"Assassin's Apprentice" by Robin Hobb

I enjoyed Hobb’s “Assassin’s Apprentice”, but I’m hesitant to have any strong opinions. This is the first book in a trilogy in such a way that it’s an incomplete experience on its own. I personally prefer first installments that stand alone well; this book is not that. I don’t mean that as a condemnation — I note it because it heavily colors my perspective on the book and makes me apprehensive as to whether the subsequent novels can deliver on what is being set up. This is inherently riskier than a strong stand alone novel that extends into a trilogy. Any positive opinion I have could be soured by the next or third novel.

I don’t want to go much father than an acknowledgement that I’ve enjoyed the way things are going, that I have a few vague concerns stemming from the messiness of the ending, and that I generally like Hobb’s prose. Again, I really enjoyed “Assassin’s Apprentice”, but it feels like that means nothing if I don’t also enjoy the next two books. It’s less “Mistborn” or “Redwall” and more “The Blade Itself” or “The Fellowship of the Ring” if that comparison makes sense. I make this point more seriously here than in my review of “The Blade Itself” because in the case of the latter, “The Blade Itself” has a specific and clear endpoint that the book builds towards and satisfyingly reaches, while “Assassin’s Apprentice” feels far more nebulous in its progression and story structure.

I’m left with a single standout complaint that I’m willing to voice which is less a criticism of the content and more a disconnect between the story and the expectations I felt it set. It seemed to me that the book promised a lot more moral ambiguity than it was willing to deliver. Fitz is the titular “Assassin’s Apprentice”, but in this first book he only performs one assassination, and it’s on a target that is morally reprehensible to a borderline comedic degree. Fitz kills one person in self-defense after he himself is poisoned, and the rest of his ‘murders’ are people who have been “Forged,” an at-present incurable affliction that strips people of their humanity. (Being “Forged” primarily manifests as being turned into a murderous bandit.) That is to say: it’s very easy to defend or justify every instance of Fitz taking a life in this book. There’s nothing inherently wrong with that, but given the title and the framing device, I expected more regrets. Its not a massive betrayal of expectations nor did it seriously impact my enjoyment of the story, but it did leave me a bit befuddled by the end. Fitz willfully killing people that may not deserve it would not make the story better or worse, but the titular fledgling being freed from his first moral dilemma by external connivery was not the climax I expected.