Just finished Hobbs Assassin series....

[Myshkin]

I have a theory about this...

I believe the fundamental problem is that some people simply do not have the ability to read a story where the primary protagonist exhibits less than desirable behavior. Reading such characters can evoke negative emotions that the reader then transfers to the author for lack of any other avenue to handle them.

Perhaps this all stems from how people read. If a reader imagines something of themselves in a character and that character does something objectionable, the reader loses their connection to the character and story. This disconnect is then viewed as the author failing to create a sympathetic character, when in fact the author has succeeded in created a character that is not always easy to sympathize with. Big difference.

Certainly this is not the case for every person who doesn't like Fitz or the Farseer books, but I think it happens quite a bit. It's very much like the folks who can't read the Covenant books because they cannot get past...

Spoiler

the rape scene.

I think your theory might fit a minority rather than, as you suggest, a majority. Most people who dislike Fitz have a problem with his melodramatic agonizing, and not with any "less than desirable behavior". I don't really think the character problems some people have with Fitz can be compared to the character problems some people have with Covenant.

 

[pockiiee]

Probably an indicator of how very little pockiiee thought of Fitz.

I too disliked Fitz. I thought Liveship Traders was far better than either Farseer or Tawny Man.

Haha, was it a typo or not? Fits/Fritz.....To be honest It's been awhile since I read the books - and often or not in fantasy, especially when the names are a bit odd - I read over them quickly and often "pronounce" the name in my head differently than the author intended -and it just sticks - so in my mind he's still Fritz !

I have a theory about this...

I believe the fundamental problem is that some people simply do not have the ability to read a story where the primary protagonist exhibits less than desirable behavior. Reading such characters can evoke negative emotions that the reader then transfers to the author for lack of any other avenue to handle them.

I think this is a valid point - we all enjoy books where we can identify with the main character - from personal experience I tend to enjoy books more when I can identify with the main protagonist. However, I feel that most people can also enjoy a story without liking the characters - much as I I liked the farseer trilogy Fitz bothered me, not much for his behavior as his internal agonizing and that fact that he didn't seem to grow or become any more desirable as the books continued.

That being said, I'm not transferring this onto the author - I think Hobbs is brilliant, I read and enjoyed all of the books in the series but just didn't like the character. I didn't leave me with a negative impression of the author's skills. I think it's much harder to keep readers interested with an anti-hero like Thomas Covenant - plot, pacing and all of the other aspects of the novel need to be better.

There have been a lot of books that I have continued reading, plot holes and all, because I like the characters and identify them. I continued to read the farseer books not because of the character, but because the story hooked me.

 

[ObtusePunubiris]

I think your theory might fit a minority rather than, as you suggest, a majority. Most people who dislike Fitz have a problem with his melodramatic agonizing, and not with any "less than desirable behavior". I don't really think the character problems some people have with Fitz can be compared to the character problems some people have with Covenant.

I would classify melodramatic agonizing as less than desirable behavior, so I stand by my theory on that count. In any case, my theory is not concerned with what a character's flaws actually are, but rather with why those flaws result in people not liking a book. I'm trying to answer the question why, for some people, a hard to like or frustrating main character equal a bad book.

Further, I am not comparing the actual character problems displayed by Fitz and Covenant (one is obviously worse than the other). I am only drawing a parallel between how readers reacts to them. So I stand by that as well.

As for the number of reader for which my theory is appropriate, you may be right that it is a minority (which doesn't necessarily make it an insignificant number). I don't recall ever suggesting that it was a majority, however. The terms I used in my post where intentionally vague because I obviously have no statistics to back up such claims.

That being said, I'm not transferring this onto the author - I think Hobbs is brilliant, I read and enjoyed all of the books in the series but just didn't like the character. I didn't leave me with a negative impression of the author's skills. I think it's much harder to keep readers interested with an anti-hero like Thomas Covenant - plot, pacing and all of the other aspects of the novel need to be better.

There have been a lot of books that I have continued reading, plot holes and all, because I like the characters and identify them. I continued to read the farseer books not because of the character, but because the story hooked me.

I think we are in agreement here on every point. Based on this post, I certainly wouldn't classify you as part of the group of readers I was attempting to describe.

 

[Singularity101]

I believe the fundamental problem is that some people simply do not have the ability to read a story where the primary protagonist exhibits less than desirable behavior. Reading such characters can evoke negative emotions that the reader then transfers to the author for lack of any other avenue to handle them.

Perhaps this all stems from how people read. If a reader imagines something of themselves in a character and that character does something objectionable, the reader loses their connection to the character and story. This disconnect is then viewed as the author failing to create a sympathetic character, when in fact the author has succeeded in created a character that is not always easy to sympathize with. Big difference.

On the other hand, readers who can separate themselves from the characters in a story may be able to see this more clearly because they have not involved themselves emotionally in the equation. That is not to say these reader aren't emotionally invested in the story, but just not in a way that results in the failings of the character reflecting on the reader personally.

I couldn't have said it better myself.. You need to look at the underlying traits and characteristics of the character in question, ie FITZ. And not base opinions based on what we see at face value. There is a lot of depth within a character ( yes, even Frodo ) that the author tries to bring out with actions that you wouldn't normally come to expect. Instead of getting upset, try to understand a different mindset then one's own.

ehh.. hope that made sense

 

[Luke_B]

I think the problem for some people is that Fitz is constantly agonizing over some emotional trauma or moral dilemma. For some this is seen as a plus, for others though it can get tiresome. It is a matter of taste, and has nothing to do with "macho"-ness.

The tone of your post (and others up thread) suggest that some people are actually getting upset that not everyone likes Fitz as a character. This really baffles me. Why are you getting upset over that fact that not everyone likes the same fictional character that you like?

I fully accept it's a matter of tastes. But does that mean I can't put my point of view forward so we can discuss it? And I actually wasn't upset. Well, not until you started accusing me (and others) of getting uspet. It's an interesting tactic - turn the discussion into one about a poster's perceived tone or emotional state to derail the actual discussion. And see, it's worked!

The comment about macho wasn't an attack on anybody else's tastes, but more a comment on my own. I have been put off some epic fantasy because the protagonist is too macho, but I like how Hobbs creates a softer side to her hero.

 

[ChrisW]

I couldn't have said it better myself.. You need to look at the underlying traits and characteristics of the character in question, ie FITZ. And not base opinions based on what we see at face value. There is a lot of depth within a character ( yes, even Frodo ) that the author tries to bring out with actions that you wouldn't normally come to expect. Instead of getting upset, try to understand a different mindset then one's own.

Ok, he's still whiney though

 

[Michigan]

OK..i am disappointed. Ive read on so many peoples lists that they ranked this series as some of the best fantasy ever written. I cannot see that. it was good, but not great.

My biggest problem was Fitz. I was hooked on Fitz when I stated reading, but the end, he was killing the whole story for me. I rooted for Fitz, I cheered him on, I wanted him to succeed , but damn he is whiny. I mean he is the most stubborn , negative, whiny, char I have ever tried to care about. At first I was making excuses for him, but by the end I just wanted to slap him. He never changed usually people learn and mature, he seemed to stay pretty much the same. All this stuff going on and he just wants to give up and stay a wolf for Way too long.

In comparison I read Name of the Wind...Kvothe and Fitz have some similarities and some major differences. Kvothe in wayyy more likable. When he is faced with a problem or set back, he figures a way to get through it. He keeps a positive attitude and makes it happen. Fitz whines and crys and wallows in self pity about the problem. The whole time I was reading Name of the Wind I was thinking if Fitz was in Kvothes shoes, he would either drink himself to death, or be one of the sweet eaters doing who knows what for money.

The "skill" also seemed like a lame version of the one power. Except it is not nearly as interesting, or well developed. How someone would rate these books over WoT is amazing to me. Of course there are far more WoT books...but if you compare the first three to these three its like Citizen Kane vs Attack of the Killer Tomatoes.

With that being said I did like the books. Overall they were good. I guess I'm being hard because I hear them talked so highly like in the same realm or even close to series like ASOFI or better than say WoT. I don't see that at all.

My question is does Fitz grow up? Is he just a whiny negative guy? If so I don't think I could read the rest, and I would love to finish the series.

I strongly recommend staying far away from Kate Elliot.

 

[Cancerman]

hmm...I think that the biggest problem i have with Fitz is that he didn't grow. As far as his life being the worst of anyone Ive ever read about I dont see that at all. Mollys life was probably as bad or worse as Fitz. You dont see her acting like that.

The point was made that some people dont like a book with a character being or acting in a negative way. What is wrong with that? I personally have a problem with someone who does not learn from their mistakes and is that negative. Plenty of people have terrible lives, its how you react to those problems that make you who you are. If he is the MAIN character and he is not likable why read about him. Also I think Hobb made a mistake writing him like that. I was rooting for Fitz, I accepted that he had faults and a hard life. It made sense that he would have some drama. The problem I had was that it was so over the top, I assumed it was that way so we could see the progression he made. Unfortunately he didn't progress, and I cant enjoy or relate to someone that does not progress in life. I own a magazine that is about people developing themselves, and changing their lives, and progressing. The fact that he didn't seemed unrealistic, and if that is just how he is, I have a hard time caring if he succeeds or not.

I guess i felt like Fitz could be one of my favorite characters when I started reading the series. he could still be a guy that had faults and was sensitive, but i would have liked to see some progression. I was always like..ok when is this guy gonna stop feeling sorry for himself and take action. I was hoping that he would develop into a person that was wise and learned from his mistakes. Like he was telling the story being older, and wanted to tell us how many mistakes he had done, and how bad his attitude was when he was younger, but how much wiser he is now.

From what I'm hearing, he does not change much in the next three books. I just have a hard time reading about someone that does not progress or grow up, or always deals with hardships in a negative way. If someone loses their job, they can whine and moan and drink themselves to death saying life is not fair woe is me. Another person can say, well I'm going to use this as an opportunity to find a better job, or start my own business, etc etc. I assumed he was so negative so you could see his progression. I guess thats not the case. I think its a waste of a great character. IMO

 

[Myshkin]

I fully accept it's a matter of tastes. But does that mean I can't put my point of view forward so we can discuss it? And I actually wasn't upset. Well, not until you started accusing me (and others) of getting uspet. It's an interesting tactic - turn the discussion into one about a poster's perceived tone or emotional state to derail the actual discussion. And see, it's worked!

The comment about macho wasn't an attack on anybody else's tastes, but more a comment on my own. I have been put off some epic fantasy because the protagonist is too macho, but I like how Hobbs creates a softer side to her hero.

You called people who don't like Fitz whiners. Your "macho" comment also seemed to carry an insult. Others have suggested that there is actually something phsycologically wrong with people who don't like Fitz. So I still have to wonder why people have gotten so upset over other people's perceptions of a fictional character

 

[Evil Agent]

Can someone who thinks Fitz is too negative/whiny, or whatever, can you post an example? I'd be interested in what counts as Fitz being overly negative, or whiny. I remember crappy things happening to him, and him occasionally feeling a pretty crappy about that... but I just don't see the "over-the-top" melodrama, or excessive negativity/whininess.

To me, Fitz doesn't seem over the top at all. He feels very believable. I have similar feelings about some of Guy Gavriel Kay's writing (a little too melodramatic at times) but don't find Hobb to be the same way at all.

Examples might help me understand your opinion better.

 

[Singularity101]

Ok, he's still whiney though

Frodo? Yes, I concur.

 

[Astra_]

Re-reading Assassin's Apprentice for the first time since 2002.
Want to re-read a whole trilogy before I read Tawny Man trilogy.
I loved Farseer Trilogy in 2002. Let's see how it is going to fare now.

 

[Rulkez]

I don't think i am going to make it through Assassins Quest......

I thoroughly enjoyed book one, but halfway through book 2 I was starting to get bored, so i took a break and read Brent Weeks Night Angel trilogy (which i thought was excellent and perfectly paced through 2000 pages)

So today I start Assassins quest...........70 pages read and nothing has happened, just more self loathing from Fitz and 69 pages of nothing. Now after reading Brent Weeks who managed to make his books fly from start to finish I'm really struggling with Hobb's ability to make 10 pages of story last 100 pages.

I am actually pretty disappointed, as all of book 1 and most of book 2 were excellent

 

[Scrambles]

Hrmmm, i couldn't put them down unfortunately read them all back to back then jumped into the Tawny Man series then to the Live Ship Traders series (i found this made the whole thing a lot more understandable for some reason)..... and that was on my second read through. Try stick with it imho they are the best fantasy books i have read to date, not saying they ARE the best, just my favorite.

 

[urimarg]

Reasons

I find that when a female author uses a male protagonist they tend to be more sensitive or emotional (not emotionally unstable, just more in touch with themselves).

Male authors tend to have their female protagonist characters be extremes of damsels in distress or chicks in chainmail bikinis (both are ridiculous stereotypes).

I think it is really hard to capture the essense of the opposite sex and put it in your lead character in a book for xxx many pages. I dont think we can fault the author for Fitz. He seems to move between the extremes of male and female and sometimes settles in a middle ground that is neither, but something new.
Also remember that he was possibly Skill imprinted to have his fears/self doubts etc.

Overall he is a believable and sympathetic character (if a bit frustrating at times). I think alot of male readers have issues with him because he doesnt come off as wholly male or wholly female so he is a bit of an enigma. I remember I did until I just accepted him.

I think it is extremely challenging to portray an opposite sex protagonist. The author needs to not only be a good writer but also an expert in human nature, psychology and physiology.

 

[Arch Stanton]

I find that when a female author uses a male protagonist they tend to be more sensitive or emotional (not emotionally unstable, just more in touch with themselves).

Male authors tend to have their female protagonist characters be extremes of damsels in distress or chicks in chainmail bikinis (both are ridiculous stereotypes).

You do realize that this is a stereotype, do you?

 

[manephelien]

OK..i am disappointed. Ive read on so many peoples lists that they ranked this series as some of the best fantasy ever written. I cannot see that. it was good, but not great.

My biggest problem was Fitz. I was hooked on Fitz when I stated reading, but the end, he was killing the whole story for me. I rooted for Fitz, I cheered him on, I wanted him to succeed , but damn he is whiny. I mean he is the most stubborn , negative, whiny, char I have ever tried to care about. At first I was making excuses for him, but by the end I just wanted to slap him. He never changed usually people learn and mature, he seemed to stay pretty much the same. All this stuff going on and he just wants to give up and stay a wolf for Way too long.

In comparison I read Name of the Wind...Kvothe and Fitz have some similarities and some major differences. Kvothe in wayyy more likable. When he is faced with a problem or set back, he figures a way to get through it. He keeps a positive attitude and makes it happen. Fitz whines and crys and wallows in self pity about the problem. The whole time I was reading Name of the Wind I was thinking if Fitz was in Kvothes shoes, he would either drink himself to death, or be one of the sweet eaters doing who knows what for money.

The "skill" also seemed like a lame version of the one power. Except it is not nearly as interesting, or well developed. How someone would rate these books over WoT is amazing to me. Of course there are far more WoT books...but if you compare the first three to these three its like Citizen Kane vs Attack of the Killer Tomatoes.

With that being said I did like the books. Overall they were good. I guess I'm being hard because I hear them talked so highly like in the same realm or even close to series like ASOFI or better than say WoT. I don't see that at all.

My question is does Fitz grow up? Is he just a whiny negative guy? If so I don't think I could read the rest, and I would love to finish the series.

I love Hobb's stories, but the reason why I prefer the Liveship Traders trilogy over either the Farseer or the Tawny Man trilogies is that there's no Fitz in Liveship Traders! So you should definitely read that trilogy, I found it a very satisfactory read. Tawny Man is pretty good too, Fitz is still whiny for much of the time but he does grow up eventually and the conclusion is pretty satisfactory.

 

[Dyloot]

I believe that one of Hobb's biggest strengths is her ability to give the reader time with her characters instead of just rushing through the typical "quest" plot line. It drives some readers crazy, but she's a breath of fresh air to me.

I am very tired of fantasy novels that conclude the conflict on page 886 and end the novel on page 888.

 

[Astra_]

I don't think i am going to make it through Assassins Quest......

I thoroughly enjoyed book one, but halfway through book 2 I was starting to get bored, so i took a break and read Brent Weeks Night Angel trilogy (which i thought was excellent and perfectly paced through 2000 pages)

So today I start Assassins quest...........70 pages read and nothing has happened, just more self loathing from Fitz and 69 pages of nothing. Now after reading Brent Weeks who managed to make his books fly from start to finish I'm really struggling with Hobb's ability to make 10 pages of story last 100 pages.

I am actually pretty disappointed, as all of book 1 and most of book 2 were excellent

Could not put down all three, pages turners they were for me.

 

[Rulkez]

Could not put down all three, pages turners they were for me.

Actually the further I get into Assassins Quest the more I am starting to enjoy it, I guess it was just a change of pace after reading Brent Weeks back to back.