I did not stop work on the Fedwren Project when I addressed Matthew Oliver’s “History in the Margins” not too long ago. Indeed not; I have a number of other articles to read and annotate, bringing them into the bibliography I’m happy to be maintaining and to which I hope to make more contributions, both in itself and in producing items to add to it. One of them I read recently, Kristina Busse and Shannon Farley’s 2013 “Remixing the Remix: Fannish Appropriation and the Limits of Unauthorised Use,” is summarized in the Project here. As with other pieces I’ve read, the summary matters; the summary’s useful for other researchers, and I know that there are and have been some doing intellectual work on Hobb’s writing who make use of the Project–which is at least part of the point of my maintaining it. But, also as with a number of other pieces I’ve read, the summary is not enough on its own; I feel the need to offer some response–which I do, below, in the hope that it will be useful.

As with Oliver’s piece, I want to stress that I found Busse and Farley’s piece to be a good one. While I am not as up on fandom studies as, say, Kavita Mudan Finn (whose work I wholeheartedly recommend) or Shiloh Carroll (whose work I also wholeheartedly recommend), and I am not necessarily part of fandom communities as such (as I explain here), I found the piece to be well written and easy to follow. It’s never a bad thing for a specialist text–and, to be clear, academic journal articles are specialist texts, written by scholars to other scholars working in the same or in closely adjacent fields of inquiry–to be accessible to those outside its anticipated primary readership. (For reference, I follow Richard Johnson-Sheehan’s four-fold readership model. It seems to work pretty well.) As someone who, despite lapsing, works in fantasy literature, I am likely in one of the “closely adjacent fields of inquiry” to fandom studies, although I think they run more toward the sociological than the literary (I’m minded of reading Gary Alan Fine in the past), and there is a gap between the social sciences and the humanities, even if it is not so broad as some might want to make it out to be. But however that may be, the clear breakdown of topics Busse and Farley provide works well, it explains its terms and their use, and it offers manageable chunks of information, all of which argue in their piece’s favor.

I note above that I read the article recently to the time of this writing; it will also be close to the time of this post’s release into the world. Both are in 2024. The article dates to 2013, and it discusses an event in 2006. Consequently, there are things in the article that come across to a current reading as somewhat dated. For example, the article makes some reference to Tumblr, and while that platform is, to my knowledge, still extant as I write this (I certainly use it enough in my Hobb reread), it also–again, to my knowledge–does not function anymore in quite the same ways now as it did then. Busse and Farley do note that the community standards they reference–again, at length and with clarity–in their article are evolving and changing, so they allow for the possibility of datedness, and it is the case that it is not fair to fault an article for failing to address what occurred after it was published. (To be clear, I am not finding fault with the work.) So much said, I have to wonder if any of the authors’ conclusions would change when assessed against newer standards of conduct among the communities they investigate, and how.

This is, after all, a reaction piece, and I can only react as I have it to do.

In any event, the reason “Remixing the Remix” came to my attention to begin with is that it makes reference to Robin Hobb–specifically, the “Fan Fiction Rant.” Theirs is not the only article to do so, of course; indeed, one of the major threads of research into and commentary on Hobb’s body of work (with the understanding that the Fedwren Project is not complete; I have other articles to read and annotate into it, and there is doubtlessly more work being done in that line of which I am not yet aware) is specifically on that piece. Something about that blog post appears to have caught the interest of a number of commenters, some of them scholarly, and I think there’s more to it than simply the intersection of the fanfic and scholarly communities. (There is overlap, of course, but not congruity.) What that something is, I do not know; again, I am not a scholar of fandoms, nor yet am I a sociologist, and I think it would take a sociologist working in fandom communities to untangle it (or else an ethnographer with an interesting focus). That doesn’t mean I wouldn’t appreciate knowing, once it’s known.

If you need the kind of writing done that I do, go on and hire me to do it for you!

Or you can send your support along directly!

As I continued my Robin Hobb Rereading Series into the middle of July 2024, I noted resuming work on one of my efforts to keep at least a toe in the great flow of scholarship: the Fedwren Project. As part of that resumed work, I read Matthew Oliver’s “History in the Margins: Epigraphs and Negative Space in Robin Hobb’s Assassin’s Apprentice.” While the Project contains a summary of the piece, here, and I’m happy to have the summary, I’m not happy to have only the summary. No, as has happened to me more than once before–such as here–I feel I have to respond in some way to what I have read. Not because it is bad, no, but because it is good–if limited.

I want to stress that I do find Oliver’s article to be a good one. I agree with the central idea–that the epigraphs in Assassin’s Apprentice and Fitz’s own unreliability as a narrator serve as reminders of or parallel the constructed nature of “history.” What is recorded about what happened in the past is very much a function of those doing the recording (an adage about writing and winners comes to mind). A number of the secondary points also ring true for me. The epigraphs do add to the “authenticity” of the text, yes, contributing to the verisimilitude Hobb is on record as prizing and helping to fix Hobb as a participant in dominant literary traditions even as she moves away from them in decided ways. Too, there is no small irony in an overtly fictional text making much of its realism. (Whether this makes it Frankfurtian bullshit, I am not certain; I think it is a question worth considering. But then, I would, as witness this and certain items here.)

That I think Oliver’s article good, however, does not mean I find it without issue. The chief one I find with it is its limited scope. While I am well aware that a journal article can only take in so much and still carry out the kind of discussion it needs to, I am also well aware that there are many more novels in Hobb’s corpus than Oliver treats. There are many more Fitz-centric novels than Oliver treats. Even just the two sequels in the Farseer trilogy move away from some of the details Oliver relies upon in making his argument. For example, Oliver makes the comment that the epigraphs in Assassin’s Apprentice are all Fitz’s, and this is not the case with Royal Assassin (as witness the epigraphs to chapter 8, “The Queen Awakens”; as well as chapters 26, “Skilling”; 27, “Conspiracy”; 30, “Dungeons”; 31, “Torture”; and possibly some others) or Assassin’s Quest (as witness the epigraph to chapter 25, “Strategy”, and possibly others). It is certainly not the case with the Tawny Man novels–and the Fitz and the Fool novels throw that completely out. Nor yet is it necessarily the case with Assassin’s Apprentice, itself. The introduction to chapter 18, “Assassinations,” is a partial subversion, with Fitz quoting Chade’s notes at length; that to chapter 20, “Jhaampe,” is not partial, being explicitly taken from another in-milieu document. Further, while some of the materials Oliver cites in making his argument about the introductory frustration of narrative objectivity are right at the time, later events in the Realm of the Elderlings Corpus (this and this come to mind) belie them, at least to some extent; Fitz has more memories than he necessarily wants to face.

(Admittedly, there are questions about the order of composition within the milieu to address. My impression–which gets some confirmation here–is that the texts of many of the Fitz-centric novels are private writings–one option Oliver admits of [45]–with much of the Farseer novels composed before the events of the Tawny Man books, and those composed in advance of and into the Fitz and the Fool novels. The last series does confound that impression to some degree, although the extent to which it does escapes me at the moment. I’ll stumble into it, I’m sure.)

Had Oliver’s article been earlier than it is, the restriction of its discussion would make more sense. But it is relatively late against the Realm of the Elderlings corpus; the novels that belie many of his details were well in circulation when the article was released. Even taking into account commonplaces about academic production–journal articles can take years to hit print from acceptance–leaves at least the Tawny Man novels available for consideration and comment. And, for me, the omission of so much other material seems…other than optimal.

There is some justification for the restriction to the first novel, however. Again, as noted above, there’s only so much a journal article can take in; there is always necessarily some selectiveness at work in doing that kind of scholarship. Too, and this goes to discussion from the Tales after Tolkien Society’s paper session at the 2024 International Congress on Medieval Studies, in which Sylwia Borowska-Szerszun asked an excellent question about whether the dragons can be considered parallels to indigenous North American populations,* Assassin’s Apprentice is…not as…willing to move away from the dominant Tolkienian tradition of fantasy literature as later entries in the Realm of the Elderlings Corpus are. It’s a first effort, and a fine one, well worth reading (and amply read, not just recreationally, and not just by scholars of fantasy literature within scholarly circles when read as an object of study), but it is, in some ways, finding its way. Even the structural concerns on which Oliver focuses echo Tolkien’s work–while Oliver points out that Tolkien largely eschews epigraphs in Lord of the Rings (46), it is a commonplace that the text and its companions, The Hobbit and The Silmarillion are, in fact, in-milieu compositions “translated” by Tolkien, not at all unlike the personal narrative Fitz provides and supplements. In brief, Assassin’s Apprentice is more derivative than its successors, and to a substantial degree. That separation perhaps justifies the narrowed focus in an article that, again, makes an excellent central argument that is well worth attention.

*For the record, my answer then was “no,” and it remains “no.” During the discussion, I made comments much like those in the paragraph–namely, that the North American-ness of the Realm of the Elderlings corpus was not something initially meant (insofar as authorial intent ever matters), but something that grew up and emerged in the texts as the series continued.

I’m available to write for you, if you’d like. And if you’d like, I’d like you to fill out the form below!

Or you can send your support along directly!