Plot holes (spoilers included) in RotE

[Syrocko]

For some reason, plot holes bother me. I like for everything to tie up nicely. Can anyone comment on the following issues?

So, can you Skill-drain a person to death or can't you? In AQ, we learn that it is not possible to use the Skill to kill another person unless they either choose to die rather than surrender their power, or you exert so much power that you'll burn the Skill out of yourself. Verity explains that Galen must have chosen to die. However, Galen had first attempted to kill Verity by draining him, and would surely not have had much success if draining someone to death were not possible. Did he simply not know that this could not work? Or was Verity so weakened that he could have been killed this way? Skill draining is also used by Justin and Serene to kill King Shrewd. It didn't just take his Skill strength but his physical and mental health. We are repeatedly told that voluntarily giving too much strength to someone via the Skill can kill a person, and in the Tawny Man series Fitz mentions his concern that Thick may die if another coterie member saps much power from him. He then refers to the fact that draining skill strength can be deliberately used to kill someone.

In FF, we learn that Realder's dragon is the dragon part of Girl-on-a-dragon. However, in AQ, the Fool pointed out Realder's dragon as a different one, and Fitz spends some time trying to wake it by calling it's name... okay so I'm being a bit nit-picky with this one.

Repelling seems like such a powerful weapon to use against the unwitted. Also in defence, as Fitz uses it against Galen to prevent his blows from causing damage. Fitz even says that it's use comes instinctively to the witted. I would have thought that it would not only be useful in almost any fight, but pretty much automatic. Yet Fitz and other Witted ones seem to rarely take advantage of it, and throughout the series I wondered why.

I'm guessing there's no good answer to these questions, but I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.

[maulkin]

Repelling seems like such a powerful weapon to use against the unwitted. Also in defence, as Fitz uses it against Galen to prevent his blows from causing damage. Fitz even says that it's use comes instinctively to the witted. I would have thought that it would not only be useful in almost any fight, but pretty much automatic. Yet Fitz and other Witted ones seem to rarely take advantage of it, and throughout the series I wondered why.

Repelling seems to equate to an overwhelming display of dominance on the part of the witted one. As such, I imagine that it can only be used before a fight has actually commenced. Among animals, displays of dominance are an alternative to combat, not a combat strategy.

[Syrocko]

Repelling seems like such a powerful weapon to use against the unwitted. Also in defence, as Fitz uses it against Galen to prevent his blows from causing damage. Fitz even says that it's use comes instinctively to the witted. I would have thought that it would not only be useful in almost any fight, but pretty much automatic. Yet Fitz and other Witted ones seem to rarely take advantage of it, and throughout the series I wondered why.

Repelling seems to equate to an overwhelming display of dominance on the part of the witted one. As such, I imagine that it can only be used before a fight has actually commenced. Among animals, displays of dominance are an alternative to combat, not a combat strategy.

Thanks for answering. That's a very good point, which makes perfect sense. However, there was that one occasion on which Dutiful tries to repel against Fitz in the middle of their fight on the Other's beach. Oh, and when Laudwine's horse repels at Fitz after Fitz has already stuck a sword in him. Oh, and Burrich's repelling attack against the Rawbread dragon was accompanied by a lunging attack with his knife. It also wouldn't explain why a witted one couldn't easily begin a combat by repelling and then attacking while their enemy is stunned.

...although on second thoughts, I guess those things could be explained. Laudwine's horse might have be able to repel due to the fact that he was the stronger and fiercer of the two, yet was unable to retaliate physically to Fitz's sword what with being locked in a stable. Dutiful's attack would have perhaps been attempted in a pause in the fight, and perhaps the fact that the fight had already commenced and Fitz was in control would explain why it didn't work. Burrich's attack I suppose could be likened to a mother cat's angry swipe with her paw when her kitten's are threatened, as a display of aggression rather than a full-on assault. As to why repelling not generally used to stun an opponent before combat to gain an advantage, well I guess I'd have to be Witted to understand.

[maulkin]

Did Laudwine's horse actually repel Fitz? (I don't recall it happening that way, will have to look it up!). If so, this would also seem to be the only case in the stories of an animal partner using repulsion.

From an animal point of view, repelling a rival and then attacking would seem to be serious breach of etiquette. It would be equivalent to a wolf ripping the guts out of a rival who is cowering and rolling submissively. Given that repelling does seem to be largely instinctive, perhaps it is simply impossible for a witted one to repel if his intention is to kill, rather than intimidate.

[Syrocko]

Did Laudwine's horse actually repel Fitz? (I don't recall it happening that way, will have to look it up!). If so, this would also seem to be the only case in the stories of an animal partner using repulsion.

From an animal point of view, repelling a rival and then attacking would seem to be serious breach of etiquette. It would be equivalent to a wolf ripping the guts out of a rival who is cowering and rolling submissively. Given that repelling does seem to be largely instinctive, perhaps it is simply impossible for a witted one to repel if his intention is to kill, rather than intimidate.

Yeah I'd concur with that. As for an animal partner repelling, Laudwine's soul was also inside the horse at the time. Nighteyes also sometimes repelled at Fitz's enemies who were attacking him with the Skill. This was also unusual in that it was done from a distance via the Skill link, and the target would appear to be covered in scratches for a minute afterwards.

[Nuytsia]

Hi Syrocko
Welcome to the board!
Hmm unfortunately I can't recall the exact point being made by Verity in AQ that is it not possible to use the Skill to kill another person (unless they 'choose' to die?). Seems kind of a weird thing to say, particularly bearing in mind the cases that you mention. And also, didn't Kettle kill another member of her coterie using the Skill in a jealous rage or something like that?
I would guess the likelihood of such an attempt succeeding would depend on a number of factors such as how strong and how experienced each party was with the Skill (and maybe their general physical health - thinking of Shrewd his age may have had something to do with it).

I also don't recall that Realder even had a (real) dragon? Let alone that it was part of the stone dragon known as 'Realder's dragon' (aka GOAD). Where in Fool's Fate do we learn that? Geee it'd be weird to find that actual dragons go into stone dragons!

In relation to repelling, I must admit I did find myself a little confused as to why it wasn't used more. I would have to do a re-read to see if I thought there was any more indications as to why not, apart from maulkin's points. I cannot recall if repelling causes a huge physical drain on the person doing it?
That I guess would mean they would hesitate to do it unless they were more confident of avoiding a fight by repelling than by winning the fight through simple physical prowess. (assuming it isn't purely instinctive - I suspect that it is if you are not trained in using your Wit and that it is intentional if you are trained in using your Wit).

[Syrocko]

Hi Syrocko
Welcome to the board!
Hmm unfortunately I can't recall the exact point being made by Verity in AQ that is it not possible to use the Skill to kill another person (unless they 'choose' to die?). Seems kind of a weird thing to say, particularly bearing in mind the cases that you mention. And also, didn't Kettle kill another member of her coterie using the Skill in a jealous rage or something like that?
I would guess the likelihood of such an attempt succeeding would depend on a number of factors such as how strong and how experienced each party was with the Skill (and maybe their general physical health - thinking of Shrewd his age may have had something to do with it).

I also don't recall that Realder even had a (real) dragon? Let alone that it was part of the stone dragon known as 'Realder's dragon' (aka GOAD). Where in Fool's Fate do we learn that? Geee it'd be weird to find that actual dragons go into stone dragons!

In relation to repelling, I must admit I did find myself a little confused as to why it wasn't used more. I would have to do a re-read to see if I thought there was any more indications as to why not, apart from maulkin's points. I cannot recall if repelling causes a huge physical drain on the person doing it?
That I guess would mean they would hesitate to do it unless they were more confident of avoiding a fight by repelling than by winning the fight through simple physical prowess. (assuming it isn't purely instinctive - I suspect that it is if you are not trained in using your Wit and that it is intentional if you are trained in using your Wit).

Thanks for answering.

I didn't mean that Realder had an actual dragon, only that it was one of the stone dragons in the garden. At least this is what we are told in AQ. Then in FF, we learn instead that Realder had been part of the coterie who had tried to create girl on a dragon. In both cases it was the Fool who tells it to Fitz. However, I guess we could put it down to either the Fool aquiring more accurate knowledge when he rides girl on a dragon for the second time. Or perhaps that the fool was doing his thing of not revealing the full story until he was ready to. Not that this point is so important anyway.

With the Skill issue, the idea of it not being possible to Skill-drain someone to death was key to 2 plot points in AQ. First was that Verity needed to create such a force in order to kill Burl that it burned the Skill out of himself until Kettle was able to reawaken it in him. Second was when Regal warns Fitz that if he uses the Skill to kill him, it will burn his magic out completely. I guess, like you say it depends on a number of factors. And since much knowledge of the Skill is missing at that time, all of it's users are probably struggling to understand how it works.

[joost]

About killing with the skill:

A lot of skill knowledge was lost when Solicity died. Only Galen had the knowledge. Perhaps the killing possibilities were unknown to everyone except Galen (and later his coterie)?
Another possibility is that you don't exactly kill someone with the skill, but you can weaken him enough so that other things can kill a person more easily.

[Farseer]

In FF, we learn that Realder's dragon is the dragon part of Girl-on-a-dragon. However, in AQ, the Fool pointed out Realder's dragon as a different one, and Fitz spends some time trying to wake it by calling it's name... okay so I'm being a bit nit-picky with this one.

I am so GLAD you picked up on this too, Syrocko ! Of all of the riddles etc in all of the RotE books so far, it is Realder's dragon and the Rooster Crown events which have driven me almost MAD trying to get everything to fit. I have to admit to spending three sleepless days and nights in a row once, going over and noting down everything related to these things in the Farseer, LST and Tawny man books, and I have more pieces of paper and diagrams all over the place on this than anything else!!!!!

I know you said it wasn't a vital point in a later, more recent post than this one that I have quoted, but I believe it is truly vital...particularly to a significant theory I have regarding Fool and Fitz! With Realder being a different dragon, it's all blown to pieces!!! Let me find all of my 'bits' and I'll be back!

ps In case I haven't said it already, welcome to thePlenty !!!

[Syrocko]

In FF, we learn that Realder's dragon is the dragon part of Girl-on-a-dragon. However, in AQ, the Fool pointed out Realder's dragon as a different one, and Fitz spends some time trying to wake it by calling it's name... okay so I'm being a bit nit-picky with this one.

I am so GLAD you picked up on this too, Syrocko ! Of all of the riddles etc in all of the RotE books so far, it is Realder's dragon and the Rooster Crown events which have driven me almost MAD trying to get everything to fit. I have to admit to spending three sleepless days and nights in a row once, going over and noting down everything related to these things in the Farseer, LST and Tawny man books, and I have more pieces of paper and diagrams all over the place on this than anything else!!!!!

I know you said it wasn't a vital point in a later, more recent post than this one that I have quoted, but I believe it is truly vital...particularly to a significant theory I have regarding Fool and Fitz! With Realder being a different dragon, it's all blown to pieces!!! Let me find all of my 'bits' and I'll be back!

ps In case I haven't said it already, welcome to thePlenty !!!

Hiya,

Yeah, it's just a bit confusing. Actually, if I'm honest, I think that most of the issues I've raised, especially this one, have come about because the author needed to change one or two specifics throughout the story in order to create the plot she wished. I think she must have had a fair idea of where it was all going, but some unforseen problems can always occur. One of the many things I love about the work of Robin Hobb is just how few plot holes there are. With most fantasy books I just wince slightly as they come up, and then try to forget about them. With the Farseer and Tawny Man trilogies, I could find so few plot holes that I wanted to see if they couldn't also be explained.

The Realder's Dragon issue, in AQ it was probably just there to give the reader a hint at what the dragons were and how they were created, and with a potential link to a future sub-plot. 3 books later, she probably decided that the new explanation was much more appropriate, and just hoped that the reader wouldn't recall such a minor discrepancy.

Killing with the Skill, well I think that she probably only in AQ decided that draining someone to death wasn't possible, and that killing someone you have a connection to will burn you out, to fit the plot points I described in a previous post. I think the explanation offered in the book almost works, but still seems a little odd in light of previous events and what else we know of the Skill magic.

Another example of such an issue has to do with communication between Witted ones. In the Farseer trilogy, it seems as though Witted ones can hear each other's thoughts, and Witted ones can communicate easily with any animal who will speak to them. Fitz is spoken to by a bear and a ferret. Burrich can hear his dogs, and talk to Nighteyes well enough to explain that he needs to let Fitz' soul share his body, and Black Rolf can hear exactly what Fitz and Nighteyes are saying to each other. However, the logical conclusion to this is that Witted ones can communicate with each other just as Skilled ones do, and in the Tawny Man trilogy Robin Hobb clearly realises this and takes steps to put it right. She does this well, although it takes the next 3 books to explain away all the plot holes that were created!

As for the repelling issue, I guess that besides the reasons discussed above, it wouldn't be nearly as exciting if battles consisted of "I replled at him, then stabbed him. Then I did the same with the next person..."