Robin Hobb

[pat5150]

For those who might be interested, I'm giving away an ARC of Hobb's The Inheritance & Other Stories here.

Cheers,

Patrick

[Lord Toblerone]

Well, it's certainly a failure in the sense that the book sucks, but Hobb for sure knows whether the Fool is:

a) a women

B) a man

c) something different altogether

d) she didn't give a shit and never bothered to figure it out because it wasn't important

I think the Fool is either

a) Neither exactly male nor female

or

2) A male, but likes to be a chameleon and not have people ever be sure about him. To do with his nature as a White Prophet. He's a fantasy David Bowie.

And I don't think Hobb writes emo. I think emo is "Look how beautiful my pain is".

What Hobb writes is Noble men (who may or may not be noblemen, but usually are) suffering nobly. And that's romantic. So what Hobb writes is Romantic Fantasy, in the Lord Byron sense.

[Grack21]

I always thought Hobb as someone who just writes things that are really depressing. Kind of the way KJ Parker writes.

[Mjolnir]

Based on the Hobb I've read I could see how you might get that impression, Grack, but I'm not sure I'd quite agree. I'd say she's a writer who lavishes a lot of attention on characters' emotional struggles, and so yeah often that is very depressing. But it's the struggle -- over loyalty or obligation or being shunned and discriminated against or whatever -- she's interested in, rather than the depression. And things certainly can work out in Hobb. She seems to ascribe to the school of thought that says things have to get worse, sometimes much worse, before they can get better; GRRM works this way as well, I think. It can be excruciatingly painful given how Hobb dwells on the emotionally fraught middle acts of stories -- she is not a writer whose ever believed in less is more -- but at least one of her endings has been surprisingly positive. Yes certainly she can be damn depressing, but her style is very very unlike what little Parker I've read, in terms of prose and approach. Much less cold and clinical.

As for the Fool, I like that we don't know her/his gender for a certainty.

There was a period about five years ago now, lasted probably ten months, when I was quite certain Hobb was the premier fantasy author currently writing and that it was quite likely she'd set the sun and the moon in the sky. But I've never been back to her writing. Burned out on it I think. Shall have to try again.

[Liadin]

But it's the struggle -- over loyalty or obligation or being shunned and discriminated against or whatever -- she's interested in, rather than the depression. And things certainly can work out in Hobb. She seems to ascribe to the school of thought that says things have to get worse, sometimes much worse, before they can get better; GRRM works this way as well, I think. It can be excruciatingly painful given how Hobb dwells on the emotionally fraught middle acts of stories -- she is not a writer whose ever believed in less is more -- but at least one of her endings has been surprisingly positive. Yes certainly she can be damn depressing, but her style is very very unlike what little Parker I've read, in terms of prose and approach. Much less cold and clinical.

Agree. I assume you're referring to Fool's Fate, and would add that the Soldier's Son trilogy ends on a happy note as well. Maybe they're similar in that they're both emotionally difficult reading, but Parker has this distance from her characters where the whole point of Hobb's writing is that it's emotionally fraught and you're right there in the character's head.

[Grack21]

I still don't consider Soldier's Son to have a happy ending, and I think you are all crazed for thinking so. But yeah I didn't really mean they write the same, more like I go into their books expecting not happy things. It's hard to describe. It's like how I execpet both Whedon and Martin to kill off main characters at the drop of a hat, but I wound't say they write the same.

[Liadin]

I still don't consider Soldier's Son to have a happy ending, and I think you are all crazed for thinking so.

Please explain.

Nevare survives, loses his split personality, is no longer obese, marries his love interest and inherits. The Gernians decide not to build their road through the Speck sacred grove. The most important secondary characters, as far as I can recall, also survive and end their arcs on hopeful notes.

Granted, it's not perfect for everyone--the Plainspeople got totally screwed over, and a lot of people died along the way--but what more would you need to consider it "happy"?

[Samalander]

As for the Fool, I like that we don't know her/his gender for a certainty.

Again, for the millionth time...

Hobb might have chosen to keep the Fool's gender a mystery. But to have scenes in the books that mandate the unveiling of the mystery (Fitz, a POV charcter, taking charge of the Fool's body to heal it, for example) and still insist on maintaining a mystery, going up against her own story for her private purpose...That's never a good thing for an author to do.

[Lord Toblerone]

Please explain.

Nevare survives, loses his split personality, is no longer obese, marries his love interest and inherits. The Gernians decide not to build their road through the Speck sacred grove. The most important secondary characters, as far as I can recall, also survive and end their arcs on hopeful notes.

Granted, it's not perfect for everyone--the Plainspeople got totally screwed over, and a lot of people died along the way--but what more would you need to consider it "happy"?

I think that in both the Fool trilogy and the Soldier's Son trilogy she got into rewarding her characters for their suffering with happy endings.

And in Soldier's Son it was too much

Nevare did not lose his split personality by the way. He lost it temporarily and then got a "new better" split. Which pissed me off more than anything in that whole trilogy. Nevare gets his super duper fuck continuity ending (What happened to his uncle's son? Y'know, the one that he had brandy and smokes with in the first book?) and Lisana gets to be miserable, pining for her whole Nevare stuck with the stubborn anger.

It was a completely twisted round happy ending.

[Grack21]

Please explain.

Nevare survives, loses his split personality, is no longer obese, marries his love interest and inherits. The Gernians decide not to build their road through the Speck sacred grove. The most important secondary characters, as far as I can recall, also survive and end their arcs on hopeful notes.

Granted, it's not perfect for everyone--the Plainspeople got totally screwed over, and a lot of people died along the way--but what more would you need to consider it "happy"?

I might be remembering it wrong.

I don't really consider her a love intertest, rather as the only option he has left. Honestly that third book is so depressing there may have been a perfectly happy ending and I missed it. I honestly spent most of the third book hoping the poor fucker would just die.

I'll have to drag out my copy and give it a look.

[Liadin]

Nevare did not lose his split personality by the way. He lost it temporarily and then got a "new better" split. Which pissed me off more than anything in that whole trilogy. Nevare gets his super duper fuck continuity ending (What happened to his uncle's son? Y'know, the one that he had brandy and smokes with in the first book?) and Lisana gets to be miserable, pining for her whole Nevare stuck with the stubborn anger.

It was a completely twisted round happy ending.

It seemed to me that it was the same split: Lisana grabbed his hair in the same place and so the same part of him was torn out, yes? And she was really in love with the half of him that she'd kept the first time, so I thought she'd be okay with the re-splitting.

As for the continuity part--YES. The silliest part was that he didn't even need to inherit the uncle's property for a happy ending, as he could inherit his own father's.

I might be remembering it wrong.

I don't really consider her a love intertest, rather as the only option he has left. Honestly that third book is so depressing there may have been a perfectly happy ending and I missed it. I honestly spent most of the third book hoping the poor fucker would just die.

I'll have to drag out my copy and give it a look.

Oh, she was definitely a love interest.

They were clearly into each other and went through the whole rescuing-each-other fantasy plotline. I suspect you think she was just leftovers because she'd prostituted herself on occasion--but given that the whole theme of this trilogy was how we unfairly discount people for stupid reasons (see: Nevare and his weight) I don't think Hobb meant that as a "see how far Nevare has fallen" thing at all. But rather, like Nevare, Amzil was a perfectly good person whom most people would discount because there was a time in her life when she was desperate enough to sell sex for money.

[Grack21]

It seemed to me that it was the same split: Lisana grabbed his hair in the same place and so the same part of him was torn out, yes? And she was really in love with the half of him that she'd kept the first time, so I thought she'd be okay with the re-splitting.

As for the continuity part--YES. The silliest part was that he didn't even need to inherit the uncle's property for a happy ending, as he could inherit his own father's.

Oh, she was definitely a love interest.

They were clearly into each other and went through the whole rescuing-each-other fantasy plotline. I suspect you think she was just leftovers because she'd prostituted herself on occasion--but given that the whole theme of this trilogy was how we unfairly discount people for stupid reasons (see: Nevare and his weight) I don't think Hobb meant that as a "see how far Nevare has fallen" thing at all. But rather, like Nevare, Amzil was a perfectly good person whom most people would discount because there was a time in her life when she was desperate enough to sell sex for money.

Right, I think I'm remembering things wrong. The whole series was such a downer the ending might of just sort of slipped by. Although I still wound;t call it "happy". Maybe "not bad" or "better then could be expected". To me, happy implies more then just being content. Shit, I kind of want to reread these but I don't know if I could handle it emotional again.

[Yagathai]

Her daughter is smoking hot.

[Lord Toblerone]

It seemed to me that it was the same split: Lisana grabbed his hair in the same place and so the same part of him was torn out, yes? And she was really in love with the half of him that she'd kept the first time, so I thought she'd be okay with the re-splitting.

As for the continuity part--YES. The silliest part was that he didn't even need to inherit the uncle's property for a happy ending, as he could inherit his own father's.

Lisana stated outright she didn't want half a Nevare, she loved all of him. Nevare should've been left dead in the tree or possibly back to life but all the way and whole, not split again.

Making Nevare suddenly his uncle's heir as well was piling a few extra scoops of ice cream on the sundae that then collapses.

[Liadin]

Right, I think I'm remembering things wrong. The whole series was such a downer the ending might of just sort of slipped by. Although I still wound;t call it "happy". Maybe "not bad" or "better then could be expected". To me, happy implies more then just being content. Shit, I kind of want to reread these but I don't know if I could handle it emotional again.

That's fair. The last two books in the trilogy were almost entirely downers so I can see how the end could feel like too little, too late.

Lisana stated outright she didn't want half a Nevare, she loved all of him. Nevare should've been left dead in the tree or possibly back to life but all the way and whole, not split again.

Making Nevare suddenly his uncle's heir as well was piling a few extra scoops of ice cream on the sundae that then collapses.

To be honest, I didn't care for Lisana that much, so it didn't make the ending less happy for me that she didn't get quite what she wanted.

As for Nevare being split, well, he'd been so for virtually the entire trilogy, so it seemed appropriate to me that he'd end it that way. The two personalities had developed separately and meshing them together was just weird. We'd gotten to know split-Nevare, I don't really know who whole-Nevare would be.

But really, I hated the whole "split personality" conceit to begin with. I didn't realize when I began reading Hobb how much she likes founding characters' personalities on magic in one way or another, and it's one reason I'm hesitant to read Liveship even though it's popular.

[Grack21]

Liveship is a billion kamillion times more better then Solder's Son. And I liked the first two Soldier Son's books quite a bit. Plus the plot revelations actually make sense, and I'm pretty sure the ending makes logical sense too. Seriously, she'll never top those.

[Futhorc]

The ending of the Soldier's Son Trilogy depressed me as well. I just don't like the Specks and how they screwed over the Plainspeople so thoroughly, and the Specks are just too unlike able for me.

The ending of the Dragon Haven was pretty bad too. They reach the city after all that effort then The End.

[Grack21]

The ending of the Soldier's Son Trilogy depressed me as well. I just don't like the Specks and how they screwed over the Plainspeople so thoroughly, and the Specks are just too unlike able for me.

The ending of the Dragon Haven was pretty bad too. They reach the city after all that effort then The End.

Uh, there are two more Dragon Haven books coming out...

[Mjolnir]

About the Rain Wilds Chronicles and their sequelitude: My very vague understanding -- having not yet read them -- is that was not originally supposed to be the case. Dragon Keeper was originally envisioned as a standalone, I think, and split in two when it grew too large -- whether or not it should've been cut down with a dull ax instead is another question for another day. That Hobb eventually decided to do another Rain Wilds book to follow on seems to have been a later development, and some people assumed Dragon Haven was the end, while others just assumed there would certainly be a third book at a time when that actually wasn't certain. Is it two more now? Huh. Thought it was just one.

Liadin:

Agree. I assume you're referring to Fool's Fate, and would add that the Soldier's Son trilogy ends on a happy note as well. Maybe they're similar in that they're both emotionally difficult reading, but Parker has this distance from her characters where the whole point of Hobb's writing is that it's emotionally fraught and you're right there in the character's head.

Yep, exactly what I was going for. The whole point of Hobb is that you're right there; the emotional waves -- and the melodrama, when it's not working -- burn you you're so close in to the people. Parker's near the opposite. Though yeah, I can kinda see where Grack's getting a similar "let's watch these folks suffer" vibe off both. And yeah I was talking about Fool's Fate. Haven't read Soldier's Son yet; all the backlash against it scared me off.

Samalander:

Again, for the millionth time...

Hobb might have chosen to keep the Fool's gender a mystery. But to have scenes in the books that mandate the unveiling of the mystery (Fitz, a POV charcter, taking charge of the Fool's body to heal it, for example) and still insist on maintaining a mystery, going up against her own story for her private purpose...That's never a good thing for an author to do.

I can see this is an argument that's been had before and yeah we definitely don't need to have it over. For me personally an explicit definition of the Fool's gender is not crucial info in those sequences you're talking about; I agree it's the kind of thing Fitz might be expected to mention, but really it's not top of his priority list at the time. I don't think the plot or mechanics of the story were borked through keeping it a mystery and it contributes to the Fool's character. But I can see how it would grate on people.

[Liadin]

Haven't read Soldier's Son yet; all the backlash against it scared me off.

I think a lot of it is that it just wasn't the trilogy most people were looking for. I loved the first book, but until near the end of that one or early in the second, I thought it was setting up a story about an imperial power conquering (or trying to conquer) native tribes, seen through the eyes of a junior officer in the imperial army. And I wanted to read that story. But that's not what Hobb wrote--it turned out to be about outcasts, perceptions of obesity, and magically severed personalities, although the conquest part did play a role.

Whereas a lot of people seemed to hate it from the beginning because it's not a typical fantasy book--the royalty never appears on-page, the narrator can be both insecure and stodgy, to the extent that there's a "good" and "bad" side at all the main characters are almost all on the "bad" one, and so on. I was fine with all that, quite liked it in fact, but didn't like the direction the second and third books took. Some people did like it all the way through. Depends on your taste really.