/lit/ - Literature

>>10318629
The rest are like that? Not just Assassin's Apprentice and Royal Assassin? I probably won't get back into it then.

I loved the first book, and I did enjoy this one as well, but the ending put everything into focus, and it pissed me off.
Spoilers below.
Judging from the first two Elderlings books, or Farseer Trilogy books, Robin Hobb's greatest strengths are characters, world building, and prose. Telling a story that isn't forced, however, is where she definitely dropped the ball in Royal.
TL;DR: First book ends on with a plot to usurp the throne thwarted. Second book ends with another plot for the same goal working because nobody decided to do anything about the traitor they all knew existed.

If having a bastard son was enough to force Chivalry into abdicating and removing himself and Patience from the public eye, how are we supposed to accept that the worst son Shrewd has ever had, Regal, is above as much as a fine for:

1. Lying to the king and court about the political climate in the Mountain Kingdom
2. Setting up his nephew Fitz to either be assassinated/executed for doing what he advised, or to assassinate a friendly prince.
3. Flirting with his Verity, his brother's fiance. (Reminder that Verity is the heir and that woman would be the future queen)
4. Trying even harder to set up his nephew again for the exact same shit, this time accomplishing two of his goals, disgracing his nephew, and poisoning his would-be brother-in-law.
5. Then, pulling an improvised hitman scheme on the stablemaster, which hospitalizes him for at least a week.
6. Attempting to DROWN Fitz, his nephew, HIMSELF.
7. Conspiring to have Verity, his brother, assassinated on the same day.

Fortunately, 6. and 7. fail, but Fitz, only current grandson of the king, is left with a crippling disability similar to epilepsy but maybe worse from the poison.

Almost everything not having to do with Red Ship Raiders (aka soul stealing vikings) hinges on this Regal prick being completely above the law. The worst part is that to those who are in a position to do something, it's no secret what he did. Even Fitz (the protagonist if you're reading this rant without having read the books) complains to his master about the ongoing treason that nobody is addressing. Not that he's ever given a good reason why they don't address it. And, lo and behold, the bad guy wins. Not because he outplayed the heroes, but because they only decided to start playing in the fourth quarter.

So, is it worth reading the third book? It's also worth mentioning that as engaging as the storytelling is, the premise can get really stretched, with some scenes giving off serious deja vu.