Commonfolk Concern Illusion
I’m enough experienced in the fantasy literature to know that depicting commonfolk is often only a pretense. You know, for example, the main hero was brought up on a farm, but he is from a royal family (Belgariad so much). Hobb, although in comparison with Eddings is much better and non-sexist writer, makes the same errors and tricks when it comes to the descriptions of commonfolk. It is actually funny that even conservative Tolkien wasn’t so classist. Frodo and Sam were no noblemen, and yet they saved the Middle-Earth, and they didn’t do it directly because “Aragorn is the Rightful King!”. What is more, born into a poor gardener’s family, Sam would later become a mayor of the Shire’s capital. Ok, I must confess that I’m sentimental when it comes to Tolkien, but really… LoTR is not bad as for a book published over sixty years ago.
Hobb tries to convince us that her books concern the commonfolk. No, they don’t.
Let’s begin with Fitz. He is a bastard and his mother was from commonfolk. He was brought up by the stable master, but then he lives in the royal castle since he is eleven. What is more, he uses his royal position often (for example, by taking the lessons of Skill), even if these Evil! People would call him a bastard. He is no commoner. He lives among the royalty and he is acknowledged as the Farseer, even if an illegitimate. Even Patience, the wife of his deceased father, comes to like him. The real common people do not have their own voice here. They are only useful when it comes to show that The Good Ones care about them, and that the kingdom Is Suffering from the war. They are also helpful to indicate who is loyal and who is not towards Shrewd and Verity. And to show that low-born girls marrying much older aristocrats are Stupid Social Climbers overfeeding their pets, and that only Wise Fitz can change their behaviour. Mansplaining and classism so much.
Except Burrich, Molly and Starling, there are exactly no important and significant characters born as the commoners. It doesn’t matter that Fitz is working as a herdsman during his second travel to the Mountain Kingdom or as a rower during the war. It seems to me that Hobb invented him such jobs just because she didn’t know how to show the life of ordinary people or enrich the plot full of journeys and political intrigues. Because, yes, The Farseer Trilogy is no different from the 90% of fantasy books (I don’t count here harlequins so-called paranormal romances). They are almost always about war, intrigues, royalty, killing, magic/magic schools (delete where not applicable). And in Medieval/Early Modern-like setting they are usually focused on aristrocracy. All these things apply to the Fitz’s story.
Even his relationship with Molly would fit the pattern The Prince and The Commonfolk Girl. Fitz cannot marry her because king Shrewd wants him to have an arranged marriage. Earlier, he discovers the port and the city (Discovering Ordinary Life) thanks to the childhood acquitance with Molly. The question of “I won’t be a gangster an assassin no more Kay Molly!” must wait a bit. We’ll got it later.
Feudalism Sucks? Again… Not!
Are you tired of all these books and series where the solution for unjust rules is The Rightful Monarch instead of some, let’s say, good democratic republic? We’ll, then you should be tired of The Farseer Trilogy as well. The Six Duchies is a typical feudal kingdom with castles and aristocracy, and with peasants who don’t have the land for themselves. Unjustice of this social order is never raised, and the social order — never questioned. It seems that the commonfolk is happy under the rules of the Farseers, and for all the calamities only the OutIslanders and Regal are to blame. But this system is just ineffective, and the war makes it clear. The king is actually unrestrained by any councils or parliaments (still I don’t know it is a patrimonial or an absolute monarchy) so all the decisions are made by him. The garrisons, for example, are only in few bigger cities, and in the case of invasion, the princes of particular lands must gather their own, private armies. What is more, the Good King does not see that he had An Evil Son… And voila! One-person-rules are sooo effective, indeed.
Hobb just doesn’t see one thing: that undemocratic monarchy is unpredictable. If Regal were the eldest child, he would do all these terrible things (like not helping at all the attacked duchies or killing the Forged Ones on arenas) lawfully. He would have the right to do it, and only another kind of feudal violence might have stopped it. So nice that Verity is the oldest prince and The Rightful Heir… How convenient. It is even better. The Farseers are the Good Ones, because — according to the Fool’s prophecies — they are crucial for saving the world from the outburst of Forge epidemy. Kings are good because without them only the zombies would remain. Facepalm. It is actually the core of political and social attitude of these books.
Another question is the blind loyalty towards king promoted here. Maybe the word blind is too blunt, because positive characters still have the right to question their loyalty, especially when it comes to some private questions like marrying for love. Fitz is angry towards Shrewd for forbidding him to marry Molly, and it is portrayed as perfectly understandable. Till he meets Chade, and Chade — as many times before — tells him that king knows better what is good for Fitz. And, sooner or later, Shrewd and Verity are more important for Fitz than Molly. Somehow I am not surprised at all that she leaves him. Anyway, Farseers are more important for him than anybody else.
You see, Fitz’s loyality is disturbing for me because it is so personal. He may declare that he loves both the folk of the kingdom and the Six Duchies themselves, but it is not the land and the people. He loves Verity and he feels obliged to Shrewd. You see the difference? It is not something that should be promoted, I think. You should love your region/country/neighbourhood/people around you. Not a Strong Leader (Darkover flashbacks).
This personal, feudal and almost mafia-like loyalty is typical also for other characters. Chade, the Shrewd’s bastard brother, has been working for him for years. After king’s death, he actively and openly supports Verity. Burrich admits that his love and loyalty towards Chivalry made him a better man. Although… Not, it is not even something like that. It is like “I was a frustrated and angry descendant of slaves, I was behaving like an animal, and then your Marvelous Father made a man of me.” You see? That stupid commonfolk always needs a leader to obey and admire.
And, of course, the bad ones and the morally ambigious ones support Regal. His partisans are Ruthless. They Use Tortures (but nobody cares that Our Precious Chivalry actually had forced Evil! Galen to be loyal to him. Mind rape, anybody?). They are Making Fun in Fanciful Clothes while the Commonfolk is Dying. So subtle, indeed.
Left Hand of Fiction 