#the witcher essay

[revoevokukil]

Reflecting on Andrzej Sapkowski's Thoughts on Le Guin & the Healing of the Waste Land

In re-reading Pirog, or There’s No Gold in the Gray Mountains (1993) by A. Sapkowski—perhaps one of his more well-known essays on the state of fantasy, and the genre’s reception in Poland in particular—I cannot help but get stuck on how he analyses Ursula K. Le Guin’s Earthsea series. It resonates with one very particular strand that Sapkowski plucked on at the heart of his own books: the duality of human nature. Good and Evil, yes, but also: male and female. As psychological and symbolic polarities balancing the psyche.

‘Already the Archipelago of Earthsea itself is a deep allegory - islands scattered across the sea are like lonely, alienated people. The inhabitants of Earthsea are isolated, lonely, closed in on themselves. Their state is such, and not otherwise, because they have lost something—for full happiness and peace of mind…’

The loneliness and alienation, the Waste Land of the human heart, is a recurrent motif in The Witcher. Its influence is felt not only in the plot threads of our protagonists, but also in those of such characters as Emhyr var Emreis, Vilgefortz, the Rats, the Alder King, Avallac’h, anonymous elf who burned down Birka, and humanity and elves in toto. It is just that antagonists rarely reveal their hearts to the protagonists (and to the reader)—if only to have a blade struck it through.

‘Ged’s quest is an allegory, it’s eternal goodbyes and partings, eternal loneliness. Ged strives for perfection in constant struggle with himself and fights the final, symbolic battle with himself, winning by uniting with the element of Evil, accepting, as it were, the duality of human nature.’

Le Guin broke out of the Tolkienian mould, in Sapkowski’s words, by focusing on symbolism and allegory; on the inner journey, as a reflection of, and as affecting, the external world. It is in the recognition and healing of the Waste Land that Evil, or potential Evil, could ever possibly be undone.

In The Tombs of Atuan, the allegory takes us into the Labyrinth of the Psyche, which Sapkowski compares with the Labyrinth of Crete. The Minotaur within is not a monstrous beast, it is ‘pure and concentrated Evil, Evil destroying a psyche that is incomplete, imperfect, not prepared for such an encounter.’ Evil gets close to a psyche in conditions of imbalance, loss, alienation, abandonment, incompleteness.

And then Sapkowski gives the entire thing a gendered spin, bringing Le Guin’s writing closer to the archetype he himself uses.

‘And into such a Labyrinth boldly steps Ged, the hero, Theseus. And like Theseus, Ged depends on Ariadne. Tenar is his Ariadne. Because Tenar is what the hero lacks, without which he is incomplete, helpless, lost in the symbolic tangle of corridors, dying of thirst. Ged thirsts allegorically - he's not after H2O, but after the anima - the feminine element, without which the psyche is imperfect and unfinished, helpless in the face of Evil. … he is saved by the touch of Tenar’s hand. Ged follows his anima—because he must. Because he has just found the lost rune of Erreth Akbe. A symbol. The Grail. A woman.’

Be it the loss of the Alder King (Shiadhal) or Avallac’h (Lara), or Emhyr’s (sacrificing his wife Pavetta, and having been sacrificed by his own father), or Vilgefortz’s (abandoned by his mother, falling in love with a sorceress and coming to hate her for the power she held over him via his feelings for her), or the wartime children of contempt (written off and abused by everyone and everything), the wound remains archetypal and notably alike.

(Not to speak of The Witcher’s protagonists into whose hearts we do see, and in whom we witness the transformation of the Waste Land of the heart in ways which eludes—or only with the very first fleeting steps is beginning in—the rest.)

Love is the essence. Love and lovelessness walk hand in hand at the heart of everything in The Witcher, and with them the good and the evil. What matters in the end, as in all good fantasy, is heart—knowing it, seeking it, letting the spirit flourish in its presence. To gentle the heart. To remain human.

As Tenar to Ged, in Sapkowski’s reading of Le Guin, so Ciri to oh, so many characters, in my reading of Sapkowski.

‘Now Tenar grows into a powerful symbol, into a very contemporary and very feminist allegory. An allegory of femininity. … Tenar leads Ged out of the Labyrinth—for herself, exactly as Ariadne did with Theseus. And Ged—like Theseus—can’t appreciate it. … he gives up, although he likes to enjoy the thought that someone is waiting for him, thinking of him and longing on the island of Gont. It pleases him. How ugly male!’ […] ‘After an eighteen-year break, Ms Ursula writes “Tehanu,” … the broken and destroyed Ged crawls to his anima on his knees, and this time she already knows how to keep him, in what role to place him, to become everything for him, the most important meaning and purpose of life, so that the former Archmage and Dragonlord stays by her side until the end of his days…’

---

Marginalia

This motif is universal in how it explores the psyche, but it is also very particular, because Mr Sapkowski’s influences include Bettelheim, Freud, and Jung, as well as Campbell, the Wicca movement, and the feminist current in fantasy. It is evident then, I think, how the balancing between the male and the female is seen as essential for the flourishing in either’s soul.

As seen in ”The World of King Arthur” (1995):

‘The wound of the Fisher King has a symbolic meaning and refers to the beliefs of the Celts - the mutilated king is unable to perform a sexual act, and the Earth he rules cannot be fertilized. If the king is not healed, the Earth will die and turn into La Terre Gaste, the Waste Land. The wounding spear is a phallic symbol, and the healing Grail is the vulva.’

Or as in Joseph Campbell (1988):

'The big moment in the medieval myth is the awakening of the heart to compassion, the transformation of passion into compassion. That is the whole problem of the Grail stories, compassion for the wounded king. ...the awakening of [the] heart to love and the opening of the way.' [...] '...when the center of the heart is touched, and a sense of compassion awakened with another person or creature, and you realize that you and that other are in some sense creatures of the one life in being, a whole new stage of life in the spirit opens out.'

The word "compassion" means literally "suffering with." Nobody ought to remain alone in suffering. Evil happens so very often as a consequence.

In Excalibur (1981), sick Nature comes alive again when Arthur touches the Grail and wakes from apathy. Of the Grail stories, however, it is Wolfram von Eschenbach’s which speaks to the Witcher’s author’s own sensibilities the most.

‘Let's look for the Grail within ourselves. Because the Grail is nobility, love of neighbor, and the ability to have compassion. True chivalric ideals, towards which it is worth and necessary to look for the right path, break through the wild forest, where, and I quote, "there is neither road nor path." Everyone must find their own path. But it is not true that there is only one path. There are many of them. Infinitely many.’ - Andrzej Sapkowski, The World of King Arthur

Only then does the land bloom again in snow-white blossoming apple trees.

[thelostgirl21]

Okay... but I've just realised (thanks to this beautiful gifset) that, when Jaskier asked "What are you doing here?" to Geralt, the question was a very direct one, as if Jaskier already knew that Geralt's presence there was obviously no coincidence.

And, of course, the answer he got wasn't: "I went looking for you because I missed having you in my life, was worried about you, and heard you'd gotten yourself into trouble. So, I came here to rescue you and ask if, perhaps, you'd want us to go get some ale and talk about what happened..."

It was: "I need your help".

Because that's what Jaskier does: care about and help people. And Geralt came back into his life because he needed his help and expected Jaskier to still care enough to agree to help him.

Whereas the only personal request that Radovid ever made to Jaskier was for him to sing a song...

And he told Jaskier:

Yet, the very first thing that Radovid ever told Jaskier about himself was:

i.e. A song very much NOT about a white-haired Witcher.

Literally, the things Jaskier learned about him, in chronological order, are that:

- He's good at randomly catching lutes.

- Oh no, he's hot.

- He's long wanted to see Jaskier in person... what?!

- His favorite song is "Song of the Seven".

- Oh! Good! He's a fan!

- His name is Radovid...

- ...Comma, PRINCE?!?!?!

So, Jaskier knew that Radovid loved "Song of the Seven" the most even before he ever knew that he was talking to the crown prince of Redania named Radovid.

And what did that ridiculous spoon of a prince do?

Ask him to pick a song of his choice while gently trying to orient said choice towards a song that others would love to hear him sing.

It may be a small detail but, even in his private quarters, Radovid is already making choices for the benefit of all in attendance rather than allowing himself to be selfish by demanding from Jaskier the song that he would most wish to hear him sing.

And, after Jaskier surprises him by choosing to be emotionally open and vulnerable with him - singing something to him directly from his heart - Radovid shows gratefulness and appreciation by making the effort of learning his song and attempting to sing it back to him.

On top, of course, of lowering his own mask and allowing himself to be honest about his feelings, who he is, and agreeing to do what he can do to help Jaskier in his search for Rience.

Radovid is all about reciprocity, taking other people's needs into consideration, and not taking anything Jaskier is willing to offer him for granted.

And, after Jaskier was hurt by the mistake he made, he literally stopped expecting or believing that he was entitled to receive anything from Jaskier anymore.

So, when Jaskier asked Radovid the question "Why are you here?", it almost feels like a question directed at Radovid, but also at Destiny, or the gods in general, because, somehow, he went searching for his family... and Radovid was the first person that crossed his path.

Like "something" was trying to let Jaskier know that Radovid is now a part of that family, too, and he wasn't meant to get rid of him the way he did that morning.

He also discovered that Radovid told the truth about having given his royal security detail the slip before coming to see him and Ciri, as all the guards and servants that were assigned to him have been violently massacred in his absence...

And now, there he is... weeping alone in a corner, defenseless, surrounded by the corpses of the people that were supposed to keep him safe but can obviously no longer do anything to help him...

The crown prince of a Kingdom that the Nilfgaardian Empire has just declared war upon (and therefore, a prime target for capture to use as a negotiation tool with King Vizimir).

And what is Radovid, Comma Prince, concerned about the most?

Taking up too much of Jaskier's valuable time...

Like, for fuck's sake, Radovid!

All you did was answer Jaskier's question regarding what had happened here, you spoon!

You were offering Jaskier your time and knowledge. Not the other way around!

There's no need for you to apologize for freaking existing, and perhaps needing a bit of support given that the reason all of your guards are dead - and you're now stuck in such a vulnerable position - is that you ditched said guards the night before to keep Jaskier and Ciri safe from them!

If you'd done as you were expected to do, chances are that you would all have been on your way to Tretogor by now.

And, okay, granted, Jaskier and Ciri would probably have been glaring at you the whole way there, trying to escape, and hating you forever (which would've been a bad thing).

BUT, you and your whole royal security detail wouldn't have been at Aretuza during the coup; so I'm sure that, at least, they would have been happy to be, you know, not dead, and helping you get back home in one piece!

So, although you had no idea something bad would be happening to your guards if you just ran off on them, you still chose to put yourself at risk by wandering alone at night in the woods, and refusing to use force to convince Ciri and Jaskier to go with you.

It wasn't a perfect plan, but I think Jaskier is starting to get a better grasp of the type of pressure you were dealing with, and seeing how you might have made choices that seemed to be "the least bad option".

I know I've seen some comments essentially going "Jaskier is such a good person to consider still helping Radovid after he's betrayed him", and I'm not denying that.

But I like to personally think that part of what was going on in his brain, in that moment, was realizing the risks that Radovid had already taken to keep him and his family safe, and the mistake Jaskier himself had made earlier, at least.

Because, when it comes down to it, I've always felt like it was a bit unreasonable for Jaskier to have expected Radovid to 100% trust him with everything he knew, and completely let his own guards down around him, when Jaskier himself couldn't do the same with him.

Each time I watch the scene in the shed, I feel like Jaskier was testing Radovid's loyalties by letting him know that the magical barrier only lasted until dawn, while utterly ignoring what Radovid was actually trying to tell him.

Jaskier might have wanted to trust him, but he couldn't - not yet. So, how could he have expected Radovid to spontaneously share with him everything that worried him, too, or every detail of what he was planing to do in an attempt to fix things?

In a way, I can't help but feel like they are both way too smart and analytical for their own good during that scene.

Like, I know we keep saying that Radovid should have told Jaskier that he wanted to go see Ciri (and I don't exactly disagree), but the problem is that Radovid, up until that point, was operating on the belief that:

- Dijkstra and Philippa were planning to expose and execute Vilgefortz and his spies before Nilfgaard had any chance to know that they were onto them.

And had that messenger not been killed and intercepted, technically, they may very well have succeeded in that endeavor.

But Nilfgaard learned of Redania's plans and were able to turn the tables on them. Something that Radovid wouldn't have known.

So, if we go with the scenario of what was supposed to happen at Thanedd, had Ciri agreed to ally herself with Redania, then every vassal state / kingdom still loyal to Cintra would have joined the North against the Nilfgaardian Empire.

With that level of support, it would technically have been enough to crush any hope of Nilfgaard ever winning a battle against the Northern Kingdoms, and thus, averted a second war between these two superpowers from happening.

At least, for the time being.

From Radovid's P.OV., knowing what he knows, Ciri agreeing to come with them would have, indeed, made everything easier for, well - pretty much everyone, really!

From a personal standpoint, he would have completed the job his brother had given him, and would no longer have needed to keep dealing with Philippa or Dijkstra.

Jaskier would also have gotten what he wanted; i.e. Ciri at the head of the most powerful army on the Continent (by combining Redania's forces with Cintra's and every single smaller Kingdom loyal to them) and able to keep herself safe from her enemies.

And with these two problems out of the way, it would have been much easier for Jaskier and Radovid to be together.

But the thing is that - according to the intel that Radovid had access to by that point- the 2nd war would also have been avoided, and countless lives would have been saved.

And I don't think that it would have been too far fetched to believe that Radovid might have hoped that Ciri's arrival at the Redanian court might have shaken things up a bit there, too.

First, because she's the granddaughter of Queen Calanthe - a headstrong, fierce warrior queen whose authority was greatly respected by her subjects. So, if Ciri has inherited some of her temperament (though hopefully not her ideals), then she wouldn't have been so easy to control and manipulate.

Whereas, from what we've seen, King Vizimir was pretty much likely to go with other people's ideas as long as they were presented to him in a way where he felt like he was the one making the decisions, told that they would reflect well on him and his Kingdom, and that there would be no annoying complaints for him to deal with.

Second, because it's doubtful that she would have wanted to be parted from Geralt and Yennefer, either; and things would likely have been much safer at court with these two around.

And if Radovid's initial plan of just "knocking at the door" had worked, then Ciri would have been in the same room as Jaskier when he would have showed up there, and she could have been able to make the decision of at least hearing out what the prince had to say, or not.

The choice would have been up to her and, had she refused, then at least Radovid would have done all he could to attempt to prevent yet more bad things from happening.

But then, the he suddenly found himself in a situation where, if he wanted to talk to Ciri, not only did it have to wait until morning - since anyone trying to enter the cabin would be blown back by a powerful magical force field (let's all give a good round of applause to Jaskier, that thought stepping out of an incredibly strong protective barrier to go investigate a potential threat with nothing to protect himself but a lute was a better idea than remaining INSIDE the impenetrable protective force that would have held until dawn...) - but he would need to request permission from Jaskier first.

Except Jaskier's job is to look after Ciri and make decisions that are the best for HER until her parents return. Not make decisions that are the best to avoid a war between Nilfgaard and the North (among others)!

So imagine, for a moment, that Radovid had chosen to explain to Jaskier everything he already knew...

That he'd told him that the Redanian spymasters suspected that Vilgefortz was working with Nilfgaard, had spies working with him from within Aretuza, and that the second war was imminent.

Imagine that he'd explained to Jaskier that Ciri, and the amount of political power she represents, might be the only thing that could sufficiently tip the scale in the Northern Kingdoms' favor to prevent another war from happening.

Imagine that he'd told him that, while he'd ditched the small army (a.k.a. his "security detail") that had been meant to accompany him while he "went to see him for information as per Philippa's request" to prevent risking them attempting to take the princess by force, he still felt that he'd had to do what he could to convince her to come to Redania with them of her own free will.

That he couldn't, in good conscience, let the war happen, knowing he hadn't done something to at least try to prevent it.

Imagine he'd told Jaskier exactly what was actually at stake...

First, there's no guarantee that Jaskier would have believed him, and there's no way he could have proven to him that he was telling the truth, either.

Second, Jaskier might have felt like he was betraying Geralt and Yennefer's trust - should he have decided to allow the Prince of Redania to attempt to convince their daughter to ally with his nation to help stop a war from happening.

And third, in the event that Jaskier had refused Radovid's request to be given a chance to speak with Ciri, then Jaskier might have felt like he was responsible for having made the wrong call should a war indeed be declared upon the Northern Kingdoms, because the North lacked enough power, and support, to stay Nilfgaard's hand.

That's a whole lot of responsibilities to drop on Jaskier's shoulders, and a lot of lives to risk on the hope that Jaskier might believe he is telling the truth.

And Radovid does not know what Jaskier himself knows, either. So, he's unaware that Geralt does not want Ciri to become involved in politics, and be forced to take sides (at least, by that point).

The two of them are both operating on the limited amount of information they both have, and trying to make decisions that appear to be the best course of action for everyone involved.

And when Jaskier asked the question "And what do you want?" Radovid clearly hesitated, then came up with an answer that I believe was 100% honest, but clearly evaded the question.

And Jaskier never confronted him about it. He didn't insist that this wasn't what he asked him, nor attempt to get to the bottom of the situation.

I'm 99.9% sure that he did notice how Radovid avoided giving him a straight answer (yes, I know, there's nothing straight about either of them), though, because he immediately became suspicious and looked outside.

But, instead, he gave Radovid the information that the force field would stop working at dawn, later pretended to still be asleep when dawn came, and waited to see what Radovid would do with the information.

One of the most heartbreaking things, to me, however, is that Radovid's answer, when Jaskier gave him that information, was to tell him "I'm scared, Jaskier"...

And Jaskier didn't ask him why he was afraid...

He didn't attempt to investigate what scared him and if - by any chance - it could be scary enough that he might be tempted to do something stupid.

I'm not blaming Jaskier, by the way... Their situation was extremely complex, and Jaskier had his own fears and issues to deal with and manage as best he could.

Radovid is not the only one breaking my heart in that scene, because I think that Jaskier has such a hard time believing that someone could genuinely love him the way Radovid does, that he's unwittingly setting him up to go behind his back by avoiding to fully acknowledge and investigate Radovid's fears.

I think it's easier for Jaskier to believe that Radovid was just so smart that he knew exactly what to say to him, and what to do, to encourage him to lower his own barriers around him and start trusting him - just so he could try to take Ciri from them...

...than to believe that Radovid really would be able to see him and appreciate him just the way he is, and that the connection between them is real.

So yes, Radovid did technically "fail" Jaskier's test. But sadly, I think that Jaskier stopped truly listening to Radovid the moment he decided to test him.

If Jaskier had been brave enough to confront him about the evasiveness of his answer and the reasons why he was scared - if he'd shown Radovid that he genuinely cared about his safety and wanted to help him face those fears, and/or for them to find solutions to Radovid's problems together - Jaskier might have been able to prevent him from making that mistake in the first place.

But, instead, Jaskier came up with his own narrative that would confirm his own fears of never being enough for anyone; and sadly, I don't think that anything Radovid could have done or said, in that moment, would have changed his mind.

And poor Radovid internalized the hurt and heartbreak he saw reflected there as if he was the only one responsible for it.

So then, when Jaskier offers to help Radovid get back to safety, he's confused that he would even wish to help him after the way he managed to so profoundly wound and disappoint him earlier.

Radovid, you may not know this, but Jaskier once told his very best friend in the whole wide world "People do stupid things when they think they're trapped in a corner. And they say stupid things. That's what friends do. They come back."

And somehow, you "came back", because Destiny apparently decided to take pity on Jaskier's own issues and insecurities, and urge him to take a second, closer, deeper look.

And it's not even being subtle about it!

Like "Oi! PRINCE. TRAPPED. IN. A. LITERAL. CORNER. WITH. NOWHERE. SAFE. TO. GO. He told you he was scared earlier, and you didn't even ask him why! He didn't need someone to tell him he was brave, and then wait for him to do something stupid come morning, Jaskier! What he needed, was someone investigating what terrified him, and offering him support. Do you get it now? Prince. Corner. Scared. Trapped. Needing help, but not even able to believe he's entitled to it or not knowing how to ask for it! So fucking help him, for fuck's sake!"

And Jaskier needs to offer, because Radovid apparently keeps putting other people's needs first. So, chances probably are that Radovid won't ask unless he knows for sure it's okay and safe for him to ask anything of anyone whose job is not to tend to him.

Because, in his world, Radovid's main survival strategy seems to have been to constantly provide narcissistic supply to his brother's oversized ego (to be "adored" and protected by the King), by cheering him on from the sidelines, while drawing as little attention as he could to himself.

In Radovid's world, he doesn't matter: he's a spare, easy to cast aside and forget about. As long as the King's pleased with him, he's safe.

(Or he used to be, before the whole Hedwig incident.)

You shouldn't have to listen to him, because he's of no use to anyone and he doesn't matter.

He's no more than a pretty reflective surface for his brother to admire himself in whenever there's no other more interesting image of himself to gaze upon.

That's Radovid's job. Letting others hog the spotlight, coming in second, and stopping to exist whenever convenient.

And when Jaskier says that he can't go with him because he needs to find his family first, Radovid immediately offers to go risk his own life, and use whatever resources he can spare, to help Jaskier be reunited with the people he loves most like it's the most natural thing in the world for a prince to do!

No wonder Jaskier couldn't figure him out... He's used to people just spontaneously dumping all of their issues on him while expecting him to do or say something about it.

While Radovid is going "you don't have to listen to me or care about my issues, but maybe I could do something to help you with yours?"

All the while being the one that would likely benefit the most from having someone genuinely listening to and helping him.

Jaskier: What are you doing here?

Geralt: I need your help.

Jaskier: *Sighs* Figures...

Jaskier: Why are you here?

Radovid: Came looking for my guards, didn't go well, now there's a war and I'm hiding in a corner... Story of my life that I don't want to bore you with... But hey! Maybe I could help you go find and rescue your family instead?

Jaskier: !!!???

[wiltking]

ok - i had to go back and consult my screenshots regarding this post (the doe eyes/pouting quote) to make sure I wasn't wrong in thinking geralt's words were aimed at saskia. and sure enough, i still think that's the case, but i want to take a moment to dissect the conversation further. the whole thing is as follows:

geralt: can you tell me what'll happen to iorveth now?

saskia: let's be honest - he's a terrorist. i'll not lie about him nor whitewash his deeds. he must earn respect on his own, and perhaps, a few generations on, humans will forget.

first - i was surprised to have the option to outright ask about iorveth. yes they're friends, but i didn't think geralt would directly raise this line of questioning, especially after the direction it takes. he knows enough to worry (or at the very least care) about iorveth's safety and saskia's ability to guarantee it now that she has her pontar valley (thanks to geralt and iorveth's combined efforts). her response is sobering, but equally surprising given that recent events weren't enough for iorveth to earn her respect, or gratitude, or solidarity especially when we consider how geralt has known him for a far shorter time and has gained (seemingly) more affection and understanding for him in that time.

it's also telling that saskia thinks geralt would be on the same page as her. not to mention her implication that iorveth's only chance at redemption will come once his actions have faded into obscurity with time. as if saying, come on, we don't have to pretend anymore that iorveth has any moral standing. let's be honest.

geralt: did you intend just to use him?

saskia: geralt, iorveth has killed more humans thank you've eaten chickens. he's not one to be used - it's not that simple. he came to believe in me and knew from the start what we were fighting for. he made a choice.

not one to be deterred, geralt doesn't dispute her claims but rather questions saskia's character, accusing her of using iorveth. but saskia's response is interesting for her acknowledgement of iorveth's agency in the matter. as if she's saying he was aware of his disadvantage from the beginning, and that his feelings (?) for her were always involved, and both knew that they would lead nowhere. it was his choice to fight for her, to put everything on the line for her cause, despite knowing full well that his feelings were one sided.

geralt: sure you don't know what i'm talking about? the baby doe eyes, that intense, misty gaze, the pouting?

saskia: we shared a cause, fought side by side...

again, geralt doesn't relent. he continues to ask if saskia really wasn't purposefully playing up her looks to get iorveth into her hands. he isn't the type to easily fall for a human after all (or someone he thinks is human), much less work with one. even she must know that. she says herself that iorveth isn't one to be used, that he's a terror to all humans. an outright 'terrorist'. she later goes so far as to say the scoia'tael will be welcome in the free pontar valley. but iorveth himself? well.... (let's be honest, geralt.)

so geralt's insistence of her being at fault makes sense from his perspective. how else could she have convinced someone like iorveth to so thoroughly do her bidding? and her answers do start to fall apart when she doesn't deny playing up her doe eyes, her pouting. or maybe saskia genuinely doesn't think she did anything wrong. given her nature, i'm almost more inclined to believe her ignorance.

but if all this is true, if saskia truly didn't mean to use iorveth's personal feelings and devotion for her own gains, then geralt's decision to go to bat for iorveth (for this perceived wronging, for iorveth's heart) reveals more of geralt's affection for the elf than any intentions saskia might have had. like, sure, maybe geralt won't defend iorveth's actions. his past. his bloodshed. his morals. but he will defend iorveth's heart. on principle. by his own initiative. after all they've been through together. and that's the main takeaway of this all.

geralt: iorveth did and would do anything for you. question is - what're you prepared to do for him?

the one question i'm left with is this: what are you prepared to do for iorveth, geralt?

[maironsmaid]

Currently analyzing fairytale structures in The Hobbit oh yeah baby

Service announcement voice:

This essay has been brought to you by the power of energy drinks and neurodivergence

[in-tua-deep]

So I followed you years ago for the first season of tua. It has been years and now tua has come to an end. I just watched the final season. Did you or will you watch it? I might not be able to recommend it. Which is such a shame. The first season was amazing and will be forever one of my favorite shows.

I have a terrible confession to make…

I’ve only fully watched season one of the umbrella academy. I started season 2 and haven’t finished it yet 😭

[justwanderingtheblog]

The Witcher: The Battle of Sodden Hill | A Strategy Analysis and Rant

A video essay in which I whinge about the strategy and tactics at the Battle of Sodden Hill in the season finale of The Witcher. Written and filmed in 2020.

0:00 - Intro

2:58 - Disclaimer

3:56 - Setting the Scene

5:45 - The Bridge

10:42 - Troop Numbers & Locations

17:21 - Budget

23:36 - The Magic

26:56 - Credits

[teatitty]

Enough with comparing Dandelion to larks and traditionally pretty songbirds what about comparing him to ravens because they have symbiotic friendships with wolves and can imitate people's voices and other sounds. CONSIDER THE FOLKLORIC AND MYTHOLOGICAL THEMES OF IT ALL

[revoevokukil]

Ciri's Omelas Dilemma

Can you walk away from a destiny that is inscribed in your own body? Does possessing the capacity to help create an obligation to do so? Might Ciri, in taking The Trial of Grasses, be choosing the Greater Evil?

Le Guin’s parable of Omelas presents a critique of the false binary of the utilitarian sacrifice (utopia or a child’s suffering). Sapkowski subverts the chosen one narrative wholesale, critiquing authoritarian uses of utilitarian rhetoric. He digs into the trauma of being ‘chosen’ when you are a woman. Women are often ‘chosen’ for motherhood, their bodies transformed into a battleground for others’ ambitions.

Ciri bridges these critiques as she is both the chosen one and the potential sacrifice. Unlike the suffering child in Omelas, she retains the ability to choose, though doing so may mean condemning others. Stories about chosen ones – those who have no choice but to choose – revolve around how necessity and choice interact. Ciri's is the burden of Power.

This positions Ciri’s ethical struggles as a twisted mirror of Geralt’s. Geralt, who doesn’t have the power to change the system but will do all to fight for his loved ones, can walk away from Omelas. Ciri, the idealist, poses a counterpoint, as Ciri is both the suffering child and the potential ‘walker’ simultaneously. And also someone with the power to bring change.

Thus, Ciri faces a triple-layered moral choice:

Her right to choose her own path (personal freedom, bodily autonomy).

Potential salvation of elves—a dying race facing systematic extermination.

Implications for future generations of Elder Blood carriers who may have power to effect change.

In the original story, walking away from Omelas serves as moral protest that actively neither worsens nor betters the situation. The Witcher’s world, moreover, is no utopia. Nevertheless, Ciri’s knowing ‘walking away’ would actively contribute to allowing an ongoing tragedy to reach its conclusion. This creates her own version of Omelas, where her personal liberty (her own greater good) would be purchased at the cost of thousands of lives.

Perhaps though, our viewpoint is binary without good reason...

See here for the full article.

[hanzajesthanza]

i made my first witcher video!

hi everybody! if you've been following me for a while, you may know that i've been working on creating a witcher analysis youtube channel for a couple of years now (the kind that does video essays and deep dives).

though my first video is not an analysis, it is equally important—a biography and bibliography of author andrzej sapkowski's life and works! if you ever wondered how the witcher was created, this video is for you!

also... it's over an hour long! so i'd recommend that you watch it when you can get some time on your hands :)

[mallalada]

[kuwdora]

I always have thoughts about book-to-media adaptations running in the back of my mind these days since it’s part and parcel of our fannish landscape. There’s just so much that goes into translating something from book to a visual medium. And then the adaptation fails in some small and/or large way and it ends up being a disappointment. (I think there’s also a lot to be said about adaptations that are more Successful than not and what success means in an adaptation…but I think that deserves its own post.)

I’m often considering a person’s entry point to adaptations, whether it’s through the media or the original source, and how that plays into people’s reactions about failures of adaptations or—like, what each person is wanting to get out of the adaptation if they know the original source material. And what they’re happy with when they’ve just discovered it through the adaptation.

Just gonna ramble a little bit about my own experience with being a book-to-adaptation person. I think even when writing and production circumstances are the most ideal, it’s still fucking hard as hell to adapt complicated narratives to the screen. Still. I’m not immune to heartbreak about seeing something play out badly because I had been so attached to the original book material.

When I was a little girl I picked up a fantasy book featuring a little girl protagonist. This main character was living in a foster situation, had dead parents, and a wishy-washy background she didn’t know much about. She was a little bit of a ruffian and kind of defied everybody and everything because she had a very strong sense of self and moral code. She is, of course, a child of prophecy and has a lot in store for her.

Over the course of the first book she ends up embroiled in some social and political intrigue and ends up going on a grand adventure. She meets an outcast who is is hated by humans but they use his services anyway because he’s good at his job. He ends up becoming her protector and guardian and would do anything for her.

She eventually crossed paths with a world-traveling misfit with who brought levity and a heart of gold to every scene. She also ended up meeting a very old, very beautiful witch also fell in love with this child and would move heaven and earth to protect her and help her survive and thrive.

The whole series deals with a lot of complex issues of the moral and social variety, and there’s a running theme about how men and institutions headed by men wield their power and try to impose their vision of the world on everyone. Particularly on women.

The little girl also eventually found out that her dad isn’t actually dead like she was told. The dad is alive and well and he’s asshole, also a bad guy. But he has the MOST CHARISMA EVER, holy fuck.

I ate these books up as a kid and reread them over and over and my brain and heart totally grew around them. I admired the protagonist and her sharp wit and mouthiness and determination. Her resiliency and perseverance to do what she knew would be right and just. As I got older and I reread the books and absorbed the more complex issues about personhood and agency. I thought more about how you can resist a bad situation or person when the world/person is trying to change you to fit their ideal. (That part was particularly important to me when I was young). But also the themes of good and evil, etc. I started seeing the politics and then understanding it more with every reread over the years when I started reading more history, more politics. It had always been there in the books but I could finally SEE it. It felt like a revelation.

A dozen or so years later it turns out someone was going to going to adapt these books! It was much discussed and heavily anticipated. These were well-known, beloved fantasy books from the 90s. Amazing characters and great scenes! Fascinating themes.

God I remember being so excited when I heard about the adaptation. And then I got to see it. It was the most confusing and disappointing experiences of my life. What I ended up seeing was pretty. Great costumes, CGI. Amazing actors! But everything that made the books interesting and magical and profound had been watered down, elided over the moral complexities. Or it outright changed things that would have fundamentally shifted the events of the rest of the books and make the adaptation even MORE incomprehensible.

I’m talking about the 2007 film adaptation of The Golden Compass from Philip Pullman’s trilogy His Dark Materials. A lot of this probably sounds familiar to my Witcher mutuals, right?

Anyway.

The film had so many boycotts by the Catholic Church and other churchy groups in the United States for its depiction of institutionalized religion in Lyra’s world. So on the studio-side they made so many changes and demands that fucked the movie. So much doesn’t make sense or is just pales in comparison to what was actually originally intended.

After the film’s flop even more articles and reviews came out talking about Tom Stoppard’s original draft of the film and the director’s first take on the screenplay. Vulture read both versions and it's really illuminating what they discovered. The film was indeed supposed to be significantly longer but the studio wasn’t having it because they wanted kids to go and see this film and 2+ film wasn’t gonna be it.

Like. The studio was really hoping for another Harry Potter franchise and were treating this book-to-film more like a YA fantasy type of thing. When in reality someone wrote a sanded down version of the story for the screenplay that left me and a whole bunch of other people fucking jaded as hell. Because damn. Way to miss the fucking mark on an amazing fantasy series. 10000% missed it. I’ve blacked out most of the actual film from memory because I just could not believe it. The disappointment. The heartache of not doing the story justice.

But yeah…just… someone really thought The Golden Compass was gonna be a huge fantasy action/adventure hit because there were really cool talking animals.

It’s so fucking hilarious to me in retrospect. When you realize these books are Phillip Pullman’s AU fanfic/fix-it of Paradise Lost where Lucifer gets to have his revenge on the kingdom of heaven, there was noooo way that original film was going to even begin to set up a 3 or 4 film franchise. Nooo way.

The first book ends with an absolutely heartbreaking and horrific scene that is the catalyst for Lyra and what motivates her for the next 1500 pages of the series. I was there opening weekend in that theater for The Golden Compass. I have never been more confused in my LIFE while watching a film because they ended the film like 5 chapters before the end of the book. They lopped it off and made the first film a very strange Cliffhanger for a sequel that would absolutely never get made. I was flabbergasted.

The disappointment. The confusion. The despair. I was fucking depressed about it for a good long time. I had been so excited and been brimming with anticipation because I loved the books so much and I wanted it to be good and then what I got was….absolute garbage. To me. I mean maybe if I had been a little girl watching the film for the first time it would have been better. But as an adult who had spent the better part of my life immersed in Lyra’s character arc… I just. Could not feel more betrayed.

I can’t even be that upset anymore because I’ve had enough time to grieve and leave it behind. Then somehow the universe came together and HBO let Jack Thorne and company re-do the books as a series. It is a much more faithful adaptation. I’m too close to the book source to know if people who don’t read the books will get the same kind of experience out of seeing the show play through Lyra and Will’s experiences in the show.

The final season of His Dark Materials was also probably the most philosophical and abstract season of fantasy television I’ve seen. I fucking loved it. I don’t think it was perfect, but it was really enjoyable and did more to soothe my soul than I thought possible. It’s not a show for everyone—and I’m still not sure how it got made because HBO the last few years had been going through some changes. Maybe I’m very sentimental and forgiving, I don’t know. The narrative pacing was a bit weird to me in places and some of the dialogue was hit or miss but overall, I could not have gotten a better time from it.

That experience with the film a has made me much more intentional about managing my expectations of how I approach media adaptations.

Where am I starting with an adaptation? What am I hoping to get out of this? Who is making it and what are the production constraints working against it? How do I manage my expectations if I know the original source and what do I want from the visual media and acting? Etc etc. Do I want to go and read the original if I don’t know it already because I want to see what changes they made?

I keep thinking about everything with The Witcher Netflix. It’s so fucking difficult to get anything made through studios and networks (especially now, but even then in the late 2000s)… And when you’re trying to appeal to the widest audience possible, you’re only going to get so far when you’ve left the rest of the source inspiration on the table. And didn’t bother to make up for the difference in what you left there.

We all know how depressing it is. The streaming model has fucked television over completely. The depreciation of writers rooms… we had 20 and 22 episodes, and then 15 and 12 episodes. Filler episodes with great character moments. Space to flesh out complex narratives with nuance. And now 8 episodes as a standard runtime. The lack decent amount of time for production (including pre and post) to actually set things up in a way that serves the media narrative.

It’s so hard to cater to everyone when you’re drawing from a book/comic book. Also harder to cater to your specific audience. But when you’re trying cater to enough people so you don’t get cancelled and keep going to try and tell the story you’re trying to tell, that’s fucking hard and shitty and I don’t begrudge them for that. Even though it sucks.

Even though I can hate it as much has I can understand it. Wish it was different. Even though it can be a fucking travesty of epic proportions because these writers/showrunners/directors don’t get the space to actually flesh out what they’re trying to do.

Even if people are writing a very different iteration of the story that I don’t like/want/agree with/understand/etc.

That doesn’t even go into the issue of when showrunners and directors don’t understand the characters they’re working with or make fundamental changes because of their own vision, production constraints, and everything else. You might see a lot of this going around again with Red, White, and Royal Blue and what the director had changed in his film adaptation. People are worked up into a froth for very valid reasons. It’s all exhausting but this is all nothing new. Still demoralizing when people so attached to the original material.

Anyway. That’s….just some thoughts that have been sitting with me for awhile. Could probably ramble more if I can get the brain cells together.

Fun fact: George RR Martin looked at the 2007 The Golden Compass film and said (paraphrasing here): “I am never, ever fucking EVER letting anyone make my books into a film. A television show is the way to go.”

Fun fact #2: James SA Corey (Daniel Abraham and Ty Frank) worked with GRRM extensively over the years and I think others have written more extensively about GRRM’s influence the way they wrote sprawling narratives with multiple POV characters. Anyway they developed a tabletop RPG that they eventually turned into novels that became The Expanse.

Which eventually got adapted to television. SyFy network was in a bidding war with Netflix for the show and out-bid Netflix. This was a show adaptation that did not hold your hand whatsoever. Fascinating, new, interesting. Faithful adaptation. Still got cancelled after two seasons. Even though both authors had become producers on the show and were learning more about production and writing teleplays from experienced sci-fi showrunners/producers/television writers.

Show was later picked up by Amazon to finish out the last few seasons. But I would bet my bottom dollar that both these authors watched how the Game of Thrones adaptations went and probably went “we’re not gonna let this happen to us.” And I think that’s reflected in the way they and their team were able to adapt the story faithfully with multiple huge and small changes specifically so it would work with the television medium.

[commanderantilles]

“Destiny is hope. Being full of hope, believing that what is meant to happen will happen, I cast my vote. I vote for Ciri. The Child of Destiny. The Child of Hope.” -Philippa Eilhart, The Lady of the Lake

[sushiesproductions]

Wait... I think i just got it.

We all shorten Blood & Wine as B&W right? But.... Does B&W also mean Black & White?

U know, I always admired a subtle connection between this title and main chars in a very concept level. There is something about:

- Geralt being blood (mutant) in the wine (high society of Toussaint) spectrum, Regis being wine (epitome of humanity) in the blood (vampiric) spectrum and them being harmonious and healthy together;

- Syanna and Dettlaff being very conflicted about it all the way through so they return to their primordial sides in the end.

And now i see another layer💀 what the hell cd project red

[nitrogen-and-crisis]

Finally working on my requests.

…slowly

They’ll be done. One day. Maybe after midterms.

[colorousme]

*feels unsatisfied by The Witcher season 3 and the way it was told and edited and how everything in the end feels the farthest from earned anything could ever be* Hmm I better watch 15 different hour-long video essays about it so I can understand what it is Exactly that makes me so angry and unsatisfied about this show!

[flowers-shouldnt-die]

I love how Vilgefortz believes with his heart and soul that he is like Tywin when in reality he’s just Littlefinger. (I’m disappointed)