without him reaching out in any way, something that would be near impossible for an empathic person in love.  That said when they do reconnect his feelings are the same as ever: “Does this mean you’re back on the case?  If so, goody goody."  In fact, he's so delighted to have her back in his life he essentially stalks her.  If given the option it would appear Hannibal would much rather have her hunting him (and vice versa) than anyone else.

Hannibal comes out of hiding to be near and protect Clarice.  He risks getting caught for her, he kills others because they disrespect her and put her at risk, and at the end of the Hannibal movie he sacrifices his hand for hers.  For him it's as if no time at all has passed; he's just as intense in his feelings as before he left.  …And at the end of the Hannibal book the sociopathic love is even more evident as he drugs and works to brainwash Clarice into becoming his sister (another love of his); something that would be considered abhorrent to do to a loved one to most, but seems perfectly reasonable/sound to Hannibal.  (Dr Lecter fails, but they do appear to become lovers.)

Hannibal’s love is aggressive, possessive, and sometimes cruel.  He has no trouble dropping her when he must (like while on the run), but all the intensity of his feelings for her return the moment she’s back in his life.  No one may stalk, use, or torment Clarice...except for him.  No one may threaten her, but him.  Hannibal would never allow Clarice to capture or kill him - I have no doubt he’d have killed her if he really felt he must to survive and remain free - but he will do whatever he feels he has to in order to ensure her safety.  He is hers only as long and as much as he allows, but she is completely his.  That is how Hannibal Lecter loves.