The Sword and Laser discussion

Am about a third through the book and enjoying it. I know it's still in the early stages, but it's a measured pace compared to the other assassin series I've read, Brent Weeks' Night Angel Trilogy.

And I always thought most assassin series were going to be the same..

I think that Fitz isn't what you would call a normal assassin. He is an assassin in a time where there isn't really all that much political turmoil (think Night Angel setting).
I would say he is more like a spy than an assassin. Spies do carry out assassinations but they also do a lot more as well like information gathering. Look at what he did on his first job. If it were Kylar, he would have walked in, left a bloody mess and left. But that is not how Fitz and his job functions.

Nah,

Kylar would find leaving a mess unprofessional. But he is more likely to kill someone by stabbing and leaving a suicide note than poisoning to madness, like Fitzgerald does.

I think the main difference is that Kylar would use blades before anything else.
Fitz would seek to make it look accidental or very much like no foul play was involved.

Saying that isn't Kylar versed in blow darts and slow acting poisons too?

More so I am saying kylar is hiredcand they die. Fitz its not that simple. For one, he isn't hired.

I agree that Fitz is more of a spy (thus far) rather than an assassin. His killing duties seem secondary to his information gathering and he seems to kill only when it serves forward their purpose. I typically think of assassins as more of the point and shoot without thinking guys while Fitz seems to be more of a problem solver (whose solutions sometimes involve killing).

I find it a kind of weird disconnect that in the real world--at least in the English language--"assassin" usually means "someone who kills a political figure in a public fashion and is almost always immediately caught or killed", while in fiction "assassin" has basically come to mean "high-class hitman". So I'm not sure we can actually debate what a "proper" or "normal" assassin is.

Most assassins in fantasy fiction are just Westernized ninja. Fitz is one of the few whose methods and training seem appropriate for his pseudo-medieval Europe setting. So that definitely makes him refreshing. Most assassinations in medieval Europe that we know of involved someone running up to their target with a knife or sword and cutting him, and almost all of the assassins were either cut down on the spot or captured immediately and later executed.

Robert wrote: "I typically think of assassins as more of the point and shoot without thinking guys"

The titular Jackal of The Day of the Jackal would disagree with you.

I had just finished reading the night angel trilogy when this book was picked. They are two completely different styles. This book definitely has a more steady pace than night angel.
The main differences that I have seen is first, their training. Kylar received extensive training from one man, Fitz has a hodgepodge of training fom various different people. Fitz was loyal to one man (or family) whereas Kylar just did various jobs. Kylar was more of a weapon whereas Fitz (as KP mentioned) is more of a spy than pure assassin.
I have yet to read the rest of the trilogy whereas I have read the entire night angel trilogy. So my opinion may change once I read the test of this trilogy.
I have enjoyed both trilogies however. I found the political intrigue fascinating in both. In night angel it's the political turmoil, where here it is the politics of one nation we see.

When compared to Assassin's Creed games and Night Angel series, I cannot understand why Farseer trilogy has secondary titles that contains "assassin" at all. When I first read the series, I hadn't played AC games nor yet read Night Angel series. I only now notice "assassin" is not quite sit well with the books, comparing other assassin-themed stuff.

For one thing, Fitz is far too subtle for an assassin. He is more like a royal troubleshooter, his success depends heavily of subtlety.

My assassin-plot standards were set by Hobb, so I had very hard time with Night Angel or any other cold-blooded uber-killer characters.

Fitz is more what an actual real life royal spy/assassin would be in his time frame, rather than a glorified over the top ninja most other fantasy and gaming assassins portray (not that there's anything wrong with that if you prefer those things.)

Personally I prefer the Fitz style assassin. Robby the Hand from Feist's books is another in that style I prefer (again more a spy than a real assassin), though Robin Hobbs' characters are much better written. The Night Angel books and similar don't really appeal to me. (Though I loved Vin in Mistborn, and you can't get a much more kick ass and over the top super ninja assassin than a Mistborn.)

Ena wrote: "When compared to Assassin's Creed games and Night Angel series, I cannot understand why Farseer trilogy has secondary titles that contains "assassin" at all. When I first read the series, I hadn't ..."

I'd say that in the AC games and even Night Angel series, the "assassin" is more of a soldier of fortune or mercenary for hire than a guy that wants to get in, get the job done, and leave without anyone knowing any better.

I can tolerate AC well enough, Assassins being a secret organization to counter the works of the other secret organization that is Templars. And I like how upon even the most hateful characters' demise, our assassins sent them with a "rest in peace...", a humanistic touch to the end of a fellow human being regardless of how s/he lived. I think AC assassins are more like Hobb's assassins, they are not hired, they do fight for the bigger picture and they do what must be done but without malice. And like Fitz, Assassins are sort of born into the creed. Shrewd made Fitz what he is because of his bloodline.

I agree with KevinB, I also thought Fitz being closer to what a real royal assassin would look like in his time frame. And I , too, prefer Fitz style assassin. I couldn't go on with Night Angel series after finishing first book of the series.On the other hand, in Mistborn I like Vin, she was protecting what/who she believed in no matter how over the top her powers was. I think I cannot stand sociopathy and gruesomeness of Night Angel style assassins.

I think there is a difference between fantasy that has OTT 'superhero' style characters and fantasy thats more gritty and realistic. Night Angel and Mistborn I would class as the former, the Farseer trilogy is more of the 2nd kind (similar to the Joe Abercrombie stuff as well)

There is magic but it is limited in scope and comes at a high price

To be honest I much prefer the more gritty/'realistic' fantasy these days - and full disclosure that I love the Farseer Trilogy and the Fools Trilogy sequels

Although I agree that the 'Assassin' in the titles of the books is a bit misleading since that is really tangential to the plot especially as the trilogy progresses - Fitz is a royal scion who happens to be trained a bit as an assassin, but you could argue his use of the Wit is more fundamental to who he is?

Fitz is more like a spy in the version that specific authors like John Le'Carre would bring up, if John Le'Carre wrote fantasy, rather than being an assassin. He's playing a bit of a game of chess, occasionally trying to manipulate people into making the moves that seem to be best suited to the occassion so that the right people are benefited. At least that's my read of him.

Oh, I just remembered one of my favourite books about fantasy assassins: The Assassins of Tamurin. Orphan girls in a fantasy version of China's Southern Song Dynasty are trained in a variety of subtle arts of espionage, seduction and murder. Like a fantasy version of Lucy Liu's character from Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever, only an actually good story instead of complete garbage.

I take it that Fitz is nothing compared to Szeth in The Way of Kings :)

Weeks seems to dwell more on the training and job of assasination while Hobb seems to focus on relationships and teenage angst.