#the witcher meta

[sacred-algae]

I don’t think Jaskier is fully aware of the fact that Geralt is It for him.

I know we aren’t getting Geraskier, (they’re still canon to me) so at this point I just want my blorbo to be able to move on and be happy instead of fucking miserable but the more I think about it, the more I realize that even if he does get chance to be with Radovid… I don't think he would ever be truly happy.

Yes, he could love him, and be happy that he's being treated well, and worshiped and valued, and everything a good relationship should be. Yes, he'd learn to move on as much as he can… but that’s only as much as he can. Geralt will always be with him. Geralt will be a filter for which he perceives affection and how it's given out and received. Everything will relate back to him.

Geralt is love for Jaskier.

It would be doomed. As much as he could learn to love somebody new, it would take far too long to be fair, and even if Radovid fully understood and stuck around because he knew Jask was trying and didn’t mind, even if Jaskier does love him—It’s doomed.

He couldn’t do it. Because everything they do reminds him of Geralt even though they weren’t even together… but he can’t escape it. It could even be years down the road with zero contact with Geralt (because that’s the only way he could truly even begin to move on) and he would be miserable.

So he’d leave Radovid. Because it’s not fair. And he’d decide he’s better off having one night stands and casual affairs that last no longer than a month for the rest of his life.

And maybe he’d go back to Geralt. Because he sure as hell can’t live without him if the past however long it’s been has taught him anything.

Geralt would be so mad at him for leaving but it’s not like they haven’t gone a long time without seeing each other/not contacting each other before. It’s just been a while since then… And Geralt needs him too, how could he say no? He missed him horribly.

And I think at that point, Jaskier would tell him why he left. Geralt deserves to know. Because at this point, if Geralt will take him back, what’s unrequited love? It doesn’t matter. He should have known it wouldn’t matter. And really, he should have done this a lot sooner, maybe he could have gotten some fucking peace—

“You should have.”

“I should have what?”

“You should have done this sooner.”

“Yeah, that’s literally what I just said. Why are you— Geralt? What are you— Gods, that’s unfair, don’t look at me like you’re about to—”

Kiss me.

He should have done this much, much sooner.

[revoevokukil]

Thoughts on TW4's angle on Ciri

In the trailer of The Witcher 4, Mione is an analogue to Ciri.

Mione's father has raised her for a fate of becoming a noble sacrifice on the altar of a God. Men make Gods of all kinds of ideas, often out of fear; the beast in the cave is no different. Ithlinne's Prophecy is no different; once it reached the masses and sprouted numerous interpretations.

The father's monologue applies as much to Mione as to Ciri.

Fulfilling one's Destiny is a double-edged blade, and not at all straightforward. This is a Sapkowskian classic and a crux around which Ciri's character turns. When the father apologizes to Mione, saying this was "his only choice," it somewhat echoes back to the ending of The Witcher 3, where Ciri did what she did, because she chose to be the bringer of salvation; Geralt got no chance to influence her decision (only, we hope, the outcome).

To be chosen by the Gods/Purpose is, in Ciri's words, always a choice, too - one the believers make. Including herself.

The way Mione kneels before the Bauk's lair, again, echoes the ending of The Witcher 3 and Ciri in the blizzard. And when Ciri tells Mione to "save yourself," it's a noticeable shift from her mindset in TW3. "What can you know about saving the world, silly? You're but a witcher." What changed, Ciri?

I think the Witcher 4's trailer isn't subtle at all about what Ciri is struggling with. Bauk preys, specifically, on trauma. It says: "you cannot change anything," "fate cannot be changed," "you weren't supposed to come back." Did Ciri manage to change anything in the Tower? Or did she fail? Did she run? And then Kalemba saying: "She's almost obsessed with the way she lives."

It's as if Ciri is burying herself in witchering like an addict, while seeking atonement (for not being what she was meant to be, but still wanting to do good; on her own terms) by saving a girl - her own inner child? - from a fate she has related to since forever. Upon slaying the monster, there is an expression of elation, satisfaction, and release on her face. It's as if by being a witcher, Ciri is trying to slay her own haunts over and over and over again.

It's like she is running from herself. Because Ciri is, in truth, much more than a witcher.

While the witcher's profession is where Ciri's first notions of good and evil come from, I think Ciri might have a romanticized view about that life. Kalemba mentions that Ciri always chooses, but that includes choosing the greater evil often enough. That's classic bread and butter for these games, but I think given Ciri's unique position in the Saga & her traumas, there is a lot more that can be done with it. Perhaps CDPR will engage with what Sapkowski mentioned in regard to creating Ciri:

Ciri personifies evil, that's how i intended her to be – a monster, because (almost) everyone is trying to make a monster out of her.

[spoonietimelordy]

I really like that those are the shots we see to illustrate the sentence "all I want is for us to stay together". They could have easily not included jaskier since he wasn't part of any other shots,he wasnt in the cottage scenes, but they still included him.

This line also resonate a lot with something I've noticed in the trailer: they are never all together. The group is always missing someone, Jaskier or Yen specifically. Definitely feel like an important plot point, them not being able to stay together despite it being their biggest wish.

[greisekinderschar]

Alright, guys, it’s been more than six months but it is time for a Radskier meta essay on why their storyline isn’t as badly written as many people say. (Includes spoilers)

Is it rushed? Yes. It’s a side-story of a side character and actually Jaskier’s first side-story on the show. Is it cliché? Yes. When I first watched the season I was terrified about where their story would be going, knowing what happened in the book and knowing how mainstream media treats queer storylines. (I did not know about Joey’s deep involvement in the writing until later.) But once I knew how it all ended, I was entirely sold. Of course, that’s a question of taste, Radovid just turned out to incorporate so many tropes I am obsessed with, but I am trying to say that compared to the overall writing of the show, their story is not particularly badly written, which blew me away considering it’s a queer storyline in a mainstream medieval fantasy show.

Yes, they gave Jaskier a queer story for the sake of having a queer story. That was another reason I was very anxious about it. But what they (read: Joey, and let’s be honest, Hugh too) made of it is so exciting to me.

Here’s the thing about them ageing up Radovid and making him Vizimir’s brother. I have seen people complaining that they could’ve introduced an OC instead of changing source material like that. But to me, the fact they chose Radovid makes it so much more than a queer storyline for the sake of having a queer storyline. He’s the prince and later the king of Redania. He is entangled in the greater scheme of things. He is /on/ the same chessboard as the main characters. Turning him into Vizimir’s brother rather than son is way less forced than introducing an OC to be Jaskier’s love interest. Because he is more than Jaskier’s love interest. He is the King of Redania, played by Dijkstra and Philippa. Also, he cannot be killed off.

As I already said because it’s obvious, their story is rushed. That’s just the fate of side stories in TV shows (that are not masterfully written, lbr). But to me at least it is amazing how much they managed to convey in these few scenes.

You have Jaskier’s role as a spy for the Redanian Intelligence. That begins his own side story where he has a role of his own, that has nothing to do with Geralt. He meets this guy who actually appreciates his music and openly flirts with him, showing that he is desirable, something new to the character of the comic relief (although he is the romancer but you know, we never saw it on screen, also this time he is being romanced). He is suspicious, because he knows the Intelligence is not to be trusted, and the Prince of Redania is kind of the enemy. But he is also Jaskier, and his interest is caught. Besides this interest, Radovid’s suggestion to bring Ciri to supposed safety is right up Jaskier’s alley, because he is one to rather avoid battles if possible. He ponders on whether it is a possibility.

Later, he uses this vague connection to Radovid to have some agency of his own. He negotiates with him about Rience without discussing it with Geralt. He’s following his own plan, checking out the possibilities. He’s like alright, this guy at least pretends to be into me, let’s see if I can put that to good use to help Geralt. He sweeps Radovid off his feet with his ballad, and then Radovid says things that blow Jaskier away. He speaks of his talents, of determination to get to know more about him, of how Geralt should be grateful for his loyalty and friendship. Jaskier, the comic relief, has never heard this before. He’s Weak and he’s Wanting™️. But he still knows that he is Jaskier, easily fooled by romance, and that there are great things at stake. At the same time, Geralt is also treating him with more respect to make the decisions harder on him. But Radovid stays on his mind, he doesn’t know what to make of it and discusses it with Vespula, and she knows. She sees what’s going on.

Then, Radovid shows up while he is looking after Ciri. He is still suspicious. But Radovid is different from the last time he saw him. He is scared and he is vulnerable, and Jaskier can see that the mask is gone, and that what lies beneath it is not a villain. He is still cautious, until Radovid sings him his own song and he cannot take it any longer. He is giving in, and he struggles still as he does, but he is Jaskier. He’s Weak and he’s Wanting™️.

The next morning, he is not surprised. Of course, stupid Jaskier got himself fooled by some pretty eyes once again. Of course such blatant desire and affection for him could have only been a lie. He never knew romance like this and he does not hesitate to believe it was simply not real.

But then, he finds Radovid surrounded by his dead guards, alone. The people he was supposedly scheming with left him behind, so he was not all that involved, maybe he really was their puppet. He’s scared and he’s full of regret, he’s a helpless prince in the middle of the outbreak of a war, but he’s telling Jaskier to not waste more time on him because he knows he fucked up beyond redemption. But he’s Jaskier. He has endless capacity for forgiveness. And now that their plans had failed and Radovid has no more reason to lure him in, he’s still begging for a second chance. He still wants to be with him. He wants to prove himself to him, even if that means leaving the court behind. Jaskier has other priorities right now and he’s still hurt, but if there is a chance that this affection he never knew before was real, he is taking it.

And Radovid? He’s the spoiled prince brat, underestimated by everyone (just like Jaskier), and he’s riding that wave, because he does not really care about state affairs. He likes Jaskier’s music, and when he sees him he thinks he’s hella fine. He has his fun and at the same time tries to show Philippa he’s capable of more than she thinks, but he was not expecting that Jaskier would blow him away like that. That he would challenge him (the Prince), that he would be honest with him, that he would see through his act and by doing that NOT underestimate him. Radovid is Vibing and he decides to enter Dijkstra’s and Philippa’s game until he realizes he Fucked Up with his arrogance and being a prince is actually worth shit. He knew everything going on in the castle is pretense, but he was not prepared for this level of violence. He is terrified when he meets Jaskier, and Jaskier is good to him. And, again, honest. Unlike anything he had known up to now, the courtly schemes that had only recently culminated to him being scared for his life. He is still a spoiled brat prince and wants to be with Jaskier very badly, so he Fucks Up again. It is that last mistake that makes him understand his faults. But when he sees that Jaskier still does not hate him, he is determined to fix it, and he will do anything. Fuck being a prince, I will leave everything I know behind to show this man that my feelings were true.

Jaskier changes this man’s entire life and Radovid is willing to do everything for him. Yes, the idea to just go off and find him WHEREVER was kind of idiotic, but that’s the beauty of these two. They are both smart and idiotic at the same time, and they let their actions be led mainly by emotions, which sometimes adds up to the idiocy of it all. But Jaskier has more experience, and Radovid learns from him how to be less selfish, he grows as a person through knowing him.

So yes, the love-betrayal-redemption story is hollywood cliché, but it fits the characters and leads to interesting character growth. And honestly, as a queer woman I enjoy seeing some queers having a cliché storyline in a mainstream media piece. Geralt and Yennefer had a similar story. It raises the queer love story to the level of the hetero story. They struggle and they suffer just as much as anyone else, and they have something that connects them, a story that has potential to be continued in an interesting way. They don’t just exist as the obligatory queers, and their storyline isn’t inherently queer either, to a point where it feels like they’re only queer so Jaskier’s love interest can be the gods forsaken King. (At the same time, the story has queer coded themes, like having to pretend to be someone else, but the way it is portrayed, it can be relatable to non-queers as well.) The cliché of it all does not feel more cliché than other storylines on the show (to me). Its not queered cliché, it’s just a story, and I love that.

Also, Joey and Hugh have actual chemistry. And - and no one really argues with that - immense talent that filled these few scenes with so many layers in the first place. We owe it to Hugh that Radovid is not just a romantic interest, but a layered, flawed character (although Hugh attributes it to the writing but he’s too modest).

The last thing I want to say is that I feel we are generally overly critical of queer storylines, which is not a bad thing per se, because we know how many harmful storylines there are, but I struggle to see how this one is harmful in any way. You have to relate them to the straight romances. The straights will just randomly smile at each other and then they will date, but no one complains about it being rushed.

I am obviously not saying everyone has to ship them, I genuinely do not care. I just think it’s unfair to drag their storyline when it is nothing but normal that they didn’t have enough time for an elaborate story, but they (meaning Joey and Hugh) put a lot of work into making it a good one regardless, an effort no one would have put into a straight love story, because they would not have had to.

[essskel]

I’ve said it before, but Triss Merigold and Dandelion are inversions of each other, not mirrors.

Triss is polite and genial but succumbs to her cowardice and selfishness, while Dandelion is abrasive, rude, self-obsessed, yet proves to be valiantly heroic and the strongest individual pillar of support that Geralt has.

Triss overlooks and devalues her love for Yennefer (and Ciri, and Geralt, and ect.) in a way that Dandelion is literally incapable of when it comes to his love and friendship with Geralt. This really matters narratively too, because once Triss commits to the lodge, Yennefer is left dangerously alone while Geralt gets his hansa.

If Yennefer had a Dandelion, maybe she wouldn’t have ended up in Stygga, maybe she could have spent the winter in Toussaint (or whatever Toussaint means to her), maybe, maybe, maybe. But she didn’t, she had a Triss.

It’s why the shared final shot in Lady of the Lake is so wild to me. Triss and Dandelion have completed their character arcs and are standing right there next to each other on the exact same beach. But only Triss is doomed and burdened by the guilt of this violence (Guilt that she can climb out of and grow from, sure, but it’s a grave she earned and dug herself, eyes wide open).

Meanwhile, Dandelion is free to move forward into the peace and comfort of mourning his friend. There is no blood on his hands.

It’s like this to me:

[iwillbringyouruin]

Radskier dialogue nuances in different languages

So I have been rewatching The Witcher in French recently and some of the changed lines stuck out to me, in the interactions between Radovid and Jaskier in particular. So i figured I'd compile my favourites from the translated versions I've seen so far here and compare their meaning to the original. I've also included some of the German lines since I'm German and I got curious!

Disclaimer: I'm just a guy who speaks a bunch of languages, don't expect overly technical linguistic wizardry here. Also this is not about the voice actors' skill or how well the lines are matched up to lip movements, strictly about the little changes in meaning when you take the translations literally! All meant to be in good fun.

Since this is about the season 3 dialogue, there are spoilers ahead.

This is going to be a long post so buckle up!

Season 3 in general: The way Jaskier and Radovid address one another

English (original): both use "you" which makes sense of course

French: Jaskier uses "vous" (the formal "you") for Radovid and Radovid uses "tu" (the casual "you") for Jaskier until they have sex in episode 4. When they talk the morning after in episode 6, they're both using "tu".

German: both use "Ihr" and the other formal derivatives for one another throughout (Even Geralt and Jaskier address each other formally the whole time. I'm not a fan)

Episode 1: Jaskier and Radovid meet

The dialogue here is generally very close, just two little things between the original and the German version I want to point out.

English (Jaskier): Fuck, I don’t really know what I’m supposed to… Bow? Or curtsy, or… I’ve been holding your hand a long time, so sorry about that.

German (Jaskier): Shit, I don't know if I'm supposed to bow or be polite... I've been holding your hand for too long, forgive me ("bow or be polite"?? HUH?)

English (Radovid): If your time at court’s been staid, you’ve been doing it wrong

German (Radovid): If your time at court has been too calm/quiet, something went wrong ([gay silence])

Episode 2: specifically Extraordinary Things

I've put the different lyrics as rather direct translations in the pictures below. They're also written out in the alt text. The French ones are a little more pointed compared to the original imo, I like that version a lot. I'm not sure how I feel about the German version but the first line did make me giggle.

Episode 3: Jaskier talks to Vespula about Radovid

I love this scene for many reasons. I have two things to point out about this.

The first thing is that while in the English and French version, Jaskier says that he and Radovid have only met twice, in the German version he says that he and Radovid don't even know each other.

The second thing is that in the English and German version, Jaskier calls Radovid a spoon and he does in the French version as well. However, he specifies Radovid is a "little spoon" here. Need I say more?

Episode 4: the scene in the shed

Ah, the scene of all time. Before the other scene of all time in episode 6. A few things about this one. The first thing is a very small change in the French version:

English (Jaskier, after Radovid admits he's scared): Just saying that makes you braver than you know.

French (Jaskier, after Radovid admits he's scared): The fact you're admitting that proves you are brave

The second thing bothered me more because it isn't really a subtle change. Both in English and French, Jaskier says Radovid has "learned [his] song", but in German he says Radovid "knows [his] song". The German line here isn't saying that Radovid "knows" the song as in he knows how to play it (from hearing and watching Jaskier play it for him once, mind you), the way it's said makes it sound like Radovid has just heard the song before.

The third thing is what they're saying right after the kiss. Unfortunately with the slightly changed lines for Jaskier we don't get the clever connection between Jaskier talking about taking Radovid into the cabin and Radovid asking Jaskier to take him (sexually).

English (Jaskier): I can't take you inside, I'm sorry.

English (Radovid): Then take me here.

French (Jaskier): The cabin is occupied, I'm sorry.

French (Radovid): Then take me here.

German (Jaskier): We can't go inside, I'm sorry.

German (Radovid): Then take me here.

Episode 6: the morning after

The German version is the same as the original here.

English (Jaskier to Radovid): I thought I’d seen through your mask. Turns out there was nothing behind it.

French (Jaskier to Radovid): I thought I had lifted the veil from your soul. But I found nothing but darkness beneath that façade

The subtle differences in the French version on the other hand not only make the pain a little different, it also includes an allusion of sorts to that version of Extraordinary Things with Jaskier talking about Radovid's soul. At least that's how I saw it. Ouch!

Episode 7: the moment where Jaskier finds Radovid at Thanedd

All three versions here make me want to cry. That's all.

English (Radovid): Just let me be there with you. Prove that I’m more than a mask.

English (Jaskier): Maybe.

French (Radovid): Just let me stay with you and show you what is beneath this façade.

French (Jaskier): Why not.

German (Radovid): Just let me be with you and show my true self.

German (Jaskier): Maybe.

[windflowerofskellige]

In a move surprising literally no one, I am once again thinking about Philippa Eilhart. Dress and how Philippa is dressed in the books as a whole are very important to her characterisation but the outfit I think is peak characterisation is her Thanedd Banquet Dress.

We consume this banquet from Geralt's point of view, we see the politics at play, are told the politics at play, but Geralt does not have a wider understanding because he is not a politician. The outfits are meant to describe a lot about the characters, they're easy to pick out at first, Sabrina, Keira with her Ankh juxtaposing her dress so sheer you can see the mole on her left breast, etc. And then Dorregaray of Vole talks with Geralt. Geralt has been pulled every which way told everyone is spying for someone and Dijkstra and Philippa are the most obvious yes? No. Dorregaray points out Philippa's dress is trimmed with an extinct fur, Diamond Ermine. When Philippa comes to steal Geralt away he points it out explicitly, he even adds that the species was officially declared extinct twenty years ago. No, corrects Philippa Eilhart, it was thirty years ago. She even mocks it, saying that she thought about instructing her dressmaker to trim it was raw flax, but then the colours wouldn't have matched.

This says nothing to Geralt, this says EVERYTHING to the reader. The two most notable aspects, the trim of her dress is a fur that is extinct now. The trim of her dress is ermine.

Ermine has historically been defined by heavy sumptuary laws and is a status symbol of royalty. The pointing out of its extinct nature serves to show you the reader she's been at this longer than we suspected.

This dress trim tells us many things about Philippa Eilhart Geralt doesn't know, that he will see through Keira's eyes next chapter more clearly. Philippa Eilhart is not Redania's spy, Dijkstra is. Philippa Eilhart is Redania's Queen Regnant, a puppet master. She has brought Redania's spy, and is there dressed as Redania's Queen in the interest of Redania as well as to have an alibi for the usurping of Vizimir the Second of Redania.

As Tissaia says in the next chapter, Redania hasn't had a King, not for a very long time. This dress shows that.

[serenfire]

attention, anyone who cares about the witcher s3's character's motivations with regards to the books but who hasn't then read time of contempt, here is a post for you!

here's some interesting differences between the book and show characters, especially in ep 5 (spoilers for the witcher s3 so far and the books):

since yennefer does not have her s2 beef w aretuza subplot, none of the mages are her direct enemies, and she is a member of the lower circle of leadership within the brotherhood, called the council, with philippa and 3 others who are not in the show. she is also not the one who calls the conclave; she finds out about it while bringing ciri to aretuza, and attends with geralt so that they can draw out the mage who is backing rience. in the book, they're trying to convinced everyone that ciri died at cintra, and haven't been together since then to keep up the illusion, so going to aretuza together will draw out the mage who knows ciri exists and is trying to kill her

vilgefortz is, firstly, the hero of sodden in the books. he's the war hero against nilfgaard, and one of the leaders of the brotherhood. he's also (spoilers for probably the second half of s3) working for nilfgaard now, and not in the way that s1 portrays where he kills his comrade on the battlefield after the battle's over, but in an "even the hero of sodden who singlehandedly saved the north from nilfgaard wants power enough to ally with his enemy" way.

he is the leader of the chapter, which is the highest circle of leadership of the brotherhood. tissaia and francesca findabair are also members, as well as artaud terranova (guy who falls over the champagne glass table in ep 5). in ep 5 he recounts his backstory to geralt, some of it word-for-word, except for an important part: as part of his backstory, he fell in love with an unnamed mage before becoming a sorcerer, and after breaking up with her, decided he should pursue magic. he and tissaia are not together! i cannot stress this enough, in the books the mages are powered by their individual searches for power, and love does not tie them together! it's what sets yen apart: she's one of the only ones willing to sacrifice for another.

FRANCESCA FINDABAIR. member of the chapter/high ranked aretuza member, in the book shows up to the conclave party early, stirring up the northern vs nilfgaardian sentiments by being there. wild that she hasn't appeared there in the show yet. her motives in the show are WHACK. in the books she did not have a baby and did not say she wants to genocide the humans (although that is propaganda against her): she leads the scoia'tael to fight for nonhuman freedom and allies herself with nilfgaard to continue to fight the north, and she will receive a free land for the elves (dol blathanna) in return for the scoia'tael being branded as war criminals and outlawed. in the books she is the catch-22 of stuck between a rock and a hard place: allying with imperialism will save her people but gut her guerilla soldiers who fought for it.

philippa eilhart is so far the best-written character this season (to me) because she is one of the only characters who everyone knows is seeking for power (in the book she's referred to as the one who's really on the redanian throne, backed by dijkstra) and she, directly, says that she's looking to keep power in the north. in the books, most if not every mage's motivations are for power, whether in a king's court or by allying with nilfgaard, and the imperial machinations are what the politics in the books are about, so having a character not be preoccupied with interpersonal reasons and instead directly embody this is refreshing!

however! in the books philippa's position is anti-nilfgaardian invasion, not anti-brotherhood. she's pitted against vilgefortz, who's allied with nilfgaard, instead of against him because he's a leader of the brotherhood. the brotherhood as an institution isn't interrogated as a state (unlike the northern kingdoms and nilfgaard), and her specific grievances against other court mages have to do with the fact that almost every kingdom is goading nilfgaard to attack so they can attack back and vie for power. she's also got redania on a lockdown by killing vizimir right before the conclave party and i don't know how this will play out in the show considering radovid exists as well

also in the books radovid is vizimir's son who ascends to the throne after philippa and dijkstra kill vizimir, and (in the games) he makes it his life mission to kill philippa. he does not physically show up in time of contempt and adding him into the show as vizimir's brother 1) crunches the timeline down to a period of time that makes a bit more sense than the books and 2) allows the show to make up the funniest fucking subplot with jaskier. oh my god none of that happened in the books but wouldn't it have been hilarious. jaskier hooking up with the sweet and sensitive younger prince who's a fan of his music and then smash cut to twelve hours later and he's the fucking king of redania. the comedy potential is unmatched

[hanzajesthanza]

the "origin" of the witcher

this year, i set forth for myself a very important goal. i began to seek the original publication of the first, original witcher story.

this was a personal goal as much as it was a "fan" goal, and at first, it originated as an amusing pipe dream, a hopeful "what if," a "if i should be so lucky".

i had become interested in the origins of the witcher through reading interviews with sapkowski, translated and published on r/wiedzmin by gracious fans. these interviews are often from the 1990s or early 2000s (the good ones, anyways), and thus, often reference the very beginning of the witcher. there was one particular interview which struck me, in which sapkowski said this:

"My book witcher is real and original. All adaptations are only more or less successful and have all the corresponding disadvantages of adaptations. There is only one original "Witcher". He is mine and no one will take him away from me." — Interview with Sapkowski in the Polish magazine Polityka

this one original "witcher". yes, of course he is referring to his geralt, the geralt that lives in my heart, but i also thought to myself, the witcher as he as a concept was originally conceived - the first publication. i need to see it. i need to see this publication, in person. if not for me as a fan, for me as a writer, an artist. i need proof that this ever existed." later in the year, i realized this was not only a dream, but a real possibility...

but first, let me introduce the witcher, for those that do not know the story. not the short story "the witcher," but the story of "the witcher"—of its creation.

sapkowski's story

36 years ago, andrzej sapkowski's short story, "witcher", was first published in the december 1986 edition of polish sci-fi and fantasy magazine fantastyka (later renamed nowa fantastyka). sapkowski, at the time, had been working as a tradesman selling leather, fur, and textiles… though he was a fan of fantasy since boyhood, in which he obsessed over arthurian legend, and throughout his life had been an avid reader. during the 1980s, sapkowski lost his job as the national company went bankrupt, and he turned more to his writing, as he had previously written some short stories and had them published in magazines.

at the time, he did not subscribe to fantastyka, and the edition in which the short story contest was announced indeed belonged to his son—his only son, his now late son, krzysztof, who asked him to write and enter the contest. the senior sapkowski's reply? "no problem, i'll write."

fantastyka magazine, as mentioned, encompassed works of both science fiction and fantasy genres. sapkowski wrote "witcher" in hopes of being a standout competitor - assuming that most applicants would write "hard science fiction," he chose to write fantasy. unexpectedly to him, it turned out that the fantasy genre was written by the majority of those who submitted stories!

the witcher, though, was indeed a standout entry. because it dealt with the familiar, but through inverting, changing, subverting, and being original, exciting the reader:

"Geralt of Rivia is the character of my first story, of my literary debut. In my first encounter with the Fantasy and SF readers, my proposition was to do something atypical, completely new. I had to rethink the fairy tales, where some problem with a dragon in a kingdom was solved, the king was disposed to offer to the first one which passed his daughter and half the kingdom for solving it. My vision of Fantasy is almost real. You have to believe that which occurs in the stories, because they are not a fairy tale. No one comes to believe that a king can be so stupid as to give half the kingdom and his daughter (...) I re-wrote the story, since it is not a poor shoemaker who kills the dragon and saves the kingdom, but instead a professional, who works for money. I have turned to construct the fantasy story: it is almost real, you have to feel it, to believe all. It is not the typical fairy tale, all is fucking real." — Interview with Sapkowski at the Feria del Libro (Spain, 2008)

the "lore" of the witcher

this is why a new reader does not need to know anything prior about the witcher in order to grasp the books, because "the witcher" was originally a collection of short stories boasting little world or "lore" to speak of:

for instance, elder speech is not a conlang, it is a deliberate crafting of various european languages together.

"No, I didn't [create a new language for my books, like Tolkien]. (...) I limited myself to only creating a couple sentences, whose entire point was for me to avoid putting a footnote there, because it annoys me beyond belief, when someone writes ''drapatuluk papatuluk'' and underneath the translation says ''close the doors or we'll get flies''. My point was for this made up language to be acceptible for a Pole, who's well read and can see through foreign languages; so it'd be clear without a footnote. Henceforth I decided to construct the language based on languages that Polish people know well: French, English, Latin and German, and just for funsies I threw in some Celtic, so no one cared for specific words, but everybody understood more or less what it meant. I created it as a cocktail language." — Sapkowski on anime, manga, D&D, adaptations, the origins of the Witcher and Elder Speech (2001)

sapkowski never drew a map for publishing—though a map was drawn by czech translator stanislav komárek (and husband of illustrator jana komárková, what a power couple!).

"That's where the biggest problem lies, stemming from the simple fact that I've never had the ambition to create worlds. Never! The world of the Witcher was always an allegory to me. I've never done what's supposed to be a Commandment of every fantasy writer, especially one that writes a longer story or a novel. He starts with the heavy duty of… cartography, meaning he has to draw a MAP. (...) I've never bothered with that and it was on purpose. It came from the fact that my world was supposed to be an allegory and from the fact that I was doing a different take on fairy tales! Themes and problems were more important, these two words, from which I usually built the title and that often appeared in the dialogue, was more important. — Andrzej Sapkowski about accusations of sexism, postmodernism, adaptations and why there is no map - part 2

and as we all know from francesca's wonderful demonstration via apples and a pomegranate, explanations of bloodlines only enter into the fray in the fifth book.

for all intents and purposes, the motto of the witcher's "lore" should be: "the story comes first!"

"And write so that it would be interesting to read. Questions? Answers? Who the fuck needs them! This is a novel, not an instruction to a DVD player. As a writer, as a prose writer, I do not read any sermons to anyone in the church, I do not push speeches in Hyde Park. I'm a storyteller. I tell stories to give readers pleasure, create heroes to arouse sympathy / dislike, situations, to amuse, to laugh, upset, frighten - and, of course, to make them move their brains, to think. But this is a story, it's a farce, not a conversion, not a vocation, not faith." — Interview with Sapkowski "The work of my life is yet to come."

back to getting published

"witcher" placed third in the contest, but its publication was soon followed by fan demand for more stories of the "witcher" variety and universe. it was shortly followed by "road with no return" in 1988, "a grain of truth" in 1989, and "the lesser evil” and "a question of price" in 1990 (and more in the first half of the decade, as well).

soon, sapkowski's name was featured on the very cover of fantastyka to excite readers:

note that there is not one, but THREE exclamation marks on the cover of this edition from september 1990, the one with "a question of price". [unlike the other pictures in this post, this is not my photo]

soon afterwards, sapkowski was able to secure publishing with supernowa—a distinct challenge, because nearly no publisher would "risk" publishing a polish author:

“Finally, in Poland, the moment for a fantasy was absolutely crucial: "SuperNova" published my "Sword of Destiny". This was a real event, because until then there was hardly anyone among the Polish publishers who would have risked doing something like this. Polish fantasy was published by some amateurs, losing money on every edition.” (...) in Western countries, (...) the average fan always chooses a book of the familiar Anglo-Saxon in the bookstore - the exotic name of the author will force him to refrain from buying. Unfortunately, publishers also know about this, therefore, picking up a book from "some Poland" or "some Moldavia" - even a good one - he will think ten times before publishing.” — Andrzej Sapkowski and Stanisław Bereś "History and fantasy" part 2

as that is a whole other loooong story... let's get back to the short story.

the story as it is today

this is all a very abridged version of the story, and i've cut out a lot of the historical context and cultural context surrounding the subject for brevity. i may have mentioned that this came about for me throughout the entire year of 2022 - and it really has been a product of the year. i actually received the copy of fantastyka in september, now four months ago, but for various reasons i decided to keep it between me and friends (if you're a part of the books discord server, you may have seen this already!)

the largest reason is that i want to pay as much respect to this as i possibly can. since september, i've been working on a video to feature the magazine and through its presence, explain the context and history surrounding the witcher as i have done in this post, just with... more history and context. i want to do my research and have more conversations before i record and publish a video like that. and not just some, but more. this isn't something i feel comfortable reading a wikipedia article about and saying, "cool, i think i know the whole story now." especially as an american fan—especially knowing and feeling how the witcher has been treated over these past couple of years. so, expect it, but maybe not soon. though there will likely be other things along the way on my youtube channel :)

my story

for me, this year marks 5 years since i got into the witcher. it was the fall of 2017 when i got interested, and the winter of 2017 when i got serious about it.

the witcher came to me at a really difficult time in my life. my parents separated in the march of 2018. it was not a peaceful separation. the last spring break i had in high school ended with a restraining order and the changing of the locks on our door.

so imagine the solace i felt being able to point to an actually healthy father-daughter relationship with a middle-aged father and a teenage girl. one such as this:

‘Where to now?’ asked Geralt, looking at the column of smoke, a smudged streak discolouring the sky glowing pink in the dawn. ‘Who do you still have to pay back, Ciri?’ She glanced at him and he immediately regretted his question. He suddenly desired to hug her, dreamed of embracing her, cuddling her, stroking her hair. Protecting her. Never allowing her to be alone again. To encounter evil. To encounter anything that would make her desire revenge. — Lady of the Lake, Ch. 11

or of an alcoholic, acknowledging and owning up to his past of violence:

‘Each time I became more savage,’ the vampire continued. ‘And as time went on I was getting worse. (...) Disappointment and grief, as you know, is a great alibi. I was looking for justification for my behavior, and it was the perfect excuse. Everyone seemed to understand. Even I thought I understood. And I matched the theory to practice.’ — Baptism of Fire, Ch. 7

and intentionally pursuing sobreity in the present:

‘I beg your forgiveness, gentlemen,’ the alchemist said. ‘I do not drink. My health is no longer what is was, so I had to give up… many pleasures.’ ‘Not even a sip?’ ‘It is a matter of principle.’ Regis said quietly. ‘I never violate the principles I set for myself.’ — Baptism of Fire, Ch. 3

‘I do not touch blood. Not at all and never.’ — Baptism of Fire, Ch. 7

later, when i had begun to recover my senses from shock, i felt rage. i felt a need for revenge, a sick hatred and vile indignation for what had happened. i thought there must be something wrong with me, to have such a reaction. but i then realized how natural, though dangerous, it was:

‘(...) I know what I have to do. I’m a witcher!’ ‘You're an unstable young person!’ he exploded. ‘You're a child who's been through traumatic experiences; a damaged child, on the verge of a nervous breakdown. And more than that, you're sick with a craving for revenge! Blinded by a lust for retribution! Do you not understand that?’ ‘I understand it better then you!’ she yelled. ‘Because you have no idea what it means to be hurt! You have no idea of revenge, for no one has ever truly wronged you!’ — Tower of the Swallow, Ch. 10

but lastly, i learned that the tragedies of my past do not bind me to a tragic fate:

They rode straight into the setting sun. Leaving behind them the darkening valley. Behind them was the lake, the enchanted lake, the blue lake as smooth as a polished sapphire. They left behind them the boulders on the lakeside. Thepines on the hillsides. That was all behind them. And before them was everything. — Lady of the Lake, Ch. 12

to be clear, i'm not sharing my story for pity. like as triss says when recounting the battle of sodden, "And then I saw what they had done to me, and I started to howl, howl like a beaten dog, like a battered child—Leave me alone! Don’t worry, I’m not going to cry. I’m not a little girl from a tiny tower in Maribor anymore," (Blood of Elves, Ch. 3) ...

i'm sharing this story because i think it's relevant to understanding the witcher. the witcher is about a realistic view of fairytales and the fantasy genre, a view that is often dark and showcases all the sorrow and violence in the world, but a view that really centers the people of the world, their relationships, their motivations, and what makes them fight to keep living. it's about family, friendship, laughter at the end of the world... and one doesn't need to experience a personal trauma to understand these very human, very instrinsic experiences. one also does not need extensive research to be able to jump into the witcher.

fantastyka and me

even if i'm not prepared at the moment to publish an extensive historical research and analysis on this subject, i just wanted to make this post today to remind all witcher fans what the witcher really is, where it really came from, what it all really means.

reading through this copy of fantastyka, what really struck me is the community of it—there is an entire personals section for finding copies of fantasy books, there are opinion polls, critical essays, and an entire novel published in three installments across monthly editions. this must not have been just a magazine, but a lifeline for sci-fi and fantasy fans at that time. i see so many parallels between the sci-fi and fantasy fans of these pages and my experience as a witcher fan in the community. this is a piece of history, "the witcher" is a piece of history, and i am honored to not only know of it, but to have seen it, touched it, and proven to myself that yes, this is all real. "all is fucking real."

now, for my favorite picture of myself:

and as expressed by the editors of the december 1986 edition of fantastyka...

i wish you a fantastic christmas and new year... this time, new year 2023 ;)

[this post has also been posted on reddit]

[lassieposting]

God though, reluctant single dad Vesemir. Vesemir who openly dislikes children, Vesemir who leaves a kid in the woods with the remains of his dead family even though he knows there's something else out there, Vesemir who refers to baby witchers as "abandoned little tragedies", Vesemir whose response to being told he's to teach them to fence is "Am I being punished?"

And suddenly he's the last wolf left. His whole pack is dead and he's got a litter of already-mutated pups to look after that won't get taken in anywhere else. He's completely responsible for the next generation, and children need so many things. He has to learn on the fly that it's not just feeding them and clothing them and teaching them to fight. It's getting up every night for Geralt's night terrors about the Trial and the Sacking, because he's five and he doesn't know how to self-soothe and nobody else is going to do it. It's watching Lambert hurt himself and the other boys in his rages, because he's so mad at the hand life dealt him and he doesn't know how to handle it, and having to figure out how to teach him to channel his anger some other way because that kind of blind fury will get him killed. It's answering a thousand and one "But why?" questions without putting a sword through Eskel because he wants to be good and that is a quality that needs nurturing even if it's annoying as fuck.

None of this is natural to him. He's not a kid person. He's grieving, too, for everyone he ever cared for and the trust he gave his father figure who betrayed him. He's sarcastic and impatient and he fucks up badly, so many times, with these lonely, traumatised little boys. He has to learn to apologise, and forgive, and love them even though he never wanted them to be his responsibility, even though they've basically taken his life from him - the adventuring, the monster-slaying, the coin and the women and the fame - because raising brats is a 24/7/365 job that keeps him tied to Kaer Morhen. He has to learn not to resent them for a life they didn't choose. He has to learn to make them feel like part of a family, because he can't afford to have them abandon Witchering at the first opportunity.

And somehow, it works. His pups grow up, and become Witchers themselves, and he sends them out into the world and breathes a sigh of relief every time one comes back safe. Grieves as best he can whenever one doesn't. Geralt makes him a grandfather, which is not something he ever thought he'd want even with a Witcher's long lifespan, but he loves the bones of that girl. He sees Geralt trying so hard to do better by Ciri than was ever done by him - he's not sure where the hell Geralt got that from, that soft streak that training never quite beat out of him - and the other boys rally round to help him raise his lion cub as a wolf so much faster than he thought they would, and he knows he did something right. And more than that, he's somehow managed to do away with some of the stigma the generations of Witchers before him passed down. Geralt isn't afraid to be gentle with Ciri. He's kind and understanding and supportive towards her, he has to be reminded not to prioritise her wellbeing over finding Leshen!Eskel, he's calm and patient and comforting when her trauma is playing up. It's such a far cry from the completely detached, "numbers game" attitude of the generations before Vesemir, and even from Vesemir's own attitude towards recruits as a young man. He's done exactly what his mentor asked him to do. He raised better, more scrupulous Witchers. He raised better men.

idk man I just have a lot of feelings about Vesemir after NOTW okay

[arse-blathanna]

hi hello really loved your ves and roche meta!!!! it's so rare to see people talk about their relationship despite ves being basically one of if not the only one person roche trusts wholeheartedly, so ty for sharing your thoughts!!!

and to add to what you already said about them. you can tell already how much these two care about each other but there's another thing that makes me um...CRY?? if you ask roche for help to fight in kaer morhen, he will refuse if ves dies and when he talks about her death, he looks so fucking devastated and sad like he's about to cry...here's the link if you didn't see: https://youtu.be/DUIdY9kpy0s?si=x060P_n8_-VUZGNS

it's such a minor detail but it shows how much roche cares for her and wants to keep her safe at all costs, because ves isn't just a soldier to him, she's his only family...his little sister/daughter that he loves so much.

horrible HORRIBLE fucking man who will turn the whole world upside down just to make sure his loved ones are safe and alive DEAR FCUKING GOD

but um...if you don't mind, i also want to hear your thoughts about geralt and roche's friendship 😌!! these two old man have such a weird and complicated friendship but it somehow works for them? i dunno, there's something about geralt being roche's some sort of guiden who's words roche values more than anyone, because he knows geralt will make a better judgement, he knows geralt is a better person, more than he will ever be.

also damn that man is truly a pathetic loser with only two friends because no one likes his ass lol 😔

Thank you!

I think that Geralt is someone that Roche feels a particular sort of kinship with. While it's true that most of the time they work together it's not personal as much as it is having roughly aligning goals, Roche does seem to at least enjoy Geralt's company. Regardless, the relationship is mostly transactional and tends towards being professional.

But I think that there's something in Geralt which Roche is able to identify very strongly with. Childhood abandonment, difficult upbringings, adopting and nurturing young girls in violence bc it's the only way they know how (Geralt with Ciri and in the books, Angoulême, and Roche with Ves and Anaïs.) In the case of Ciri and Anaïs in particular there are quite a few more parallels (last heir to a dying throne, valued for the ability to legitimize a claim to a throne more than who they are) which I think Geralt and Roche would both be at least passively aware of.

Geralt is one of the few people Roche will just drop everything for. He's a friend, and we know Roche views people he's close with strongly. Foltest was a father figure, Ves and the Blue Stripes are his family, etc. I have no doubts Geralt is in there too, in some complicated category which Roche won't ever name.

[revoevokukil]

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.

‘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 Wasteland 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):

'...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.’

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

[banapricot]

Such a shame The Witcher (netflix) didn't elaborate on the sandpiper thing At All. I get that Jaskier is a side character, and one that more or less fills the role of comic relief - I wasn't expecting him to have a fleshed out meaningful character arc. But he does, and it's never explored.

The immature idealistic teenager who bought into all the lies he was told as a child and carelessly contributed to the stigma against elves because 'respect doesn't make history' became a tired and cynical man that understands the weight of his words and regularly risks his life by smuggling elves to safety.

That's really compelling character development, and we see NONE of it.

They give us implications and throwaway lines and a handful of scenes, forming a vague outline that they refuse to fill in. And it's so clear the writers didn't think or care about it, because otherwise we wouldn't have gotten that baffling scene where Jaskier seemingly ruins any chance of getting the elves onto the boat in favor of insulting the guard at the dock. (Personally I loved seeing him tear into the guy, but this was Not the time.) He's clearly meant to have been successfully helping elves for a while, but for some reason they don't want to show us any actual evidence of his competence.

And the disconnect between who he is vs who the show/characters treat him as grows when you look at his short appearance in Blood Origin.

He matters enough to the scoia'tael for them to attack a Temerian army camp he’s being held captive at, has enough influence (as a bard)for the seanchaí to believe he can spread the story she tells him, and for some reason the head of Redanian Intelligence bothered to be his benefactor. And the show ignored all of this completely in s2, even while setting it up. I really hope they explore Jaskier more in season 3 like it's been hinted, but considering the way shows usually refuse to address any complexities in characters like him I wouldn't be surprised if he spends the entirety of his screen time without displaying any of the abilities context says he has or (intentionally) doing anything useful. 

[spoonietimelordy]

OK I finished the 4th episode and wait a fucking munite. Eile is Ciri's ancestor but I only know that from an interview. Because the way the end was edited was not saying that at all! It was definitely pointing out to their descendent being jaskier! I don't think casual will have understood it the right way because even fan didn't!

"The lark's seed shall carry forth

The first note of a song that end all time..."

Shot on jaskier

"And one of her blood shall sing the last."

Jaskier: "who which one of their blood?"

Mysterious elfyn: "Sing the song of the seven, sandpiper"

Liiike this is textually saying that the last song will be sang by their heir and then it show jaskier who ask who it is and finally she ask him to sing the last song of the show. How did they expected for us to understand it any other way??? Except if both him and ciri are Eile's descendents.

Edit: no hadn't finished yet, there is a half credit scene showing ciri. OK but still the prophecy still seems to talk about 2 of their descendents.

[it-happened-once-in-a-meme]

I Hate the Way the Witcher Treated Suicide

Spoilers for The Witcher season 3/The Time of Contempt under the cut:

"Sometimes the best thing a flower can do for us is die." originally sounded cool to me. It referred to transforming its life into magic, and it wasn't a metaphor for animals or people, it was just about plants.

But when Tissaia quoted this line in the finale, it made me so sad and mad! Because no, absolutely not! You don't always have to contribute something, and if you're someone with as much knowledge as Tissaia has, there's obviously a lot you can do. Even if she didn't have any sorceress knowledge, she still meant a lot to a lot of people, and I hate that she wasn't at least killed off with the reason being guilt, but with a completely wrong interpretation of this saying.

Sometimes the best thing a flower can do for us is die. From the perspective of a sorceress, the best thing a flower could do is provide life that can be transformed into magic.

But from the perspective of a human without magic, from the perspective of us watchers, a flower is something you keep close even though it does practically nothing for you. Of course we can't equate humans with plants that are only supposed the look pretty, but the point still stands: a flower is something with little to no use that we still keep around and care for.

[asolitaryrose]

I'm sorry but this is brand new information to me???

I actually never really knew what geralt wished for as the wording was either vague in the game or non-existent in the books ("tying their destiny together" can mean a lot of things lbr) but this is?? is that canon?

this is so tragic and makes the ending of the books even more heartbreaking 🥺 it also makes the bs they pulled in tw3 even more ridiculous with the whole "let's undo the wish to see if we were really in love with each other or if it was only the djinn's magic" fiasco