A Nitpicky Reflection on “Fool’s Assassin” by Robin Hobb
WARNING: heavy spoilers and heavy angst
Who is who
Fitz Farseer—a royal bastard, assassin and magician, now living under disguise as a gentryman
Molly Chandler—his wife. Once the wife of Burrich, Fitz’s foster daddy. Kinky.
Nettle—their elder daughter, living at Buckkeep’s court
Bee—Fitz and Molly’s late-comer baby-girl
Chade—an assassin and Fitz’s mentor
Shun—a girl sent to Fitz on Chade’s request
FitzVigilant (Lant)—Bee’s tutor, once Chade’s apprentice
Fool—transgender buddy of Fitz and so-called White Prophet. Absent for about 7/8 of the novel
What is what
Skill—the magic of mind
Wit—magic concerned with animals
Disclaimer: This is by no means a bad book, or my most toxic read of the year. But sometimes, we criticize not the things which are utterly bad, but the things with a lot of wasted potential.
Robin Hobb’s books on Fitz Farseer are quite deceptive. If you don’t look deeper into the social context of their setting, if you just enjoy well-written fantasy, all it’s fine. But if you examine the context and the sociology of Six Duchies meticulously… Then you are me. Me realizing that uncanny undertones aren’t just a thing from the not-always-noble past of fantasy genre.
At first sight, all looks fine. You get Fitz and Molly living peacefully, being good to commoners and rearing their possibly disabled child Bee with love. You also get women, either in retrospections or in the very action, who perform different roles, from magicians through spies to estate-managers. But I’ve been through six books of this stuff already, and from my perspective, all this presumed equality and solidarity is only a guise. And the guise is woven so deftly that readers don’t even see how idealized version of Stock Middle Ages they are given, and how covertly sexist it is.
Covertly is the crucial world. Because there are so many petty things in Fool’s Assassin which, when put together, are quite disturbing. I’m sure that if, let’s say, Philip Pullman wrote a novel fetishizing women’s ageing (which he sometimes does, actually) and villain-ing the victims of sexual abuse, he would be called a sexist. Robin Hobb, meanwhile… Well, maybe we should look into. And begin with positive things.
Generally, I find Fool’s Assassin less irritating than Tawny Man trilogy. There are simply many good elements there, such as the focus on dailyness and ordinary events, and the development of some backstage characters. It’s just sweet to read of parental-filial relations depicted in this book, of love Fitz and Molly have bestowed on their little Bee. Also, later in the text, there are very convincing descriptions of mourning and loss. And through all the book, we are shown repeatedly that Fitz’s opinions and presumptions are just opinions and presumptions—because he gets wrong about so many things, from his wife’s pregnancy through political intrigues to Bee’s mental health. He gets wrong about things very relevant to the plot as well, but I’ve been never good at analyzing books’ actions on the level of logic; let’s leave it.
So, psychology is quite authentic in this novel, as much as descriptions of daily things. And the style is more than good as for fantasy genre. But there’s hell bunch of questions which have not gotten any better in comparison to the previous books on Fitz and Fool. Oh, Anarchist Goddess of Rainbow Unicorns! They are as bad as usual. The questions. Not the unicorns. Of course, it’s never as repelling as The Falcon Throne I’ve reviewed recently on this blog, or as controversial as some ASoIaF stuff. But Six Duchies have always had their own problems.
My first thought after one hundred or so pages of this book? Simon Bolivar should visit Six Duchies. No, not to overthrow The Holy Feudal Monarchy of Farseers. I mean, he was officially infertile. *does some research in her brain* Ok, George Washington would do as well. Any Famous Historical Male Figure who was openly infertile would manage. Because in Six Duchies, they still haven’t heard of a guy who can’t produce a kid. No. They always blame the woman. It’s the seventh book in the setting, and the talking is the same. Only characters are changing. Except for poor Patience. She’ll be probably blamed forever for not having a kid with Fitz’s daddy.
This time, the Main Culprit is Molly. Because a woman starting her fifties should be all eager to bear her eighth babe, you know. And she should apologize her husband for not producing it, her husband who is THREE YEARS her younger. A terryfying age gap, indeed. And when she actually gets pregnant, nobody believes her, including Fitz. Of course. Gaslighting at its best.
My second thought, after reading about three hundred pages or so? Do we still need to make such a fetish out of female ageing and menopause? Do Fitz need to stay relatively young and healthy thanks to have been healed with Skill? Do Molly, only three years his senior, must be portrayed as an aging woman and considered irrational by her milieu? Something tells me that this dychotomy can be explained not by the way Fitz was healed in previous books, but by our double standards. Also, do we need to perpetuate that awful stereotype about women going “mad” with hormones?
My third thought? Oh, wait, you get also entire fragments where Molly apologizes Fitz for being unable to have sex with him. Wait, wait… Are we in Our Homely and Safe Six Duchies or in truly medieval times when nobody asked married women whether they give their consent or not? Of course, Fitz isn’t a rapist bastard and doesn’t insist on anything, but such words in context are simply uncanny.
My thoughts on Molly and how her passing affected other characters? Fitz is no badass. He’s yet another guy who relies on woman’s work and who wouldn’t survive without it, and who doesn’t appreciate the said work until the woman is gone forever. *Kristin Lavransdatter flashbacks*
Because, really—Molly wasn’t only a housewife and Bee’s loving mother. She was a manager of an estate, and a very efficient and capable one. Without her, everything went screwed. And only then did Fitz realize how much she had been doing. The same guy who had managed to run his own household once, although on a much smaller scale.
Also, would it be so terrible if, let’s say, it was Fitz and not Molly who supervized the kitchens? Do men grow ovaries from seeing to cook-y things?
My thoughts halfway through the book? Reflections on Bee and other people (possibly affected) with disabilities are somewhat inconsistent. If we were spared such slurs as “half-wit”, the message of the novel would be more clear; because, after all, there is more compassion there than ableism. And as usual, Molly is the wisest about judging Bee’s character and abilities.
My thoughts on Shun? Oh, no. Here we are again.
In the first Fitz’s trilogy, we were introduced to Starling, a bard and a victim of war gang-rape. In the second trilogy, she was portrayed as a selfish bitch who dared to like free love and to recognize copyright law. And in this book, we get another survivor of sex assault who is depicted as a Bad Girl. That’s Shun who was harassed by her step-father.
Shun is Bad. Very Bad. She’s a classist and an ableist holding in contempt Bee and servants’ kids alike. She also likes Fancy Clothes, Elegant Rooms and Fragrant Perfumes, and has a crush on Bee’s tutor. How does she dare, that Bitchy Bitch!?
To my mind, it is something very disturbing when you describe the only examples of sex crime-survivors in your universe in such a way.
My overall reflection on second stage characters, especialy the low-born? Oh Anarchist Goddess of Rainbow Unicorns, we are all reading and writing it from the privileged position. We are privileged to have received an education at all, in comparison to those before us.
Discussing the past and its fantasy evocations, we often tend to forget that there was one thing more crucial than race, religion and gender—the class. Classism has shaped our world. But it has also receded to some point during the last two hundred years. There are things we don’t remember. And that’s why we don’t even realize how dystopian an average Stock Medieval Setting with high level of illiteracy and low social mobility would be to us.
But Six Duchies, full of illiterate farmers and of people born to serve other people, is described as a good and homely place. Can you say the same of Westeros? Does Martin suggest that it’s a Good System with Bad People? That Ramsays and Lannisters are its only problem? By the way, does he also justify blaming women for the lack of offspring? No. No. No.
Fool’s Assassin, meanwhile, perpetuates the myth of Happy Commoners yet another time. It also presents Fitz as a particularly Gracious Guy because he allows servant kids to learn with his daughter. And if you haven’t known, the worst ableists mocking Bee are of course the said low-born kids, and the only characters to face a violent death—the loyal servants at Fitz’s estate. An equivalent of killing your Black character at first, you know.
My final thought? LOL, in the next book we’ll see if Fitz realizes that his daughter Bee is actually a “son”. We’ll also see if Chade was Shun’s daddy. But here, we are entering the land of suspense and speculation. So, stay tuned.
To my next irritated read on the LAST trilogy about Fitz and Fool. The last trilogy. Finally.
Left Hand of Fiction 