The ending doesn't make sense? Spoilers Farseer & Tawny Man

[Syrocko]

Regarding your last paragraph, I'd never thought of those points. But now that you say them, it seems so clear. When Fitz read the inscription that said "I have never been wise", I didn't pick up on the hint and only thought that it seemed a strange thing to say when the Fool was quite possibly the wisest character of them all.

Regarding your first paragraph, well perhaps some of my previous posts did sound a bit narrow minded on that issue. It's really whole other discussion in itself.

Regarding Fitz getting his emotions back from the dragon, I think that this aspect of the plot could still have worked even without the dragon. The dragon is actually a metaphor for a real aspect of human nature. You could take this angle instead: Fitz was just so hurt from everything he had been forced to endure, and then finally to see the one precious thing he had left (other than Nighteyes), that had kept him going throughout all his trials, fall into the arms of another man. He never stopped loving her, but was unable to deal with his emotions. So he gave up the idea that he could find happiness and hid away from the world, wishing simply to find a measure of peace for himself, away from anything or anyone that could continue to hurt or betray him. Finally, he is unwillingly thrust back into adventure and danger, with huge responsibilities placed on him. Ultimately this turns out to be a bizarre kind of therapy for him. His near death results in his physical wounds and pains being healed. He is reminded of his old life and realises that he has missed parts of it. He begins to understand that people still care deeply about him and he even develops a bond with his daughter via magic. Then finally he nearly loses the Fool. He thinks him dead for a while but is able to bring him back and nurse him to health. Besides realising how important the Fool is to him, it also stirs other deep emotions in him. It gives him a wake up call regarding how short, vulnerable and precious life really is. The fact that the Fool has suffered similarly to him in some ways helps him to come to terms with his own pain. Allowing another person to get close to him again reawakens his deeper desires for closeness, and the understanding of who he most desires it with. Nor did Molly ever stop really loving Fitz, she went through a similar experience, believing he was dead and eventually making the decision to move on and try to bury the painful memories.

One other thing, I do wonder if part of the reason why some people dislike the reunion of Fitz and Molly (besides those reasons I described in previous posts) is simply because she was absent from the narrative for so long. In fiction, we tend to have a slightly altered sense of reality. For example, in an action film when someone gets badly injured, they often seem absolutely fine again within a few scenes once the viewer's attention has gone elsewhere, despite the fact that only hours or minutes are supposed to have passed. This shows us how the viewer or reader's perception of time can be a more significant factor than actual time. Even a thoroughly vile character can be made more likable if he's given enough attention and character development. For example a murderer who nonetheless has a human side, while we may feel very little sympathy for their victims because they are given very little attention or character development. In these ways, reality in fiction can be based more on the viewer's perception than on what's realistic. The Fool gets loads of character development in the Tawny Man trilogy, as does his relationship with Fitz, while Molly and her relationship with Fitz remain four books away (she's still very much a part of book 3, but of course is unaware even that she is being watched). So the relationship with the Fool seems more fresh and more real to the reader, while the relationship with Molly seems distant and old and partially forgotten, and thus less desirable or "realistic", especially if you took breaks between reading the books. However, realistically we know that people can still love each other after a long absence. If a parent was separated from their child for 18 years or so, they'd still love them just as much and remember them just as well upon reunion. The same can also sometimes be true of lovers, if their love was strong enough. The bigger factor here may be the reader's perceived separation of Fitz and Molly, simply through lack of character or relationship development, more than the actual time gap. So if Hobb did make a mistake with this aspect of the story, perhaps it was simply in neglecting the Molly character for so long. Hope this makes sense.