u/LimeAny4358

So I'm on my last sem and I went into it thinking I'm only doing two units I have no excuse not to HD both of them. But one of them was a level 3 historical linguistics unit and when I tell you it was kicking my ass the whole sem I was absolutely sure the most I could hope for was a distinction but somehow it's an 80!!?!?!? I am at a complete loss im not even kidding. i know when people say this its a tendency to roll our eyes and go yeah sure whatever you say mate. BUT IM TELLING YOU WHAT THE FUCK!!!! I have no idea how this even happened! It's a super good feeling though wondering if anyone else on here has been blessed like this this sem

Before I get started I know none of you think genocide is a good thing. I don't believe genocide is a good thing. You don't believe genocide is a good thing. Hopefully no one on this sub believes genocide is a good thing and we can all accept that and respect one another.

I'm curious as to a little double standard I've noticed, though. Often certain people say the events in the game objectively can't be described as such because it's fictional and the world inside the fiction does not work the way ours does and to call it that diminishes the word, what Renoir does is a 'merciful' gommage it's not genocide etc etc etc. Our real world morals shouldn't map onto the game because the metaphysics are fundamentally different, so to speak.

But if that's the case, how does that square with the (intentional on the writer's part, I believe) reading that bringing people back to life is a bad thing, when...it's fictional and the world inside the fiction does not work the way ours does? If my best friend dies, I can't bring him back to life, but Maelle was able to repaint Lune and Sciel pretty well. That is possible to do in this fictional world and she did it. I know there's (substantial and non-trivial) arguments about whether the Lumerians Maelle repaints truly are the same ones that died, but I do believe there is sufficient evidence to argue that Lune and Sciel, at least, are the same people.

So why are real-world notions of genocide and mass murder inappropriate to map onto the game, but real-world notions of death being final and it being wrong to attempt to cheat it not?

Hey everyone! So I've been meaning to get into these books for ages and last month I picked up Assassin's Apprentice. I'm deep into Assassin's Quest now and I have really had an incredible experience reading this series. The intersecting of character and theme is so compelling and I love how layered the relationships are. The prose is beautiful - the last stretch of Royal Assassin had me BAWLING, such great payoff for all I just mentioned.

Fitz and Burrich especially has stood out to me as such an interesting dynamic, and I can't think of a single major character who has not compelled in some way, save for perhaps Molly, which I think might be intentional on Hobb's part, if I am understanding Fitz' POV correctly.

The only thing is I have been reading a lot of discussion as I read, and I see a lot of people discuss the "idiot ball" problem the Farseer trilogy supposedly has, in which characters make transparently stupid decisions that are not entirely justified in order to enable Regal's open plotting and treachery. I am unsure how I feel about this and am wondering what you guys on this subreddit have to say.

I feel like, in Royal Assassin, the characters' thoughts and motivations in not really 'doing something about' Regal were conveyed clearly to me. Chade is so wrapped up in duty to the Farseer line and anyone that is a part of it that he cannot conceive of actually harming Regal, Kettricken is a foreign queen struggling to adapt to a new climate and who is not very politically aware.

Verity dismisses Regal as a spoiled little brother and is too focused on the Red Ships and the Elderling problem, Shrewd is not in his right mind and also does not really want to believe that his youngest son would be doing all of this, etc. Really wtf can Burrich or the Fool do about anything.

I see mostly criticisms of Verity and Chade in this regard, in that what Regal is doing is so openly transparent that even these emotional justifications for their actions - or lack thereof - are not truly convincing in the face of what is happening. But when i was reading RA I was so compelled by the character of it all that honestly I wasn't paying much attention to the logic of the plot.

What's the general consensus here? I feel like there might be some truth to this and I've completely missed some obvious plot holes because I've been so compelled by Fitz' relationships with other characters and the thematic conversations about duty and loyalty and honour and identity and all that juicy stuff.

I've seen it said that the stupidity in the face of Regal really ruins the 'character writing' for some people, but I find the characters so interesting in their psychology that I almost don't care? I'm not sure if I agree with the criticism in the first place, but it's a conversation I've been wondering about. I feel this has probably been talked about A LOT here so I'm sorry if this post is eye-roll inducing!