#anyway. always nice and flattering to meet new people. sorry i don't post much here anymore.

[basket-of-radiants]

Ok hi!!!! I love all your takes on the characters and it's rlly interesting! I also think moash is a very nuanced and fascinating character. I'm kinda mad at him after he tried to convince Kal to k!ll himself but I think he's a great charcter with lots of depth and your pinned post was so interesting because it said so much about moash! Anyway sorry bye!!!

Hello!!! Thank you!! I apologize for inflicting that post on you, but I'm glad you read/enjoyed it! ty for letting me know <3<3<3

[gayregis]

if you've read season of storms is it any good? i read a sample and was kind of bored but i don't want to spend money on it if it's going to be like,,,,,,,,,lady of the lake

reading this i was like “wait lady of the lake was good though,” then i paused to actually think about it as a cohesive narrative for a bit, and went “actually wait never mind :/...” it was good thematically, and there were a lot of great scenes, but like as a whole book... if you could only read that book on its own... it would be very long and confusing. i just think lotl’s good because i do the uncivilized thing of skipping around to the parts i like and then i don’t read the parts i dislike

but luckily i have already ranted about season of storms before, and i’ll post that rant here now. for context, i actually read season of storms from cover to cover... yeah.

overall, it's a disorganized and aimless plot. it's set inbetween tlw and sod, so there's no quest to find ciri, because geralt hasnt met ciri yet, he's still our free bachelor geralt. which means hes still quite directionless and when it comes to his personal life it's mostly preoccupied with romance. but more importantly it means the plot is incredibly aimless and NOT PERSONAL to geralt, like all the stories in TLW and SOD and all the saga books revolve around events and people super meaningful to him. what happens in the plot is a whole JUMBLE of things that feel like sidequests from the witcher games, not a story from the witcher books. nothing really means anything for geralt's character development, and it suffers from being so long because there's like a lot of different settings and characters and everything just seems completely thrown together, mashed up, and not coordinated. 

i will admit that baptism of fire & tower of the swallow followed a style of “random encounters” in which geralt and the company traverse on and just interact with whatever they happen to find, but it felt like they were accruing knowledge (and also. members of the company) as they travelled on. in season of storms, it feels like geralt starts over and the entire book resets itself every time there is a new scene. none of the plotlines fit together, so it is just a super confusing and exhausting reading experience, unlike in bof & tos, where you can follow the action quite easily and it’s very pleasant to read because it’s all one continuous storyline.

in addition, all of these mashed up stories are pointless, because they dont END with the reader learning anything about the universe the characters live in or their relationships with each other. we might learn that sorcerers are power-hungry, but we already knew that. we might learn that people are violent and corrupt, but we already knew that. we might learn that geralt loves yennefer, but we already knew that. in the short stories, you learn so much about the world and geralts relationships (for example: we learn so much about the situations surrounding the elves in edge of the world, so it’s worth reading because otherwise you will not understand anything when the scoia’tael show up in blood of elves and later in the saga). and in the saga, this continues and more worldbuilding/relationship building occurs (geralt and ciri’s relationship grows from a question of price and then becomes crazy right around baptism of fire when they’re super linked by destiny). it really doesnt in season of storms. you don’t learn anything meaningful about the world or the characters like in the other witcher books.

another large flaw is that in the stories and saga, sapkowski was really good at creating likeable, enigmatic characters no matter how few pages he had to create them. they were deep and almost lifelike and also usually told a larger message. the NPCs- sorry, "characters" in season of storms are SUPER flat and uninteresting.

coral is h*rny for geralt and jealous of yennefer, like every sorceress ever to exist, pratt is a dick and corrupt, degerlund is corrupt and evil, mosaik is timid, the werewolf guy is JUST THERE, the auguara isn’t super interesting despite being cool, nimue feels flatter as a character than usual, even dandelion- okay actually jk i liked dandelion he was the sunny part of this book AS ALWAYS ... ofc he felt one-dimensional but he usually does so you know, EVEN GERALT feels a little one-dimensional and not his typical introspective self

one of the worst things sapkowski did was [SPOILERS] make the major villain character of the book gay and feminine... like its mentioned SO many times that "ohhhh this is a man that looks like a woman WOW HOW EVIL!" and he literally does the worst things like rip ppl to shreds and want to kill geralt painfully by torture with syringes, also he uses his sexuality to ?? seduce an older sorcerer to be his favorite so he can keep his job as a sorcerer?? 

and OK vilgefortz and bonhart arent complex villains. but theyre despicable and it feels a little deeper bc vilgefortz has that backstory and hunger for power, and bonhart is just terrifying and the embodiment of wretched evil, this guy from season of storms is just annoying and anime villainy like “OOHOHOH watch how i kill you now >:)” also theres a lot of crass humor like fart jokes and villains that are described as really super ugly like omg wow never saw that one coming!!! it just feels super bland and basic and almost like the antithesis of The Witcher as short stories and a saga, super out of place with the rest of the series. [END SPOILERS]

in my opinion, the BIGGEST FLAW with season of storms is that since the plot is so all over the place, and since the characters are so flimsy, the entire book feels meaningless. it feels like it would appease games or netflix fans who just want to read about geralt going on some crazy adventures, and it does serve that purpose, but it is NOT a “book belonging to the witcher series.” it has no depth where there should be... i do not feel like sapkowski is trying to tell me something as a reader about human nature, or the nature of parent-child relationships, or society, or violence and war... 

it just feels like geralt is doing all of this shit just because sapkowski had some remaining ideas and wanted to get all of them out into the world all in the same book, like sewing a vest out of fabric scraps. it was not refined like the witcher saga, because none of them were really meant to fit together anyways, and because they weren’t meant to fit together, there is a distinct lack of message and substance to it.

TLDR: no cohesive narrative and a confusing plot, no deeper underlying message or arguments about humanity or society or nature being made by the author, cheap new side & background characters, no ciri and no yennefer so geralt is quite directionless and stupid

other remarks that are just my personal preferences and comments:

geralt & dandelion:

geralt mostly works alone in this book... which is... not my favorite. this is why i got bored with tw3 after i read the witcher books, because i can’t stand geralt being alone, the world feels so... lonely! although he meets up with dandelion and has an affair with coral in season of storms, most of the book is him waffling about with side and background characters that i couldn’t care less about because sapkowski put no effort into developing them to be enigmatic or at least lifelike and likable (unlike some really minor characters in the witcher saga that, although they were so minor, were incredibly likable: for example, applegatt and toruviel i quite like). 

of course, i also have a preference for when geralt hangs out with dandelion, because it usually creates more of a lighter tone for the scenes and a more humorous nature overall, plus geralt changes his personality to be not in such a bad mood and we get to see him being kind and friendly. so it annoys me that although dandelion has some scenes with geralt, they never really have deep conversations like they do in a little sacrifice, or witty remarks & banter like in the edge of the world... i feel like dandelion was quite in-character for the whole book, which is good, but also, he’s dandelion so he’s pretty easy to get in character. he’s just easy-going, arrogant, preoccupied with earthly delights, cowardly, and friendly to geralt. but it annoyed me that their scenes together were both not very deep, and that they didn’t get as much interaction as i think they deserved. usually in a witcher book or story in which geralt and dandelion have met, they stay by each other’s side for like, the whole book or story, lmao... 

that being said, they do have some fun moments in this book and dandelion has some funny lines which i quite enjoy. like. they are eating at an inn, and the innkeeper asks them “how are you finding the pork?” and dandelion replies, “we’re finding it among the kasha. from time to time. not as often as we’d like to.” and somehow i just find that line so fucking funny... i think it’s just because it’s really relatable

sorcery:

coral is SOOOOO one-dimensional, she really is just like the same character as fringilla vigo or some other sorceress that’s jealous of yennefer for getting to bang geralt, and this lack of characterization is super transparent. people laugh about how many affairs geralt has had, but they never discuss how all of them have been super uneasy and unfulfilling.

already said that i hate degerlund as a character and all of the sorcerers being morally wack is predictable if you’ve read like, anything from the saga about the sorcerer/esses. also geralt talking with sorcerers is like, interesting if the sorcerer in question is vilgefortz, but everyone else is just super boring

other:

i didn’t really like ferrant de lettenhove until the very end of the book (which i won’t spoil) but because of this end, i wished that he got more backstory/development

NIMUE I LOVE YOU and it was nice that nimue got some more backstory in this.

i do enjoy the end of the book. not to say “my favorite part is when it ended,” but it’s true, because the ending in kerack is interesting and full of drama, the moments in the inn are alright if a little void of substance, the ending with geralt and dandelion on horseback is beautiful, and the epilogue with nimue is wistful and beautiful as well.

sheer pettiness:

oh my GOD why are the CHAPTERS so SHORT? it’s like, 20 chapters plus a bunch of interludes and an epilogue, and the book is only 357 pages long. it feels like as soon as i was getting into a scene, it switched to another chapter. i mean, idk whether i prefer this, or the haphhazard long as fuck chapters from baptism of fire where i’m not quite sure when a chapter begins or ends because i memorized the scenes and not when a chapter occurs. 

i dislike how coral is on the cover of it, even though it’s fitting, because if there was a work about... oh idk... the hansa... then angouleme could have been on the cover... and then i could have had geralt + yennefer + ciri + dandelion + the hansa on the covers... like wow that would be cool...

this book would have functioned much better as a series of short stories... i think sapkowski has talent for the short story medium, but novel-length books are more desirable by publishers, but this is literally just a guess, i don’t have anything to back this up

my recommendation: don’t buy it if you are just looking to read the witcher books as in, get a feel for the book canon world and characters. it’s pretty unnecessary for that. do buy it if you are a completionist like me / the witcher is something you’ve been into for years and you’re about to buy all the books as a set and it would feel weird to not have all eight books on your shelf and it’s only like $5 more to buy the set of 8 as compared to the set of 7. don’t read it and expect perfection, it’s basically like “drabbles” but canon from the author. there are like 2 or 3 nice gerlion moments if you care about that.

[myassbrokethefall]

1. Are you thinking about watching The Crown? (I don't remember ever seeing post stuff about it so I assume you haven't yet) I only started it when Helena Bonham Carter was announced as Princess Margaret, she's my fave and I knew I'd want to watch her episodes so I might as well catch up untill those . I liked it much more and I was much more engrossed in it than I thought I would.

2. I find the reactions to Gillian being cast as Thatcher very interesting. Many have focused on the fact that her boyfriend is the writer/creator of the show and that’s why she was cast in it and/or she accepted the role. Then there’s people who don’t want to see her as Thatcher because she was an awful person. That might the reason Gillian was interested on the part, maybe she wants to play a monster, but do I think worrying Thatcher might be whitewashed is a very legit concern.

I’ll probably watch the Gillian parts, eventually. I haven’t watched The Crown. It’s not really the kind of thing I’m super into, I had just made it through Downton Abbey (which I started watching with my sister and had gotten sucked into and then was strapped in for until the end) and I was a bit landed-gentry-of-the-early-20th-century’d out, and in the raw days when we had just found out G was dating Peter I WAS bummed out initially by the whole end-of-the-gillovny-ferris-wheel-ride situation and so I had a bummer association with it. (Plus I got defensive about it when it became apparent that the fandom was dividing into newly minted The Crown stans versus people who thought Peter was a nefarious wife abuser or whatever it is, and I did not want to choose either of those sides and felt like I was being asked to do that to some degree and felt resentful about it. For a while, to be honest, it became impossible for me to even identify my actual feelings about the show The Crown in a vacuum.) I wouldn’t now not watch it for that reason, but now it’s been on for a while and I don’t really wanna catch up on something that is not my thing. I’m just not that into Period Drama. I’m allergic to the Jane Austen and all that kind of stuff. I like historical stuff up to about Elizabeth I times and then it gets more boring for me. If Peter Morgan does an Anglo-Saxon thing next or a thing about the bubonic plague I will watch the hell out of it. 

I’m sure if I did watch it I’d be sucked in as well like I was with Downton. I did get sick of hearing about it, both because Gillian would not shut up about it for months when she got together with Peter, and also Netflix used to offer it to me 45 different ways every time I logged in and it got old. (Netflix has more content now. That is good.) But if none of that had happened I probably still would not have watched it because it’s just not my thing any more than Marvel shit or like, The Bachelor. People are welcome to all of those things and everyone has different tastes. 

(OK, I’m putting the rest of this under a cut because as usual I went on and on, sorry. tl;dr the rest: Gillian in “iconic” roles has gotten real old for me.)

I agree Thatcher being whitewashed is a concern, but honestly I’m sure it’ll be fine and I’m not that concerned about that part of it. I know the show is well-written and I’m sure PM or whoever isn’t going in all ready to make Margaret fricking Thatcher out to be some kind of unsung hero (I hope at least). For me the main eyerolly part of her being Margaret Thatcher is that I have become very sick of Gillian playing “iconic” roles and also “strong women” roles that are like battleaxes/mean bosses. I pretty much hit my capacity for the “icon” ones with American Gods, and like, I love Gillian! You know? Of course she’s amazing and can play anything but…it felt so silly dressing her up as all these people and making her do an impression of them. Like, why? I just don’t get what the appeal of that is. It’s sort of novel and fun when you first see it but then what is the point? The David Bowie one was neat but like…I still didn’t really get it. I feel like her range could have been so much more awesomely showcased if she’d played TYPES of people on TV (we had a whole discussion about this before one time so if I’m stealing someone’s shit I’m sorry), like a sitcom mom, a Real Housewife type, a news anchor, a soap opera lady, a yelly talk show person…the possibilities are ENDLESS and would allow for some ACTINGGGGGGG. But no, Bryan Fuller loves Gillian so much that he wants to make her dress up like Judy Garland. WHATEVER. Anyway. Tangent. (I love BF but that choice was a miss for me. There are hits and there are misses etc.)

Anyway. So when I heard Thatcher I was like UGGHHH. But maybe it won’t be like that. But all this Gillian worship in the past few years, which is awesome, still sometimes frustrates me because this particular flavor of it feels very remote. I haven’t seen The Spy Who I Forget The Title but that’s an example. She’s like, a scary remote icy boss lady that everyone thinks is hot? OK, thanks for your EXTREMELY SURFACE-LEVEL appreciation of GA based on a time that you watched one (1) episode of XF for 10 minutes at 3 am while you were doing your homework 22 years ago. (ETA: I freely admit also that this is a way of looking at/appreciating Gillian that many people do relate to and that I simply do not.) And all the press for that movie is, omg Gillian is so hot I was nervous to meet her. I thought she would be mean and scary but she was nice. Like she’s this visiting deity. It’s cute that people are so impressed by her and I love that (I have that “keep complimenting my baby” tag for a reason), but after a while it’s like, we get it, Gillian Anderson is a celebrity! The other people in the movie are just people I guess but Gillian Anderson is Gillian Anderson, omg! 

And so I also often feel like people just want to put her into these huge roles like dressing her up like a paperdoll because she’s GILLIAN ANDERSON OMG how awesome would it be to see GILLIAN ANDERSON play [whatever]. Not just for the looks, I mean, also to see what she will do with it because she’s awesome. And I’ve just had ENOUGH of this. It’s not that I want to discourage her from going for these big iconic roles; she had obviously dreamed of playing Blanche for a long time and she worked super hard and did a fantastic job. And now she obviously sees something in the AAE role that speaks to her. She should do the roles she’s interested in and of course she should get credit for being awesome and iconic. But I also kinda felt this way when people were like SHE SHOULD PLAY BOND. I think she would be a great Bond, but it would be all the stuff that is boring to me: an iconic role that everyone can’t wait to give to her, a bunch of action, iciness, steeliness, all that stuff that I feel like people are always foisting on her and that she is so much more than (and more interesting than). This BIGGER THAN LIFE thing that people want her to do because GILLIAN ANDERSON!!! IS AN ICON! 

Sex Ed (which we found out that we also have Peter to thank for! So this is not a “Peter is evil” post, thanks) was so WONDERFULLY refreshing in both these regards and I hope hope hope hope hope G gets more roles like that in the future now that everyone knows that she is A DELIGHT. And she can play a fallible weirdo, and be funny, and wear normal-person clothes and not just a pencil skirt and high heels, and just be a random person that lives in a town with all the other people, and have an emotional arc where she’s unsure of herself and a little foolish, and not just be someone that basically is the silent center of everything and everyone’s afraid of her and she just walks around being amazing and intimidating everyone. She’s good at that! It’s great and fine! But that’s not all she is! And when those are the roles she plays I want to be like, how isolating is that? Maybe she likes it? I don’t know. It’s certainly flattering but to me it feels like an extension of people fangirling over her at a con or something. She shows up, she’s interacting with everyone but she’s on this pedestal. 

So, I don’t think the Thatcher thing will be exactly like that, but it’s another role where she dresses up in period clothes with a big stiff wig and does an impression of a well-known person and (I’m guessing) will be steely and untouchable and a mean boss lady. (And if she’s not that will be another concern, the “humanizing Margaret Thatcher” angle.) And everyone will be like, what an ICONIC ROLE for GILLIAN ANDERSON! So, yeah. It’ll be fun to see how it all comes together and I’ll be curious to see how she looks and how she pulls it off and all that stuff. But it’s not a role where I personally am like omg I can’t wait to see Gillian do such a thing. When am I going to get to see her in a pair of jeans working in a gardening shop with a dog or something? I’m sure she could be ICONIC and AMAZING in that role too. 

Anyway, complain complain. It’s a great role and I’m sure it’ll be good for her career. I’m GLAD everyone loves her and that she’s doing so well! I just hope she keeps getting offered more comedy-type stuff too.

Sorry, I pretty much got off track answering your ask here. Oh, and: OF COURSE she got the role partly because Peter is her boyfriend. I mean, that’s a little eyerolly but you know, it happens. I don’t think it’s like how Tori Spelling said she auditioned for Donna in 90210 in disguise wearing an ugly blouse from JC Penney (to quote a very old SNL sketch) and claimed no one knew she was Aaron Spelling’s daughter. Like, they knew. And I don’t think The Crown auditioned Margaret Thatchers and picked Gillian blindly and then Peter Morgan was like “Whaaaaaat, that’s my girlfriend!” and they were like “WHAT?? I HAD NO IDEA” like, obviously she got it partly because she’s Peter’s girlfriend. Pretending otherwise is silly. But people cast their friends/etc all the time. And it’s not like she’s some shitty actress who doesn’t deserve the role. She certainly DESERVES it, and it’s very much along the lines of stuff that people cast her for all the time. 

Anyway. These are just my opinions based very much on my specific tastes, which Gillian is not required to cater to! She will do great in this role and I hope she gets a ton of kudos and maybe even awards attention for it. I’ll mean to watch her parts of it and then knowing me I won’t get around to it as I never have for Great Expectations, the French movie, the Michael Caine movie, Viceroy’s House, the one where she plays Wallis Simpson…etc.