#but season of storms ending was actually good and = well it’s not like sapkowski forgot what it was about

[hanzajesthanza]

dandelion is indeed the worst but if he’s not present in the next book i would legitimately be sorrowful as the whole thing will become a slog . you basically cannot have the “short stories�� era-of-the-timeline iteration of geralt without dandelion, it would be like eating unbuttered bread.

though it’s not like season of storms did them dirty, i wasn’t disappointed with it (… with regards to them), but since it’s literally been over 20 years since the saga was finished i’m trying to prepare for any potential reality

[yellowspiralbound]

The Witcher & why fanon and canon are not as separate as they are in other medias

Okay so I just answered and reblogged this poll about what parts of the Witcher you interact with (fanon vs canon) and it made me realize that a lot of fans might not be aware of the fact that fanon and canon are not neatly seperated when it comes to the Witcher. It’s kind of a clusterfuck actually. So allow me to attempt to explain it. Before the post, let me make sure everyone understands that I am referencing the translations of the books. I have not read them in the original Polish. If anyone has and some of what I say is inaccurate, please let me know. Extremely long post ahead. 

First, we have to accept the fact that we are working with not one but three different canons. The books are, of course, the original canon. It is what everything else stems from. The games are often considered a follow up but are not necessarily canon to the books and were not intended to be. The original Witcher game was never intended to be a sequel to the books - that’s why Yennefer and Ciri are basically never mentioned. However, as the second and third game developed, the creators shifted gears and focused on creating a cohesive story set after the events of the books, Now, many if not most fans forget this. Then there is the show canon, which draws from the books but is largely it’s own thing. 

So what is the “real” canon? For some, the answer is anything written by Sapkowski...but there are stories set on the Continent and written by Sapkowski that are, by and large, considered superfluous to canon such as the Something Ends, Something Begins short story which Sapkowski wrote as a wedding gift for some friends. Beyond that, there is debate as to whether Sapkowski’s final depiction of Geralt is well...Geralt. While many book fans tend to believe that the Geralt met by Nimue at the end of Season if Storms is an illusion, I have spoken with many who believe it to be the real Geralt. So which is it? Sapkowski certainly hasn’t said as far as I am aware, so good luck figuring it out. And if Sapkowski’s work is the be all end all of canon...what are the games? 

Are they a form of fanon that Sapkowski has given his blessing to? Nope. Sapkoski hates video games. Like there are decisions he made in Season of Storms (published after the first two Witcher games) that I’m fairly certain he made specifically to fuck with the game producers (like Dandelion being a blonde for example). Everything I’ve ever learned about the man suggests he would do this. And yet Season of Storms also hands the game producers their golden goose: a Sapkowski-written ending where Geralt doesn’t die, where he continues to travel and hunt monsters. Which is exactly what Geralt did in the games. And after that Sapkowksi actually met with some of the producers for the third game, something I don’t believe he did for the first two (feel free to correct me if he did). So did Sapkowski take inspiration from the games for this ending? It’s possible. I personally don’t think it likely but we know it’s possible because of a certain character in Season of Storms: Brehen. 

Brehen, for those of you who may not remember/know, is a Cat witcher that Geralt meets at the very end of Season of Storms. Now this is important, Geralt’s meeting with Brehen is the first time ever that Sapkowski insinuates there are different schools of Witchers. And you might be thinking “What about the medallions of different animals that Bonhart had?” It isn’t ever really implied they’re from different schools. Coen, who has a griffon, is shown with the wolves all the same during Blood of Elves. Of course, the game producers had already decided to take the different medallions as representations of schools but It is only when Brehen begins to use the word “us” that there is a confirmed implication of schools by Sapkowski. Is this proof that Sapkowski used the games as inspiration for Season of Storms? Not at all. What it is, is solid evidence that both the game producers and Sapkowski had been influenced by a third party: the pre-CDPR comic run. 

Now, this is where things get interesting. The pre-CDPR comic run is not that well known outside of Poland (and perhaps even in Poland, I am not sure). I discovered their existence on the Witcher subreddit and promptly read the fan translations of them that you can find online. Only one of the six comics released between 1993 and 1995 is an original story. This comic, Zdrada or Betrayal, is where the story of the Cat and Wolf tournament often is from. If you don’t know what I’m talking about, go read basically any fanfiction with Aiden in it. It will more than likely be brought up. This comic is the first instance of a school system like the one we have now. Now, this comic was based on an idea by Sapkowski. He gave the author of the comic run, Maciej Parowski, a basic idea and Parowski expanded upon it. To what extent Parowski expanded the idea isn’t really known. The schools could be entirely his own invention, but it is more likely that Sapkowski suggested them. It is extremely likely, however, that Parowski’s characterization of the Cats as a school influenced Sapkowski - especially considering the 18 year gap between the publication of Zdrada and the publication of Season of Storms. So when did Parowski’s fanon interpretation of Sapkowski’s outline become canon? Did it become canon? I personally consider it canon but not everyone does. 

Essentially what it boils down to is that there is a high chance that Parowski’s fanon directly influenced both Season of Storms and the Witcher games. And yes you can argue that Parowski’s work isn’t fanon because it was based on an idea by Sapkowksi but...that’s what all fanworks are - stories based on the original ideas of the author. The same can be argued about the show. Large parts of the show are Lauren Hissrich’s fanon interpretation of Sapkowski’s work yet it is a canon in its own right. 

In conclusion, Sapkowski never avoided fanwork like say, Neil Gaiman. In fact, he actively encouraged it in the case of Parowski and Hissrich. Whether or not he ever encouraged the game producers in any capacity is...highly debatable. There’s some serious tension there guys. I personally think that he did with his choice in how to end Season of Storms but that’s just me. From what I know of Sapkowski, the man is, quite frankly, far too proud to ever admit to being wrong about video games and the producers so draw your own conclusions on that one. 

But yeah, fanon has had a serious influence on canon in the case of the Witcher and there are so many different canons that separating the two entirely is more or less impossible. And I haven’t even talked about the pre-CDPR TTRPG, the CDPR TTRPG, the mobile gwent game, or the CDPR comic run, all of which fall into the liminal space of “not fanon but not canon either.” 

Please feel free to correct me if any of this is wrong or if you have read the original Polish copies of the books and some stuff I’ve talked about is translation error. Also if anyone has a translation of the pre-CDPR TTRPG stuff please contact me. I would do unreasonable things for a translation of them and would be eternally in your debt. 

[gayregis]

ngl i 100% think that yennefer's like overall character quality and appeal in terms of how she's written decreases immeasurably the closer she is to geralt. like in the books literally the further they're apart the better their characters are and i feel like what annoys me abt this fandom method of picking and choosing what authorial bullshit we wanna pay attention to is that way too many people ignore how shit their canon relationship is and how we never actually see them be healthy longterm

like. idk what im thinking is how much do you get to pick and choose away when literally the whole basis and the majority of their relationship that's actually shown before they're shoved apart briefly reunited and then die is just. really fucking bad. and idk i feel like people just fully ignoring all that bc they had sex and acted like the generic het ship they are in toc and lotl and either treating them like a happy marriage or doing some medieval dominatrix lady bullshit is infuriating

yes like. sapkowski basically developed geralt and yennefer only when they were apart from one another, so much so that he even developed their love for each other when they weren’t together - geralt in the sword of destiny and blood of elves and season of storms and the beginning of lady of the lake running around, “learning his lesson” that no woman will EVER replace yennefer... 

sidebar but re: “yennefer's overall character quality and appeal in terms of how she's written decreases immeasurably the closer she is to geralt,” i’d agree with this a lot in terms of baptism of fire and tower of the swallow, where she FINALLY, in the 5th and 6th books, gets major character development (that’s way too little and far-between still). i understand how the timeline worked, however, and that yennefer couldn’t really have a “mother of ciri” arc before she... adopted ciri, and she couldn’t have the arc before ciri went missing. and i get that she’s not supposed to be likable in the beginning of the series and then her later development makes her character do a 180, but still, even acknowledging these elements, i would like more yennefer development. and i would like more yennefer development where she is actually in a healthy relationship with geralt, if sapkowski wants you to buy the fact that they’re together... 

i think their interactions in lady of the lake are extremely profound and way too developed for what they’ve actually been through - i mean, after that year of searching for ciri, they’ve both been through the wringer and haven’t been together at all... i guess the message is intended to be like “they finally realized that they were important to each other” but still.. if you haven’t seen a person in a year, you’re going to have a little difficulty synchronizing like this. i suppose that is part of the narrative though, playing off of tropes - the couple finally gets back together and conquers evil...! except geralt and yennefer fail, because no one could realistically succeed in conquering evil in their situation. the thing is, with geralt and yennefer especially, but also overall in the books, sometimes i don’t know where the trope ends and the trope-inversion begins, or is supposed to begin and end. it’s not always entirely clear, and i think it should be.

i enjoy the parts where they’re together later in the saga re: time of contempt and lady of the lake, but it’s not like... an actual relationship in my opinion by the time the series ends, because we never actually got to see them spend real time together and enjoy each other’s company. 

this is why like, at this point (because it wasn’t always the case!) i will accept geralt and yennefer as canon and i will appreciate tasteful content of them, but i don’t find myself thinking about them in my off time as i would for like, a ship that i ship because i am familiar with their dynamic and find it interesting. this is also coincidentally why geralt feels like ciri’s dad and yennefer feels like ciri’s mom but geralt and yennefer don’t feel “together”... and it’s disappointing as well because so little fandom content centers on developing their dynamic, most ship content for them just takes their relationship at utterly face value and accepts what’s canon as what’s good.

and of course i don’t know if this was intentional or not by sapkowski but it certainly is unfulfilling for your main couple to not have their couple dynamic explored. i understand that it’s a tragedy and it’s not intended to end happily with a perfect ending but there’s trying to make a statement with the unpredictable and tragic deaths of your characters and there’s failing to develop their dynamic over the course of a 7 book series. my question is, why couldn’t we get a scene of them in vengerberg if they’re so in love? sapkowski isn’t a terrible writer, he knows how to show his audience things - why not show us, instead of tell us, what he’s trying to emphasize is one of the key relationships in the series?

[agirlwithachakram]

i read the first Witcher book (the one that corresponds with the first season, ish, or at least the first five episodes) and there are so many differences just so so so many, and so many explanations for wtf was even going on in the show

okay first Geralt claims Ciri as his child surprise ON PURPOSE because he wants to be able to train a little witcher and he knows Pavetta is preggers, presumably because of his witcher sense, but Duny and Calanthe, of course, do not

Jaskier isn’t even at the banquet at all, Calanthe forcibly invited Geralt so she could get him to kill Duny or anyone besides Crach, really

Crach an Craite is Calanthe’s top pick, which is why she herself ends up marrying Eist, like, they’re in love yes, but she really wants a Skellige alliance. (this also means that Cerys and Hjalmar must be younger than Cirilla, which I didn’t expect)

Pavetta is fifteen at the banquet and Duny’s been sleeping with her for like a year now so someone should probably slit his throat

Duny has been cursed with hedgehog face since birth, though he gets a reprieve every night from midnight to dawn, which is presumably when he’s been banging Pavetta, and he was told a child surprise would break the curse, like just in general, not Pavetta or someone with special powers specifically

speaking of special powers, Mousesack/Ermion and Geralt take a minute during an entire magic storm to point out Pavetta must have fucked someone because virgins can’t use the “primordial force” which is, full offense to mr sapkowski, the dumbest, most inconsistent shit I’ve ever heard and i feel like surely it must get retconned later but we will see.

the djinn actually does attack Jaskier of its own accord. Geralt doesn’t even claim the wishes (by grabbing the seal) until after it’s attacked him. I actually can’t figure out what Geralt’s first wish is because he doesn’t wish for some peace or anything. In fact, he’s not looking for the bottle at all, Jaskier acquires it while they’re fishing together, opens it, drops the seal, and then makes his two stupid wishes about killing Marx and having sex with a woman who “refuses all advances” so that’s gross. Geralt’s wishes are to make that one guy burst and the “last wish” for yennefer.

Chireadan lives with his cousin Errdil in a crappy house, not a tent. the djinn ends up destroying that house and Errdil is pleased as punch because he had it insured for a massive sum, magic damage included.

the line about “body chemistry” is Yennefer’s. she says Chireadan has fallen in love with her, “the blockhead.”

Geralt and Yennefer portal into a big fancy noble party while fighting the djinn, and then portal out again.

literally everyone knows the striga is Adda and Foltest’s. it’s not a secret. hell, it’s not an open secret, it’s just completely common knowledge. Ostrit only cursed them casually, not intentionally, and geralt lets the striga eat him anyway because a well fed striga is easier to fight.

Triss isn’t there. she’s mentioned one time in The Last Wish.

Jaskier and Geralt didn’t meet in Posada, and “You Think You’re Safe” is basically an entire conversation Geralt had with the villagers. Jaskier’s like, nice, they mentioned a ton of monsters, and Geralt’s like none of those monsters are real. they go to track down the “devil” and Torque tries to play riddle games, then Toruviel kidnaps Jaskier and Geralt and beats the shit out of them, destroying Jaskier’s lute. then Filavandrel shows up and decides to kill them, and Torque tries to stop him, and “the lady of the fields” shows up and mr sapkowski will NOT be explaining that, nosiree, so the elves release them and the lady gives Jaskier a new lute, not filavandrel.

the Renfri story is probably the most faithful to the original, actually, although Ren looks totally different (good) and it’s a bit clearer why Geralt had to fight her. I watched the show twice and I didn’t understand that she was going to start killing townspeople one at a time until Stregobor came out, which of course he wouldn’t do and wouldn’t care about. Marilka is also a smaller character, but her father is a friend of Geralt’s.

[moghedien]

Hey, I'm a big wot fan and I've read the big names like asofi and lotr but not a lot more as far as fantasy is concerned and I wanted your recs as far as major big works are concerned...

Ok I’ve been thinking about this for a day or so and I’m not completely satisfied with what I came up with but I got some recommendations. I’m gonna try to mix this with big, more obvious series and also some newer stuff that definitely deserves attention. 

The first thing that comes to mind is Brandon Sanderson’s Cosmere. If you haven’t read any of Brandon Sanderson’s books outside of the WoT books he’s written, then I’d definitely suggest those. The Cosmere consists of multiple series, so there’s a ton to read there. Elantris (standalone), Mistborn Era 1 (trilogy), Mistborn Era 2 (currently a trilogy), Warbreaker (currently a standalone), and The Stormlight Archive (currently three books, fourth coming out this year) are the books in the series. There’s also White Sand which is a comic series (and honestly isn’t very good) and a few novellas and short stories. If you want to get into the Cosmere, start with either Mistborn Era 1 or Warbreaker. Most people would suggest Mistborn Era 1, but I just prefer Warbreaker and it is a standalone so that would be my personal suggestion. Just don’t do what I did and foolishly start with The Stormlight Archive because those books are like a million words a piece and require a lot of trust. I love the books, they’re probably my favorite Brandon Sanderson series, but they are a bad starting place.

The Broken Earth Trilogy by NK Jemisin is my next suggestion. The series comes with big ol’ content warnings for like, everything. Like literally everything, but its all very, very intentionally handled. It’s not intense and rough for shock value, its like that to make a point and I think it does so well. I don’t want to give away too much of the plot or inciting action, but basically, it’s a world in which there is magic that is related with geology (as in rocks) and also the world is ending and also the main character needs to find her daughter that her husband kidnapped. Also every book in the trilogy won the Hugo for Best Novel, and this is the only series that has ever done that. The first book in the trilogy is The Fifth Season.

Next recommendation comes with a little disclaimer because I’ve only read the first book so far, but I intend to read the rest and it is sorta a classic in fantasy, I believe, and that’s The Farseer Trilogy by Robin Hobb. The first book is the Assassin’s Apprentice and like I said, that was the only one I’ve read in the series, but I liked it and intend to read the others eventually. I believe that Robin Hobb’s other series all take place in the same world too, and there’s quite a few of those, but I’m pretty certain that the Assassin’s Apprentice is the place to start.

And here is another series that I’ve only read the first book for so far but enjoyed a lot. It’s also a much newer series: The Green Bone Saga by Fonda Lee is a sort of combination of a mafia movie and a martial arts movie, but actually it’s a book, takes place in a fantasy world, and there’s magic. The first book is Jade City and I enjoyed it a lot when I read it, but just haven’t gotten to the sequel yet though I’ve heard great things about it. The third book isn’t out yet and I’m not sure if that is the conclusion of the series but I think it is.

Obviously I can’t make one of these lists without mentioning the Witcher Saga by Andrzej Sapkowski. So the Witcher Saga is technically “The Witcher Saga plus two short story collections and also another book now.” If you watched the Netflix series and thought, “you know, that was somewhat confusing but I’d like to be much more confused just in general but also have in depth knowledge of seemingly random things,” then this series is for you! Ok, so I really do love the Witcher books and that sounds like I’m being harsh on it, but I just think its important to note that the writing style isn’t really traditional. Point of view jumps can seem weird and random and disjointed at times, but it does have a point to it all. If you’re going to read the Witcher, I’m going to just go ahead and give you the reading order because its unclear where you should start and in what order you should read it all. Start with the short story collections, beginning with The Last Wish, then Sword of Destiny, then you read the Saga, beginning with Blood of Elves and going in order from there. Read Season of Storms after the Saga. Also, the entire series in general deals with fairy tale retellings, but the short stories are MUCH more so. 

The last thing I’m going to suggest isn’t a series but a standalone book, though it is big enough that it could be a trilogy of three books rather than one massive book. The Priory of the Orange Tree by Samantha Shannon came out last year and was one of my favorite books I read last year. I don’t really know how to describe it, but its told over multiple POVs and multiple cultures and has a genuine slow burn f/f romance that was definitely a highlight of the book for me personally. The author has said that she wants to write more in the world eventually, so there may eventually be a sequel, but at the moment, the book doesn’t require one and is a genuine standalone. 

Some fantasy authors who I don’t really have a specific work of theirs to mention but who I think deserve mentions because I’ve liked their books I’ve read: Mary Robinette Kowal, Naomi Novik, Sarah Gailey, Seannan McGuire, Rebecca Roanhorse

Also I just want to note that there are some gaps, as there are some major series I’ve never read that I know have huge followings like Malazan Book of the Fallen and pretty much every YA fantasy series ever. I don’t really want to outright recommend them because I have no experience with them whatsoever, but there’s a ton out there that’s widely loved that I just haven’t read. I could also make a long list of fantasy “classics” I would actively tell people to avoid, but that’s a whooooole other thing...

[entergamingxp]

So you finished The Witcher on Netflix

Your quentissential guide.

Turbulent winds howl as rain batters the weathered precipices. Wolves can be heard in the distance, likely feasting on a carcass less fortunate than they, while miles away regular farmhands sit around a table, guzzling Viziman Champion as they wager their own boots to break even in Gwent.

Away from it all, stood atop a sequestered crag, Geralt of Rivia patiently awaits the sunrise after completing his contract. The world is quiet here: “I shut my eyes and all the world drops dead,” Sylvia Plath writes in Mad Girl’s Love Song. “I lift my lids and all is born again.” Such is the case in The Witcher 3.

If you’ve recently finished the Witcher Netflix series, which revels in its confidently kitschy adaptation of Andrzej Sapkowski’s illustrious saga, then you’re probably wondering where to go next. The Witcher was commissioned for a second season before its inaugural one even aired, but there will likely be at least a year between the two. But you’re already hungry for more: where’s all the good food?

How does The Witcher on Netflix compare to the books?

Fortunately, you’ve got options. The first season of The Witcher is mostly derived from The Last Wish, which is the first short story collection in Sapkowski’s Witcher saga – chronologically speaking, at least. Sword of Destiny, the other short story collection, was published before The Last Wish, but the latter was specifically written to serve as a prequel collection. As a result, it’s where most people embark on their Witcher odysseys before eventually pressing on to Sword of Destiny and the five-novel saga that ensues from it (there’s actually a sixth novel, Season of Storms, but it’s set between the short stories of The Last Wish – however, it contains spoilers for later in the series, so it’s probably unwise to read that one with respect to chronology!).

Season 1 of The Witcher neatly adapted several stories from The Last Wish. For example: Geralt earning his Butcher of Blaviken moniker, fighting the striga, and uttering the eponymous last wish that binds his destiny to Yennefer’s. However, the inaugural season pulls almost as much from Sword of Destiny as it does from The Last Wish (at least in terms of fully-adapted stories, one of which is changed drastically, but essentially).

The hunt for Villentretenmerth, or Borch Three Jackdaws, is the opening story of Sword of Destiny, and serves as the sixth episode in The Witcher. Similarly, Geralt’s encounters with Ciri and Yurga – the merchant he saves in the last episode of season one – both come from the second collection. So for those wondering if the second season will adapt Sword of Destiny: the first season already has, at least partially, so it’s unlikely we’ll have to wait until season three before venturing into saga territory. (Although I’m holding out for an adaptation of A Shard of Ice!)

Where does The Witcher on Netflix fit into the timeline of The Witcher 3?

But this isn’t necessarily about adapting the books: it’s about where to go next. It’s not entirely disingenuous to suggest The Witcher 3 is a pretty good follow-up to the Netflix series, but there are, admittedly, some concessions to elucidate. First of all, The Witcher 3 takes place several years after the last novel in the saga, The Lady of the Lake, and would therefore contain spoilers for the books, meaning it may also contain spoilers for future seasons of the Netflix show. Also, it’s The Witcher 3 – the third part of a trilogy. However, it’s perfectly playable as a standalone game. Its continued success testifies to this – as does its recent resurgence in popularity, which saw it earn its highest amount of concurrent players since launch.

There are several reasons why The Witcher 3 seems like the most natural text to visit after the series’ denouement. First of all, it’s really good. Second, you could play for hundreds of hours without exhausting its wonderful world, which is teeming with curios only found in the Witcher universe (studying these oddities will obviously give you a massive headstart by the time season two rolls around). And third, although The Witcher 3 is set in the future, and there are obviously some spoilers as to how things end up a little down the line, characters who have already died in the series are still alive in The Witcher 3, and vice versa. With that in mind, it’s reasonably safe to approach if you’re willing to remember this isn’t necessarily how things go, and some ostensibly spoilerific bits are actually pretty innocuous. Judging by the Netflix series so far, which is faithful to but not bound by the books, The Witcher 3 is operating on a different wavelength.

You’ve also got two jaw-droppingly gargantuan DLC packs, both of which are excellent. Personally, my introduction to the Witcher series was The Witcher 2: Assassins of Kings. I went on to play The Witcher 3, Hearts of Stone, and Blood of Wine before reading the books. And then I devoured them, starving for more Witcher.

Sure, I was considerably ahead of certain arcs, and already knew how they culminated. I won’t spoil anything, but some moments that should otherwise be considered hard-hitting are slightly dulled by knowing what happens later on (shocker). These are few and far between though, as The Witcher is often made up of singular moments, both magnificent and mundane, as opposed to a marathonic sprint to an almighty and ultimate twist. There are so many things that happen in the books that are never referred to in the games, meaning there’s an extraordinary wealth of storytelling you can still experience firsthand.

If I could go back and read the books first, I probably wouldn’t. Although I started out with The Witcher 2 – which I enjoyed! – The Witcher 3 was what impassioned me to explore more of Sapkowski’s world. It was the singular text that convinced me, “wow, this is really something.” (In case anybody is wondering, I played The Witcher, the original game, last. It’s a little shaky at parts, but holds up remarkably well and is definitely worth your time, especially if, like me, you’ve read and played through everything else at this point. But yes, it’s good!)

So – what do you follow The Witcher on Netflix up with?

So after the Netflix series soars out on a high and you’re left staring at the screen thinking, “what next?” your best bet is to do exactly what everybody else seems to be doing: to buy The Witcher 3 and, whether you’re a newcomer or returning player, don that witcher medallion and tussle with some creepy crawlies. It’s an incredibly dense game that is simultaneously expansive and immersive, and it invites a sublime sense of wonder that other fantasy titles would struggle to replicate.

It’s also emphatically alive: townsfolk argue with one another with or without your intervention, and monsters will inevitably gobble up any merchants unfortunate enough to think straying from the main roads is a savvy way to save time. You could stand dead still and the world would still spin, its sui generis anomalies existing solely to be discovered and understood. And the more you explore, the more acquainted with the universe you’ll become.

It may trigger a few spoilers in (distant) future seasons of the Netflix show, but familiarity with The Witcher 3 will be hugely advantageous in terms of world comprehension later on. This is important: many people have lamented the series assumes knowledge on behalf of the viewer, causing the first few episodes to seem a little muddled (mostly because of the different timelines, which aren’t explicitly separated from one another until the fourth episode). But an investment in The Witcher 3 will give you more of an idea of who people are, what the world is like, and what The Witcher is all about without actually spoiling the novels, which you can use to fill the second half of your year-in-waiting.

And, most importantly, given that Lauren S. Hissrich has stated on more than one occasion the Netflix series is not based on the games, you won’t need to worry about spoiling a small screen adaptation of The Witcher 3 for yourself. If anything, you’re actively playing through a story that probably won’t make the cut for Netflix, but will educate you on what will.

Also: the first two games are distinguished enough you can play them after The Witcher 3 without spoiling anything for yourself (The Witcher 2 has the best character in the entire series, so that’s definitely worth a look-in). Happy witchering!

Thinking about starting The Witcher 3? Give our dedicated podcast episode a listen through iTunes, Spotify, RSS, and SoundCloud:

from EnterGamingXP https://entergamingxp.com/2020/01/so-you-finished-the-witcher-on-netflix/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=so-you-finished-the-witcher-on-netflix

[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.

[gayregis]

Hi, for the ship meme: gerlion number 11

ship meme: 11. What do they hide from one another?

spicy

geralt hides the fact that he actually likes dandelion’s poetry & singing. he’s listened to most everything he’s sung because he sings everything in his presence. he actually owns a few compilations of writing by dandelion which are kept with his personal items in roach’s saddlebags. he also keeps paper advertisements that dandelion has given him over the years, slips intended to get the word out about performances in taverns and such. sometimes when they sleep together dandelion hums some lullabies or humorous songs drowsily and it helps geralt fall asleep, because witchers as children are never told stories or sung lullabies, as geralt attests to in the sword of destiny. it’s slightly aggravating when dandelion turns everything into an idealized version of itself or an analogy for something else, repeating his own sayings as if in splendor of his own genius like in baptism of fire, but geralt finds himself repeating these sayings to others and quoting dandelion occasionally, like in lady of the lake or season of storms. but he doesn’t ask him to repeat a ballad or vigorously applaud his every word, because dandelion’s ego is large enough and to congratulate him would be to send his arrogance to even higher levels.

he also never told dandelion about how dudu turned into him for a few moments in eternal flame, and confronted geralt about his emotions, or how he let him go upon him taking the form of dandelion… 

dandelion hides the fact that he actually worries about geralt significantly. the monsters he fights terrify him, and he does worry about his safety. especially when they part ways for a while, dandelion is filled with anxiety if this could possibly be his last time seeing him… he’s sure that geralt can handle whatever life throws at him, but he almost snapped a lute string out of fear when he heard about the striga contract as he was visiting the temerian court, and rode to the temple of melitele as soon as he found out. but he knows geralt doesn’t like others worrying about him, he doesn’t care for himself as much as he does others… dandelion also keeps a lot more of his idealizing thoughts of geralt hidden from him, and they really only come out in the ballads when he describes him, because he knows that geralt’s low self-esteem would cause him to quarrel with him about it. 

dandelion also keeps his past hidden from geralt, everything surrounding his title as viscount, and his real name. sapkowski kind of backtracked on this, because in tower of the swallow, when dandelion is referred to as viscount julian, geralt has no idea who they’re talking about, but in season of storms, dandelion is called julian multiple times by ferrant and their cousinly relationship is well-known, so this doesn’t make sense concerning the timeline… but i think even if their familial relationship was known, ferrant never called dandelion “viscount” during this time, and geralt assumed it was more of a distant cousinship, like how you might have a rich aunt distant from the rest of the family, and didn’t suspect that dandelion might also have the same background as ferrant, based in nobility and clerical work. dandelion doesn’t identify with his family or his past, so he keeps it hidden from geralt as with most of the world, because it’s not how he wants to be known by him. he doesn’t want geralt to see him differently, and especially because there have been times when they have both been starving together, it wouldn’t be the best to admit that he had once given up his entire inheritance just so he could go sing songs around the continent. i don’t think geralt would even care much, but dandelion fears that he would, so it’s still a secret. geralt has asked him offhandedly before about what his family and background was like, and dandelion just says he left to go to oxenfurt and become a poet, and doesn’t provide much detail other than that. geralt, who has a weird background to say the least, understands dandelion’s hesitancy to share and doesn’t push farther than that. so it remains unsaid between them until lady of the lake, where it does kind of explode into conflict.

they both leave deeper emotions between them relatively unsaid. geralt doesn’t outright proclaim that dandelion walked into his life at a very low point, and that he made the world brighter for him. he doesn’t speak of how worried and upset he was during the last wish, when dandelion could have been severely injured and lost his ability to sing. he doesn’t share with him how he needed his companionship the most desperately in something more when he learned about the massacre of cintra, and in time of contempt when dandelion arrives in brokilon. he shares that he needs him, but he never elaborates on exactly how much. and he ends up regretting this in lady of the lake when dandelion alights from the company to be with the duchess. dandelion similarly never elaborates on how he really thinks geralt should think better of himself, how his self-loathing is annoying to him because he knows that he deserves more. he actually was happy for geralt when he found yennefer, because he thought maybe she could put some sense into his head and make him realize that he’s a good man worthy of love, but it continued to be a group effort between him, yennefer, and later the hansa as well to convince him. 

tldr: they both don’t know exactly how much they mean to each other because it’s just something that doesn’t come up in the day-to-day talks between them