Robin Hobb's Assassin and Ethics

I want to know what reaction do you expect from a reader ? To get bored after a few pages ? I don't think so. To have characters without any charm around them ? No, I don't think that one either. To have a big book published, but nobody interested to read it. Nope. Do you understand what I mean ?

My point is, Robin Hobb has created a character (Fitz) who can touch the public. Fits is special, intriguing, romantic, courageous. Having a character like him can make you forget about the less strong parts of the book. I love to read. What do I expect to find into a good Book ? A good intrigue, interesting characters, something new to provoke my imagination, not to many boring descriptions, etc. Well, now that we are talking about, I remember Hobb repeted herself with some descriptions. Like she was afraid we could forget them going through all the volumes. I forget her about them, because of Fitz.
 
Alexa - you've brought up a point that I've often expressed, if the character is so real that you can imaging sitting down in a bar/pub and having a pint with them, that is true writing. Fitz as a character is so well-rounded and so developed, you can imagine having a conversation with him. Definitely what I'd say was good writing.

As far as depressing, yes his life has a lot of down moments and I'm not one to celebrate depressing novels - I usually dislike them because reading is such an escape from that for me. But, the Assassin novels have that extra realism and touch to make them interesting even though they have that depressing bent to them.
 
I really appreciated the Liveship Traders and The Tawny Man far more than her first series. I did like the Farseer Trilogy, however I felt that her next two series were on a higher level.
 
I would say Hobb is gifted in writing about misery. But for me this is what makes her characters so real. I actually felt for them, and when there is great loss (especially in the Tawny Man series) I was nearly crying.

Brilliant writing and brilliant books :D
 
dwndrgn said:
Alexa - you've brought up a point that I've often expressed, if the character is so real that you can imaging sitting down in a bar/pub and having a pint with them, that is true writing. Fitz as a character is so well-rounded and so developed, you can imagine having a conversation with him. Definitely what I'd say was good writing.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I didn't know about that. I didn't have the time to read all the threads and I was almost afraid to look into this section of the forum when I saw writers posting in. Reading is an escape for me, too. Whenever I have a good book into my hands, I'm full of energy and happiness.

I hope I can find the trilogies of Hobb. I want them for my collection. :)
 
Ah, well then, Alexa, to answer your question: as a writer, I don't expect to please everyone. As a reader, I know that not everyone has the same tastes -- and that even some of my friends who have fairly similar tastes will sometimes recommend a book that I end up not liking at all, or will dislike a book that I was absolutely crazy about.

For instance, several people on these boards have stated that they don't like books with too much description. Well, it happens that I absolutely love a descriptive style of writing if it is particularly well done, and going by some of the books that others here have recommended, I would say that I am not alone. I love good characterization as well -- but just as you will forgive a certain amount of long-winded description for the sake of an interesting character, I will occasionally forgive a book that is somewhat light on characterization if the prose absolutely blows me away. Of course the books I love most have both qualities. Everyone has their own list of likes and dislikes, and their own way of prioritizing them.

So when I sit down to write, I try to do the best possible job of writing the kind of book that I, personally, like to read. And if I am happy with what I have written, I hope (expect is too strong a word, because who am I to have expectations of people I may not even know?) that those who share many of my tastes as a reader will be interested enough and delighted enough to keep on reading.

But to return to Robin Hobb: I agree that she does what she does particularly well. So well in some aspects, in fact, that I was willing to stick with her all through the first Farseer book, in spite of the things that weren't to my personal taste (the somewhat gimmicky names and the heavy dose of despair). I think her world-building is exceptional, and I really like her prose style which is both eloquent and easy to read (but not distinctive enough for me to absolutely fall in love with). I thought Fitz was a sympathetic and interesting character, and I was intrigued by some of his moral and ethical dilemmas. In the end, though, the weight of gloom and doom was too much for me -- which is a personal observation, not a value judgement.
 
The opportunity is already before you, Alexa. My book was published in October.

But while I think you might really like my characters (who spend most of the book in increasingly dire circumstances, and yet grit their teeth and go on) there is no getting around the fact that I do employ a descriptive style.

(You see how difficult it is for me to recommend anything, even the product of my own blood, sweat, and tears, without a disclaimer of some sort.)

We now return the conversation to Fitz and the questions of ethics and morality he is obliged to face.

For me, a large part of what made those questions interesting and believable was the context. Which brings us back to the author's abilities at worldbuilding. Within his world, his culture, his time, his own particular background, I can sympathize with Fitz and the decisions he makes (even when I don't necessarily agree with them) -- but I would be horrified at the same behavior in, say, my next-door-neighbor.
 
You mean "The hidden stars"? I'll do my best to find it. You know, unfortunately the Canadians are not so quick in some domains. :mad: Anyway, I hope my book club can help me find it.

I'll be worried too, the day when my next-door-neighbor have a telepathic connection with a wolf. :D

Anyway, the slower reader at my library was supposed to return volum 9 by today. He didn't ! :mad: I hope he doesn't need another 3 weeks to finish it. I'm eager to find out how this adventure ends.
 
for me, all of hobb's trilogies, particularly those concerning fitz, were made incredible by how deep the relationships between her characters went. the friendship between fitz and the fool is incredible, amazing, so much depth. it's the kind of relationship with a person i can only imagine having. i felt for those charcters, sympathized and cared for them. for an author to be able to do that is truly a gift.


robin hobb's novels are tragic. much as some of the best literature in history is tragic. crime and punishment, hamlet, and so on. this does not mean that one should regard them in distaste. i was actually quite pleased that hobb didn't take the predictable route and end it on an up note (farseer trilogy).

SPOILER FOR TAWNY MAN FOOL'S FATE FOLLOWS:






actually, to tell you the truth, i was disappointed that fitz ended up with molly. it made burrich's death seem more of a plot device rather than an attempt to bring out the emotion of fitz losing his father figure. also, the end of tawny man seemed all to much of a happily every after. although, i understand that since fitz and the fool completed their roles as the prophet and catalyst that they no longer had to be tragic, i was still a little thrown. and then, the one thing that i would have liked didn't happen. the fool left. so sad. i loved the fool, favorite character by far. i wanted to see him with fitz, i wanted the fool to be a woman and for fitz and the fool to be together.


SPOILER FOR LIVESHIP TRADER:

and also, not all of hobb's trilogies end so depressing. liveship traders ended on a very pleasant note and it didn't feel like anything was sacrificed to end it that way.


anyhow, i love hobb's work, i prize it among some of the best fantasy literature i've read.
 
The thing is, real life is generally a mixture of pain and pleasure, sorrow and joy, and sometimes, in fiction, a tragic turn of events can seem just as contrived as a happy ending. It can feel like the author is manipulating events, not according to what would logically follow, but for the sake of increasing the drama of a character's situation. Some readers enjoy this, they like the shock of the unexpected, and consider it high art. Fair enough. But with other readers it throws them right out of the story. It can start someone like me asking questions like "Why the heck did that happen?" when the only question I should be asking while the book is still open in front of me is "What will happen next?"

For ninety percent of the time I was reading about Fitz all I cared about was that second question. As I've said, Hobb does what she does extremely well.
 
I'm currently reading Tawny Man (just starting book two), which I purchased just to find out more about Fitz and the Fool.

Since starting this series I noticed one thing in Hobb's writing that I didn't pay attention to in the Farseer. She took a big gamble in telling the story from a First person view. If she didn't develop the character of FitzChivalry enough to make you feel completely connected with him, you wouldn't like the books at all. By allowing the reader inside the character's thoughts and emotions, the reader is given a greater amount of detail to judge the character. IMHO this takes a level of character development many writers simply could not commit to undertake. Robin Hobb does it beautifully.

FitzChivalry is not a character I would want to share a pint with in a pub, I would have to spend far more time than that with him. His story could not be appreciated in a single evening, as Hobb develops a truly emotional link between character and reader. His struggles to avoid that which Destiny has bestowed as his duty, his resistance to killing certain characters to protect himself, even his sense of responsibility to a people that have killed him once all serve to strenghten the bond between reader and character in a way that a third person p.o.v. could not do. Kudos to Hobb for a brilliant job of really allowing a reader to connect to the character, and a very well told tale.
 
I think he was made an assassin to get him out of the castle. Also it wouldnt be very good if he was a baker and had a wolf as a companion!
 
Fitz was trained as assassin to be used like a tool by his grandfather and made in this way harmless for his children. The king could get Fitz's loyalty with his affection, but he'd rather pay for it. The chance of Fitz was his lack of ambition for the throne.
 
Hi all. I've been a great fan of this series and have read all volumes several times. As to the question, I think that Hobb made Fitz an assassin because it mirrors his eventual larger role in the events of that world, ie, he becomes a tool of Shrewd and then he goes on to become a tool of the Fool and his 'fate'. Do you recall when Fitz killed that woman at Duke Brawndy's holding? He didn't seem to upset at using his skills then, nor when he killed the men at King Regals country estate. I think it would be unfair to say that he totally detested his role as an assassin. What do others think?
Karen
 
Rahl: I too was struck by the first person POV when I first read the Farseer series a few years ago. It was definitely an interesting departure from the norm, and I'm glad Hobb took the chance on it.

I think Moon also brought up a good point. Fitz was a great assassin/spy, and I think at times was proud of having that unique talent. And as he reveals in Tawny Man (although I'm only 1 book into that series), that his life really wasn't so bad since he was in fact recognized nobility with good food, warm clothes, and a nice place to sleep each night.

While we didn't see much assassin work in Farseer, I think most of those activities were behind the scenes to further move the plot along. Also, I can see why some people don't enjoy reading Hobb because the story isn't happy all the time. But I think she presents a much more realistic story because the hero doesn't win every time (in Fitz's personal life, politics, etc.), and has struggles he can't easily overcome with some magic scroll or flimsy fantasy device.
 
No, it's not always a happy ending for Fitz's endeavours, but then he is, as the Fool descibes him, the Changer, the catalyst that will turn aside the wheel of time from it's course. That can't be an easy thing, nor would that task be appointed to someone who hadn't already been tested by life's struggles. To me this makes Hobb's character far more realistic than some others who, as Neon points out, simply wave a magic wand. Fitz does have magic at his disposal, but it's use comes at a painful price. More often than not, its his brains and brawn that get him out of trouble, or at least a faithful old hound.
 
Fitz - like he who trained him - was of Royal blood. I believe that they both knew (Fitz eventually) that he had to be trained in that way as eventually, when the time was right, that blood line would need to be continued. There were loose threads in the stories but they would all ultimately be brought together and each story would culminate in a whole. Fitz was always less willing to use the "gifts" he had been given, but used they would be - as the stories progressed. Hobb has been very clever in the way she has woven the stories together.
 
I don't really think that we are really presented with any major moral issues when dealing with Fitz. While he is trained as an assasin, he is only really confronted with a morally reprehensible mission in the very first book; and he ends up avoiding it through reasoning and communication. By and large, his actions are performed for the general good; I cannot think or any times when he is forced to kill innocents or commit terrible acts. By and large he acts as the protector 'behind the scenes' for the Farseer family, and indeed the majority of his acts come from an intense loyalty to the line.

As for the complaints about the grim nature of the books, I think that Hobb does tend to take a harsh attitude to her characters, tending to put them through the emotional wringer; that, for me, is part of the attraction of the books. While occasionally his degree of self-pity occasionally tends to overwhelm the sympathy you have for his character (a condition I like to call the "Ikari syndrome") by and large he is complex enough to make for an interesting character, even if he is not necessarily a loveable one.
 
Lidora: I wanted that ending too, lol. Ah, well, the ending was written beautifully anyway. I won't complain.

As for the rest, Fitz's trials serve to shape him into the man that he becomes. If Fitz hadn't lived through such tragedy and come to so many difficult, morally and emotionally taxing decisions, I don't think he would have been able to later take the actions necessary to save a kingdom. So I've always considered his assassin's role as a character device. It's clear from the start he's never meant simply to be an assassin. After all, he's much too compassionate and intellectual to fill the role of a soulless killing machine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Teresa Edgerton Review: The Square of Sevens, by Laura Shepherd-Robinson Reviews & Interviews 0
nixie Stand back Superman, Iceman, Spiderman, Batman and Robin too Obituaries 1
Brian G Turner Strobing LED lights Technology 9
The Big Peat Mary Robinette Kowal on Critiques Writing Resources 0
L I have Robin Hobb's books on my must read list. Are they any good? Robin Hobb 34

Similar threads


Back
Top