ASSASSIN'S APPRENTICE - finished reading **SPOILERS**

[Sandra]

When you have finished reading post your comments here.

I loved this book. I was glad there was more when it was finished, even though I wished that Regal had gotten dead. :) I'm blood thirsty at times. I was especially glad about the dog, that it hadn't been killed. And that Burrich hadn't killed him. It broke my heart when he took it away from Fitz.

[Helen]

I cried when Nosy was killed, cried when we discovred he wasn't and cried when he died. Never got so emotional over one animal! How Regal managed to stay alive was beyond me! I'm so glad his half-brother got killed as he was really vindictive and petty-minded.

The ear-ring seems to carry a significant amount of value to Burrich, more than just a gift I felt.

[Sandra]

Helen wrote: "I cried when Nosy was killed, cried when we discovred he wasn't and cried when he died. Never got so emotional over one animal! How Regal managed to stay alive was beyond me! I'm so glad his half-b..."

I know! But I love animals. Especially dogs.

[Suzanne]

Good call Helen - I hope we find out more about the earring. And I agree with you guys about Nosy - he might be my favorite character =).

[Sandra]

Flea wrote: "Well I just finished the first book and I must say that I really enjoyed it. I am totally gung ho for the second one and I see is much more lengthier too.
I am so happy that Burrich survived, I so..."

Glad you enjoyed it and glad you're joining us! It's a great series.

[Wastrel]

Flea wrote: "Well I just finished the first book and I must say that I really enjoyed it. I am totally gung ho for the second one and I see is much more lengthier too.
I am so happy that Burrich survived, I so..."

Not going to talk about the specifics of plot twists - but I think this is an interesting facet of Hobb, the way that expectations are subverted. I think a good way to imagine the Farseer trilogy is as an epic fantasy told through the eyes of somebody who isn't quite the hero of the tale. His job, after all, is to stay in the shadows and be used as a tool, a weapon, by others - so there are many times when he doesn't know everything that's going on, and when really important things are done by other people. Sometimes it can be frustrating, but I think it's also a refreshing change from the same old "right boy, you're the Annointed Hero, here's a complete run-down on the situation and here's the button for launching the nukes/dragons/etc" approach.

[Stephanie]

IMO, Chivalry is kind of best off-stage because the lack of resolution means that he will haunt the rest of the series. And because of that, not overshadow Fitz' true father-figures.

[Likos]

I've just read this book and i liked it, but i think that it's over rated.

Let me explain, starting from what I liked:
- good the character built and development, helped by the use of the first person;
- very emotional the puppies and their bond with Fitz;
- I also liked what many found a weakness of the book, the lack of action, the fact that the book deals mainly of the Fitz's training;
- I found also interesting the magic system.

Now what i don't liked very much:
- first of all a minor thing, the silly names of the nobles... i can accept these as nicknames non as first name;
- for a novel where the main character is a royal assassin, I expected a story full of treacheries, palace conspiracies, political games... i found this one of the weakest part of the book, I'm very disappointed with this point;
- the lack of gray characters... you know who are the good ones and the bad ones, they act consequently without many surprices... too cliched.. and also I found very weak the characterization of the villians;
- linked with the previously point, I got a feeling of a general passivity of every characters... I can accept this only for Fitz, for his characterization as "the king's tool".


In conclusion I liked the book but I found me dubious to go on or not with the series... I was temped to leave hobb's creature and go with something else, maybe try Malazan or something of Tad Williams... but finally I decided to go on with the second book, mainly for one reason: I want to know much more about the Fool, the only real interesting secondary character of the first book...

[Wastrel]

I think the good vs bad is a reflection of a more realistic sentiment behind the books. In real life, you almost always know who your friends are, and you almost always have pretty similar views to them. So, since Fitz has sympathetic goals, his friends have sympathetic goals as well. It just wouldn't be realistic to have half his friends have hidden identities or terrible conflicted pasts. [And it's hardly as though the 'good' characters are twee in their goodness. Fitz's mentor has made a career out of murdering inconvenient people. His other father-figure is antisocial and punitively strict. All the good guys have debateable attitudes toward means vs ends, and family vs duty.]
Likewise, some characters are obnoxious. Because some people are obnoxious, and selfish, or cowardly. The number of actually 'bad' people in the series is very small indeed, and they are all presented as damaged-heroes-of-their-own-story. Sure, they aren't all Lannisteresque misunderstood heroes - because although everybody is the hero of their own story, in real life, some people's stories are delusional.

I think hobb does a really good job of creating nuanced and rounded characters WITHOUT falling into the black-and-grey nihilism trap.

[Helen]

I agree. Also the point about names of the nobles was that they were given these 'odd' names to shape their personality. So if Regal was named Sweetheart we'd all be reading a totally different story.

[Mach]

Good points there Wastrel, i totally agree.
The names did not bother me at all but then english is not my first language.

[Damali]

I wasn't crazy about this book. I didn't get to know any of the characters. There was mostly telling and not a lot of doing. I was told he went on assassinations, but I never got to go on one with him. Why was that part glossed over and made minor details, when that was the name of the book. The formal way of writing didn't work for me. Had there been more dialogue and interaction with the POV, it wouldn't have bothered me.
It flew off track on the end, and didn't even rosolve what was happing in the book -- the Forged people. That was actually interesting, and I wished I'd met an actual Forged person instead of being told aboutt it.

I'll probably try another Hobb book before deciding if I'm continuing with the series or not.

[Helen]

Didn't Fitz meet a load of them outside Forge?

[Damali]

Yeah, but I would've thought that situation would have been resolved by the end of the book since that seemed to be the main concern. The book just went on to something else and never came back around to it. And the book seemed to end abruptly. Also, Fitz's friend girl in town and his friends, the other friends were hardly ever mentioned. And did the girl had to know Fitz's position because of the gossip in town, but she never mentioned it that I can recall.

And it was made to seem that Fitz was lonely and all alone, but then when he needed a friend for part of the story, one appeared, as if he was a friend all along.

[Mach]

Don't give up yet Damali, this is the first of a trilogy everything you are wondering about will be revealed in the later books. And you can't try any of the other Hobb books outside this trilogy since the good ones all take place in the same world as this one, only some years later. The trilogies are all connected.

[Likos]

Helen wrote: "Also the point about names of the nobles was that they were given these 'odd' names to shape their personality. So if Regal was named Sweetheart we'd all be reading a totally different story."

I think that a good author doesn't need to use such a poor ploy to describe his/her characters; what define a character has to be its actions not its name. Fortunately Hobb doesn't use only a name to define her characters.
If Regal was named Sweetheart and he acted in the same way, I would find silly the name and I would thought that his parents had had a cruel sense of humour giving him such name, but the feeling of the character wouldn't be change.
Anyway when I have pointed the question of the names I didn't mean to say that it's a thing that have ruined the book, bringing me to throw it away... :)
I only said that they are odd names, not plausible to me.

[Likos]

Wastrel wrote:(...) In real life, you almost always know who your friends are, and you almost always have pretty similar views to them. So, since Fitz has sympathetic goals, his friends have sympathetic goals as well. It just wouldn't be realistic to have half his friends have hidden identities or terrible conflicted pasts.

I'm with you when you said that generally you and your friends share similar views and also that when a person tells about another its opinion and feelings affect the telling however I don't find so unrealistic to not knowing really someone completly. Rather I find credible that the knowledge about some persons near you could change after some years, maybe simply because you grow up differently and so, in the worst case, you could find that your best childhood friend is the the one who cheated you when you are thirteen.
Let me make an example from the book: think about Burrich and Nosy... for the whole book you (with Fitz) are convinced of Nosy's death... instead at the end you have to change your mind (fortunately!)...
This is only a simple example, but you can apply the same writing technique to many aspects of your characters, creating a multilayer personality that the reader can discover step by step during the reading.
And all this enriched the characters.

When I said that I would have liked more gray characters I didn't mean that everybody has to be a treacherous and that everybody has to make a turnaround! :)
Further, as I said before, in a novel about a royal assassin, you have to find some mischief, some unexpected plot that when it's unveiled make you jump! :) And to make this happen the reader has to be tricked by not saying to whole truth about the characters.
Think for instance that you read a review with spoiler or a friend tells you the villian is before you read the book... when you will read this book you'll have expectations and a vitiated view.
That was what I feel reading this book, I know who would have helped or who would have tried to damage Fitz.

Wastrel wrote:(...)I think hobb does a really good job of creating nuanced and rounded characters WITHOUT falling into the black-and-grey nihilism trap.

Can you explain me what do you mean by " the nihilism trap"? Seems a good point to debate, not only about this book but in general. (maybe we can open a dedicated thread)

[Likos]

Damali wrote: (...)and I wished I'd met an actual Forged person instead of being told aboutt it.

I got the same feeling... I think that this should have been an important point in the narration, especially because the novel is written in first person. Only about the first encounter (the one with Chade) we know how Fitz have felt, and the only thing we know is that he have felt shocked not to have perceived them with the Wit... instead when he go out for his "mission", we know only that he have went, he have killed and then he have come back home... none a word about how he feel during his task, for the killing, for the once-humans the Forged... what a pity...

[Damali]

Likos wrote: "Damali wrote: (...)and I wished I'd met an actual Forged person instead of being told aboutt it.

I got the same feeling... I think that this should have been an important point in the narration, e..."

Yeah, I would have liked to go along with him when he was being an assassin. Instead, we were just told about it. That's my number one major pet peeve with writing style.

The names didn't bother me. I just thought it was silly for Fitz to go through 3/4 of the book book not knowing his name, or being called Boy or Fitz. It was a simple thing to ask. At one point people are nice to him, another point, he says people are aloft with him and he's lonely.

[Margot]

So, I just finished this book and then discovered that this group had recently read it, so I thought I would join in the discussion!

Helen wrote: "The ear-ring seems to carry a significant amount of value to Burrich, more than just a gift I felt."

From the earring, I took that Burrich had given it to Prince Chivalry as a token of his loyalty. From the moment Burrich sees it on Fitz, he hardly ever leaves the boy's side. It seemed that Burrich had acknowledged and accepted that his loyalty had now passed on from father to son.


I too was definitely really happy when we found out Nosy was alive. That was a great surprise! I'm very interested to learn more about both the Fool (I agree, very awesome character-I love the sense of mystery that enshrouds him) and Burrich. I think there is a lot to Burrich's character that we still don't know about, including and especially the fact that he seems to have the Wit but doesn't use it. What I wonder is, if Chivalry used the Skill on Burrich often, did he know about Burrich's ability? Plus, why does Patience hate Burrich so much? Makes me think he must have had something to do with Chivalry's involvement with Fitz's mother.

I don't share the common feeling here that there was too much telling and not enough showing. What it was was that Hobb uses a lot of summary narrative--we see a lot of events in fast forward rather than in real time. What I'm hearing is that a lot of people wished there were more real time scenes having to do with the Forged ones. And, unless I missed something, the only "assassination assignments" Fitz went on (besides the one at the end, which we do see in real time) were not really such at all. Leaving poisoned bread for the Forged ones to eat can hardly be called an assassination. It seems mildly silly to me that he was even assigned the task. Why not just have the soldiers do it? I suppose because it would contribute to the King's increasingly unpopular reputation.

Fitz does finally kill his first person (Cob) by the end of the book, but he still has not actually assassinated anyone.

[Nikki]

Margot, Fitz has killed for the crown. There was a noble who hit a servant so hard he made her a "witling”. Then, the king told him he had to provide for her, since she now couldn't work. The noble kept her tied to his chair and she was obviously pregnant as well. Fitz poisoned the noble.
I agree that the name of the book could be a bit misleading, but this is a wonderful story set in a interesting, and realistic world. King Shrewd has six duchies. How many people does he really have to kill by assassination every year? He and Chade want to resolve things quietly, without killing. Or Shrewd simply would have killed Fitz like his wife Desire wanted.
I really disagree about the bad guys being one dimensional, or flat.

[Margot]

Nikki wrote: "Margot, Fitz has killed for the crown. There was a noble who hit a servant so hard he made her a "witling”. Then, the king told him he had to provide for her, since she now couldn't work. The noble..."

I think you're right, Nikki. That event in the first book was such an aside to the main story that I guess I forgot about it. I did not mean to imply that I found the lack of assassinations unrealistic or even lacking, just that we have a whole layer of Fitz's occupation still to discover and explore. And I've been brought to understand, by friends who've read the other books, that it only gets darker from here.

[Mach]

It don't get darker, This trilogy is the most depressive of Hobb's trilogies. The other's are lighter in tone but they have emotional scenes in them too.