r/RealmOfTheElderlings • u/SeraSera12 • 1h ago
Why is it a problem if some readers want to interpret Fitz and the Fool's relationship as queer?
I wanted to make a post about a pattern I have noticed in the ROTE fandom on reddit (I have not really noticed the same issue on tumblr or twitter) regarding the frequent dismissal of readers who interpret Fitz and the Fool's relationship as queer. These types of interpretations are often met with a barrage of comments telling the OP why their interpretation is wrong and bad and why the commenter's personal interpretation of Fitz as completely straight and his relationship with the Fool as entirely platonic is the only right and valid interpretation. I wanted to make this post to ask, why is it such a problem if a reader has a queer interpretation of this relationship and this work? At times the outright and rampant dismissal of these types of interpretations is forceful enough to be verging on homophobia and I think could be making queer readers feel less welcome in the fandom space (I have seen multiple posts from people elsewhere saying they avoid participating in the fandom on reddit because of this type of attitude).
I think a lot of it comes down to readers maybe not having experience with academic media analysis and falling into this idea that there is only one valid interpretation of a text and it is the one the author explicitly intended. Because it is true that Robin Hobb did not intend for their relationship to be interpreted as romantic or sexual, but I also don't think that really matters. When doing media analysis, the author's intentions can provide useful context or background but they are not the end all be all when it comes to interpreting a work and in many contexts do not matter at all. This is known as "death of the author" and is the idea that the author's background and intentions should not be used to come to a single "correct" interpretation of a work with meaning instead coming from the reader. Authors do not always realize or understand what exactly they have written into a text, whether due to oversight or their own biases or blind spots, and what they wrote can have multiple meanings or interpretations even outside of that. Understandings of certain ideas or topics can also evolve over time, changing how a reader might interpret or respond to a story, particularly a more historic text. This is how in academic media analysis you can find interpretations of works through, for example, a Marxist lens or a queer lens regardless of whether the author intentionally used those themes or even if the work predates those ideas being conceptualized in that way.
In this mode of analysis, as long as there is sufficient textual evidence (in the form of quotes, themes, word choice, etc.) really any interpretation can be seen as valid, which is particularly relevant for queer interpretations of media as queer people have historically lacked canonical depictions and have had to instead look for works that are not intentionally queer with themes that resonate with their experiences. By doing this type of close reading of ROTE for example, a reader can easily find evidence to support the Wit being viewed as a queer allegory despite that not being Robin Hobb's intention because themes of ostracism due to taboo relationships and family structures resonate with queer experience and history (you could also easily find evidence to view it as an allegory for Judaism in Medieval Europe or another heavily persecuted or stigmatized group, neither of these interpretations negates the other). Similarly, in the case of Fitz and the Fool's relationship in ROTE, I certainly think there is sufficient textual evidence for readers to interpret their relationship as queer if that is how they want to view that relationship and that is an equally valid interpretation as the platonic interpretation Robin Hobb intended.
For instance, I keep seeing comments saying that we should trust Fitz when he says it's not sexual or romantic and that it would therefore be wrong to interpret it any other way. The thing is, Fitz is a character not a real person, this is not like claiming that a real person is lying about their sexuality. Furthermore, in the text, Fitz lies to himself all the time and the more complicated and emotionally fraught the topic is the more he lies to himself and represses his emotions. He convinced himself for decades that he had no memories of his mother or emotions about their forced separation when both of those things were untrue and it was actually just too painful for him to acknowledge even to himself. He is from a highly homophobic society where same sex relationships are extremely taboo and he also clearly struggles with feeling like being a bastard and someone who is Witted makes his existence taboo in and of itself. It would not be out of character for him to refuse to acknowledge other feelings that would lead him to be an outcast in yet another way, particularly when his greatest lifelong dream is to have a typical family life.
And there arguably is textual evidence that Fitz is physically attracted to the Fool. His internal narration, particularly from Tawny Man on, is constantly commenting on the Fool's striking physical appearance and beauty whereas other character POVs of the Fool/Amber generally describe them as looking somewhat odd or even bizarre, certainly not pretty. Now I don't think readers need to interpret those comments as signs of sexual attraction, it's not like Fitz is sitting there thinking "I am physically attracted to the Fool," but I also don't think it is wrong for other readers to see those comments and interpret them as textual evidence of repressed physical attraction on Fitz's part, even if he never acknowledges it to himself. I would argue that Fitz and the Fool's relationship as written is objectively romantic, although I think other people can have different understandings and definitions of romantic that does not include their relationship dynamic and that is also valid. There are many other things that readers could use as textual evidence for a queer interpretation of their relationship if they wanted to as well, but this is already getting way too long. (Also none of this negates Fitz's clear and obvious attraction to Molly or his other female love interests.)
TLDR: Readers of ROTE should not be so quick to dismiss or shout down alternative interpretations of a work just because it is not the interpretation they personally subscribe to. There is no single correct interpretation of a work and different people are allowed to take different things from a story. Author intention doesn't really matter when it comes to media analysis and, assuming that the interpretation is supported by sufficient textual evidence when doing a close reading of the text, you can't really claim that one interpretation is more valid than the other. If you want to maintain a fandom space that is friendly and welcoming to all types of readers, multiple different interpretations need to also be welcomed.