Naïvety, Hypocrisy and Conformism
I must admit that ASOIAF — plainly written and overloaded with sex and curses as it is — is at least more realistic. Oh yes, Mr Martin also doesn’t care about commonfolk, but at least he is well aware that feudalism isn’t helpful for ordinary people. He is aware that being an assassin will twist you somehow sooner or later. He is aware that public executions are useful. He is aware that people would have extramarital sex, no matter what the customs or precautions are. And for all that, I admire The Song of Ice and Fire despite of its drawbacks.
Well… The Farseer Trilogy is not so sober. Which makes some particular fragments very funny. For example, Chivalry created a political scandal fathering Fitz. Because having an illegitimate child is a shame and disgrace for a royal family member. Tell it to Edward IV York. Or to Henry II Plantagenet. Really, bastards were common in the royal families. And usually they weren’t treated like outcasts, they were provided with land, profitable marriage or some important church office (if we are talking about Europe). What is more, in some cultures (Celtic Wales) only children not acknoweladged by their fathers were considered bastards. So, yeah, our Fitz brought up in the stables is poor in comparison with historical royal bastards.
At first I was surprised that in Six Duchies both men and women are condemned for having illegitimate children and extramarital sex. It is apparently less hypocritical than customs which had lasted in the Western society till, roughly, 1960s. But then I realized that adding a relative gender equality to it is quite improbable. Historically in less patriarchal societies women weren’t condemned for extramarital sex or illegitimate children (for example Etruscans). Criticizing people for informal relationships was common, on the contrary, in the puritanical and patriarchal societies. I’ll come back to this question anyway, in the next section of the article.
Attitude towards sex is just strange here. Burrich is the most funny example. In the Assassin’s Aprentice he warns Fitz about premarital sex. Because it leads to prostitution (facepalm) and having a bastard is a shame. What is more, it seems to be that for about ten years of his stay at the Buckkeep, Burrich had sex only once. Yeah. Also, he is almost a drunker, but he is Alooone and Lamed, so who cares. Remember, kids: drinking is understandable. Being an assassin is understandable. But premarital sex is not. At least this could be the conclusion of the first book, even if the following ones are more dubious in such questions.
I am tired of unhuman sexual relationships described so lightly in so many books, where men especially treat sex only as a need, with no friendship or love (like almost all Darkover male protagonists before meeting their True Love). I am tired of characters going to prostitutes or treating their sexual partners like sex workers. But the opposite site is equally ridiculous. Really, couldn’t there be any friends-lovers, or lasting but informal relationships among these characters? But not, here you can have only marriages or random sex at the feast, or Great but Forbidden Love of Fitz and Molly.
There are many worse things than extramarital sex between two adult, unrelated, willing people. And in these books, they are being relativised much more eagerly. The whole question of Fitz being an assassin bothers me especially. I know that our culture is based on Dubious Criminals (just look at Robin Hood and then at all these mafia movies). I know that human choices tend to be difficult. But Fitz doesn’t become a killer because of poverty, revenge or something like that. He becomes a killer quite accidentally, because he needs the acceptation of his royal grandfather. I don’t care that he Doesn’t Like Killing. Murder is dubious and it would be nice if it was highlighted more frequently. But not, it is usually “I’m so poor being an assassin, I want a peaceful life oneone!!!”. Justification of killing is even more ridiculous in these books (maybe except for the case of the poor Forged Ones). For example, Fitz kills a rapist baron because the king ordered him so. He doesn’t regret it. Rape is a terrible crime, and here a servant girl was raped, additionally. The criminal should be punished, but… Why by an assassin? Shouldn’t the punishments be more official? Public? To show the people king’s justice? To prevent crimes? The crown is the crown, Hobb! Not the Corleone family. This is probably my worst problem with the whole plot of Fitz’s work. It is unrealistic and a bit naïve. The mix of sermons and assassinations is just strange.
Also, I’m very amused by the one particular aspect of these books. It seemed to me that they try to satisfy everybody: more liberal ones and more conservative ones. I really don’t like talking about political correctness, but I don’t know how to name such an evasiveness otherwise. There are no non-white characters? But look, the Farseers and the OutIslanders are dusky, you can always imagine that they are looking like black people or Native Americans! No LGBT people? Oh, but you have Fool, whose gender is nondescript and who loves Fitz at once! And you can always read the prejudice against the Wit as the symbol of intolerance! No sexual behaviors dubious from the traditional perspective? Just wait for Fitz and Molly affair, and then for Fitz comforting Starling!
Patriarchy or Equarchy? Who knows…
Reading The Farseer Trilogy at first I was positively surprised by the gender roles in the Six Duchies. There was the absolute primogeniture instead of “The eldest son inherits everything”, the women were soldiers, swordmasters, crafters, artists, there was Molly who always wanted to be financially independent. I was delighted by Burrich taking care of little Nettle, and Mountain Kingdom seemed to be even more egalitarian. So far, the universe was supposedly more equarchal than patriarchal. Gender roles were questioned, some women were soldiers, some men — babysitters. But then I saw some flaws to this picture. More than flaws. Ladies in waiting like taken from a typical medieval court with sewing and gossips. Blaming women for childless marriages, like in the case of Patience. Mentioning that Buckkeep needed a “woman hand” of Kettricken — really, I suppose that a man wouldn’t grow ovaries because of the castle management. And then poor Starling. She blamed herself for the war gang-rape because she used to have premarital sex. And because the rape is a disgrace only for maidens and widows. Or something like that. Slut shaming and victim blaming so much. I am even not going to explain on how many levels it is so bad. I can say just one thing: this is only the proof of inconsistent worldbuilding. The world condemning extramarital sex so much and blaming the victims of sex crimes cannot be woman-friendly. Also, to be less serious, the mix of women soldiers and stereotypical court ladies is quite improbable. Maybe Hobb wanted both Women With Power and typical Medieval-like kingdom. You couldn’t have both. It just doesn’t work. So I have still no damned clue is there equarchy or patriarchy in Six Duchies. Especially that sending women into war is not exactly egalitarian. It is only the affirmation of patriarchal values based on violence and killing. In such system you are equal, because you join the men. On the other hand, except Burrich you have no other man who would really cross stereotypical male roles. Sooo… Yes, these books are more problematic than I supposed.
Left Hand of Fiction 