This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
1TerrapinJetta
Hey all, recently finished this series and I was wondering what you all thought about the ending. It was very disappointing to me and didn't seem to ring true with the narrative and everything she'd been hinting at all through the two trilogies. Did anybody feel happy with it?
Edit: Ooh didn't realise touchstones didn't work in headings - come to think of it though it makes sense. I can't seem to edit it to get rid of it though, sorry.
Edit: Ooh didn't realise touchstones didn't work in headings - come to think of it though it makes sense. I can't seem to edit it to get rid of it though, sorry.
2Unreachableshelf
Copied/Pasted from an LJ community entry I made just after my last reread. Spoilers ensue:
The Fool compares the relationship between him and Fitz to the one between Fitz and Nighteyes, partly as a way to make Fitz stop seeing everything in terms of sex. I'm not sure the comparison is exactly appropriate, in that regard: we're told that Whites are born to human parents when the bloodlines of the original human/White crosses intersect again. Basically, they're huge bundles of recessive traits. That means that not only are humans and Whites close enough genetically to breed, but that their offspring are fertile. That puts them closer genetically than horses and donkeys. But I don't think the fact that the love between the Fool and Fitz remains platonic actually has a huge impact on how satisfying the ending is or isn't, so I digress. I just thought that I'd throw that in since I'm focusing on the subject of the Fool-Fitz, Fitz-Nighteyes comparison.
It's possible to consider the reoccuring theme of the importance of Old Blood bonding with animals responsibly in the Tawny Man Trilogy as preperation for the Fool leaving Fitz, because the shorter-lived partner deserves a life among his own kind. The problem is that Robin Hobb defeats that comparison herself. Swift is kept from bonding with an animal on the grounds that he is too young and irresponsible, and he's not thinking of the animal's well-being. But Fitz and Nighteyes bonded when they were relatively young, and although Black Rolf comes close to reproaching Fitz for that when he says that it's something to be forgiven because he did it out of ignorance, nobody *ever* suggests that Nighteyes should be driven back to the wolves. When Black Rolf insists Fitz incorporate a wolf-den into the home Fitz has during his stay in that community, Nighteyes doesn't even want it. Maybe Nighteyes lived in an overly humanized world in comparison to what Old Blood custom dictates, but the attempt to change that feels forced, even to Nighteyes. The reader is given the impression that although the bond between Fitz and Nighteyes was made in ignorance of how things should be done, they have settled in their ways and there shouldn't be any attempt to correct that. The Fool insisting to Fitz that they should never see each other again is as if Fitz had somehow kept Nighteyes from returning to him after the time he spent with the wolf pack.
The Fool says that Molly would never accept the bond between him and Fitz, just as Fitz told him she would never have accepted Nighteyes. Well, the bond between him and Nighteyes is one that until recently, it was common for people to be killed for, and is just barely tollerated because the Old Blood are now protected by law. Isn't there a difference between that and deep friendship between two humans? (Or at least, a human and someone who appears to be one?) Does Fitz really think that Molly couldn't handle him being close to anybody but her, or does the bond between him and the Fool stand a better chance of being accepted than one that's considered dirty beast magic by a large percentage of the population? We all love a lot of people in a lot of different ways over the course of our lives. Last time I heard, being married wasn't supposed to mean that we cared for our friends any less. (In fact, much of the modern world seems to imply that we are supposed to love our friends more than our s.o.'s in the sexual sense, i.e. "chicks before dicks," et cetera, which is of course equally wrong but I digress.) Does Molly love her children less because she loves Burrich, or vice versa? Would she expect Fitz not to see Hap when he and his master pass through the area, because somehow that would be stealing from his affection for her? Why then would the Fool be unacceptable? He's not trying to occupy the same space in Fitz's affections that Molly has.
Then there's the failure of the set-up for Fitz's reuinion with Molly, in Fool's Errand. Jinna tells Fitz that his love runs in and out of his life, but will return soon. Almost immediately, the Fool appears. We've associated the love that is returning to Fitz's life with the Fool for almost the entirity of the trilogy before Molly reappears at the very end of Fool's Fate. By then, we've been listening to these men call each other Beloved, and watching Fitz come to terms with the fact that love isn't any less just because it doesn't happen to be sexual, for three books. Are we supposed to suddenly shift what we thought was a prediction of the Fool's return to apply to his reunion with Molly after all that?
The only part of the Fool's explanation which seems at all plausible to me is his concern that Fitz will accidentally change things he shouldn't if the White Prophet and the Catalyst see each other again. But it's apparently possible to no longer be the White Prophet for the time during one's lifetime, since that is what happened to the Black Man. If the Fool has won, is he still the White Prophet? Is Fitz still the Catalyst, if the Fool is no longer the White Prophet? Maybe, since he restored the Fool to life, that means he is, but Burrich was nobody's Catalyst when he did the same thing for Fitz. Fitz didn't change the fact that the Fool died: he merely took a step afterwards in a part of the future that the Fool hadn't seen. It's possible that Fitz is still the Catalyst, and that the Fool still has some power as the White Prophet, and that it could accidentally cause things to happen that shouldn't if they see each other again, but none of those things are givens as far as I can tell. It's the only part of the reasoning that makes any sense to me at all, but it's still weak.
The Fool compares the relationship between him and Fitz to the one between Fitz and Nighteyes, partly as a way to make Fitz stop seeing everything in terms of sex. I'm not sure the comparison is exactly appropriate, in that regard: we're told that Whites are born to human parents when the bloodlines of the original human/White crosses intersect again. Basically, they're huge bundles of recessive traits. That means that not only are humans and Whites close enough genetically to breed, but that their offspring are fertile. That puts them closer genetically than horses and donkeys. But I don't think the fact that the love between the Fool and Fitz remains platonic actually has a huge impact on how satisfying the ending is or isn't, so I digress. I just thought that I'd throw that in since I'm focusing on the subject of the Fool-Fitz, Fitz-Nighteyes comparison.
It's possible to consider the reoccuring theme of the importance of Old Blood bonding with animals responsibly in the Tawny Man Trilogy as preperation for the Fool leaving Fitz, because the shorter-lived partner deserves a life among his own kind. The problem is that Robin Hobb defeats that comparison herself. Swift is kept from bonding with an animal on the grounds that he is too young and irresponsible, and he's not thinking of the animal's well-being. But Fitz and Nighteyes bonded when they were relatively young, and although Black Rolf comes close to reproaching Fitz for that when he says that it's something to be forgiven because he did it out of ignorance, nobody *ever* suggests that Nighteyes should be driven back to the wolves. When Black Rolf insists Fitz incorporate a wolf-den into the home Fitz has during his stay in that community, Nighteyes doesn't even want it. Maybe Nighteyes lived in an overly humanized world in comparison to what Old Blood custom dictates, but the attempt to change that feels forced, even to Nighteyes. The reader is given the impression that although the bond between Fitz and Nighteyes was made in ignorance of how things should be done, they have settled in their ways and there shouldn't be any attempt to correct that. The Fool insisting to Fitz that they should never see each other again is as if Fitz had somehow kept Nighteyes from returning to him after the time he spent with the wolf pack.
The Fool says that Molly would never accept the bond between him and Fitz, just as Fitz told him she would never have accepted Nighteyes. Well, the bond between him and Nighteyes is one that until recently, it was common for people to be killed for, and is just barely tollerated because the Old Blood are now protected by law. Isn't there a difference between that and deep friendship between two humans? (Or at least, a human and someone who appears to be one?) Does Fitz really think that Molly couldn't handle him being close to anybody but her, or does the bond between him and the Fool stand a better chance of being accepted than one that's considered dirty beast magic by a large percentage of the population? We all love a lot of people in a lot of different ways over the course of our lives. Last time I heard, being married wasn't supposed to mean that we cared for our friends any less. (In fact, much of the modern world seems to imply that we are supposed to love our friends more than our s.o.'s in the sexual sense, i.e. "chicks before dicks," et cetera, which is of course equally wrong but I digress.) Does Molly love her children less because she loves Burrich, or vice versa? Would she expect Fitz not to see Hap when he and his master pass through the area, because somehow that would be stealing from his affection for her? Why then would the Fool be unacceptable? He's not trying to occupy the same space in Fitz's affections that Molly has.
Then there's the failure of the set-up for Fitz's reuinion with Molly, in Fool's Errand. Jinna tells Fitz that his love runs in and out of his life, but will return soon. Almost immediately, the Fool appears. We've associated the love that is returning to Fitz's life with the Fool for almost the entirity of the trilogy before Molly reappears at the very end of Fool's Fate. By then, we've been listening to these men call each other Beloved, and watching Fitz come to terms with the fact that love isn't any less just because it doesn't happen to be sexual, for three books. Are we supposed to suddenly shift what we thought was a prediction of the Fool's return to apply to his reunion with Molly after all that?
The only part of the Fool's explanation which seems at all plausible to me is his concern that Fitz will accidentally change things he shouldn't if the White Prophet and the Catalyst see each other again. But it's apparently possible to no longer be the White Prophet for the time during one's lifetime, since that is what happened to the Black Man. If the Fool has won, is he still the White Prophet? Is Fitz still the Catalyst, if the Fool is no longer the White Prophet? Maybe, since he restored the Fool to life, that means he is, but Burrich was nobody's Catalyst when he did the same thing for Fitz. Fitz didn't change the fact that the Fool died: he merely took a step afterwards in a part of the future that the Fool hadn't seen. It's possible that Fitz is still the Catalyst, and that the Fool still has some power as the White Prophet, and that it could accidentally cause things to happen that shouldn't if they see each other again, but none of those things are givens as far as I can tell. It's the only part of the reasoning that makes any sense to me at all, but it's still weak.
3TerrapinJetta
Wow, absolutely. I agree with everything you've said, and I'm so glad somebody else is seeing gaping holes in the ending as I am. It's like she changed her mind right at the end and decided to leave Fitz and Molly together instead of Fitz and the Fool.
"By then, we've been listening to these men call each other Beloved, and watching Fitz come to terms with the fact that love isn't any less just because it doesn't happen to be sexual, for three books."
Considering Fitz's adeptness at self deception, the pages of loving description of the Fool's beauty and grace, not to mention that he is very touchy-feely with him, I'm not willing to discount some sort of subconscious sexual attraction. Ugh I need closure on this series, I can't deal with thinking about it ALL the time. I feel a kind of itchy discontentedness that won't let me put it to rest.
"By then, we've been listening to these men call each other Beloved, and watching Fitz come to terms with the fact that love isn't any less just because it doesn't happen to be sexual, for three books."
Considering Fitz's adeptness at self deception, the pages of loving description of the Fool's beauty and grace, not to mention that he is very touchy-feely with him, I'm not willing to discount some sort of subconscious sexual attraction. Ugh I need closure on this series, I can't deal with thinking about it ALL the time. I feel a kind of itchy discontentedness that won't let me put it to rest.
4naleta
I did enjoy this series, but I agree that it's unfinished as it stands right now. Books are supposed to have closure eventually!
5Seanie
Wow! I'm always shocked when I hear people dislike these series', but Robin Hobb is proabably my fave author of all time so I guess I'm a bit biased, lol...
Now I dont mean this as an attack, coz everyone's entitled to their own opinion so sorry if this comes across harshly, but I gotta say, just coz the series wasn't finished in the way you wanted, doesnt mean its unfinished...
I love that there are still unanswered questions about these characters, the sense of mystery & the fact that things dont always turn out for them as we'd expect them to, is a really big part of what makes them great characters (IMHO)...
Having said that, I can understand why some people would find the "not knowing" frustrating, I guess it comes down to differrent tastes & the fact that even great authors can't write stories that will please everyone :)
Now I dont mean this as an attack, coz everyone's entitled to their own opinion so sorry if this comes across harshly, but I gotta say, just coz the series wasn't finished in the way you wanted, doesnt mean its unfinished...
I love that there are still unanswered questions about these characters, the sense of mystery & the fact that things dont always turn out for them as we'd expect them to, is a really big part of what makes them great characters (IMHO)...
Having said that, I can understand why some people would find the "not knowing" frustrating, I guess it comes down to differrent tastes & the fact that even great authors can't write stories that will please everyone :)
7KimarieBee
#5 Seanie expressed my own opinion so well that I can only echo the sentiments. However, having heard that Robin's next book is going back to the Rain Wilds (Liveship Series) you never know which characters may reappear.
8Unreachableshelf
Yeah, I don't think that the series lacked resolution. I just don't think that Hobb "sold" me on the ending well enough, for the reasons I explained above.
And I don't think Fitz/Fool needs to be canon, either. Fitz might have spent most of his life in one deception or another, but he's a pretty straight-forward narrator. If there was anything going on there, we'd know about it. The fact that he seems to have negative gaydar- whenever the entire population of Buckkeep finds something suspicious, Fitz is always the last to notice- makes me think that he probably doesn't have any secret desire to test out a different set of plumbing.
Which isn't to say I never read Fitz/Fool, but the only way it was ever going to go there in canon would be if the Fool had turned out to be a woman. I know how to keep canon and fic. seperate in my mind.
And I don't think Fitz/Fool needs to be canon, either. Fitz might have spent most of his life in one deception or another, but he's a pretty straight-forward narrator. If there was anything going on there, we'd know about it. The fact that he seems to have negative gaydar- whenever the entire population of Buckkeep finds something suspicious, Fitz is always the last to notice- makes me think that he probably doesn't have any secret desire to test out a different set of plumbing.
Which isn't to say I never read Fitz/Fool, but the only way it was ever going to go there in canon would be if the Fool had turned out to be a woman. I know how to keep canon and fic. seperate in my mind.
9bjappleg8 First Message
You know, I finished reading this series when the last book was first published, and it STILL bugs me: I felt for the whole 9 books that Hobb was hinting that the Fool was, in fact, female, and then just sort of ignored the question at the end.
Here's why (these are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head): the Fool's room was decorated as a girl's -- with flowers, a doll, etc. (Fitz sees this when he intrudes)
Starling suspects the Fool is a woman and in love with Fitz and is terribly jealous throughout Assassin's Quest
The Fool IS a woman (Amber) all through the Liveship Trader books -- not just a woman posing as a man, either -- she teaches Althea how to bind her breasts and conceal her menstruation, etc. -- leading Althea to speculate that Amber has had to disguise herself as a man at some point.
Through all the last three books I felt like there was this tension building and kept waiting for some kind of confrontation between Fitz and Fool -- some resolution. Instead, it seemed like Hobb sidestepped it.
The books were great -- obviously I'm still thinking about them and wondering a couple of years after the fact. I sure felt that she left some major threads hanging, though, and it nags -- is very unsatisfying
Here's why (these are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head): the Fool's room was decorated as a girl's -- with flowers, a doll, etc. (Fitz sees this when he intrudes)
Starling suspects the Fool is a woman and in love with Fitz and is terribly jealous throughout Assassin's Quest
The Fool IS a woman (Amber) all through the Liveship Trader books -- not just a woman posing as a man, either -- she teaches Althea how to bind her breasts and conceal her menstruation, etc. -- leading Althea to speculate that Amber has had to disguise herself as a man at some point.
Through all the last three books I felt like there was this tension building and kept waiting for some kind of confrontation between Fitz and Fool -- some resolution. Instead, it seemed like Hobb sidestepped it.
The books were great -- obviously I'm still thinking about them and wondering a couple of years after the fact. I sure felt that she left some major threads hanging, though, and it nags -- is very unsatisfying
10Seanie
yay, i was worried I'd offend people with my prev comment but it looks like its been taken the right way :)
#7 - ooh, i didnt know she was going back to the rainwilds with her next story, I was under the impression (dunno where i got this from) that she wasnt going to write any more about that particular world... I'm very excited to hear that she is, where did you hear about it???
#9 - I wonder if Hobb meant to create the sort of controversy (for lack of a better word) that means you are still thinking about the books years after you read them??? I wonder if its something like the whole "all publicity is good publicity" thing & if she would be pleased or annoyed that you are still thinking about the books even though you didnt find them a satisfying read, *ponders*
#7 - ooh, i didnt know she was going back to the rainwilds with her next story, I was under the impression (dunno where i got this from) that she wasnt going to write any more about that particular world... I'm very excited to hear that she is, where did you hear about it???
#9 - I wonder if Hobb meant to create the sort of controversy (for lack of a better word) that means you are still thinking about the books years after you read them??? I wonder if its something like the whole "all publicity is good publicity" thing & if she would be pleased or annoyed that you are still thinking about the books even though you didnt find them a satisfying read, *ponders*
11KimarieBee
Hi Seanie. Robin mentioned in a post on her Newsgroup last month that she has been rereading her Liveship series because she MAY revisit the Rain Wilds region for her next book. Surprisingly, she also said she found that she missed the character, Kennit, who was a popular villain with a lot of readers. Sounds good to me :0)
I haven't been given the impression that Robin/Megan was deliberately creating any controversy with her storylines and characters, but I think she is happy to let her readers form their own opinions about the characters' actions and motivations and would not necessarily say that anyone is right or wrong in their speculation. In other words, it's no easy ride, she makes us work as well but maybe that's the attraction for me. However, I'm only guessing.
I haven't been given the impression that Robin/Megan was deliberately creating any controversy with her storylines and characters, but I think she is happy to let her readers form their own opinions about the characters' actions and motivations and would not necessarily say that anyone is right or wrong in their speculation. In other words, it's no easy ride, she makes us work as well but maybe that's the attraction for me. However, I'm only guessing.
