Robin Hobb's Assassin and Ethics

[Teresa Edgerton]

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.

[Darken Rahl]

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.

[A1ien]

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!

[Alexa]

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.

[MoonLover]

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

[Neon]

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.

[MoonLover]

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.

[SpaceShip]

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.

[Somebloke]

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.

[papercut]

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.

[Kitera]

I loved the Fool and would have very much liked to see him stay, but I can never consider him as being a female. To me, he was always male and he was always the Fool. And that being said, I also loved the relationship between Fitz and the Fool. I do not think for a second that even if the Fool was female, that Fitz could ever loved him in that kind of way. I hope that made sense.

As for Fitz's training in being an assassin; yes they aided him a lot, helped him survive but remember Fitz was a tool of the Faseer. He was taught that way since he was young and he is who he is. To me, Fitz was human, just like any other guy and he uses his skills to ensure his survival; thats why Fitz was one of the best character (in my opinion) ever created.

[the_faery_queen]

i must be one of the few people who actually loved the series because it WAS dark. i am so bored to tears with all the happy clappy crappy stuff that comes out where everyone lives happily ever after and gets married and their lives have little downsides and then far more good. i like something that is realistic, that isn't all nice, because life isn't for lots of people.

in fact, the happy ending was what ruined the series for me.

anyway, in answer to the original question, i think that fitz is just like a soldier. to the enemy, he's a bad person. and he is killing in secret, which is very different from killing during a battle, but it's all about perception. to the people he saved through assassinating the enemy, he's kinda a hero. he may well have saved lots of other people from dying. and ok, it's not noble to kill in secret, but things rarely are that noble. war isn't really as noble and clean a thing as we often have the idea of it being, and at least fitz isn't killing for money. he's loyal to his side, he kills for duty, he is doing what he is told by his king. that makes him more than just a common killer, i think.

but i don't think he was chosen to do this because the writer wanted to challenge us ethically. i think she gave him that job because she needed him to be on the sidelines, to be watching everything and not really a part of it. he's a catylst, after all. he isn't meant to affect change, or make things happen. changes happen around him because of him, but he doesn't really do it himself.

or something.