Read the previous entry in the series here.
Read the next entry in the series here.

---

Following an in-milieu historical work reporting the end of the Red Ships War and the reaffirmation of the Farseer dynasty, “The Witted” begins with Fitz taking stock of his situation and finding himself annoyed that time has passed while he has been otherwise engaged. He hastens to ready himself for an audience with Kettricken, to which he reports and waits for a time before being admitted thereto.

Once she admits Fitz to her presence, Kettricken dismisses her attendants and drops pretense with Fitz, laying out her intentions for Bee and asking after the Fool. She weeps at Fitz’s answers regarding the latter, although he makes a wry comment at her reference to a question Starling had posed years ago.

Further conversation in that line is interrupted by the arrival of Witmaster Web. Talk at that point turns to the magic the three of them share, of Web’s new bond and Kettricken’s purpose to form a Wit-bond of her own. Continued political difficulties associated with the Wit are noted, and Fitz is urges to consider taking on as a companion an oddly colored crow. Web lays out the crow’s situation to Fitz and then returns conversation to Bee. Fitz then turns conversation to the princes, Prosper and Integrity, who evidently have the Skill in some measure. Plans are made for the coming days, and Fitz excuses himself.

A couple of points present themselves for discussion regarding the present chapter. One of them is the subject, again, of gender fluidity. Others, of course, speak to the presentation of gender fluidity in Hobb more eloquently and at greater length than I can afford here; Katavić, Melville, Mohon, Prater, Räsänen, Sanderson, and Schouwenaars, whose works are glossed in the Fedwren Project, all do so, and I’m sure there’re others of which I’m not yet aware. The subject of the Fool’s “son” and the part the Fool played in giving rise thereto receives (more) comment in the present chapter, and I find myself a bit…uncomfortable at the movement toward gender essentialism at work in the commentary. But I am also minded that 1) cultural differences obtain and 2) as part of that, with Kettricken having been intimately involved in issues of dynastic succession, her focus on such matters has some embeddedness to it. (And, yes, I know: “it’s just a book.” But if it’s okay for people to spend thousands of dollars to go to stadia and paint themselves in colors of schools they never attended, it’s okay for me to be nerdy about a book that cost far less than that.)

The other, related, is the resurgence of the notion of the Wit as a metaphor for homosexuality. I’ve commented, referencing others, before (here and here, for examples), and I remain of the opinion that having a metaphor for something that is actually in evidence is…a stretch. But as I reread, I wonder if the issue is less that the Wit is a metaphor for homosexuality (in the United States; primary expected readership remains a factor to consider) than that the regard in which it is held is a metaphor for the regard in which same-sex relationships–and queerness, generally–are held among the anticipated primary readership. I am likely late in arriving at the idea; I acknowledge that my attentions have generally been on other matters, both as regards my reading of Hobb and more generally. Given that I would have an outside perspective on the matter, I do not think adding to work investigating that part of the text will be one of my scholarly somedays, but it is still something worth considering, I think, if for no other reason than that those scholars of whose works I am aware wrote before the Fitz and the Fool trilogy was out. After all, I clearly think works can be revisited and extended when new primary materials become available, and I’m not so arrogant as to think I’m the only one who ought to do so.

There’s still time for you to get your custom writing done in time for the holidays! Fill out the form below for more detail!

Or you can send your support along directly!