Robin Hobb

[3idcrow]

What's bad about the Farseer Trilogy's ending? I use it many times as an example on how to finish a fantasy series.

The whole idea of coming back to one’s lost love who was another’s wife for 16 years having 6+ children with him sound pretty unbelievable to me. It just doesn’t happen in real life as far as I can tell. We all experienced this sort of attempts to come back to something that was important to us when we were young and we all had this feeling that “the water moved on”. Nothing is the same when you come back. I’d find it much more convincing if Fitz indeed tried to come back to Molly only to find out that this woman is a complete stranger to him and it’s not her that he missed but his own youth and an age of innocence. BTW, didn’t Hobb express this very idea? I don’t remember exactly where but Fitz was thinking of Molly in this very terms: the love of a young and simple days, long gone. That sounded to me as a perfect resolution of an adult grown up man. Move on!

Next goes his social responsibility. It took Fitz 35+ years to accept his role as a Sacrifice to his people. As far as I concern the whole cycle of his character’s development described in the previous 5.5 books came to the moment when Kettrikken called Fitz a Sacrifice and he finally accepted it and gave Chade a command that was obeyed. I was like “Bravo! My boy is all grown up and pushes people around!” Accept who you are and move on. As a Sacrifice Fitz was invaluable. He could clean up a mess with Skill learning, restoring Solicity’s lost knowledge, he could work with Chade to improve Skill-healing techniques, he could build a solid support for Dutiful. But no, instead he went living in a farm and left all this to Nettle? Who needs a lot of schooling herself? Who’s Skill is very limited to dream-building, that was explicitly said to be an attribute of a Solo rather then a coterie member? I don’t get it! In addition to his Skill responsibilities Fitz was in a unique position to help resolve Wit issues. But this line that was made important to us was completely dropped and forgotten. Too bad, I thought it matters when people are executed for their inborn abilities! Apparently not, if you can retire in a mention with someone you loved when you were 20.

And finally Fool was a big disappointment to me as well. He said several times that he set no boundaries to his love and I was stupid enough to believe him. Apparently he set the biggest limit of all by leaving Fitz forever. He didn’t even give him any choice at all making this decision all by himself for the reasons that sounded very unconvincing to me. It just simply looked like Hobb set her mind to get Fitz and Molly together no matter what and all who were in their way had to go, no matter how it compromises all previous developments. It would be better then to let Fool die, honestly. And yes, I truly believed Fool being a woman. When Starling first suggested it I was like “Yes! I knew it all along!” I didn’t even need any other clues (although there were plenty), it was just enough to read the “Quarrel” chapter of Golden Fool when Fool’s part of the dialog, his body language, his mannerism were entirely unquestionably feminine. What a brilliantly done piece, what a totally convincing confrontation between a proud angry man and a deeply hurt brokenhearted woman! I see no point in such deception. I honestly believe that Hobb was planning to reveal Fool as a woman at some point of time and then suddenly just changed her mind in the middle of 6th book. So messy and pointless. So much better to just let Fool die. If he is not a human at all then Fitz could form a Wit bond of a kind with him but clearly they belong together, as a man and a woman, as two men of otherwise, and if this is not possible then Fool needs to die. If he could just leave Fitz then he is not who he said he was. I don’t see any point in this deception either.

Anyway, it’s just my opinion. If other people find this ending to their liking I’m simply jealous because this series would be great reading then.

Seriously, I need to move on as well! :leaving:

[Samalander]

Robin Hobb could have, and, in fact, should have resolved the Fools gender (male, female, both, neither?), in the part where he died and Fitz went into his body to fix him!!! But she chose not to (spit in my face while you're at it, why don't you).

The only way to bring Fitz back from his happy ever after ending is if he suddenly finds he can't die of natural causes with Molly and his family because of all the magical tampering he underwent. Then we would get him as an old old bitter man, who had a brief interlude of happiness in a very unhappy life. Since the Fool's kind lead very long lives, they could come together in a closing of a circle, while saving Dutiful's grandson's throne. How does that sound?

[Shryke]

The whole idea of coming back to one’s lost love who was another’s wife for 16 years having 6+ children with him sound pretty unbelievable to me. It just doesn’t happen in real life as far as I can tell. We all experienced this sort of attempts to come back to something that was important to us when we were young and we all had this feeling that “the water moved on”. Nothing is the same when you come back. I’d find it much more convincing if Fitz indeed tried to come back to Molly only to find out that this woman is a complete stranger to him and it’s not her that he missed but his own youth and an age of innocence. BTW, didn’t Hobb express this very idea? I don’t remember exactly where but Fitz was thinking of Molly in this very terms: the love of a young and simple days, long gone. That sounded to me as a perfect resolution of an adult grown up man. Move on!

Next goes his social responsibility. It took Fitz 35+ years to accept his role as a Sacrifice to his people. As far as I concern the whole cycle of his character’s development described in the previous 5.5 books came to the moment when Kettrikken called Fitz a Sacrifice and he finally accepted it and gave Chade a command that was obeyed. I was like “Bravo! My boy is all grown up and pushes people around!” Accept who you are and move on. As a Sacrifice Fitz was invaluable. He could clean up a mess with Skill learning, restoring Solicity’s lost knowledge, he could work with Chade to improve Skill-healing techniques, he could build a solid support for Dutiful. But no, instead he went living in a farm and left all this to Nettle? Who needs a lot of schooling herself? Who’s Skill is very limited to dream-building, that was explicitly said to be an attribute of a Solo rather then a coterie member? I don’t get it! In addition to his Skill responsibilities Fitz was in a unique position to help resolve Wit issues. But this line that was made important to us was completely dropped and forgotten. Too bad, I thought it matters when people are executed for their inborn abilities! Apparently not, if you can retire in a mention with someone you loved when you were 20.

And finally Fool was a big disappointment to me as well. He said several times that he set no boundaries to his love and I was stupid enough to believe him. Apparently he set the biggest limit of all by leaving Fitz forever. He didn’t even give him any choice at all making this decision all by himself for the reasons that sounded very unconvincing to me. It just simply looked like Hobb set her mind to get Fitz and Molly together no matter what and all who were in their way had to go, no matter how it compromises all previous developments. It would be better then to let Fool die, honestly. And yes, I truly believed Fool being a woman. When Starling first suggested it I was like “Yes! I knew it all along!” I didn’t even need any other clues (although there were plenty), it was just enough to read the “Quarrel” chapter of Golden Fool when Fool’s part of the dialog, his body language, his mannerism were entirely unquestionably feminine. What a brilliantly done piece, what a totally convincing confrontation between a proud angry man and a deeply hurt brokenhearted woman! I see no point in such deception. I honestly believe that Hobb was planning to reveal Fool as a woman at some point of time and then suddenly just changed her mind in the middle of 6th book. So messy and pointless. So much better to just let Fool die. If he is not a human at all then Fitz could form a Wit bond of a kind with him but clearly they belong together, as a man and a woman, as two men of otherwise, and if this is not possible then Fool needs to die. If he could just leave Fitz then he is not who he said he was. I don’t see any point in this deception either.

Anyway, it’s just my opinion. If other people find this ending to their liking I’m simply jealous because this series would be great reading then.

Seriously, I need to move on as well! :leaving:

Uh, that's the ending to The Tawny Man trilogy, not the Farseer Trilogy.

And yes, Tawny Man was shit.

Also, Fitz accepts his role as "Sacrifice" in the first trilogy. That's part of the point of the ending really.

[3idcrow]

Robin Hobb could have, and, in fact, should have resolved the Fools gender (male, female, both, neither?), in the part where he died and Fitz went into his body to fix him!!! But she chose not to (spit in my face while you're at it, why don't you).

The only way to bring Fitz back from his happy ever after ending is if he suddenly finds he can't die of natural causes with Molly and his family because of all the magical tampering he underwent. Then we would get him as an old old bitter man, who had a brief interlude of happiness in a very unhappy life. Since the Fool's kind lead very long lives, they could come together in a closing of a circle, while saving Dutiful's grandson's throne. How does that sound?

Here's my crackpot theory, since I'm still not capable of just dropping the subject altogether...

Did you notice how Prophet/Catalyst couples are always male/female? I would guess that a Prophet is born neither male nor female and depends on his Catalyst to change him into one. This act demand Catalyst's undivided devotion and true love with no reservations and restrictions, with no boundaries, in other words. Since Fitz was unable to give it to Foo (well, I love you as a friend but I don't want you as a bed partner) Fool's development is incomplete. He has a female emotional markup alone with manerism and preferences but physically he is still genderless. And I totally agree with you, when Fitz is in Fool's body he should have recognized his need and his conflict. It could have also happened while sharing a Skill bond.

But no, let's just drop this too, like we dropped so many other lines...

Uh, that's the ending to The Tawny Man trilogy, not the Farseer Trilogy.

And yes, Tawny Man was shit.

Also, Fitz accepts his role as "Sacrifice" in the first trilogy. That's part of the point of the ending really.

Yes, you are right, I had them mixed up. I didn't have that much problem with the ending of the Farseer Trilogy, while I found it rather lame I still could believe it.

And yes, I see your point about a sacrifice too. However, I percieved a Sacrifice as someone who is actively serving his people rather then just crowling into a hiding place. But I could accept it either way.

[Galactus]

Wasn't the point that Fitz feelings *hadn't* been "matured"? That he'd, in his pain just dumped them into the stone dragon? And that once he got them back at the end of Tawny Man he was, emotionally, back to that point. Essentially he *didn't* have years of getting over Molly. (It's even explicitly said, no? That he could have loved others if he hadn't dumped his hurt into the stone dragon)

What bothered *me* was that we never got a confrontation with Nettle. We never got to see Fitz telling his story. It was all done off-panel by Molly, and that annoyed me, since that moment was what I had been waiting for the entire series.

[WhiteHaven]

Coun't me wrong, but isn't the fool a woman? At least, I thought that the Fool is Amber in the Liveship series and there she is a woman...so.

[Slick Mongoose]

I believe that the Fool is male. That is Fitz's assumption, and that doesn't change when Fitz skill-heals him or when Fitz sees him naked. If the Fool had not been male, Fitz would have noticed.

Yes, this means that Amber was male too. The Fool is very good at pretending to be something he's not. :)

[Trencher]

I just finished the first Fitz Trilogy and while I really enjoyed it, I didn't like the manner in which she brought it to conclusion. Here you have all this build up and then for the ending she fast forwards and has it narrated in summary pretty much. Very anti-climactic in my opinion. I have decided I am tired of reading books where you need to wait years for the next one, so I have started the Tawny Man series to keep it going. I was debating reading the new Jordan/Sanderson, but will wait until they are completed.

[3idcrow]

I believe that the Fool is male. That is Fitz's assumption, and that doesn't change when Fitz skill-heals him or when Fitz sees him naked. If the Fool had not been male, Fitz would have noticed.

Yes, this means that Amber was male too. The Fool is very good at pretending to be something he's not. :)

While skill-healing Fool Fitz noticed that the Fool was not entirely human. He also said that the difference between them was bigger then he thought. So, IMO, he was neither male nor female. But you are right, Fitz never saw Fool as a female and I never thought of him as a male.

Whatever. What's done is done.

[JoannaL]

I liked the Tawny Man series very much and I had also problems with the ending for about the same reasons as 3idcrow. I reread the book after half a year and I liked it much better. The ending is still unsatisfiying but also very interesting. It is as if Hobb is deliberatly toying with all possible endings (e.g. Fool and Fitz united or Fitz as Sacrifice) and then she writes one, while all the others are still there in the readers minds like parallel universes. Faszinating writing style, a little bit like in a symphony where at the end every melody and theme is recapitulated and come to a closure.

[JoannaL]

Oh, and in my opinion

Farseer good

Liveships ok

Tawny man great

Soldiers son awful

... and Fool is male ( and so Amber is a male in disguise which makes her much more faszinating)

[3idcrow]

Oh, and in my opinion

Farseer good

Liveships ok

Tawny man great

Soldiers son awful

... and Fool is male ( and so Amber is a male in disguise which makes her much more faszinating)

I think my problem is that I'd find the Fool to me a pretty pathetic man, while I'm in love with the Fool-as-a-Woman. A strong and sensitive, deeply loving and brave and beautiful woman with a skin as polished wood and golden hair and amber eyes. And she was taken away from me, not even killed but just swooped away from the board to free the room for some weak moves of less substantial pieces. I did't read Liveships though, maybe it's different there.

[Bellis]

I thought it was pretty clear that the Fool character transcended binary notions of gender; i.e. Hobb left it unclear because it's really not a valid question when applied to that character and the way that character views themself and wishes to be viewed by the person they love.

[Calibandar]

Hard to believe there are still people who contend that the Fool was female. Clearly, he was not, did not appear to be so prior to Fool's Fate, and then Fool's Fate came along and the matter was closed. But some people cling very stubbornly to their unsupported notions.

[WhiteHaven]

Hard to believe there are still people who contend that the Fool was female. Clearly, he was not, did not appear to be so prior to Fool's Fate, and then Fool's Fate came along and the matter was closed. But some people cling very stubbornly to their unsupported notions.

Well I did not read the Tawny Man trilogy, yet. And since Amber was described as a good looking woman in the Liveships Trilogy I thought that she might be a woman...but...whatever, I never gave a damn about the fool.

[Samalander]

Well I did not read the Tawny Man trilogy, yet. And since Amber was described as a good looking woman in the Liveships Trilogy I thought that she might be a woman...but...whatever, I never gave a damn about the fool.

Eh.. Did we read the same books? "She" was definately not described as a good looking woman. Striking, maybe. Good looking-definately not. Her features are described as hard and prominent.

[Samalander]

Hard to believe there are still people who contend that the Fool was female. Clearly, he was not, did not appear to be so prior to Fool's Fate, and then Fool's Fate came along and the matter was closed. But some people cling very stubbornly to their unsupported notions.

Please point me to the part in Fool's fate where Fitz goes:"Ah ha!! You're man after all!!"

[Calibandar]

Please point me to the part in Fool's fate where Fitz goes:"Ah ha!! You're man after all!!"

Did Fitz ever think The Fool was a female? No, he never does. So why would he then proclaim "You're a man after all"!"? He finds and sees nothing that goes contrary to his earlier belief of the Fool.

[WhiteHaven]

Eh.. Did we read the same books? "She" was definately not described as a good looking woman. Striking, maybe. Good looking-definately not. Her features are described as hard and prominent.

Tastes differ - I always thought, based on her description, that she/he/it is super hot. I like woman with little breasts, so yeah.

[3idcrow]

Hard to believe there are still people who contend that the Fool was female. Clearly, he was not, did not appear to be so prior to Fool's Fate, and then Fool's Fate came along and the matter was closed. But some people cling very stubbornly to their unsupported notions.

What I find ridiculous is an unquestionable acceptance of a fact stated by an author. I take such an approach to reading programming language manuals. I have different demands to works of fiction literature. There I like asking questions “Why?” and “What for?” and “What if?”. I like to see logic of events and reasons for people actions, cause and effect connections, and conclusion of previous development. Such logic might not be very obvious and character’s perception can differ from ours but there should be a reason for a particular course of events and consistency in a story telling. Suspicion for the sake of suspicion is a cheap trick.

Authors are not gods. When they create their worlds and populate them with people they sometimes screw things up. Fool’s Fate is a clear example of such failure.