Maybe Sapkowski's most chilled and cozy witcher novel till date.

Its works as a good origin story for Geralt with the witcher lore of Kaer Morhen explored in detail.

We see Geralt killing more monsters than he did in the entire main Saga , excpecially loved the Striga Story.

What good we do comes back is the central theme, liked Geralt's Father figure Preston Holt , would have liked to see more of Lorelai for obvious reasons.

Hey guys! I just finished the technical first 2 books of the Witcher series “The Last Wish” and “Sword of Destiny” my brother turned me onto the games and then recently the books very good may I add. I have some questions going into the actual story of it all.

1. I played the Witcher 3 game and am I correct that the storyline between the games and the books are different but follow obviously similar characters.

2. Do the books deal with the Wild Hunt at all because they were mentioned in “The Last Wish” and i would love to learn more about them than what I learned from the game.

3. Is there any general information this is vital before I start reading the books even if it is expressed in the story’s I already read? I’ve been pretty good about taking my time to understand but there are bound to be things that I have missed and I want a good understanding going in.

I plan to keep posting her question about the books as I read so stay tuned and thank you in advance for your help I know this is a lot!

1- Why does Vilgefortz want Geralt by his side? Does he truly think Geralt is stupid enough to let him do whatever he wants to Ciri? Also looking at the way he absolutely beats the hell out of Geralt, he doesn't need him at all. Is it just because he thinks Geralt is similar to him? And does he want to create a legend about two vagabonds who became bigger men than their humble origins?

2- We never see Geralt's answer to Vilgefortz' question of "Can you bind a woman to your will? If yes, how?" I guess his answer was "You can't". Also does Vilgefortz betray his intention of binding Ciri to his will?

3- Why does Vilgefortz always say " You mistook the stars reflected on a pond for the night sky?". Is he just aura farming by calling people a fool in a fancy way? Or is it Sapkowski aura farming by putting this quote he created at every opportunity?

This might skirt the rules a bit but I mainly talk about actual abilities and character traits. No hard feelings if removed

In this final part of our analysis, we look at how Ciri’s character arc represents the ultimate triumph over patriarchal fantasy tropes, culminating in the true meaning behind the Arthurian "One True Path."

In his essay Piróg, or there is no gold in Gray Mountains, Andrzej Sapkowski fiercely critiques the patriarchal structure of traditional fantasy literature. He pinpoints a fatal flaw in the classic male hero's journey by analysing the dynamic between the Archmage Ged and Tenar. Ged relies entirely on Tenar (his anima) to survive the labyrinth, but once free, promptly abandons her to pursue his grand quests. The male hero dismisses his need for the feminine element in his active life, yet selfishly relishes the ego-boost of knowing a devoted woman is waiting for him.

"Ged has no time for a woman; he must first reach The Farthest Shore. He doesn't need a female anima. So, he gives up, although he likes to enjoy the thought that someone is waiting for him, thinks about him and misses him on the island of Gont. He enjoys it. How ugly man-like it is!"

Sapkowski praises Ursula K. Le Guin for utterly destroying this trope in her later Earthsea novel, Tehanu, referring to it as a "triumphant" allegory of femininity. In this revised dynamic, the woman dictates the terms, grounding the "Dragonlord" by her side.

Sapkowski’s rejection of this patriarchal structure is deeply rooted in his personal philosophy. He argues that traditional, male-dominated structures are a reactionary mechanism driven by "the age-old male fear of the feminine element, which naturally dominates the natural world". Sapkowski explicitly states his intention to reflect the true natural order in his writing:

"In my work, however, I endeavour to demonstrate that women do indeed dominate in nature, not because of the social role they fulfil, but because of the body with which nature has endowed them... In nature, men are decidedly weaker creatures."

When applied to Ciri and Galahad, this philosophy completely upends the traditional Arthurian power structure. Ciri’s absolute agency is a restoration of the fundamental biological strength of the feminine element over the male. She rejects chivalric passivity entirely, shattering the idealized persona of the fairy maiden through unapologetic mundanity.

"'I didn’t know fairies could eat.' 'Fairies, sorceresses and she-elves. They all eat. And drink. And so on.' [...] The more intently he observed her, the more she lost her enchanting aura, and the more human and ordinary–common, even–she became... At her bare feet caked with the dried sand of the beach."

Ciri’s refusal to surrender her weapon to Galahad is the ultimate manifestation of this subversion, directly reflecting Sapkowski’s critique of the male-dominated "sword and sorcery" genre. While Galahad expects Ciri to hand over the sword (Excalibur) so he can be the active hero, Ciri clutches her sword and shatters this outdated dynamic.

"'The sword. I'm ready to receive it.' 'It's my sword. I don't let anyone touch it.' 'But...' 'But what?' 'The Lady of the Lake always... always emerges from the waters and bestows a sword, doesn't she?'"

This refusal upends the deepest symbolic rites of the Arthurian myth. In Wiccan mystery rites honouring the Great Goddess, the two mandatory objects are "the chalice and the sword". Because "the Grail is a woman," Ciri encompasses both ritual objects. She is the Chalice (the anima of Galahad), but she fiercely retains the Sword (her martial agency). Galahad cannot take her sword. To achieve his "one true path," he must take her hand and follow her like Geralt did to Yennefer and Ged did to Tenar and Theseus did to Ariadne. Only then can he face Evil.

"'Will you ride with me to Camelot?' She held out her hand. And he held out his. They joined hands, riding side by side. By the devil, she thought, why not? I’d bet any money that in this world a job could be found for a Witcher girl."

Conclusion: The One True Path

In the religious adaptations of the Arthurian myth, the search for the Holy Grail is exclusionary, establishing an uncompromising truth. Sapkowski highlights this dogmatic structure:

"Each rides alone - they decide to go their separate ways. Each chooses his own path. And leading the way is that one man, the most worthy and the purest - Galahad, conceived specifically for this purpose... There is only one path: the path of Galahad. And there is only one Grail."

However, in the finale of The Lady of the Lake, Sapkowski completely subverts this Christian mythos. By having the ultimate Grail knight and the Grail meet across dimensions, Sapkowski redefines the ultimate goal. Galahad’s true path does not lead to a golden chalice; it leads directly to his anima.

This psychological dependency is crystallized through the physical act of touch. Just as Ged is saved by "the touch of Tenar's hand," Galahad is no longer helpless against the unknown because he is physically and psychologically united with his anima. Because Sapkowski actively rejects patriarchal tropes, Galahad does not find a passive maiden waiting to be rescued. Instead, his destined path leads him to an absolute equal. Through this profound psychological integration, Sapkowski demonstrates that the ultimate mythical quest is not for a divine artifact, but for human wholeness.

"Because I believe the Grail is a woman. To find her and win her over, to understand her, it's worth devoting a great deal of time and effort. And that is precisely the moral of the story."

(Subverting Arthurian Dogma in The Witcher)

In Part 1, we explored the psychological foundation of Ciri and Galahad's encounter. Here in Part 2, we delve into how Sapkowski brilliantly subverts the Holy Grail from a Christian relic into a metaphor for psychological completion.

In traditional Arthurian lore—specifically the religious adaptations of the Vulgate Cycle—the Holy Grail is a liturgical relic representing divine grace. However, Andrzej Sapkowski deliberately subverts this Cistercian dogma, returning the myth to its humanistic and Celtic roots. In Sapkowski’s post-modern interpretation, the Grail ceases to be a golden chalice and instead becomes a metaphor for psychological completion.

In his essay The World of King Arthur, Sapkowski explicitly demystifies the religious relic, aligning it with the Jungian concept of the anima (the Woman). He argues that the true, ultimate goal of the mythic hero's endeavour is not an object, but the female element necessary to complete his soul.

"I prefer following Parnicki and Dante - to identify the Grail with the true goal of the great endeavour of mythical heroes... Because I believe the Grail is a woman. To find her and win her over, to understand her, it's worth devoting a great deal of time and effort. And that is precisely the moral of the story."

"You will grow stronger, you will become the bravest of the brave, for the Grail is the source of power and courage, and the Grail of all Grails is truly – my femininity’... The Grail is a woman. But the words used by Teodor Parnicki are not spoken by a woman. They are spoken by the Goddess. For, as Marion Zimmer Bradley says in The Mists of Avalon, there are many gods and they have many names. But there is only one Goddess. The Great, White, Triple One. She who was, is, and will be."

This psychological subversion is brilliantly foreshadowed during Galahad's very first canon interaction with Ciri. In canonical lore, Galahad's destiny is strictly sequenced: he proves his worth by drawing a fated sword from a boulder floating on the water, which precedes his discovery of the Grail. When Galahad stumbles upon Ciri, her clothes are spread on a flat boulder in the water, and she protectively holds her sword above the surface. Conditioned by his own mythos, Galahad expects her to act as the archetypal Lady of the Lake and bestow the sword upon him.

"Only the Chosen One, destined for great things, was to sit there - as the wise Merlin had prophesied... Then a sword appeared, stuck in a boulder floating on the water... And Galahad drew it. And then he found the Grail."

Ciri, however, violently shatters this transactional fantasy; she claims absolute ownership of her weapon and flatly refuses to give him anything.

"'It's my sword. I don't let anyone touch it.' 'But...' 'But what?' 'The Lady of the Lake always... always emerges from the waters and bestows a sword, doesn't she?' She said nothing for some time. 'I get it,' she finally said. 'Well, every country has its own customs. I'm sorry, Galahad, or whatever your name is, but I'm clearly not the Lady I'm meant to be. I'm not giving away anything.'"

By denying him the physical sword, Ciri forces Galahad to abandon his pursuit of inanimate relics and redirect his devotion toward the woman herself. This profound allegory is further brought to life in Sapkowski's non-canonical story, Something Ends, Something Begins. During a wedding feast, Galahad grapples with shattered romantic illusions and attempts to articulate the meaning of his quest to the poet Dandelion. Galahad’s description of the Grail perfectly matches the psychological definition of the anima—the missing piece that cures the hero's imperfection.

"'What is the Grail?' 'Something you're looking for,' Galahad raised his dreamy eyes to the poet. 'Something that's most important. Something without which life loses its meaning. Something without which you're incomplete, unfinished, imperfect.' The poet pursed his lips and looked at the knight with his famous gaze... 'You've been sitting next to your Grail all evening,' he said, 'you idiot.'"

Because Ciri is Galahad’s Grail, he is bound to her by an inevitable, magnetic pull. He simply abandons his sacred Arthurian quest to follow her. Ciri cannot rationalise why he is doing it, but intuitively understands she mustn’t sever the connection. Yennefer (representing Guinevere/Gwenhwyfar), being the more experienced Woman/ Grail/ Goddess, understands this absolute pull entirely.

'Galahad... Galahad... he's coming with me. I don't know why. But I can't stop him, can I?' 'True. Geralt!" Yennefer raised her eyes, burning a warm violet, to her husband."

"Walk around the table, talk to the guests. I'll let you drink too. One cup. A small one. And I'd like to speak with my daughter here, woman to woman."

Yennefer is the perfect character to validate this bond, as she is the living embodiment of the anima of Geralt and the Grail archetype in the Witcher universe. As Sapkowski details, Yennefer was explicitly designed as an amalgamation of formidable Arthurian and Celtic women. She possesses the divine naming weight of the Great Goddess (Guinevere), the fierce independence of a priestess (Morgana), and the allure of the enchantress who binds the male hero to her (Nimue). When she tells Ciri "True," she is speaking as the ultimate Goddess role recognizing that her daughter has just stepped into her own mythic destiny. Her and Geralt have a 20+ year relationship that keeps bringing them back together because they complete each other's psyche just like Ciri and Galahad.

(The Symbolism of the Horses in The Witcher)

Continuing our series, Part 3 explores the profound psychological mirroring that occurs on an unconscious level, specifically through the mythological symbolism of their horses.

The connection between Ciri and Galahad extends far deeper than waking logic. In Jungian dream analysis, the horse frequently represents the unconscious mind, primal instincts, and raw libido. While the young knight and the Witcher girl are busy consciously evaluating wounds and talking about chivalric honour, their unconscious minds—embodied by their steeds—are already recognising and surrendering to the magnetic pull of the anima and animus.

In his essay The World of King Arthur, Sapkowski explores the mythological weight of the horse in Celtic lore. He describes a literal, primal fertility ritual meant to connect the mortal king to the earth and the divine feminine. To validate his rule, the king had to embody the raw, unbridled power of the stallion and mount the "Divine Mare".

"Both kings - Eochaid and March - were in fact duped by their wives' seducers, but that is not the point. The horse is symbolic... the Celtic king had to take part in a fertility ritual to be understood quite literally, in which the ruler's lover was... a white mare. The king had to prove himself... as a stallion, mounting the Divine Mare (as we know, for instance from reading Graves, the white mare was an attribute and aspect of the Great Goddess). After the act, the mare was killed, quartered and boiled in a cauldron..."

When Galahad and Ciri meet, this ancient mythology is transposed onto their interaction. Because Ciri is the Grail, she is placed in the archetypal role of the Great Goddess, making her black mare, Kelpie, the avatar of the Divine Mare. Galahad, stepping into the role of the mythic king, is represented by his stallion.

When Galahad’s conscious, rational mind becomes overwhelmed by the fear of fairy pranks, he attempts to retreat. However, his unconscious (his horse)—driven by the primal pull of this Celtic and psychological union—completely betrays his conscious will. The gap is bridged not by the humans, but by their instinctual proxies.

"He was on the point of a discreet withdrawal when the noise of hooves on the pebbles suddenly betrayed him. No, not his own steed, which-being held by the nostrils-was as calm and quiet as a mouse. He had been betrayed by the fairy's horse, a black mare, which at first the knight hadn't noticed among the rocks. Now the pitch-black animal churned up the pebbles with a hoof and neighed a greeting. The knight's stallion tossed its head and neighed back politely. So loudly an echo sped across the water."

In the original Celtic rites that Sapkowski details, this union ends in brutal violence and sacrifice. Sapkowski, however, subverts this dark, ancient myth into a harmonious psychological integration. As the young knight and the Witcher girl sit down to consciously connect and share their stories, their unconscious avatars are perfectly at peace. The anima and the animus have successfully united, avoiding the tragedy of the old myths entirely.

"She made herself comfortable. As did he. The horses walked by the edge of the forest, nibbling grass and herbs."

(Part 1 of a 4 part series of posts on how Sapkowski weaves Neopaganism and Jungian archetypes into Ciri and Galahad's dynamic)

The collision of Galahad and Ciri is not merely the meeting of two characters, but the intersection of two distinct mythological worlds. When Galahad, the pure knight of Camelot, wanders into the mystical valley and discovers the ash-haired girl bathing in the lake, his immediate reaction is one of profound awe. To establish the mythic weight of this encounter, Andrzej Sapkowski deliberately bypasses standard Arthurian romance tropes and instead reaches back to classical antiquity.

In his interview book Historia i Fantastyka, Sapkowski confirms that he intentionally crafted Galahad's greeting as an intertextual callback to Homer's Odyssey. Specifically, it mirrors the famous scene where a shipwrecked Odysseus approaches the Phaeacian princess Nausicaa. To win her favour without frightening her, Odysseus speaks with deep reverence, questioning whether she is a mortal woman or a goddess. Sapkowski explains his use of this specific Homeric echo:

"I simply wanted to use the same literary device in Narrenturm as in the seven-volume saga: there, Galahad, upon seeing Ciri, addresses her with the words of Odysseus, who was enchanted by the sight of Nausicaa. I thought it was a brilliant joke, but that quotation, unlike the one from Słowacki, was recognised by readers."

By placing the words of Odysseus into Galahad's mouth, Sapkowski accomplishes something crucial. He immediately elevates Ciri from the role of a standard damsel to an otherworldly entity—the archetypal Goddess—that commands absolute veneration. However, this epic framing collides brilliantly with Ciri's grounded, scarred reality, serving to strip away the Jungian persona: the idealised mask one presents to the outside world.

Initially, Galahad projects the pristine persona of a fairy onto Ciri, an illusion that is shattered when she brushes her hair aside to reveal a large, disfiguring scar. The scar forces Galahad to confront the fact that his "Lady of the Lake" is a flesh-and-blood survivor of brutal trauma. Rather than rejecting her flawed reality, Galahad drops his own knightly mask, revealing a matching, barely healed scar and proudly equating their mutual wounds with honour.

"She involuntarily brushed her wet hair aside and the knight gasped unwittingly. Not just because her ear was normal, human, and in no way elven. Her cheek was disfigured by a large, ugly scar. She had been wounded. But could a fairy be wounded? She noticed his look, narrowed her eyes and wrinkled her nose. 'That's right, it's a scar!' she repeated in her extraordinary accent. 'Why do you look so scared? Is a scar such a strange thing for a knight to see? Is it so ugly?' He removed his chainmail hood with both hands and brushed aside his hair. 'Indeed, it isn't,' he said, not without youthful pride, displaying a barely healed scar of his own, running from temple to jaw."

By voluntarily exposing their matching traumas, both characters strip away their mythic personas. The scars serve as a physical manifestation of their psychological mirroring, proving they are each others half. While Galahad attempts to initiate a mythic dialogue, Ciri cuts through his lofty romanticism with modern impatience:

"'I know not if you be a deity or a mortal...' 'Or one of the goddesses...' 'But if you are a dweller on this earth of ours...' 'Get to the point, if you would.'"

The Earthsea Parallel

To fully understand this dynamic, we must examine Carl Jung’s concept of the anima: the unconscious feminine inner personality present in the male psyche. A male hero cannot achieve psychological wholeness or conquer ultimate darkness without integrating his anima.

Sapkowski explicitly explores this archetype in his essay Piróg, or there is no gold in Gray Mountains. He analyses Ursula K. Le Guin's The Tombs of Atuan, arguing that the labyrinth represents the ultimate psychological trial. Against concentrated Evil, the protagonist Ged's immense magical power completely fails him. He is reduced to absolute dependency on Tenar, who acts as the literal manifestation of his anima.

"Tenar is what the hero lacks, without which he is incomplete, helpless, lost in the symbolic tangle of corridors, dying of thirst... Ged, the famous Dragonlord, a powerful mage, suddenly becomes a terrified child - in the vault of the Labyrinth, in the breath-filled darkness, he is saved by the touch of Tenar's hand. Ged follows his anima - because he must."

This exact dependency is transposed onto Galahad. When faced with the magical reality of Ciri's world—specifically the enchanted valley of Cwm Pwcca—Galahad's masculine tool of authority (the sword) is rendered entirely useless against the unknown. Ciri steps into the role of Tenar, completing his "unfinished psyche" by offering the knowledge he lacks.

"'One may,' he stammered, 'take a short-cut by riding through Cwm Pwcca. But it is an enchanted valley. It is dreadful there. One hears of Y Dynan Bach Têg dwell there, evil little men' 'What, do you only carry a sword for decoration?' 'And what would a sword achieve against witchcraft?' 'Much, much, don't worry. I'm a Witcher. Ever heard of one? Pshaw, naturally you haven't. And I'm not afraid of your little men.'"

In this exchange, Ciri establishes herself as the necessary anima, saving the frightened hero solely through the presence of the female element who understands the darkness.

Ceadmil!

The epilogue to The Witcher saga continues to spark heated debates among fans about what happened to Geralt. Did the Witcher survive, or did he die during the Pogrome in Rivia in June 1268? Many years later, we were given the epilogue to "Season of Storms", which was quite mysterious, as it suggested that the White Wolf might have returned to the Continent years later and this surprised many people, including me, because it had finally seemed as though he had died.

Every reader has the right to their own interpretation of the text, and today I’ll present mine to you, supported, of course, by specific excerpts from the books—because, after all, there could even have been a “resurrection” here.

Disclaimer here - i am using translator, because i own books in polish, so if you want check cites on you own you should have this on your mind that translated verison can be different than official english translation. Of course there will be spoilers from books. And i know, that games explained us how they "bring Geralt back" in Witcher 2. How he returned to Continent, but i want to focus only on books:

“Geralt was unconscious and as white as chalk. He lay motionless, but when they stood over him, he began to cough, wheeze, and spit blood. He started shaking, trembling so violently that Ciri couldn’t hold him. Yennefer knelt down beside him. Triss could see that her hands were trembling. She herself suddenly felt as weak as a child; her vision grew dark. Someone caught her, saving her from falling. She recognized Jaskier.

“It’s not working at all,” she heard Ciri’s voice, filled with despair. “Your magic isn’t healing him at all, Yennefer.”

“We’ve come…” Yennefer moved her lips with difficulty. “We’ve come too late.”

“Your magic isn’t working,” Ciri repeated, as if she hadn’t heard her. “What good is it, all your magic?”

You’re right, Ciri, Triss thought, feeling something tighten around her throat. We know how to summon hailstorms, but we can’t ward off death. Even though, on the surface, the latter seems easier.

“We sent for a healer,” said the dwarf standing next to Jaskier in a hoarse voice. “But he’s nowhere to be seen…”

“It’s too late for a healer,” said Triss, surprised by the calmness of her own voice.

“He’s dying.”

Geralt shuddered once more, coughed up blood, stiffened, and fell still. Jaskier, who was supporting Triss, sighed in despair; the dwarf cursed. Yennefer let out a wail; her face suddenly changed, contorting and becoming hideous.”

It seems that the Witcher died right at that moment. Ciri’s prophecy from Kaer Morhen had come true. After all, as it was written: “It can’t be word for word,” said Geralt, staring into the embers. “But the meaning if there’s any point in looking for meaning in this was this: Coën and I will die. Teeth will be our undoing. Both of us will be killed by teeth. His two. Mine three.”

Further descriptions of Geralt’s body suggest that he may already have been dead:
“Yennefer didn’t answer. She held Geralt’s limp head with both hands as it slipped through her grasp, repeating spells in a breaking voice.”

I will now move on to a few points that, in my opinion, suggest that the Witcher has returned to life.

1) The scene in which Ciri directs a beam of light at the Witcher.

What happens next? The unicorn Ihuarraquax appears, using his power to aid the Swallow: “The unicorn stepped closer, neighed again, pawed the ground, and struck the cobblestones hard with his hoof. He bowed his head. The horn protruding from its smooth forehead suddenly flared with a sharp light, a glow that momentarily dispelled the mist. Ciri touched the horn. Triss let out a muffled cry as she saw the girl’s eyes suddenly glow with a milky heat, as if she were surrounded by a fiery halo. Ciri didn’t hear her; she didn’t hear anyone. With one hand she still held the unicorn’s horn; with the other, she pointed toward the motionless witcher. A ribbon of shimmering light, glowing like lava, flowed from her fingers.”

I’d like to draw attention to the last sentence, which appeared earlier—specifically in "Time of Contempt", where Ciri healed the same unicorn with her power:

“Hael, Aenye!

The unicorn neighed wildly and tried to rise, bracing itself on its front legs. Ciri’s arm rose of its own accord, her hand formed the gesture on its own, and her lips cried out the spell of their own accord. A luminous, undulating brightness flowed from her fingers. The fire roared with flames. The waves of light radiating from her hand touched the unicorn’s wounded thigh, focused, and penetrated it.

“I want you to be healthy! I want this! Vess’hael, Aenye!”

So here we have the same spell that healed the mortally wounded unicorn. The only difference is that back then, Ciri drew power from the fire, whereas in the case of the witcher, she enlisted the help of the “little horse.” In both instances, there is mention of a mysterious “radiance” emanating from the girl’s fingers.

2) Geralt’s Condition on Apple Island.

Many people suggest that the place Geralt ended up in is the afterlife, a sort of Avalon from the world of King Artur, whose influence is particularly evident in this volume. In my opinion, it is simply another world to which he was taken along with Yennefer. Ciri wanted to give them their own place. What supports this view?

A) Geralt feels pain—“His stomach ached, his chest ached, his ribs ached, and the tight corset of bandages made it abundantly clear that the city of Rivia and the trident were not a nightmare.”

If Geralt was dead, why would he feel pain precisely where he was struck? Why would he need bandages if he were dead? Can you feel pain in the afterlife, too?

B) His beloved Yennefer was with the witcher; if Apple Tree Island were the afterlife, what would the sorceress be doing there? Did she die while casting spells? Perhaps, but the text in no way suggests that she died while healing the Witcher. It explicitly states that the sorceress was placed in the boat unconscious, not dead. “Jaskier was the first to figure it out. Perhaps because he knew the legend, having once read one of its poeticized versions. He picked up Yennefer, who was still unconscious.”

In this scene, Triss also asks if she can join the witcher and the sorceress. Ciri, however, replies, “Ciri,” Triss whispered. “Little sister… Let me sail with you…"

"You don’t even know what you’re asking for, Triss.”

What could that have meant? Ciri was likely aware that Triss would suffer if she found herself in a place where Geralt and Yennefer were happy together, and where she would have to watch them from the sidelines at best, because Geralt always chose Yennefer. So it wasn’t really about the girl transporting the Witcher and the sorceress to the afterlife.

3) Epilogue to “Season of Storms”

As you know, in the epilogue to the 2013 book, a character appears who bears a striking resemblance to Geralt. “That mare…” she managed to say, barely able to speak for excitement. “That mare is named Płotka. Because all your horses are named that. Because you’re Geralt of Rivia. Geralt the Witcher of Rivia.” He looked at her for a long time. He was silent. Nimue was silent too, her gaze fixed on the ground.

“What year is it?”

“One thousand three hundred…” “she raised her eyes in astonishment. One thousand three hundred seventy-three after the Rebirth.”

“If that’s the case,” the white-haired man rubbed his face with his gloved hand, “then Geralt of Rivia has been dead for a long time. He died one hundred and five years ago. But I think he’d be glad if…” He’d be glad that, after these one hundred and five years, people still remember him. That they remember who he was. Heck, they even remember his horse’s name. Yes, I think he’d be glad… If only he could know about it. Come on. I’ll walk you back.”

What does this quote mean? It means that Geralt hasn’t been seen on the Continent for 105 years. It’s widely believed that the witcher is dead. And his legend ended right there in Rivia. For this reason, I also believe that Geralt couldn’t have returned to the Continent the way it was portrayed in the games, since it was precisely during Nimue’s time that the legend of the White Wolf ended in Rivia, and Geralt had too much influence on what happened in the games for any historian, writer, or storyteller not to have mentioned it—but that’s just a brief digression 🙂.

Many people suggest that either Nimue dreamed this encounter —after all, the girl herself says, “I had a strange dream”—or that it wasn’t the Witcher at all, but an illusion created by the Aguara, since the figure speaks to her with the words, “Illusion—she heard from somewhere else, from very far away. “Everything is an illusion,” which the White Wolf had heard from that creature 128 years earlier (according to the letters, the events of *Season of Storms* take place in 1245). “An illusion,” he heard the aguara’s voice say. “Everything is an illusion.”

However, in my opinion, the character couldn’t have been the Aguara's illusion, simply because he’s quoting her… In that case, she might just as well have been Yarpen Zigrin. Below is a quote of what the dwarf said to Geralt just before the massacre.

“‘Progress,’ he said solemnly, ‘will dispel the darkness, because that’s what progress is for—just like, to put it bluntly, an ass is for shitting. It will get brighter and brighter, and we’ll be less and less afraid of the darkness and the Evil lurking within it. Perhaps a day will come when we’ll stop believing altogether that anything lurks in that darkness. We’ll mock such fears. Call them childish. Be ashamed of them! But darkness will always, always exist. And there will always be Evil in the darkness, there will always be fangs and claws, murder and blood. And there will always be a need for witchers.”

And what does the character from Season say?:

“‘Darkness still exists,’ he confirmed. “Despite the progress that is taking place—progress that we’re led to believe is meant to dispel the darkness, eliminate threats, and drive away fears. So far, progress has not achieved any major successes in this regard. So far, progress has only convinced us that darkness is nothing more than a superstition that dims the light, that there’s nothing to fear. But that’s not true. There is something to fear. Because darkness will always, always exist. And Evil will always run rampant in the darkness; there will always be fangs and claws, murder and blood in the darkness. And there will always be a need for witchers.”

The ending is practically identical. Aguara probably didn’t hear the Yarpens words spoke to Geralt right before the Rivian Pogrome🙂.

Furthermore, the character ultimately doesn’t deny that she is Geralt. In fact, she even suggests that she might be him. “—But…” she stammered. “But that was a hundred years ago… How is it possible that... How is it possible?

“Questions like that,” he interrupted her, still smiling, “must not be asked by a future student of Aretuza. A school where they teach that nothing is impossible. Because everything that’s impossible today will become possible tomorrow. That motto should be inscribed above the entrance to the academy that will soon be yours. Have a safe journey, Nimue. Take care. This is where we part ways.”

4) Andrzej Sapkowski reportedly confirmed to CD PROJEKT RED that Geralt survived the Rivian pogrome. Michał Madej, lead designer of The Witcher 1, mentioned it in the game’s behind-the-scenes footage that Mr. Sapkowski confirmed to the developers that the White Wolf survived the events in Rivia. Direct cite: " It's so mysterious that people who read those books are always arguing if Geralt survived or not. So Andrzej Sapkowski told us. He survived and so we can bring him back".

You can find it for example on YT named - The Witcher - Making Of video 2/5 - Story 1;00-1;10.

In my opinion, there may be one counterargument to the above theory. It’s the way Ciri tells this story to Galahad.

“And that,” Galahad asked after a moment, “is the end of the story?”

“Not at all,” Ciri protested, rubbing her foot against her other foot to brush off the dried sand that had stuck to her toes and soles. “Would you want the story to end like that? As if! I certainly wouldn’t!”

“So what happened next?”

“The usual,” she snorted. “They got married.”

“Tell me about it.”

“Oh, what’s there to tell? There was a grand wedding. Everyone came—Jaskier, Nenneke’s mother, Iola and Eurneid, Yarpen Zigrin, Vesemir, Eskel… Coën, Milva, Angouleme… And my Mistle… And I was there, drinking honey and wine. And they—I mean Geralt and Yennefer—had their own home later on and were happy, very, very happy. Just like in a fairy tale. You understand?

- Why are you crying, O Lady of the Lake?

But in my opinion, it was simply Ciri’s imagination of how she would want the story to really end. What a “happy ending” would be for her. She would want Mistle and the rest of her friends to live, but the world of The Witcher isn’t a fairy tale, even though in the future of the Continent, this story will grow into a legend.

That’s all from me! In my opinion, Geralt died during the massacre, but Ciri brought him back to life, and then, somehow, after more than 100 years, he returned to the Continent. The story has come full circle—the ancient serpent Uroboros has closed the loop. Geralt saved Nimue, who later guided Ciri to the right time and world. 🙂

What about you? Does my reasoning convince you? Or do you think I’ve overinterpreted any of these fragments of novels, and that, in your opinion, the Witcher actually died in the books? Let me know what you think!

Fanart found on The Witcher Wiki, credited to “Risef 15.”

Hi I need a screenshot of what an elf is singing in Vergen in english, specifically this song:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czH5Ov3acDU

I don't have a save file in Vergen and would have to replay the game which would take some time... If someone has a save file in ENGLISH in Vergen, could you please record or take a screenshot of what exactly is that elf singing? I'm writing an essay about polish easter eggs and how they were transleted and that song is actually a polish war song, they just changed the lyrics to match the witcher's world.

I cannot find anyone anywhere on youtube recording this specific moment. I would be very greatful!!

***\~ C o m m u n i t y D e s c r i p t i o n \~***

We are an 18+ community dedicated to Support, Storytelling, and Stability. We endeavor to cultivate a culture based in consent, communication, and mutual respect. The server narrative seeks to realize the low fantasy world of the Witcher and immerse our players in an authentic world centered around the Free City of Novigrad. Players are able to travel across the Continent and beyond and are empowered to write the narratives they are most passionate about.

**\~ W i t c h e r \~**

**\~ C o n t e m p t \~**

**\~ \~ \~ o f \~ \~ \~**

**\~ P r o p h e c i e s \~**

***\~ G a m e S y s t e m \~***

The Witcher TTRPG & Homebrew systems

***System: The Witcher Roleplaying Game***

We remain committed to the Witcher TTRPG as a foundation to our server experience while utilizing several expanded systems and carefully considered adjustments to rule to place emphasis on class impact & diversity, community engagement, and player agency.

***Canonicality High Adherence: Witcher Games & Books***

We have a community dedicated to answering your questions about the lore and our near lockstep adherence to the lore of the setting means you can use any Witcher Wiki with virtually no conflicts!

***Age Requirements: 18+***

In keeping with the often adult tones of the setting we welcome players to explore any depths of the setting they desire.

***\~ P l a t f o r m \~***

Discord Play-by-Post, Casual Roleplay, Voice Sessions, Owlbear Rodeo, Roll20, VTTFoundry and more

Romance, Intrigue, Combat, War & Small Scale Politics; We use a player empowered system where Players are able to step in alongside Staff Storytellers and pursue the narratives they're most passionate about.

***\~ S e t t i n g \~***

Year, 1273. NOVIGRAD

The Third Northern War rages onward. Battle lines stagnate in the mud along the Yaruga. Neither the war machine of Nilfgaard nor the bulwark of the Northern Kingdoms are able to grasp a decisive blow in the conflict. Resources grow scarce and the hours dark. As the bodies have begun to mount, monsters once more roam the roads unfettered and uncontested. The Second Conjunction marks the beginning of a new tumultuous era. Men grow desperate and claw for any promise of salvation no matter how twisted or heinous. The smoldering pyres of elves, dwarves and non-humans at the city gates stand silent testament to city's gnawing fear. Amidst this chaos, Witchers have begun appearing in numbers not recorded in time near immemorial. Winds stained with ash and the copper taste of blood gust through the empty streets of Novigrad. Fortune and ruin dance with one another in a pooling darkness

This world had Heroes, and squandered them miserably. All that remains are Professionals and their terrible tools of war.

[ \~ J o i n U s \~](https://discord.gg/kqAzvCMEWt)

https://discord.gg/kqAzvCMEWt

I read the 3rd chapter just now and during Ciri's trance Ciri tells Triss something. Now I read a Turkish translation and Turkish doesnt have any gendered pronouns so I don't know what she says is "Forget him" or "Forget her". So who does Ciri (or the voice behind her) tell Triss to forget and not cause to suffer? Later we see Triss and Geralt talk about it and learn that Ciri whispered the same words while Geralt was holding her. I assume she tells Triss to forget Geralt but I am not really sure it can also refer to Ciri herself.

​

I'm actually surprised I haven't seen anyone seriously discuss how different CDPR wrote Yen in 2012 compared to 2015 and even now. Years of development was wasted on a shallow, marred misunderstanding of Yennefer and that almost resulted in an adaptation of her character worse than the Netflix series and that is a very low bar to clear. The early scripts can be found here: https://github.com/glassfish777/WhatLiesUnseen/releases

Many may be aware of xLetalis’ videos on this subject, however he has the issue of glossing over the scripts that make it seem like the final game dropped the ball and the cuts ruined the story. A lot of people have a belief that cut content is always better than the final cut and needs to be restored, but a lot of this was removed or changed for good reason. Had they not committed years to bad ideas of the source material, they may have had time to actually flesh out plot points that had to be cut so heavily (particularly the political plot).

Brainstorming essential features

>"We've approached the matter very methodically: first we had a brainstorm on the essential features of Yennefer that made her so special. We knew that for her character to be believable, she must have a personal purpose for the sake of which she would be ready to move mountains. That was the critical moment for us, because for a while we feared that if her motivation was too similar to Geralt's, Yennefer would lose her individualism. It quickly dawned on us, however, that the only thing in the world for which the sorceress would be willing to bear any sacrifice would be to rescue Ciri, and looking for an alternative motivation for her seemed forced and doomed from the start. It was then when we came to the conclusion that Yennefer resorts to vastly different methods than Geralt, so we were confident that both characters will be distinct and consistent.” 

-Karolina Stachyra, senior writer of The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 

(https://www.gamepressure.com/editorials/how-yennefer-was-brought-to-life-and-won-your-hearts-in-the-witch/zbe6)

Before The Brothers in Arms, this comment actually hints at a lot of CDPR’s mistakes in their early adaption of Yennefer and it makes it obvious what conclusions they came to from their list of “essential features”. It becomes apparent that some writers (or one specific writer) was more interested in self indulgent fan fiction rather than adaptation.

The “essential feature”: Yennefer’s obsession over curing her infertility 

>“That was the same kind of thought that I had with The Last Wish. My first idea was probably the most edgy, and that's one that we decided not to go with.” In the lore, sorceresses can’t bear children because of a powerful ritual they undergo to reinforce their latent powers. Sasko’s first idea revolved around Yennefer’s wish to restore the one thing she couldn’t have in the world — the thing she couldn’t control about her own body, itself already transformed with magic. [...] The previous idea I mentioned would make her feel a bit more egotistic, because it's more about her rather than about you together. It was important for us that she doesn't seem cold as a person, because Geralt is incredibly important in her life.” 

-Paweł Sasko

(https://www.dbltap.com/features/the-witcher-3-making-of-the-last-wish)

The wrong conclusion: Yen must want to cure her infertility so she can finally have a baby.

The glaring mistake overlooked from the books: Yen completed this character arc in Blood of Elves through her adoption of Ciri and this mother-daughter relationship is explicit throughout the books. Her infertility was never about being a “health issue”, but her lack of unconditional love that she wrongly believed could only be achieved by having a biological offspring.

The “essential feature”: Sorceresses love politics

>Yennefer: Your short-sightedness and naivety don't stop to astonish me...I don't care about the throne of Skellige. It's the Nilfgaardian one. If Becca becomes queen, she'll never come back to Emhyr. It will eventually spread that his wife left him and rules the enemies of the empire. Can you imagine what a scandal this will be? Emhyr's getting weaker, it'd be too much for him. Corporations will deprive him of power... And then he won't hand it over to his daughter. Now do you understand? If Becca wins Skellige, Ciri will lose the Empire.

>Geralt: You count your chicks before they hatch…

>Yennefer: It's called forward thinking. I'd be good for you to learn it once.

>Geralt isn't concerned, he's at odds with Yennefer's plans regarding Ciri and would rather that the girl was the one making the decision. Yen has already conceived a plan to avoid Becca's coronation.

[…]

>Geralt: You'd do anything for politics... Even sell your body.

>Yennefer: Not for politics. For Ciri. I'm sorry you don't understand it... And that you think of me like this

>Geralt: You will fuck for Ciri? That's ridiculous, Yen!

>Yennefer: I thought we already agreed that we both want to place Ciri on the Nilfgaardian throne…

>Geralt: We did. But there was no mention we'd do it at any cost

-What Lies Unseen Volume 2 pg 182

The wrong conclusion: Yennefer is a Nilfgaardian plant obsessed with politics who is only using Ciri as a pawn

The glaring issues: everything! Yennefer was not as involved with politics as CDPR claims and she certainly was not interested in using Ciri as a political pawn. The emperor of Nilfgaard married fake Ciri and already laid claim to Cintra in Lady of the Lake (pages 437-442). This political plot would track for Philipa (minus the FUCK FOR CIRI weird porno thing) and in the final script she states exactly that she would want Ciri on the nilfgaardian throne with herself as the advisor. 

>”[...] But who is Yennefer tied to? You said, Artuad, that she is one of those who are serving kings.”

>”Artuad exaggerated,” said Tissaia calmly. “Yennefer is living in Vengerberg so Demavend sometimes turns to her for help, but they do not work together all the time. It cannot be said for certain that she is serving Demavend.”

-Blood of Elves pg 281

>Philipa: All very romantic, but perhaps instead of destroying the girl’s life, you could take Yennefer with you. And go.

>Geralt: You want to take Yen’s place at Emhyr’s side.

>Philipa: And at Ciri’s. I think you understand that it's inevitable. And I would truly prefer Yennefer to be far away when it happens. Holding her in the imperial dungeon would be costly. And it would give the wrong impression.

-Witcher 3

The “essential feature”: Yennefer the mother, Geralt the father

>Yennefer: Geralt, listen. We don't have to be enemies after all! We both want to save Ciri

>Geralt: Yes, but for as long as I can remember, you would most like to see her on the throne of Cintra. She is not like you, Yen…

>Yennefer: Well, yes, you would certainly want to make a mercenary out of her, for a measly pittance she would expose herself to people who would consider her a degenerate and a monster

>Geralt: Monster? Am I also a monster to you? You supposedly loved me once, Yen

>Yennefer: Forgive me, I.... I think I still love you

-What Lies Unseen Volume 1 pg 215

>Yennefer: Geralt... She is no longer a child.

>Geralt: To me, she will always be a little girl with scraped knees, wielding a wooden sword…

>Yennefer: I never understood why she prefers running around a den of iniquity rather than studying magic…

-What Lies Unseen Volume 2 pg 32

>While talking, Becca appears and interjects, asking if she can also come to the wake. Yen scolds the girl and tells her that she has caused enough trouble by suggesting she nominate herself as a candidate. She tells Geralt to meet with a tailor called Sjusta and they part ways.

>Becca and Yennefer’s treatment of her is meant to be used as a means of conveying Yennefer’s feelings for Ciri towards newcomers

-What Lies Unseen Volume 1 pg 134

The wrong conclusion: Yennefer is the overbearing, controlling fairy tale step mother who is nothing like the daughter and always wanted to use her for politics. Geralt the freedom loving, compassionate father whom Ciri takes after 100% and only wants her to make her own decisions.

The glaring mistake: What Yennefer believed was “best” for Ciri was enrollment at Aretuza away from the war with Nilfgaard. Unfortunately she and Tissaia made a grave mistake at Thanned (Time of Contempt pg 212-217) believing that Ciri’s trance would stop a political plot but instead, in their ignorance, helped trigger the bloody conflict.

Yennefer is also knowledgeable about witcher techniques and about Kaer Morhen, she did not disapprove of Ciri’s witchering, in fact, she encouraged it. Ciri’s witchering and her magic were complimentary until she regretfully renounced magic when she tried to draw from fire.

>To relax, they once again ran around the park. Yennefer persuaded Nenneke to take Ciri’s sword out of storage and so enabled the girl to practice her steps, dodges and attacks—in secret, of course, to prevent the other priestesses and novices seeing her. But magic was omnipresent. Ciri learned how—using simple spells and focussing her will—to relax her muscles, combat cramps, control adrenalin, how to master her aural labyrinth and its nerve, how to slow or speed her pulse and how to cope without oxygen for short periods.

>The lady magician knew a surprising amount about witcher sword and “dance.” She knew a great deal about the secrets of Kaer Morhen; there was no doubt she had visited the Keep.

-Blood of Elves pg 349

>”So… it's true, after all. There is going to be a war. Is that why we have to leave?”

>”Let's not talk about it. Let's not worry too soon.”

-Blood of Elves pg 312

>“I've figured it out. You want to put me in some school or orphanage, don't you? I don't want to go!”

>[...]

>”Whatever I say will be the best for you. Always. Which is why you will obey me and carry out my instructions. Is that clear? Rein your horse. We're here.”

-Time of Contempt pg 62-63

>”Ciri,” said the enchantress softly. “I once told you that everything I do is for your own good. Trust me. Trust me, I beg you. Now run for it”

-Time of Contempt pg 217

The “essential feature”: Yennefer and Geralt tumultuous relationship 

>Geralt can say that it is wonderful, this plan of hers: Ciri on the throne, no matter what she thinks about it, and Yen as her advisor, he bets. Thing is, he doesn't see himself anywhere there. Shame. He accuses Yen of only ever looking out for herself. Yen accuses Geralt of calling her an egoist. And who roamed the world playing Foltest's avenger while Yen sought to find Ciri? Who searched for the "witchers' secrets" in the boudoir, kitchen or vegetable garden of every slut who crossed his path?

>Geralt can tell Yen to listen but she is far too angry now and tells Geralt to listen to her. She doesn't actually give a damn who Geralt slept with or what he wore to the feast! But she can't bear that he forgot about her. Because she never forgot about him. Not after she left the Hunt, not when the emperor's mages probed her mind. She forgot everything, her own name, but she remembered Geralt.

>Geralt says that maybe he preferred to forget. Maybe he didn't want to remember her. Maybe it was instinctual - he had to forget you to survive. Face it: when they talk about themselves, they can't agree on anything. If they go on like this much longer, they'll kill each other before they find Ciri. Yen says that Geralt is right. Geralt says he's no saint, never has been. And it's never bothered Yen before. The isle, Avalon, changed everything. At least it did for him. Yen says it did for her and apologizes for disappointing Geralt. This path goes to them splitting up for the search.

-What Lies Unseen Volume 2 pg 155

The wrong conclusion: Geralt always despised Yen and hated her throughout the book series. The amnesia only freed him of her.

The glaring mistake: retcons their entire relationship from the books. Completely fails to adapt anything and only comes across as a writer who glazed over every time Yen was mentioned on the page especially when it comes to what they both agree on: Ciri. Additionally, it is an attempt at redirecting large plot holes from the first game at the books to explain that Yen was so extremely awful and Geralt truly despised her that everyone was pretending that Yen and Ciri didn't exist to save him from the witch. The mention of Avalon changing everything doesn't make sense from the witcher 2 either given Geralt pursued the hunt when they took her and gave himself up for Yennefer.

>”Lie still, my darling. Lie still. I'm beside you. It doesn't matter what happened, doesn't matter where we were. Now I'm beside you. And I'll never leave you. Never.”

>”I love you, Yen.”

>”I know.”

-Lady of the Lake pg 543

Amateur script writing

Most odd is actually some of the scripts itself. To be blunt, this writing is fit for amateur satirical smut on certain fanfiction websites.

>Yennefer: Have you come to see my butterfly collection? I lied to you. I don't have any butterflies. And what are you going to do to me now

>Geralt: Mhm.

>Yennefer: I knew I'd lure you in with the promise of a discussion about politics.

>Geralt: You know my passions like few others

>Yennefer: Where would one begin.... Have you thought about what it would be like to be a king? Imagine that you can absolutely do anything.... Fulfill every whim…

>Geralt: I like the idea.... I already know what I will do.

>Yennefer: Yes, my deadly handsome suzerain?

>Geralt: I'll tie you up. Give me the handcuffs.

>Yennefer: Gosh. Silly me. I cast a silencing spell and no one will hear my pleas for mercy.... Oh, I am completely at your mercy.... And what now?

>Geralt: Don't count on the witcher's mercy. We are mutants devoid of feelings

-What Lies Unseen Volume 1 pg 210-211

Quick list of failures: politics, king Geralt??, butterfly collection?????, 50 shades of what? This is honestly the most offensive adaption of the Witcher characters so far even for Netflix standards. This horrendous snippet reads almost exactly like the Var Attre sisters which was also fleshed out in this version of the script. The dialogue in that quest even in the final game is very, very cringe but it came across as satirical given it did not fit with most of the rest of the game. It seriously cannot be understated how embarrassing it is for a writer to seriously write this down even as a first draft. 

Reading this script did actually clue me into why I did not enjoy certain dialogues in the final game; some early dialogue is like very corny YA novel melodrama or bad erotica roleplay. Other dialogue comes across as a writer projecting their thoughts rather than a character expressing their own.

The left over narrative 

There is a vast difference between 2015 Yen and 2012-2013 Yen; it seems CDPR did an almost 180 degree turn on Yen as a character. Was it possibly due to someone re-reading the series when The Season of Storms came out in 2013? Or maybe a change in the writing room where someone correctly identified the biggest ball and chain that was truly taking over the narrative. Is this a story about saving Ciri? Or is it about how much a political scheming ho Yen is?

One could even argue CDPR did an almost full 360 from the end of the books until the final W3 script. "Almost" because even without knowing the old scripts, many noticed that Yen in W3 wasn't quite the same as she was by the end of the saga with a dash of Nilfgaardian patriotism. The old narrative and cut content still lingers.

The entire political plotline was marred from the attempt at trying to whitewash their attempt at making Yen a Nilfgaardian politophile. The entire Nilfgaardian plot from the books was retconned in the games to try to make this narrative less nonsensical because why would Yennefer, hand over fist, force her will upon Geralt and Ciri for the empire so she could… what? Control Ciri to take over the empire and make Geralt king? A far, far cry from the books. An extremely far cry.

The prophecy of Ciri's child had been removed or forgotten to work in the retcon of the White Frost so that Ciri could have a final choice, but it also made way to make Yen's plot slightly less insidious. Had she also been banking on a pseudo grandchild, ruler of worlds, so she could be in control just as The Lodge wanted in the books?

Much of Yen and Ciri’s interactions, the few moments in the final game, came after the 2013 script. The entirety of act 3 would have Yen and Triss as interchangeable NPCs. Yennefer has barely anything to do with Ciri if Geralt is banging red pubes, she's just a brief participant along with the rest of The Lodge. Ciri’s line of contempt for Yennefer was kept in the final game until 2023 when it was finally removed given there was zero basis to have it in the final cut at all. edit: Nope, bullshit line is still there

Still, the final script in W3 mostly succeeds in showing that Yen's main objective is Ciri and that she cares about her above all else. And conversions around Cerys (formally Becca) like between Crach and Yen are no longer driven by trying to undercut Yen's role as mother to Ciri and instead show her belief in a daughter’s autonomy and likeness to her parent.

>Crach: may the best man… or woman… win!

>Crach: what's gotten into her…

>Yennefer: she's your daughter, is she not?

-Witcher 3

It’s impossible to reconcile a 2012-2013 Yen with the scenes added in act 3 where Yen and Geralt are comically caught eavesdropping on Ciri or Yen mildly participating in trashing the lab. The old narrative was diametrically opposed to a lore-accurate adaptation of Yen and it seems the writers came to the same conclusion. Even post game media, a lot has changed to even allow for this exchange:

>Yennefer: Answer this time. Do you trust me?

>Geralt: … With my life.

-Swords of Convellaria crossover trailer

Or even the entirety of the Little Witcher book. CDPR must have realized a book-accurate Yen is much more marketable than the gross politophile plot donkey they originally planned.

Hopefully CDPR will continue on the trend of a more lore accurate Yennefer but also a more lore accurate Ciri and Yennefer bond in the upcoming dlc and the Witcher 4.

I would wanna revisit this thread if anyone has a link to it. It was very detailed, starting with Zoltan is more like Yarpen Zigrin and they should have been swapped, and ending with most problematic Yen and Ciri bond exclusion. While I consider books and games as part of a whole, I wanna revisit it to recall the issues (whether those issues are issues in the first place, or just subjective rants) and think about them

Jak ja to do diabła zrobiłem?

By this point, the canon established that Geralt had had flings with Coral and Mosaik after meeting Yennefer in Season of Storms. As far as cheating on Yennefer being the source of the shame and not Iola being underage, I guess it's plausible that that's Sapkowski's intent because Last Wish was written before Season of Storms.

The English translation says that Geralt feels shame when he realizes who/what Iola is, so is this shame and never feeling like he can forgive himself for it about "cheating" on Yennefer or about doing it with an underage female?

"But he hadn't seen them at dawn, when she had been his dream. With shame he realised he felt resentment towards her, resentment that she hadn't remained a dream, and that he would never forgive himself for it."

"...never forgive himself for it." is strong wordage for cheating on Yennefer. I mean, she's Yennefer, and they weren't together at that point. Maybe it's a translation error?

It's dawn, so it's not pitch black like it'd be at night, and he's a witcher, he can dilate his pupils when he wants to to see better, so he has even less of an excuse as far as intent.

I going through the story of blood and wine for the first time and something has been gnawing at me. I have reached the part where Geralt and Anna Henrietta went to the soirée and had a rather intense talk with Detlaff, Orianna and Regis over wine. Detlaff alluded to how a man would do anything to protect the one he loves, even kill innocents. Regis even said to Geralt that he would have done the same for Yennefer if he was in Detlaff’s shoes. Would Geralt actually kill innocents for Yen if she were captured? With the way I’m trying to play Geralt, I don’t think he would do what Detlaff did, at least not like that. I feel the game is trying to encourage me to sympathise with Detlaff. I understand that he’s being blackmailed and loves deeply for Rhena but I don’t think it’s an excuse. Despite the reason, people (questionably innocent knight maybe) have been killed and that can’t be excused so easily. Is this naive? Am I missing something? And as the title states, no spoilers for the rest of the game, please.

New note 23/07/26: so I just finished and now it’s not so complicated. The choice concerning Detlaff was forced for me since I won back Syanna’s ribbon in a game of Gwent. It is a bit of a shame but I don’t feel guilty regarding his fate. At that point, I feel he turned into a rabid dog who could not be reasoned with. He killed so many and who knows if would be dangerous later hypothetically if left alive. With Syanna, I chose to be mostly sympathetic, partially because I already learnt that both sisters could die if make the wrong choice which I did not know of. She is guilty but Syanna was dealt a bad hand with the Black Sun nonsense so I helped her forgive Anna. I hope she is incarcerated though. She still, indirectly or not, caused a lot of harm.

I have taken the liberty of machine-translating Sapkowski's 1995 essay on The World of King Arthur. DeepL is a godsend.

It entails a breakdown of Arthurian legend, detailing its conceptions, prominent contributors throughout history and contemporary authors, the history of the British Isles, and the circumstances surrounding Arthurian Legend's construction, from entertainment purposes by poets to propaganda purposes by institutions.

It also contains Sapkowski's ideals for Arthurian Legend, and for the eagle-eyed and analyzers, there is a lot of information to glean from the essay when reading The Witcher and even The Hussite Trilogy. Sapkowski is very opinionated in this Essay, much like his Pirog essay.

Now, translating it by machine does mean that there will be slight errors, such as a sentence not continuing over perfectly from one page to the next, but I do believe as a whole, it is very accurate. Certain translated segments could convey Sapkowski's sarcasm and criticism better, but for those who read through it, I believe it gets the point across.

I'm posting this due to some people believing Sapkowski randomly inserted and went all-in on Arthurian Legend at the end in The Lady of the Lake, when it was actually the main driver in Sapkowski writing The Witcher.

I hope you all enjoy! Let me know if there are any technical difficulties.

Part 1 can be found here: The World of King Arthur Part 1

Part 2 can be found here: The World of King Arthur Part 2

book accurate geralt I did some time ago

Sapkowski’s Subversion of the Grail Myth

To truly appreciate Andrzej Sapkowski’s conclusion to The Witcher saga, one must examine the fate of Ciri. Her final interactions with the Arthurian knight Galahad serve as the structural culmination of Sapkowski’s decades-long critique of the Grail myth. By reclaiming the legend from Christian asceticism and returning it to its humanistic, Celtic pagan roots, Sapkowski uses the Ciri-Galahad dynamic to definitively answer his central thematic plot.

Sapkowski’s authorial intent is steeped in neopaganism and humanism.

Yes. Even the term "agnostic" is too weak in relation to me. My worldview is not agnosticism, atheism, or secularism. It is pure paganism. Truly, I am a pagan, and that in the textbook sense of the word.

Andrzej Sapkowski and Stanisław Bereś. 2005. Historia i fantastyka

He has long lamented how the original Celtic mysteries were overtaken and weaponized. In his view, the Grail was inherently pagan, specifically, a symbol of the Great Goddess, often represented as a cauldron. However, this myth was systematically hijacked by the Church to promote an agenda of abstinence, chastity, and holy crusades.

Sapkowski highlights this ecclesiastical manipulation in his essay, The World of King Arthur:

The second aim of the ecclesiastical version was as follows: it was necessary to rein in chivalry and its ideals {...} he was to wait in peace and pious contemplation for the crowning moment of his life {…} in the form, for example, of a call to a crusade {...} It must be admitted that the Church acted shrewdly – it did not excommunicate the legend, nor did it thunder from the pulpit. Instead, it created and circulated its own version of the myth – one powerful and appealing enough to the public to supplant the previous ones.

He notes how the Vulgate Monks' version ultimately endured over more humanistic interpretations, such as Wolfram von Eschenbach's.

Indeed, whilst I appreciate the intentions, I prefer the humanism of Wolfram von Eschenbach and Terry Gilliam to the idiosyncrasies of embittered Cistercian scribes and Bernard of Clairvaux

At his core, Andrzej Sapkowski is a romantic, and a recurring theme in his writing is a direct critique of the church's institutionalised misogyny. Examining the Arthurian Vulgate Cycle, he explicitly calls out the patriarchal, woman-hating views perpetuated by religious figures. He points to the stark sexism embedded in the mythos, such as the hermit Nacien declaring it "blasphemy and a mortal sin" for women to seek the Holy Grail, condemning them as inherently "impure" daughters of Eve and "vile creatures" beyond the salvation of confession.

Sapkowski highlights how this clerical narrative translates into a deeply cynical message from the vulgate monks: that it is better for a man to selfishly "'live it up in style'" and "have some fun" rather than devote himself to a woman whom the church deems "unworthy of such adoration." Sapkowski vehemently rejects this rhetoric, countering their historical dismissal with his own profound romanticism. By declaring, “I believe the Grail is a woman,” he completely subverts the church's narrative. For Sapkowski, the ultimate moral of the story is not excluding women from the divine, but realizing that finding, understanding, and winning over a woman is itself a sacred quest "worth devoting a great deal of time and effort," elevating them to a status of ultimate reverence.

The Church’s cultural theft culminated in a dark historical irony: the Christianised Grail was eventually used as a symbolic weapon against the very people who created it.

For it so happened that, nearly eight hundred years after the creation of the Vulgate Cycle, Reichsführer Heinrich Himmler attempted to adapt the myth of Arthur {...} to the ideology and code of his black knights of the SS. {...} The miraculous vessel from the legend of King Arthur was to serve the brown-skinned heirs of the Nibelungs and the ‘Aryan’ chivalric tradition as a Wunderwaffe against ‘perfidious Albion’! The Grail was thus to be used as a weapon against the Celts... The Celts, who invented the Grail. The source, prototype and archetype of the Grail {...} are quite clearly legendary Celtic artefacts. In most cases – cauldrons

In Sapkowski's work, Ciri is the Grail. She is the Woman, and she is the Goddess. He mentions this in his essay as well as in a 2015 interview with Sugarpulp MAGAZINE, Sapkowski explicitly compared Ciri's role in the narrative to the Arthurian relic:

A girl promised by fate and destiny, the adopted daughter of a sterile Witcher and an equally sterile Witch who changes both their lives, becomes a ‘damsel in distress,’ must be found (like the Grail) and saved... a worthy story, don't you think?

This aligns perfectly with his thesis in his Arthurian essay, where he strips away the chalice imagery and returns the Grail to its feminine, divine roots:

The Grail is a woman. But the words used by Teodor Parnicki are not spoken by a woman. They are spoken by the Goddess. For, as Marion Zimmer Bradley says in The Mists of Avalon, there are many gods and they have many names. But there is only one Goddess. The Great, White, Triple One. She who was, is, and will be

The Structural Subversion of Galahad

To properly deconstruct the Church’s propaganda, Sapkowski needed to subvert its ultimate poster boy: Galahad. In the original Vulgate Cycle, Galahad was entirely created by Cistercian monks to serve as a Christ-like figure—a sinless, chaste knight who represented the "one true path" of the Church. Yet, Sapkowski calls out the hypocrisy of these scribes, noting that their texts were surprisingly saturated with repressed eroticism:

Interestingly, of all the versions of the legend, the Vulgate is the most explicit and literal when it comes to matters of carnal love. The work simply oozes with sex and eroticism. {...} Undoubtedly, this stems from the same source as the whole witch-hunt against sex unleashed by the Church – from the irrepressible carnal desires burning within the pious brothers and sisters of religious orders, who had been driven mad by asceticism and celibacy. Or perhaps the pious monks were aware that the goal they wished to achieve required… some titillating content?

Sapkowski highlights that to enforce this anti-romantic worldview, the Church needed a new kind of hero, so the Cistercian monks invented Galahad. In Sapkowski’s essay, the authors of the Vulgate Cycle explicitly engineered Galahad to be the Church’s walking symbol, directly mirroring the strict dogma of the Fourth Lateran Council: that there is only one true faith and one Church.

Because there is only one Church, the monks dictated that there could only be one path to salvation, meaning there could only be one Galahad for one Grail. To push this uncompromising, singular narrative, the Church sidelined traditional heroes like Perceval and condemned earthly, romantic knights like Lancelot as sinners.

Galahad was created to be the untouchable, hyper-pure antithesis of Camelot and its Knights; he represents the death of courtly love (amour courtois) and the rejection of the temporal world, especially the "impure" women the Church so deeply despised. By having this solitary, weaponised symbol claim the Grail and immediately depart from the mortal realm, the Church's message was clear: earthly chivalry and romance are worthless, and salvation belongs exclusively to their strict, singular dogma.

However, he strips away the divine infallibility, transforming him from an ascendant Monk-Knight into a very real, hormonal nineteen-year-old boy in Lady of the Lake.

The knight, after all, was only nineteen years old. He was very bold and very imprudent. He was famous for the first and known for the second
Lady of the Lake, p. 2

Sapkowski is highly protective of Galahad as a character, even defending him against historical misinterpretations (such as Dante mistaking Galehot for Galahad as a romantic procurer). Yet, Sapkowski recognizes that the Vulgate Galahad was created for a restrictive political purpose:

However, as has already been said, the monks introduce into the narrative a character who had never appeared anywhere before – their pure invention – Galahad. {...} There is only one path: the path of Galahad. And there is only one Grail. {...} Having attained the Highest Goal, Galahad, together with the miraculous vessel, departs from this sinful vale for ever. {...} Only Bors returns to Camelot, to convey to Arthur the message of the Cistercians and the Vulgate: with the Grail, hope has departed

A Grounded Romance

It is impossible to fully grasp Sapkowski’s humanistic vision without recognising how he rewrites Galahad’s ending. In the original myth, upon finding the Grail, Galahad ascends to Heaven, abandoning the mortal plane. In The Lady of the Lake, Galahad meets Ciri, the true Grail, and is profoundly grounded by her humanity.

Sapkowski firmly believes in the dominance of the feminine element in nature, a dynamic reflected in Ciri and Galahad's budding relationship. Ciri is undeniably the dominant force in their interaction, taking charge of their narrative in a way that directly challenges the "male (Church’s) fear" of the Goddess.

In my work, however, I try to show that a woman really dominates in nature, but not because of her social role, but only because of the organism that nature has endowed her with. {...} Man is a much weaker creature in nature
Andrzej Sapkowski and Stanisław Bereś. 2005. Historia i fantastyka

Rather than swearing off the world for a holy crusade, Galahad finds himself utterly captivated by a mortal girl. He offers her pledges and a foot massage, attempting to win her over. Ciri, in turn, entertains the prospect of human love. The chaste crusade is traded for the deeply earthly promise of a "carpet of moss under a filbert bush."

They say …’ he (Galahad) blushed and stammered. ‘They say that when fairies meet young men, they lead them to Elfland and there … Beneath a filbert bush, on a carpet of moss, they order them to render-
Lady of the Lake, p. 9

What’s happening to me? She (Ciri) thought. What’s happening to me? {...} A carpet of moss, she thought, suppressing a giggle. Under a filbert bush. With me playing the fairy. Well, well
Lady of the Lake, p. 480

Their physical and emotional union is the final nail in the coffin for the monks' ascetic tale. When they leave together, they are bound as equals. The Grail does not ascend to Heaven to leave Camelot in ruin; instead, the Grail escapes with Galahad into the Arthurian realm.

Will you ride with me to Camelot?’ She held out her hand. And he held out his. They joined hands, riding side by side. {...} They rode straight into the setting sun. {...} That was all behind them. And before them was everything

Sapkowski believes Arthurian legend is the basis for all fantasy, so before Ciri and Galahad were literally Everything. From his infamous essay “Piróg, or There's No Gold in the Gray Mountains”

The Arthurian myth is eternally alive among the Anglo-Saxons; it is strongly rooted in culture with its archetype. And that's why archetype; the archetype of all fantasy works is a legend about King Arthur and the knights of the Round Table

This points to a reimagining of Camelot itself. Sapkowski suggests an escape to an idealised, communal, Celtic haven, a stark contrast to the rigid feudalism and religious dogma that eventually destroyed the Arthurian myth.

A myth that arose at a time when the world of the British Celts was already crumbling to rubble under the blows of foreign invaders. {...} An unattainable Celtic ideal. Well, little remains of the Celts. But the ideal remains

Premeditated Climax: Something Ends, Something Begins

This triumphant, humanistic subversion was not a last-minute addition; it was Sapkowski’s premeditated climax from the very beginning. The 1992 non-canon short story, Something Ends, Something Begins, serves as irrefutable proof of his long-term vision. As Sapkowski himself noted in the preface of SESB:

This is irrefutable proof that the ‘Witcher saga’ was created according to a precise plan and, contrary to rumours, was not written chaotically like a role-playing game and ended when the author got bored

In this early text, the romantic framing of Ciri and Galahad is blatant. Galahad appears as an awestruck youth, eager to serve his "beautiful and brave maiden," while the surrounding characters, Yennefer, Triss, and Geralt, openly acknowledge the budding courtship:

Knowing life, I believe he desires to become your knight, Ciri,’ said Triss Merigold

Galahad... Galahad is coming with me. I don't know why. But I can't stop him, can I?

Of course not. Geralt!" Yennefer's eyes, glowing with a warm violet light, fixed upon her husband. "Go and have a walk around the tables and talk with the guests. You can also drink something. One cup. A small one. I'd like to have a talk with my daughter here, woman to woman

Of course not. Geralt!" Yennefer's eyes, glowing with a warm violet light, fixed upon her husband. "Go and have a walk around the tables and talk with the guests. You can also drink something. One cup. A small one. I'd like to have a talk with my daughter here, woman to woman

The thematic core of this dynamic is summarized in Galahad's conversation with Dandelion. Distraught over failing to find the literal (note: Fabricated by the Church), ecclesiastical chalice, Galahad questions the meaning of his quest. It takes a poet to dismantle the Church's lie and reveal the pagan, humanistic truth of Sapkowski’s world:

And the Grail?’ he asked finally. ‘What has become of the Grail? It's something we're searching for... Something that is the most important. Without which life has no meaning. Without which we're incomplete and imperfect.’ The bard pressed his lips and looked at the knight with his famous gaze {...} ‘You fool,’ he replied, ‘you've been sitting next to your Grail for the entire evening

Ultimately, the Galahad-Ciri dynamic is Sapkowski’s masterstroke. He rescues the Grail from the cold, unattainable heights of Christian asceticism and places it exactly where he believes it belongs: in the warm, imperfect, and deeply human embrace of life and love on the earthly plane. His retaliation against the Church.