thePlenty.net Forums

Full Version: The ending doesn't make sense? Spoilers Farseer & Tawny Man
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Such a relationship (effectively aunt & nephew) would, while not genetically so, still by most be considered incest.
Though 'thul do not possess evidence that directly says so, all indications are that the tangle leader does considers such to be quite inappropriate. (For example to indicate such, think on her utter distaste of some sort of illegal "fan" fiction that portrays Fitz as liking children in the sexual fashion)
(Apr-10-2012, 01:02 PM (UTC))thul Wrote: [ -> ]Such a relationship (effectively aunt & nephew) would, while not genetically so, still by most be considered incest.
Though 'thul do not possess evidence that directly says so, all indications are that the tangle leader does considers such to be quite inappropriate. (For example to indicate such, think on her utter distaste of some sort of illegal "fan" fiction that portrays Fitz as liking children in the sexual fashion)

I don't believe that you can compare pediphilia to a non-consanguinous relationship with an "aunt" by marriage (who also happens to be about the same age as Fitz), and I don't think RH would find them similar, either. The former is revolting and wrong due to the damage it does to the child. The latter is taboo due to cultural contructs that discourage an affair of this nature due to the confusion it would cause for succession and inheritance issues.

I believe that Fitz and Kettricken, as RH has penned them, would find, due to their sense of honor, their loyalty to Verity, and their own cultural upbringing (in the context of the Six Duchies/Mountain Kingdom), that it would be impossible to act on any feelings they might have. I don't think RH's moral stance really has anything to do with it; these two characters simply would not ever "go there".

Just my two cents' worth!
True. They do not normally go where they can be compared. However, its pretty obvious that pedophilia goes against the RH moral compass. Do you really think that incest would be less against it?

While Kettricken and Fitz are not related by blood, they are, by marriage, related. Thus a relationship of that nature between them would be considered incest. Add in the public view of Fitz and the uncertain ground the status of the throne has, and you see even more why they would never go there.

(Apr-10-2012, 04:36 PM (UTC))thul Wrote: [ -> ]However, its pretty obvious that pedophilia goes against the RH moral compass. Do you really think that incest would be less against it?

I doubt many of us would argue why this would likely be the case (?!) however what does or does not go against Robin's moral compass is not something we can really comment on? We are not Robin and so cannot say either way (outside of assumption) how she truly feels on any topic, based on her works eg just because she has written about rape in her RotE and SS works does not mean that she condones rape. The same would go for when she touches on things such as incest; sex in or out of the marriage arrangement; folded, Lord Golden-style clothes over scrunched, Tom-style clothes; slavery; homosexuality; apricots as a tastier option than plums; paedophilia; the sharing of bath water; prejudice against disabled people or those of another race; titles/inheritances being passed to sons over daughters; murder; drinking huge quantities of wine and brandy...or anything else at all.

In this, even if she *did* choose for Fitz and Kettricken to have a sexual relationship that was to be deemed inappropriately incestuous and against El/Eda/Six Duchies law etc, it would not have to be because she, as a person, condoned incest...it would be more because she, as an author, felt that it fit her characters or the story she wished to tell.

By the same token, just because she *doesn't* write about something doesn't have to mean that, as a person, she's avoiding it or disagrees with it either. It may just not fit the story or any of the characters.

Certainly she may have made comment on some issues in various areas, and even firmly and clearly given a positive or negative viewpoint or opinion on something or other, but I'm not sure how her personal feelings should slot in perfectly with what she writes about or how this truly reflects what is within her plots?

(Apr-10-2012, 01:02 PM (UTC))thul Wrote: [ -> ]Such a relationship (effectively aunt & nephew) would, while not genetically so, still by most be considered incest.

This is a brilliant point, actually, and one that I have never considered before! Thankful

Do I consider a possible relationship between Fitz and Kettricken as incestuous though? Undecided No. I find that I strongly and emphatically disagree with that thought. Kettricken, after all (and as you have noted), was only an aunt by marriage, not blood. While this is still, I must admit, legal grounds for a charge or conviction of incest in some places within our world, and some may even define it as incestuous now that it has been pointed out, I just cannot see how it is in *this instance*.

As the last of the Farseer line, I'd have actually thought it a duty of Fitz to marry/take care of his uncle's widow and child or, in the case of no child, possibly even have a child with her to continue the royal line. If Verity, as King-in-Waiting, had chosen such a one as Kettricken to be his future queen to perpetuate his line, then she could just as likely be deemed an ideal spouse for Fitz also? As did happen in the end, without the union of Fitz and Kettricken's bodies while Verity was still alive, the end of the Farseer line and the end of the world would have been inevitable…just as it would have been if Verity were already dead.

There would also be the alliance with the Mountain Kingdom to consider. If Verity had died, Regal would have had Kettricken's hand (just as Regal himself had planned it) so, if both they and all other Farseers were dead, would not a marriage to Fitz be the most appropriate way to fulfill the arrangement between the SD and the MK?

(Apr-10-2012, 01:02 PM (UTC))thul Wrote: [ -> ]Though 'thul do not possess evidence that directly says so, all indications are that the tangle leader does considers such to be quite inappropriate. (For example to indicate such, think on her utter distaste of some sort of illegal "fan" fiction that portrays Fitz as liking children in the sexual fashion)

If Fitz and Kettricken were together, I would not consider that Fitz would be liking a child in a sexual fashion Uhhuh as (aside from the fact that it is not in his character!) he and Kettricken were "of an age" and, as far as I always understood things, Kettricken was even a couple of years older than Fitz. Wasn't he also twenty by the end of AQ and so Kettricken, too, was likely not considered a child? By SD or MK standards, it's also likely they had both not been considered as such for some many years.

This is entirely different to any slant likely to be given to Fitz "liking a child" within fan fiction. Aside from any personal viewpoint or moral compass of Robin's or anyone else's (though I would throw a murderous fit if someone wrote something like that about a character I created...yes, yes I would!), it is inappropriate because a) it is fan fiction and b) it is not in line with her character's behaviour. That is not Fitz, just as being in a sexual relationship with a man is not Fitz. A fan fic written about Sedric in a sexual relationship with another man is still not appropriate either, in my opinion, as it sheds doubt on his feelings for Carson and, again, is fan fiction. Just because Sedric is currently in a sexual relationship with a man doesn't mean he has to happily jump into a relationship or bed with *any* man just to suit a fan's liking.

As far as any future Fitz-Kettricken relationship, post-AQ, being regarded as incestuous, what about what had already happened by the end of AQ? While Fitz and Kettricken did not end up together, it *was* the younger body of Fitz that Verity used to help produce an heir while they were all in the memory stone quarry. It seems that neither Verity-as-Fitz nor Kettricken had a problem with using it during thier sexual encounter, nor Robin in writing it this way? At no time did I even consider that it was even possibly incestuous. Dutiful *is* the result of both Fitz and Kettricken's bodies so, in effect, using the simple aunt/nephew parameter, Fitz and Kettricken have already, physically at least, participated in an incestuous act...regardless of their ending up together in a permanent relationship in the future post-AQ or not. Again, I don’t believe such a relationship between the two could ever be considered incestuous and so gave all of this no thought, and would not have given it a thought if Kettricken and Fitz would’ve ended up together either. Maybe it is deemed incest by some people/laws out there but in this world, and this context, no. Not by me.

Even if Fitz was not truly present during the coupling, and even with magic in the mix, Kettricken certainly was present. Was she aware that it was Fitz and not Verity? Opinions on this vary but I would say that she'd had to have at least wondered why it was that Verity could suddenly come to her without fear of touching her with his Skill-imbued fingers/arms etc when he could not before. Though Fitz and Verity were similar physically, she'd also had to have wondered why it was that Verity was so physically changed and so much younger in every way when he went to their tent that night. I know if a younger man, or even any man other than my husband, were to come to my bed at night when I was awake and aware, I would know instantly that he were not my husband. If Kettricken *did* know, and was aware of what was taking place, could she not be accused of *already* having participated in an incestuous encounter if we go solely on the aunt/nephew connection? I am sure though that Kettricken would not have participated in it if it could be deemed inappropriate by MK or SD standards in any way. It would go against her character just as much as it would for Fitz.

I am not Robin, so cannot say for certain, but I would be surprised if she'd ever truly considered that it could be seen as incestuous or not either, just as I didn't, especially given that the encounter that *did* happen, and the significant results that came from the same. Certainly, while it was Verity's anma (I guess you could say) that was the driving force behind the act, and not of Fitz, it was still the body of Fitz that participated. As I said before, Fitz had also experienced a sexual relationship of sorts with Kettricken previously, via his Skill-link with Verity. If any sexual relationship between he and Kettricken was to be considered as incestuous, even this via-the-Skill experience would belong somewhere there in the mix too?

Just to re-state, I am not at all suggesting that any of this points to incest between the two at any time. Incest is not something that I see as fitting either Fitz or Kettricken's characters...ever. All I am doing is pointing out that if a relationship between them WAS to be considered incestuous (by the aunt/nephew relationship instantly defining it as being incestuous), well, it's too late. It's not about a possible or alternate future that may have happened pst-AQ. It's already happened before the end of AQ.

This is all far, far different to Kennit, who did consider a true incestuous relationship with his yet-to-be-born child (that he considered a son), and he paid the price before he was able to commit the crime. That (what Kennit intended) was incest.

Of course, there is the possibility that Robin *is/was* aware that such a relationship between Fitz and Kettricken could be considered incestuous (by readers) and so has written the experience between Verity-as-Fitz and Kettricken in such a way that both dismisses the entire aunt/nephew connection and yet still results in the continuation of Verity's line. Possibly the Skill encounters can be explained away such as one may hear an event happening an a bedroom next door or something. Fitz was there but not participating or truly thinking about things and thus did not wander into anything that could be deemed 'incest'.

If we were to say that an aunt/nephew relationship was defined as being incest on the SD, aside from the Skill encounters and that event in the memory stone quarry, if Verity is dead (though we know he isn’t 'technically' dead as he is now Verity-as-Dragon! P ) and thus Kettricken is no longer legally married to him (the marriage having formally/legally ended at his ‘death’), couldn’t she be considered as not even being truly related to Fitz, and so thus able to freely have a relationship of any kind with him if they both wished? :/



There's a more important objection culturally to the six duchies... if Verity had lived and Kettricken died, then he would have been compelled to remarry to pass on the royal bloodline of the Six Duchies. Kettricken on the other hand, is "merely" the queen (or later the queen mother/regent), and thus not truly part of the bloodline per se. A child born of a second marriage for her would be a potential contestant to the throne for Dutiful, much like regal was for Chivalry/verity. Considering the semi-weak hold the Farseer line had on the throne at the end, such a risk would be too great. There is also the fact that Fitz had to be kept as hidden as possible. Even a rumor of his survival to the public would risk Dutiful's throne, particularly if Kettricken were to marry him and make him consort regent until Dutiful comes of age. Why? The general public would begin to perhaps imagine (truthfully?) that Dutiful was not a child of Verity. Considering that there was proof of dutiful being of the royal bloodline, yet no proof his father was Verity, then people might begin to try looking up other candidates for paternity. The common hatred of the Wit, which would take a few generations to erase at minimum, could easily put together the idea that Fitz cheated death.


This is a very nice discussion about something we cannot truly come to any agreement upon beyond sharing much the same assumptions. Had such a thing existed, it would have recieved the 'thulic stamp of approval.

A coupling between Fitz and Kettricken cannot be incest if there's is no blood connection. Any civilised people would surely see that and have no problem with them having an intimate relationship. Nor do I believe Verity would even think of using Fitz to allow Kettricken to conceive, if he thought for one minute it was incestuous. I think a relationship between Kettricken and Fitz only didn't happen because of all the political shenanigans, Fitz' life as a whole and Molly. I do feel they came very close to it at times, however and a part of me does like to think that Kettricken was aware it was Fitz.

Yes indeedy, to all of the above ^ and the above before that ^ ^. I hereby share the same assumptions in these matters! Big Grin
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11