Defining Characteristics: RH and ML

[Farseer]

I had never thought about ML as cynical, I need to keep that idea in mind next time I read one of those stories and see if I can find that tone. What do you all think?

No Mervi, I haven't found that TRP and WB adopts a more cynical voice but I, too, will keep it in mind for later reads.

Having now completed both books, I must stand by my earlier comment but have to take it even further by saying that, yes, I'd have known. I know that I am in a minority (and even go against what Robin herself has to say on the matter!) but, for want of a better way to put it, I think 'Hobb's' presence, be it that from either the RotE or the SS books, is vividly apparent within the pages. The only point where I was able to truly lose sight of her, and feel like it was only ML in there, was during a brief few chapters in the latter stages of TRP.

Further, it almost seemed to me that the story was written as not so much a forerunner but as a practice run for her later Hobb works (the Farseer and Tawny Man trilogies especially). As I read, I often found myself thinking that it was as though they shared the same frame but were cloaked in different skins, were fitted with some different appliances, situated in different places and faced in different directions. I know what you're thinking... that that could apply to any number of books!

*Hobb/Farseer kind of spoiler?*

Spoiler

More than once though I thought of Fool's words to Fitz when Shrewd had repeated his compliments to Fitz on his scribing progress. They had been in Shrewd's chamber and Fool noted that, in his state of ill health, Shrewd's repetition of the words should show Fitz how truly important it was to Shrewd that he hear them.

In a same vein, I get the feeling that a basic, though powerful, story or message was very important to Margaret Ogden and in her strong desire or need to tell it, she has told it to us twice....once as Lindholm and then as Hobb (or vice-versa if, like me, you read Hobb first! ). I thoroughly enjoyed the story in its own right but this fascinated and engaged me all the more, purely from a 'writing' perspective.

All in all, the word choice, style, themes and basic story elements left no doubt for me BUT that only makes me look forward to the other ML books even more than previously, to see if this remains my opinion across the expanse of her works. I have a feeling though that, from here on, Hobb may step into the shadows and Lindholm will jump out and demand my sole attention.

Next stop, the ML short stories in 'The Inheritance'!