hermitknut:

prophetandcatalyst:

silverbastardgoldenfool:

Okay so I’ve been thinking a lot about queerbaiting and – consequently – Realm of the Elderlings in that context. I knew while reading it that some people would consider it queerbaiting, and I couldn’t quite articulate why I wholeheartedly believed it wasn’t. But since I half-wake several times a night thinking about RotE because my brain is a fucking nightmare I woke up this morning with a bit of an epiphany.

Now obviously you can disagree with this, but here’s the biggest reason why I personally don’t see Fitz/Fool as queerbaiting: because if the Fool was femme-presenting, the story wouldn’t have been any different.

Imagine that Fitz had grown up thinking that the Fool was a girl. Every single thing the same, except Fitz grows up assuming that this friend of his is female. Apart from the accusatory stuff about his “unnatural” relationship with Lord Golden, nothing would be different. They still would have the same dynamic because the Fool was never defined by masculinity.

Now, I hear you saying, “But all those cold nights in the mountains! All those cuddles, and hand-holding and declarations of love! If the Fool was a woman, that would have gone further.”

But would it? I emphatically believe not. Not once does Fitz think, “Well gee, if only the Fool were a woman we could be together.” Nor does he think, “Well maybe if I had met Amber first…” Because it’s not about that. Also, we see evidence that Fitz can have a physically affectionate friendship with a woman while still having no doubts at all that it’s totally platonic. He and Kettricken share a bed and even kiss on the lips and it is NEVER portrayed as anything more than friendly.

“But it’s different with the Fool! The Fool is canonically in love with Fitz, and there is romantic tension between them.” I’m not arguing that at all. Fitz loves the Fool with all his lil heart and that’s what is so fucking devastating. Because he loves him more than anything, but he can’t give himself to him. And I’m not talking about sexually.

Here’s the thing: Fitz’s story – when considering the full scope of it including the ending – is basically a nine-book-long metaphor for the fear of vulnerability and then the beauty of letting people in fully. Fitz was not incapable of embracing the Fool’s love for him because he was too straight. He was too fucking scared. He didn’t know what to do with a love that really truly accepted him for who he was. For all he was, and not just parts of it. Male or not, do you think he would have paid any romantic attention to the Fool when he could go off chasing Molly Redskirts instead? Fitz justified his lying to Molly in a myriad of ways, but those lies were just extensions of the ones he told himself. He wanted – even in adulthood – to be with someone whose idea of him he could shape. The Fool always saw Fitz far too clearly; that in itself made Fitz uncomfortable, but to be truly seen and still loved fiercely? That was too much.

And speaking of “too much,” the Skill-link stuff is also a metaphor for the love and deep knowing that Fitz cannot face. Was it really “too much” or was it just too much for Fitz? The way he describes it leads you to think it’s dangerous, as if they would both lose themselves if they explored that link. So then why wasn’t the Fool afraid? The Fool knew they still had work to do. He wasn’t willing right there and then to give up his physical form and merge with Fitz in the Skill river. He wasn’t afraid because that’s not what was going to happen. I think all that was going to happen was that Fitz was going to have to feel the depth of the Fool’s unwavering love and acceptance, and that was too much.

This is why the ending is fucking beautiful. It’s the culmination of nine books’ worth of build-up – but is it plot? Action? Intrigue? No. It’s all character. Like holy shit. The ending is literally just our protagonist finally allowing himself to be known, to be loved, and to return that knowing and loving just as freely. No limits. Fuck I’m crying.

Don’t get me wrong, I was internally screaming at Fitz to just fucking kiss the Fool already the entire series. A part of me really wanted them to be together, but the storyteller in me knew it would never happen. And NOT because they were two males, but because it just wouldn’t have been right. The entire story would have had to change around them for them to be together. As devastating as it is, I’m much more satisfied with a haunting, symbolic ending than I would have been with a blatantly happy one. Their relationship was beautiful, intense, profound and… Indefinable. And I truly believe that defining it in any way would have undone so much of the intricate weaving that made us love them so much in the first place. Even Fitz’s own question of “what were we” goes unanswered. There is no answer. We don’t have a word for it. Lovers? Friends? Soulmates? It doesn’t do it justice.

No matter the Fool’s gender, a romance between Fitz and the Fool would have cheapened if not totally destroyed the larger meaning of the story. It would have made Fitz… Not Fitz. His inability to believe himself loved is so integral to his character. He could only surrender to it when he had literally nothing left to lose.

*crying intermission – damn you Hobb you brilliant bastard*

So. What it comes down to really is that where other authors cheapen their stories by dangling “gay moments” that never amount to anything for the sake of attempting to sate both queer and conservative audiences, Hobb stayed true to the real story the entire way through. The moments between Fitz and the Fool we love so much were not for us, the readers. They were for them, the characters. And that makes all the difference.

I know that when I inevitably read this series over and over, the Fitz/Fool scenes that tugged at my heart the first time will be no less powerful for knowing it never goes further (sexually or romantically). Those scenes don’t lose their meaning because they don’t lead to sex. An issue I have in general is the idea that romantic relationships are somehow superior to platonic or familial ones. And yes, I will continue to joke about Fitz “No-Homo” Farseer because his self-deception is extreme and hilarious and yes, a character flaw. But a believable and integral one. When I make those jokes I’m not implying that Robin should not have written him that way. I’m just ripping on Fitz because he’s a beautiful, precious little idiot.

This is – as I said – open for debate. This is just where I stand on the issue and I’m genuinely curious as to what other people think about this.

Agreed. 

Reading their relationship at a very superficial level does it a great disservice. Equating a lack of physical romantic expression to a lack of gratification in a loving relationship that has spanned decades despite innumerable harsh obstacles is a mediocre conclusion to draw.

I agree but I also don’t?

So I think you’re absolutely correct about that analysis of Fitz. But the viewpoint you’re countering (that it is queerbaiting) – I don’t think the two perspectives are actually mutually exclusive. I think both things are happening at once and that’s what I find so difficult about the books.

You’re right: there is a beautiful, beautiful relationship happening there. A nuanced, wonderful examination of vulnerability and trust and openness and fear. Both characters are written extremely well, and their progression feels (for the most part) believable and powerful.

In addition to that… it’s also queerbaity. Not necessarily because of anything that Hobb has done or not done. If this series was written and read in a culture where queerbaiting, homophobia, etc, did not exist? Then sure, I could take just the first version. It’s beautiful. But within the culture we actually have… it inevitably will read as queerbaiting. It’s a case of “maybe it technically isn’t the Thing, but it smells and tastes and looks like the Thing and it is having a similar impact on me as the Thing”. 

Now, not everyone is going to react to it that way, and that’s okay. One of the coolest things about art is everybody’s interpretation is valid. Art is an experience. Reading is an experience. But that does mean that most things contain multitudes, some of which seem contradictory.

You make a point there about “Imagine that Fitz had grown up thinking that the Fool was a girl”, and you’re not wrong in that extrapolation. But that’s not actually what happened. Fool is expressly non-binary, and Fitz expresses discomfort with that, and that has an entirely different context to if Fool had been female/believed to be female throughout. 

My thoughts are a little fragmented on this, but I hope I’m making sense! 

I think there’s also a value in breaking this into Watsonian and Doylist perspectives, but my brain isn’t quite awake enough to do it right now.