#also dandelion having money to spend is a fun concept which is incredibly rare lmao

[gayregis]

if you are at all interested, I would love to hear you talk about Ferrant de Lettenhove. Like, he is the most minor character from the least cohesive book, but he sticks in my head because of the last time we see him (also probably because this is a glimpse into Dandelion’s past, sort of, which we don’t get elsewhere). What was Sapkowski doing by including him? What was his purpose in the broader narrative of the story—if there was one?

im so glad you asked honestly... this is just gonna be me talking and not really with anything backing it up so 👉👈 idk if this was sapkowski’s intention at all but this is just what i got out of it

i think ferrant was to really provide a contrast for dandelion and to show what dandelion “could have been.” in the beginning of the book dandelion seems kind of foolish compared to his cousin, who is described as not only being a noble, but looking like one. dandelion being dandelion, he has to catch his tongue before it leads him to trouble... he addresses ferrant by casual name, instead of by his title outside, which just demonstrates to me how easygoing and informal dandelion is, in contrast to his cousin and perhaps the rest of his family who abide by and uphold societal norms. i think what is striking is that at the end of the book, through intense political strife, ferrant actually ends up embroiled in a dismail situation which could potentially lead to his execution. his sort of “final words” to geralt being basically “get out of here, far from here, and take julian with you,” is really kind of horrifying to confront. it seems as though geralt and dandelion just escaped a shark’s maw... as is the usual for them, but what is more relevant to the ferrant-julian contrast is that while dandelion might get into trouble here and there, he can always hop on his horse and leave the disaster he’s gotten himself into. ferrant can’t. he’s tied down to a specific court and a specific king... or was tied to a specific king, and now he’s tied to the new king. this sort of political loyalty might be a metaphor for romantic and relationship loyalty, because geralt experiences something similar with coral. coral isn’t interesting to me but she’s intended to convey danger and the danger of romantic rebounds i suppose. moral of the story being, it’s not inherently bad to be tied to a certain king or a certain person, but just make sure you pick a damn good one to be tied to, otherwise it could lead to your ruin. ferrant in this larger picture serves as a contrast to dandelion, who might be dopey, but he’s free and happy. and this dichotomy of free vs caught, or stuck, is something i think sapkowski was playing around with when it comes to early geralt-yennefer relationship tensions... for example, in the voice of reason, the reason geralt gives to nenneke for leaving yennefer was that she was too possessive. geralt and yennefer have to learn how to love each other without trying to own each other, so that neither is trapped. 

on a less serious and overarching narrative note, i think ferrant’s contrast to dandelion is a nice little glimpse into dandelion’s past, as you said, and at his greater family, that we didn’t get to see expanded upon at all in the main series. it might be something like the auguara that sapkowski had in mind but never really had a chance to incorporate until now, as season of storms is kind of a hot dog of the series... it’s made of the little bits and scraps that didn’t fit anywhere else. i think it’s fun to think of dandelion as the rainbow sheep in a herd of stiff upper lip beige-wearing nobles who choose to answer to kings. it furthers what i think is a contrast between geralt and dandelion, that geralt had his life chosen for him, and dandelion chose his own life. and this feeds into their pessimist/optimist dynamic as well.