#the witcher meta

[revoevokukil]

Nietzschean Witchers: Beyond Master and Slave Morality in Crossroad of Ravens

For nicer reading experience, you can also find this piece on Blathan Caerme. Sign up to receive both archived essays (with new additions) and new pieces directly into your inbox.

◇ ◇ ◇

The vast majority of people who claim that rape and violence are disgusting and morally unacceptable to them are simply unable to use violence, even in self-defense, in defense of their loved ones - or when necessary. This is called: making a virtue out of weakness. – Vysogota of Corvo, Crossroad of Ravens

How very Nietzschean of you, Pan Andrze…khm, Vysogota of Corvo. In the chapter that follows, young Geralt kills the wizard Artamon of Asguth—both pre-emptively and in retribution. Crossroad of Ravens is the beginning of Geralt’s story of arriving at himself[^1], so let’s examine this preface.

The underlying assertions can be broken down into key claims:

Most people’s moral objections to violence and rape are not genuine moral positions.

Their morality is a psychological defence mechanism; a post-hoc rationalization.

Powerlessness—inability to engage in violence effectively—is being reframed as moral superiority.

True morality requires the capacity for action.

The preface seems to speak to Friedrich Nietzsche’s concept of ‘slave morality’—the idea that the powerless (‘the slaves’, ‘the masses’, ‘the herd’) create moral systems that valorize their own condition, while resentfully condemning the behaviour and traits of the powerful. Their actions are fundamentally reactions. The powerful (‘the noble’, ‘the aristocrats’, ‘the strong’), meanwhile, act and define Good according to themselves, embracing their capacity for violence when needing to ‘dominate’[^2] or control others to achieve their ends, affirming their own self in their expressions of power—exhibiting ‘master morality’. Masters create morality, slaves respond to it.

Moral systems that the weak construct and live by are, essentially, for coping with their lot. Master morality originates in sentiment, slave morality in ressentiment, which in Nietzsche’s writings always has associations with revenge and with the inferior position of the person harbouring it. By making a virtue out of weakness, slave morality foregoes admitting that their weakness was in the beginning forced upon them by a master.

Crucially, both moralities are expressions of will to power in different forms. The master-slave axis is describing the nature of people’s moral deliberation when trying to ‘get what they want.’ Even the seeming rejection of power in slave morality is itself a power play—what Nietzsche calls ‘the tyranny of the weak’. ‘Slave morality’ emerges from a position of weakness, but its expression manifests the slaves’ particular will to power. They push for a metaphysical interpretation of the world that puts them in a position of power over life, and gives them means of becoming according to their nature, while making masters alike them as well.

Before seeing how young Geralt slots into this, let’s examine the quote again.

Critiquing the Quote

The vast majority of people who claim that rape and violence are disgusting and morally unacceptable to them are simply unable to use violence… in defense… when necessary.

This statement has several limitations:

It conflates, and ignores that there’s a difference between capability for defensive violence and inclination toward predatory violence.

It commits a genetic fallacy by suggesting that the origin of a moral belief (the alleged “weakness”) invalidates its legitimacy.

We could argue that moral revulsion toward rape and excessive violence served evolutionary functions in building cooperative societies. Hence these moral intuitions would not be merely rationalizations but adaptive traits, and legitimate.

It overlooks moral rejection of violence independent of capability.

Many capable of violence choose to reject it on genuine moral grounds.

Those who cannot fight back might still never choose violence even if they could.

It doesn’t address whether moral beliefs can be genuine even if untested.

Furthermore, if all violence is seen as equivalent[^3] then the stance, despite seeming critical of the status quo, can:

Serve the powerful by suggesting that everyone would abuse power if they had it.

Falsely equate the inability to be violent with the choice of not harming others (i.e. everyone’s a predator in disguise).

Diminish genuine moral choice.

The preface seems aimed at those who conflate all forms of force as equally wrong at all times, thus making themselves morally and practically defenceless against predators. It also alludes to the hypocrisy of servility; survival instinct necessitates self-defence.[^4] Therefore, I would argue it critiques self-deception (key to ressentiment), which doesn’t facilitate growth.

Systemic Critique

In Sapkowskian society, there are no fair judges nor honest bankers.[^5] Insofar as the Witcher follows the experiences of the marginalized, we never really see functional institutions or effective, just governance that lives up to its ideals. The self-satisfaction of the powerful with their deeds and ends is never portrayed as anything but suspicious at best and hypocritical, if not downright malicious, more often.

What appears as bias toward the marginalized perspective reflects a Nietzschean truth: while true masters reshape reality itself, almost no one achieves this level of will to power. We—the readers—find ourselves among everyone else: we cannot transcend the position of the herd. As Geralt, how we deliberate is set: we cannot help but interpret everything in terms of moral judgment, as almost everyone in the game of will to power. Because what are we supposed to do if we are not Jesus?

Fulko Artevelde cannot sound credible to someone like Geralt, because scapegoating is the standard result of the daily vilification Geralt experiences. Unsurprisingly, he deems institutional violence and corruption worse than individual criminality because the former corrupts the entire system meant to protect people. Incidentally, Fulko’s and Geralt’s exchange illuminates the system: institutions are another arena where morality expresses itself, and pure expression of either morality is unlikely (if not impossible).

At face value, Fulko’s zeal is about guaranteeing public safety: protect the weak! serve a higher cause than power! Markers of slave morality? Geralt, however, tears at this ‘protection’ as enabling abuse of power. He judges Law for morphing into a mere tool of domination and reveals the hypocrisy in claiming to protect while actually oppressing. This could be read as slave morality, or a clear-eyed exposure of how power actually operates—behind moral masks.

When society asserts its will through institutional displays of force, it cloaks the need for such force in terms of ‘slave morality’: appealing to order, justice, social good, general welfare. Appeals to its own power is not very good optics, after all. Then, when the marginal element does stand up for themselves, violating social values they themselves hold dear as safeguards against the abuse of power, it will seem like they are breaking the social contract.[^6] The institution has positioned itself as the defender of those values, despite actually being operated by people with master morality principles. Hence, if the weak gain power by corrupting the strong into engaging in moral judgements and coming to believe their actions are evil, then the strong respond with entrapment in kind. The marginalized who suddenly refuse to “turn the other cheek” are violating their own moral inclinations.

This, by and large, is what happens with Geralt, or any other vigilante, when they decide to take justice into their own hands.

Vysogota's cynicism then, exposes how slave morality itself becomes a tool of control: the very moral framework created by the weak to cope with powerlessness becomes weaponized by institutions to maintain their monopoly on violence. The system doesn't just condemn individual acts of resistance - it manipulates the moral instincts of the oppressed against themselves. When witchers or women consider violent self-defense, they must first overcome not just physical constraints but their own internalized moral frameworks that have been twisted to serve power. The 'weakness' Vysogota identifies isn't just an individual's inability to act—it's how moral values themselves become chains for the oppressed.

Between Master and Slave

In Crossroad of Ravens, until the critical shift at the very end, Geralt moves through the mentality of slave-morality which he inherits by belonging to the witcher caste. It’s part of his arriving at himself.

Despite his transhuman nature, Geralt:

struggles with his ‘defective’ nature because he doesn’t match an external ideal of the ‘perfect, emotionless witcher’;

defines his actions in terms of what he ‘should’ do rather than what he wants to do; questioning the right of the powerful to dominate;

empathises with the oppressed and continues to see himself as an outcast; accepting his lower social status despite physical capability;

values protection of weakness as the protection of Good.

In Nietzschean terms, Good is synonymous with ‘nobility’. ’The noble type of man experiences itself as determining values; it does not need approval; it judges, “what is harmful to me is harmful in itself”; it knows itself to be that which first accords honour to things; it is value-creating.’ In judging according to his conscience and acting directly upon those judgments, Geralt actually embodies this sense of nobility - yet his social position ensures he will be punished for precisely these noble traits.

Consider the parallel with a wizard:

"…evidence," Artamon said. […] “I know who murdered Sergeant Margulies and the others. And I will not wait for the law to finally wake up. I will take matters in to my own hands.”

Artamon—one of the elite—behaves, in principle, just as Holt does, just as Geralt does upon encountering the rapist or learning of threats to his companions. All three men judge and act directly, taking matters into their own hands rather than waiting for external authority. The will to act—this noble trait—differs not at all between them. What differs are the consequences: Artamon is likely to face no legal repercussions. The system is made by and for the likes of him. For Geralt, exercising the same impulse leads to the gallows; pushing him toward the very ressentiment characteristic of slave morality.

The legitimacy of the governing bodies’ sole claim to the monopoly of violence rests in their wielding that violence impartially in service of social order (some form of relatively stable equilibrium). According to its social contract with us, we don’t randomly retaliate with (dis)proportionate violence to violations of various degrees by individuals and the law/state ensures we are not unduly violated. Should marginalized groups exercise defensive violence—by becoming vigilantes, for example—the system must punish them in order to avoid precedents of power residing elsewhere. Someone who takes matters into their own hands—according to their own arbitrary morals—sets themselves up as a challenger to power.

The question becomes more pressing when:

the challenger is a persona non grata;

the system is corrupt.

“Holt is a rat. And he deserves a rat's death.”

Witchers, by their nature, complicate the matter. A witcher possesses what Nietzsche would call ‘master’ traits:

Physical power

Willingness to act

Individual moral judgement

Initiative for direct action rather than appeal to higher authority

Socially, however, witchers are positioned as the oppressed outcasts. They have the physical capabilities of a ‘master’ but the social position of a ‘slave’. Especially in relation to wizards; originally created by them specifically as tools of violence for the powerful. Instead, witchers became a social welfare project. Consequently, they face social persecution for exercising their capacity for violence outside prescribed boundaries—specifically, for exercising their ‘master traits’ against ‘masters’.

Were a witcher in the service of a king, the king’s protection would make their acts of violence fall under different rules of legitimacy. They’d be an extension of the upper class instead of being a dangerously more capable extension of the lower class. Witchers, therefore, possess all physical/kinetic power but lack all social/potential power—the range of moral choices they can practically make is constrained by the “belonging” of their instrumental value.[^7]

Beyond Master and Slave

When Geralt kills Artamon, he acts from multiple motives: preventing harm to his companions, self-defence against promised visisection, and vengeance for Monstrum. At some point, he must realize that the line between justified protective violence and something else is ephemeral, and that he—a feeling witcher—is as capable of rationalizing violence as his opponents.

Young Geralt intuitively wishes to wield power in service of the powerless. Under Holt, he learns to make a virtue out of strategic submission, as the powerful do when they pretend to play by the rules of ‘slave morality’. He moves from naive use of power to making conscious choices about how to wield it, and when. When he finally rejects dominance from a position of strength, it comes from choice rather than necessity—he could ‘pull a Holt’ and pursue vengeance but chooses not to. Instead of continuing to react as a slave would, he consciously identifies with the oppressed while determining what is Good in his eyes inherently.

The way beyond the bind that neither succumbs to pure power nor remains trapped in moral judgement comes by way of actions born of love. When Geralt acts out of care, he transcends both master and slave moralities. Love, being its own cause and motive, offers a path to authentic expression of will to power that doesn’t depend on either domination or moral frameworks. This is where Geralt arrives at himself, simply being as he believes best.

In this way, young Geralt’s journey challenges Vysogota’s cynicism by demonstrating that moral choices about violence aren’t always about ability or inability, but about purpose and consequence. Developing his own warrior monk moral agency, he learns a hard lesson: what is good for the soul (pacifism) is not necessarily what the society sometimes needs, and what the society (force) sometimes needs is not necessarily good for the soul.

---

Footnotes

[^1]: …if one's metaphysical interpretation is of self-overcoming, how can one overcome that? Or maybe one simply arrives. [^2]: By ‘domination’ is meant something like: a genuinely powerful person will not encounter resistance (or it won’t matter). The strong get their way against the odds (e.g. Jesus got killed, still won). [^3]: If there is a difference between defensive and predatory violence, which violence, by how much, is justified, and when? When does defensive violence—ensuring another person cannot continue harming us—become excessive? What would restrain predatory violence pre-emptively? Plenty of empirical questions. [^4]: An aspiring autocrat could herein pivot into theorizing about levels of sustainable oppression. Thankfully, Ashby’s law gets most human despots. [^5]: If the banking cartel was not controlled by the dwarves that is; and even then… [^6]: It’s why Gandhi’s non-violent resistance is extraordinary for a Nietzschean. [^7]: How, then, does ‘slave morality’ manifest in complex power structures? When the physically powerful are socially oppressed, do they develop different moral frameworks than those who are both physically and socially weak? Do the physically powerful strive to become socially powerful and are a) co-opted by the status quo, b) defeat the powerful and become the new oppressors? Is there a difference between: making a virtue of weakness (slave morality); strategically choosing when to use strength (practical wisdom); using strength in service of the weak (vigilante path)?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[schizophrenicdandelion]

Every Witcher school has a specific sign at the core of their teachings . While all schools use all signs , and all Witchers will find their favourite sign regardless of what school they grew up in , the core sign will show itself in many ways . From the Witcher lore and previous writings , within their values and rules , it will present itself in the various fighting styles even if not casted . But the most polarizing effect of this is simple ,

The Bestiaries .

Witchers will never debate the value of a sign for a different school , even if theirs may be a polar opposite . But , by the Gods , they will argue tooth and nail when it comes to what signs can be used against what monster .

Logically , they know it’ s because that School would have adopted a stronger version of the sign compared to every other school . For older generations , however , it’ s not true cross school bonding if you do not criticize the use of a sign when it would just be easier if you did it this way .

When comparing notes , often newer generations will completely ignore discussing what sign to write down . They know their answers will be different . Just close your eyes when you write down Aard while your travel mate writes down Quen. Bestiary updates take long enough already , let us poke fun at each other later .

[fllagellant]

Ok anyways happy thoughts . Witchers making each other try on their armours . Their armour that they’ ve modified and retouched and made into something that shows off their roots . Beads and feathers , fur and embroidery . Patterns they remembered or relearned . Witchers in oversided armour , warm and over encumbered , melting into it . Witchers in smaller armour having it unbuckled and hanging , not wanting to tear any of the fabrics or ruin the beading . Trying to make it each other pose with their weapons too , just a sharing of each other and their cultures , from tribe to tribe , from school to school . Yeah < 3

[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. 

[lassieposting]

Okay so that line with Jaskier and Lambert at the end of 2x08. Jaskier jokes, "Look at us, just a big old happy family, right?" and Lambert rather sharply retorts, "No," and limps past him with Ciri.

That seemed really sharp at first, and I thought it was just the writers and their thing where they handle Jask like nobody actually likes him despite him being one of the most likable characters, but then I was rewatching the ep and it occurred to me.

Lambert's just lost like, four family members.

We see Voleth!Ciri kill two Witchers, and then another two (three?) die in the final battle with the basilisks. Like, of course Lambert wouldn't be receptive to "happy family" comments. Some of his family are right there on the floor with their faces missing or their heads cut off. More are dead in their beds upstairs. Jaskier is Geralt's friend of 20 years, and the other Witchers have probably heard a lot about him from Geralt, but they've only known each other in person for a matter of days. A virtual stranger is no replacement for the family you just lost, and to Lambert it probably seemed like a really tasteless, tone-deaf comment to make, even though Jask didn't mean to wound.

So like. Understandable reaction, actually, yeah

[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

[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.

[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]

[essskel]

I will always love Triss Merigold’s arc in the books because I remember so clearly in Blood of Elves thinking that she was on this somewhat predictable track of ‘purpose driven survivor/second chance hero/survivors guilt tragedy’ and I sort of ended up holding out hope/expectation that she was going to pull some deus ex machina move even all the way at the end after she’d failed everyone a hundred times over already (if not for the sake of her redemption then maybe her lingering care for Yen and Ciri).

But no! She doesn’t save anyone because she can’t and she was never going to. Shes a complacent centrist, she’s a ‘I thought i could change it from the inside’ dirtbag, she’s true apathy in contrast to a set of protagonists that berate themselves for their own falsely perceived apathy.

She’s frustrating to read without being a distraction or a weight to the plot, and I think that’s worth acknowledging, because most characters like her truly are just filler when you look under the surface. And maybe she is too, but it’s compelling regardless. The woman was dead the whole time - not as a ghost with unfinished business, but a corpse who’s got nothing to do but decay.

[ID: "Are you foretelling death?" shouted Triss. "Is that all you can do, foretell death? For everyone? Them, her...Me?"

"You? You are already dead, Fourteenth One. Everything in you has already died.” /end ID]

(Blood of Elves, ch3)

[tangle-of-messy-thoughts]

(I guess it's obsess-over-the-bard's-lute time for me. Oh well.)

It's heartbreaking to see Jaskier's lute smashed and broken like that, but also fitting, I guess.

(more under the break)

This is the lute Jaskier got after his first adventure with Geralt, and the first time he used it, it was to play the very first song he wrote for him, the first one he wrote to make good on his promise to relieve Geralt of the moniker of "Butcher".

As such, I think it's fair to see it as a symbol of both his promise to the witcher and their relationship before their breakup.

And I think it fitting that the last song we see Jaskier perform with it before it was broken was Burn, Butcher, Burn.

The song must have been the last one he wrote about Geralt, because if the witcher is Jaskier's muse - not the only one, but for sure the one that matters to him the most, both from the artistic and the personal, emotional point of view - then after he was gone, what else about him was left for Jaskier to sing except how much he hurt him, how much he broke him?

It's also the song where he threw back at him the very same moniker he had promised Geralt he'd free him from, the song where he sang about undoing everything he'd said about Geralt, every memory of him, to the point before they met, when there was no White Wolf, only the Butcher.

And now the lute is broken, because Jaskier broke that promise, not because he wrote a song about how much the witcher hurt him and how angry he is at how unfairly he was treated, but because he used that specific word again, against him, knowing all too well what it meant and must still mean to Geralt.

I cannot help but think that Jaskier's words to Geralt, about people doing stupid things, and saying stupid things, when they feel trapped in a corner, aren't just about Geralt and Yen. Maybe they aren't just about Jaskier asking Geralt to empathize with her, to try and understand that her terrible deal with the Endless Mother wasn't born out of malice or hunger for power or anything like that, but out of anger and pain and helplessness. Maybe those words are also, a bit, about Jaskier feeling that writing and singing that song was a very stupid, very wrong thing to do, despite his genuine hurt (anger and pain and helplessness), and feeling guilty about it, now that Geralt is back.

And now the lute is broken, because even though they've reunited, that part of Jaskier's life is over, and his relationship with Geralt will never be the same. Geralt has changed, and Yen too, and Jaskier has, as well, too much for things to ever be back the same way they used to.

Their relationship will be different - better, I hope, one where they can get to be more honest and upfront with each other, one where their relationship is less one-sided and they can meet as equals, now that Jaskier had to grow and make choices that did not revolve around Geralt - but it'll never be the same, Jaskier knows it, and he's unsure how things will play out for them.

He's lost a bit of his innocence, and a bit of his trust, I guess. I think I can see that in the way he keeps his eyes open during their hug, how little he seems to lean into it (unlike, surprisingly, Geralt), the sadness on his face during the "Friends come back" scene, and in the way he answers Geralt's apology with a quip, hiding his feelings behind his humor.

He's grieving, I think, about the life that he used to have alongside Geralt and that, although not perfect, was his for twenty years of his very human, very limited (relatively to witchers and witches) lifespan, and that must have been precious to him despite the difficulties.

A life that, now that Geralt is really back, must seem even more distant, something he has to put behind him to move forward.

So, to wrap up this wreck of a post, I think that Jaskier's lute is symbolic of his broken heart, his broken promise, and of the end of his relationship with Geralt as it used to be.

[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.

[amphorographia]

Don't get me wrong, I love all the 'immortal Jaskier' theories but honestly credit to Joey Batey because even thought Jaskier doesn't appear to physically age, there's so much about his behaviour in every scene that makes me feel how old he's meant to be.

He's energetic and naive and cocky when he first meets Geralt. All of that energy and curiosity is still with him at the betrothal feast but it's more controlled, deliberate and self-aware in a way he wasn't before. Then, when we see him just before Geralt finds the djinn, he's not only more reserved (which, sure, he's had his heart broken so that makes sense) but he's also more mature in how he interacts with Geralt. His "talk to me" shows genuine concern and there's nothing teasing about it. It's only afterwards, once he knows what Geralt is doing and realises/decides the witcher is being ridiculous, that he returns to that sort of behaviour. And even after he's been cursed and cured, his interactions with Yennefer and Geralt are still tempered by that maturity.

And then the dragon quest.

Yennefer's comment about Jaskier's "crow's feet" might a be intended to convey his aging but the way Joey plays his reaction to the comment is far more effective. Think of the difference between "Yeah, well, you're jokes are...old" and "You don't want to keep a man with...bread in his pants waiting". In both cases he’s trying to be witty in an attempt to break the tension. And while in the first instance Geralt hadn’t insulted him, the sense of discomfort is comparable. In response to Yennefer’s comment, a younger Jaskier would have been annoyed by his own inability to come up with a witty reply. But that’s not how it plays out. Instead his tone is sad, deflated. His joke doesn’t land but he doesn’t care. That’s not what it’s about.

Then, there’s his asking Geralt to go to the coast. When they first met, Jaskier was drawn to Geralt by his desire for adventure. That man wouldn’t have tried to convince the witcher to “get away for a while,” he would said something about how there are other monsters to slay, more people to help, other adventures to be had. And, true, this also speaks to how their relationship has changed and Jaskier has come to see Geralt as more than just his abilities.  But it also speaks of growth - the kind that only comes with experience. The desire for peace and the understanding that life can’t always be danger and adventure and excitement.

And then, when Geralt turns on him, blames him for everything and tell him he wants him gone, Jaskier doesn’t engage. He says “that’s not fair” (soft and heartbroken) but that’s it. There’s no fighting, no yelling, no accusations or corrections. He takes it and he walks away. That energy, the one that used to bleed into every word and movement, the one he learned to control and channel where he wanted it, disappears. When he says his goodbye and leaves he’s deflated and heartbroken but, notably, not exhausted. He’s learned when there’s nothing words can do, when something isn’t worth the effort, and (most importantly) when he deserves more than what he’s given.  And walking away hurts like hell, we see that so clearly in Joey’s performance (here and in season 2), but it’s also such an important show of his strength and maturity. No argument, no begging to be taken along, no jokes or snark, just acknowledgement and retreat. 

This got longer than I expected and there’s still so many other things I could point out but you get the idea. Despite his lack of ‘aging,’ it’s so clear that we really are seeing Jaskier over years, decades even, of his life and that’s not an easy thing to show. So shout out to Joey Batey and his excellent performance.