#there r other actually bad things plagueing me rn but it's ok for me to complain abt this one

[sylphwing]

i rlly don't like how there's nothing i'm super into rn 🧍 it feels like i enjoy too many things, which i knowww is a stupid thing to complain abt but it's overwhelming. somehow. idk how to explain myself so mb i should just explode instead idk vote on ur phones now ig 🤳💥❓

[gayregis]

Ok here’s another “talk about the Witcher” prompt for you—bonhart. What are your thoughts, other than the fact that he is absolutely vile and evil (cuz obvs)? I think he was a Witcher originally. I think he makes a really good contrast against geralt, and sort of acts as a warning to ciri for what evil her raw skills could be used for. I was really satisfied by how she was finally able to face him and kill him completely alone. BUT I think that the sudden r*pe bits in LotL are unnecessary!

i think bonhart was a necessary evil as he adds so much of the darker themes to the latter half of the witcher saga, as in that blood of elves, time of contempt, and baptism of fire were still kind of lighthearted despite that there was a lot of going down in them. vilgefortz didn’t cut it for me to function as the only villain, just because he’s quite anime-esque in the fact that i think he would anime-laugh to geralt and then explain his super long evil plan to him and be like so what do you think :) im so evil :) ... like, bonhart isn’t a villain, he’s something even worse, he doesn’t find any pleasure in dramatic speeches or flourish, he finds pleasure in sincerely hurting people and watching them in pain. he’s absolutely vile and revolting, and just the most horrible character you could possibly concieve of. vilgefortz is one of the many parties (the lodge of sorceresses, nilfgaard, the aen elle) trying to hunt ciri down for her power, but bonhart hunts down ciri not only for the bounty but just because he wants to hurt her. i’m not really certain if there’s a deeper meaning to this character other than the representation of pure trauma, which has grasped ciri after she has been abandoned by everyone she’s ever known and loved. (and/or a warning of what she could become, as you said and i talk about a little later). i feel like a lot of people want the witcher books but only if they were without bonhart, without stygga, without rivia. and that’s an opinion people can have but i feel some of the utter suffering was put there for a reason... but it did get excessive.

especially the r*pe scenes. in my opinion, r*pe scenes are completely unnecessary... the only scene i think was "passable” was when yennefer stabbed bonhart with a fork, because i really was wanting bonhart to just get stabbed and choke. but i think this scene is also just plain gross still because of how much sapkowski tends to ... describe yennefer as beautiful and like this woman of pure beauty and sexiness despite her cold exterior, and i can’t help but feel it was just indulgent of sapkowski wanting to write yennefer in some kind of “sexual” situation (in quotes, b/c r*pe is not sex). it was pretty useless as a scene because we already know that bonhart is evil and that yennefer is a fighting spirit, so i highly question why it needed to be put in there.

i think a lot of how bonhart treats ciri is just torture p*rn and it just goes completely overboard, like, WE GET IT, HE’S EVIL! but i have to admit that it IS a fantasy series for adults so it’s not like i can say it’s inappropriate. it is also a book series, so you have the option to skip if it’s really unbearable (like it was for me. i basically skimmed all of that violence because i do not need to be absorbing that). i just feel like there are a bunch of sickos out there who would not see ciri’s treatment as such a bad thing, and that’s really why i’m wary of the scenes, like i KNOW there are people out there who WANT to see a teenage girl be abused, and that turns my stomach more than the actual writing does. but sapkowski at least treated it appropriately, as the vile and horrific treatment(s) they are, and didn’t romanticize anything like some authors might.

as a character, i think bonhart is exactly how you describe him, as a contrast to geralt, and also as a contrast to ciri. ciri was using her power for evil, and bonhart serves as this exaggerated caricature of what she could become if she continues on her current path. i say “exaggerated” for a reason, i think bonhart is absolutely an extreme that ciri may not ever really be able to become, but it’s a warning of the possibilities of power and using violence as power. 

also, bonhart serves as a contrast to geralt because he is absolute sadism and lawlessness, and geralt is pacifist in nature (even though he was born into the life of violence) and creates his OWN code to abide by, even when there is no real “witcher code,” because he just feels like it. geralt gives ciri a sword but instructs her not to kill blindly with it, bonhart gives ciri a sword just so she can be forced to kill others. 

the way i see it, geralt and ciri both learned from each other, and they were both wrong about a very specific thing. geralt was wrong about being indifferent and choosing indifference (as he says in time of contempt, and then develops to forge a fiery path to go find his daughter). ciri was wrong about using violence to right wrongs and letting revenge consume her spirit (which she learns through meeting bonhart, and then refines herself to focus her revenge on the sadistic man). as i always view geralt and ciri as not only characters, but larger, more universal symbols of parent and child, i think these two things that they were wrong about really play off of each other as a contrast between old and young, or parent and child. i feel like abiding by indifference plagues the older generation because it feels like a reward for already fighting so many battles, and seeking unrestrained revenge plagues the younger generation because they have not learned yet that it will consume all and bear no fruit.

also p.s.: i wish people would talk more about the theory that bonhart was a witcher originally. i think it holds a lot of weight, because his fighting was pretty much unparalleled, and even cahir who is a really good swordsman, fell to him. it stands then that bonhart has something unique about his fighting style that only another witcher (ciri) could defeat (and cahir also fell to ciri in toc, so it suggests that bonhart and ciri fight in similar ways?). (i know some people wanted geralt to fight bonhart, but i feel like that would have been out of place, as he is ciri’s tormentor and when she killed him that was sooo satisfying. vilgefortz was definitely geralt’s fight anyways, because of how vilgefortz wanted to use ciri and geralt is sworn by being her father to protect her.) but yeah i wonder wtf bonhart’s backstory is. i get he’s supposed to kind of come out of nowhere as a super evil guy, but i feel like he trained with witchers before or something... like he was training and then escaped before he could take the mutations, because he had already learned to kill and gotten a taste for it, drawn to violence after he was introduced to it. 

[mikeshanlon]

iwwv anon and PHEW OK. I def did not expect that essay and now I feel bad cause I KNOW my thots r not gonna be articulate or right. nonetheless! i think Oliver does qualify as an unreliable narrator cause hes. very oblivious but not like... Richard papen (who is a whole ass clown don't get me started on tsh) but not like addy from dare me(I will support till the day I die that dare me is da like I WILL die on this hill) who sees what she wants to see. 1/?

i think he just... thinks that his friends r diff ppl than they actually r? that doesnt rly make sense but yea. what I mean is that everything the characters do is coated in that empathetic view Oliver has which is usually wrong? so we don't get an objective look into the characters. meredith is my girl like I love the hot popular girl trope deconstruction but at the end of the book she's not at a great place like she's w someone that doesn't love her like she needs to be loved... 2/

I guess the most probable ending is that James never meets Oliver again and that everyone is kinda stuck on what happened but that's soo sad and I really don't want to think abt it. ngl iwwv wasn't like my fave book ever and I really don't understand why people are so obsessed with dark academia sometimes but what i rly liked abt the book is that despite how fucked up everyone is and how toxic they r to each other they do at heart care abt one another...3/

like I rly liked that esp cause at that point the only other da book (other than dare me!) that I had read was tsh and godd every character is so fuckinh annoying and they all hate each other. i was super confused by it till I saw someone saying that it's satire and I felt my mind explode. I feel like this is so long but I didnt rly properly answer all you wrote sorry! I think its a pretty good book tho it has some crazy quotes like hold awn Im gonna look at the highlighted stuff on my copy.. 4/

Were you in love with him?” “Yes,” [...]Yes, I was.” It’s not the whole truth. The whole truth is, I’m in love with him still. LIKEEE PHEWW OK OK OK. WE OUT HERE. that line literally made me go crazy. I'm so sorry for any spelling mistakes or like general mistakes I made here English isn't my first language, it's 1am and I wrote this in the notes app w/o looking it over. so like.. NOT a professional review lemme tell you. 5/5

 Ahh im so sorry I did not see this before I yeeted for a month!!!

Oooh okay first of all dare me as a DA… I’ve only watched the show but like yeah I see the Elements for sure.

Also yeah I can understand what you mean abt Oliver being an unreliable narrator now… Ig my view of unreliable was more like they are purposefully twisting the truth or omitting facts or just literally don’t know shit but I get how personal bias can make the narrator unreliable. I do think the assertion that Oliver thinks his friends are different than they actually are makes sense. He sees James in a very positive light and though I like James a lot and think he is better than, like, Richard, he definitely has darker moments and manipulates Oliver at times (again I’d like to think it’s not the most nefarious thing in the world but like him just being shitty bc he’s in a dark place and he one, wants to do anything he can so Oliver doesn’t figure out he fought Richard so Oliver still thinks of him the same way/bc he knows Oliver would do something stupid like get himself arrested for James; and two, is very jealous that Oliver is with Meredith after Richard dies and has sort of a somewhat positive outcome from Richard’s death versus James being riddled with guilt and anger). And yeah, the probable ending is they never meet but I refuse to acknowledge that so LGNRG. Also that line makes me go CRAZZZZZZZZZZY!!! There are so many great lines, both using Shakespeare and on their own and its like okay give me a moment im going bonkers…

Personally, I haven’t read that many dark academia novels yet (bc for some reason i can barely finish a book rn sigh) but the concept interests me. I think what’s compelling is the setting/atmosphere of like ~mysterious college vibes~, and the idea of a sort of niche, obsessive bond and pursuit of knowledge with a tight knit group of friends (and the like inherent homoeroticism in every single DA elrngenrg). Like Dead Poet’s Society (the film I haven’t read the book) isn’t Dark in the same way most other dark academia is by like, obsession and death and manipulation (though of course there are dark elements with Neil’s storyline), but I think the other building blocks of academia are present there in a more wholesome way and you can see why people are drawn to that idea. As for the more Dark aspects I think it’s interesting to analyze things like group psyche, obsession, manipulation, etc, like what went wrong for everything to take such a dark turn???

 But, like everything else, it really has to be done well or else its just like okay….… I’ve tried to read TSH twice and I may try again but from the 100+ ish pages I read I totally get what you mean. IWWV is so interesting to me bc the characters are all very compelling and multifaceted and I like that they are a close friendship, we come in after 4 years of them spending all the time together and to me that is apparent. Like you said, we can see fissures and problems especially as the novel continues but there is care there between them. That also makes the decision to let Richard die much more interesting and sinister imo, as well as how all of them interact with each other after he dies, and how the roles of the group change without their “leader” so to speak. Also, maybe it’s just bc I like Shakespeare, but I think the academia part of IWWV is so much more accessible compared to TSH. Like I don’t know every Shakespeare play or anything so I didn’t understand every nuance or was like immediately like oh this is from Cymbeline or whatever the fuck, but you could understand the gist of things and it made sense that they spoke in Shakespeare lines bc that’s all they’ve been doing for four years and also theatre kids are Like That. Their pretention also provided any Layers to the story, like the parallels between the characters they play and their own arcs, how some of the lines echoed their own thots, foreshadowed, or they were able to say things through Shakespeare (I’m thinking of like, Oliver realized he loved James during Romeo and Juliet, the foreshadowing that James was going to ruin Richard’s life and that he dislikes Meredith/Richard when he quotes Mercutio at the start “A plague o’ both your houses”, the exchange Oliver and James had onstage and had that kiss during King Lear before Oliver was arrested,etc.) (Also I think the structure of some of the dialogue being formatted like a play really helped make it feel more realistic and immersive). Versus TSH which is just so pedantic and dense and hard to follow at times im like I get they are smart but what??? And maybe that’s part of the satire aspect (or maybe im dumb) but like donna I read TGF I know you are pretentious and info dump abt random obscure shit anyways so erglknerg. Like to me there was a Point to all of the academic Shakespeare stuff in IWWV and it was the soul of the book, and M.L. Rio made it very interesting—like the way that the directors reimagined the plays and had Julius Caesar be like a modern political play, the cool mirror shit in King Lear, the Macbeth and Romeo and Juliet performances where they did them at events and interacted with their environments (which were one of my favorite parts of the books bc I just think that concept is so interesting), etc. For TSH the shit they did literally just felt like “okay look at them they’re smart see you can’t even keep up!” like okay… I felt lost a lot and only like snapped into reality whenever Henry (?) was like oh… murder….. and even then I was like idk what this dude is saying but like he’s being darksided LMAO. And I also agree that it’s just like… Richard being thrown in the middle of this group could lend itself to some cool ideas but its hard to believe that he fits into the friendship group and hes just like hell yeah I love Greek so much and lets go kill this guy other than like okay ur gay and stupid and just want to impress Henry or whatever his name was (which he was but I digress). It’s just not as impactful to me as this close friend group falling apart. Ik TSH fans might be angry if they see this (and of course I haven’t finished the book so my perception may be warped but I also kno many ppl felt that way u did) bc I’ve seen ppl say IWWV is just like TSH but “lackluster” or whatever and while I can see some parallels (mostly b/w Richard and Henry and Alexander and Francis), I really think M.L. Rio expanded upon common DA tropes and the interesting parts of TSH but made it her own and interesting and oh yeah there are actually multiple compelling female characters and LGBT characters (and no incest)!!!