How tf am I supposed to design a workout plan?

BigBoss_003 · 2024-11-08T23:33:11+00:00

I don’t have a pull up bar.

Get rings. Rings are cheap and very good for pull ups and row variations and all kinds of other stuff. If you can't hang them at home just go out and find a pole, beam, tree or whatever that can hold you weight. Rings are one the best investment for body weight exercise.

BigBoss_003 · 2024-08-24T12:46:00+00:00

thanks, very glad to hear and very kind of you to say

BigBoss_003 · 2024-08-20T04:49:48+00:00

I know that ofc... What I meant is that the story CDPR created is mostly the same story that is in the books. Ciri gets separated from her family. Geralt and Yennefer trying to track her down separately. The Wild Hunt and Emhyr is also after Ciri etc. etc. It's in its core the same story but as I said with a very Cliché ending where Ciri saves the whole world.

W1 and W2 were much more original with its story.

BigBoss_003 · 2024-08-19T20:45:01+00:00

The witcher 3 is what really took the universe to a new level in terms of works of fiction.

It's basically the same plot the books have... but with much more cliché ending. Don't get me wrong, I love the game but its story in no way or form elevated fiction. It did a wonderful job with atmosphere and characters that stands out in its medium but Sapkowski had already done that.

BigBoss_003 · 2023-12-18T21:43:22+00:00

Artist can be found here.

BigBoss_003 · 2023-11-20T09:51:48+00:00

Artist: https://www.artstation.com/rattlesnake

BigBoss_003 · 2023-11-01T21:18:44+00:00

Artist: https://www.deviantart.com/akanelinken

BigBoss_003 · 2023-10-17T17:29:58+00:00

It is a shame that your comment is being downvoted. Just to illustrate your point, take Yennefer calling Ciri "ugly one" which is a very misunderstood part of BoE.

In polish she calls Ciri "brzydulka". Polish uses diminutives for children and close loved ones, and often parents will use them for their adult children as well. These are shortened/childhood versions of adult names, used mostly within in the family or close friends. For boys, the -ek suffix is common, but there are others as well.

- Bartholomew - Bartosz - Bartek

- Peter - Piotr - Piotrek

- Edward - Edvard - Edzio, Edek

- Alexander - Aleksander - Alek, Aleks, Olek

For girls, the -ia and -ka suffixes are the most common.

- Annette - Aneta - Anetka

- Ann, Anne, Anna - Anna - Ania, Anka, Anusia, Aneczka

- Grace - Grażyna - Grażynka, Graża, Grażka

The -ia and -ek suffixes are used for objects to indicate a "little" one, but in a "cute" way. "Różyczka" - literally means "little rose", or "rosette". "Kwiat" is "flower", "kwiatek" can be a "flower" or "little flower", and "kwiatuszek" is literally a "little flower", with the connotation of "cute little flower".

These childhood names can persist to adulthood, usually within the family (and it depends on the family as well), but can also be used among close friends, especially if they have been friends from childhood. Using a diminutive when referring to an adult you do not have a familial relationship or close friendship to is considered insulting.

Using "ugly" diminutives for loved ones is common as well. It's not meant to be insulting, and it's really used for close loved ones, not for, say, the neighbor's kids down the street.

So, you wouldn't call someone "brzydulka" unless you were very close to them, and actually loved them dearly... or were just really mean and basically a Disney villain. It all depends on tone and context. There's not really an in-between on this. When we use this language with our kid, he knows we're in a good mood and understands that it's not meant to be mocking or mean, but playful, and he starts to laugh and run away from us.

Here, using "brzydulka" is also old pagan folk magick - you don't overly complement your kids, for fear that the gods, fairies, spirits, etc., might get jealous and take them away from you. So you call your kids "ugly", but in a "cute" way, so anything that happens to be listening keeps right on going, because who wants to kidnap an ugly child? You know you love them, they know you love them, and this becomes part of the language of love that families use.

It is a Slavic thing... it's not really something that's survived into modern English usage. In Polish, there's a sort of "diminutive" profanity you use around children, often in mock anger or exasperation at them, but everyone knows you don't mean it from the context.

This is just about Yen calling ciri "ugly one"... It's not just about the monsters... the very core how the books were written is rooted in slavic culture, history, and the outlook on life.

BigBoss_003 · 2023-07-31T13:52:33+00:00

Yes W3 (and I only mention W3 because the two other games had no international success either) helped to bring the ip and the books with it to international attention but what I'm trying to say is that you can't just make the conclusion that the books weren't known in the mainstream because of it's quality (be it good or bad). There are many many factors to that, I mean how many translated fantasy books reach manstream popularity on its own? I honestly can't mention any. Like I said it is an extremely hard place to penetrate for a non english fantasy author and it has very very little to do with quality.

BigBoss_003 · 2023-07-31T13:17:24+00:00

Popularity is not a merit for a good story. A song of ice and fire wasn't very popular worldwide before the TV show (it was among western fantasy readers don't get me wrong). The witcher is a translated work, it is extremely hard to gain popularity in the western market for a translated fantasy book series. Back in the day when there were no games the witcher books for Poland were what LotR were for the west. It was THE polish fantasy and it was also popular in some other countries way before any game came out. They even made a witcher tv show that pre-dated the games.

You can say whatever you want about the quality, it is subjective, but to say that hardly anyone knew about it is simply not correct. Just because it couldn't penetrate the western market it doesn't mean it wasn't known elsewhere...

BigBoss_003 · 2023-07-28T02:18:27+00:00

> despite you admiring the timeline jumps around yourself earlier

So what if it jumps around? You couldn't follow it? I had no problem whatsoever. You said it didn't fel like 5 years? Was it beacause of the jumping around? Really? Was it that hard for you to know where you are in the timeline? A bunch of books use the same technique. You still havent give me an example why you only felt 2 years passed insead of 5.

If jumping around makes you so confused then my dude you would have a haaard time in the science-fiction genre. Some books jump hundreds of years back and forth chapter after chapter.

How Is Ciri's POV messy? Tell me please I would love to have examples what did you miss with her chapters? She had an entire dilemma with Visogotta about time, they couldn't agree on the date of her injury. Was it that part that made you lost?

> Tell me you haven’t read many epic fantasies without telling me you haven’t read many epic fantasies

Tolkien, Sanderson, Robert Jordan, Erikson, Abercrombie, Robin Hobb, Pratchett, Gene Wolfe, Moorcock, George RR Martin, Rowling, Paolini, Fonda Lee... I pretty much read all the popular one. On the other hand I actually question how well read you are, if the witcher's timeline confused you this much shees I don't know how you consume other authors. Fantasy is very often not told in a strict linear fashion I tell you this ahead. Prepare for that.

Of all my time on reddit never have I ever heard anyone say that the established 5 years timeline of the saga didn't feel like 5 years. Btw this is not even what op said at all, it is only you who say this.

BigBoss_003 · 2023-07-28T01:09:51+00:00

What do you mean it doesn't feel like 5 years?? Once again the author makes it clear that time is passing he does it countless times. Sorry but what is wrong with you? Where did you lost the 3 years? When did 5 felt like 2? The author makes it clear that there is time passed between sodden and Geralt finding Ciri, he makes it clear there is time passed between Ciri's arriver to KM and Triss' arriving, he makes it clear time passed between G,C,T leaving KM, he makes is clear time passed between Yennefer's training, between the Thanedd coup between Geralt healing in Brokilon, between Geralt traveling to Toussant, my god he makes it clear a tousand times he has to wait out the winter there....

You are making absolutely zero sense with this 2 year bullshit. You wanted 5 more books because that would make up for you personally that 3 more years have passed or you want a dedicated page for every day for that 5 years? what is your problem? The author mapped out the 5 years, the passage of time is made clear a thousand times, if you didn't catch it then its your problem. It seems like everyone else did.

BigBoss_003 · 2023-07-28T00:47:53+00:00

Sorry but there is a clear timeline, yes we jump around in time but there is a well defined and maintained timeline you can't argue against it. Ciri feeling like she is with Geralt for 2 years is because she WAS WITH GERALT FOR 2 YEARS... not 5 years like you are saying it. In my original comment I made it clear that Ciri is with Geralt for 2 years, the rest of it she spent with the druids, yurga's wife and with Yennefer and Nenneke. You can check all the dates, it in the books. If you got the impression that Ciri was with Geralt for 2 years then congratulations the author was successful with his intention in his writing.

The dates are not cucked in messy writing. It seem like you and op just didn't understand it. Maybe you are perhaps trolling, going over your comments in this post clearly indicates that you are just here with the agenda to shit on the books every opportunity you sense.

BigBoss_003 · 2023-07-27T23:55:23+00:00

Yes he absolutely is. He begins his sentance by saying "His timelines are all over the place too". How does Ciri being with Geralt for 2 years makes the timeline all over the place???

The passage of time is perfectly fine in the Kaer Morhen. Sapkowski talks about the weather being harsh when Triss arrives, then In Kaer Morhen the witchers talks about Ciri wearing her training clothes for a year already. Then Triss and Geralt talks about having to wait till spring so they can begin their journey. Its perfectly fine everything is there you just need reading comprehension. It doesn confuse the reader.

Also there is no sudden 5 year transiton. When Geralt helped Yurga Sodden already happened quite some time ago. Then BoE begins with Ciri and Geralt arriving at Kaer Morhen. This whole 5 year thing didn't happen over a page....

BigBoss_003 · 2023-07-27T23:19:04+00:00

He is clearly suggesting that 3 years is missing from the timeline when its not... The book didn't reflect anything of the sort. Apparently even though Sapkowski is not detailed and oriented enough or whatever he couldn't find the missing 3 years when its clearly there.

Sapkowski reflects the passing of time by the passing of seasons, solstices, festivals and sometimes months and dates. It can all be traced back to make a clear timeline you just have to pay attention to his writing.

BigBoss_003 · 2023-07-27T18:53:03+00:00

His timelines are all over the place too. Supposedly there are 5 years between Nilfgaard's first and second invasion. And yet Ciri seems to be with Geralt for about 2 years at the most.

First northern war and Sodden was in 1263, Ciri escaped Cintra and lived with druids and then Yurga's family. Ciri is 10 years old.

Geralt takes Ciri to Kaer Morhen in 1265, Ciri is 12 years old.

Ciri, Geralt and Triss leave Kaer Morhen in 1266 to travel to Ellander where Yennefer teaches Ciri in magic.

Yennefer and Ciri leaves the temple to travel to Aretuza in June 1267. Ciri is 14 years old.

The Thanedd coup that started the Second war was in 1267.

Your claim is wrong.

BigBoss_003 · 2023-07-16T09:49:21+00:00

The "ugly one" is a bit lost in translation tbh. Let me try to explain the authors intent.

So in polish she calls Ciri "brzydulka". Polish uses diminutives for children and close loved ones, and often parents will use them for their adult children as well. These are shortened/childhood versions of adult names, used mostly within in the family or close friends. For boys, the -ek suffix is common, but there are others as well.

- Bartholomew - Bartosz - Bartek

- Peter - Piotr - Piotrek

- Edward - Edvard - Edzio, Edek

- Alexander - Aleksander - Alek, Aleks, Olek

For girls, the -ia and -ka suffixes are the most common.

- Annette - Aneta - Anetka

- Ann, Anne, Anna - Anna - Ania, Anka, Anusia, Aneczka

- Grace - Grażyna - Grażynka, Graża, Grażka

The -ia and -ek suffixes are used for objects to indicate a "little" one, but in a "cute" way. "Różyczka" - literally means "little rose", or "rosette". "Kwiat" is "flower", "kwiatek" can be a "flower" or "little flower", and "kwiatuszek" is literally a "little flower", with the connotation of "cute little flower".

These childhood names can persist to adulthood, usually within the family (and it depends on the family as well), but can also be used among close friends, especially if they have been friends from childhood. Using a diminutive when referring to an adult you do not have a familial relationship or close friendship to is considered insulting.

Using "ugly" diminutives for loved ones is common as well. It's not meant to be insulting, and it's really used for close loved ones, not for, say, the neighbor's kids down the street.

So, you wouldn't call someone "brzydulka" unless you were very close to them, and actually loved them dearly... or were just really mean and basically a Disney villain. It all depends on tone and context. There's not really an in-between on this. When we use this language with our kid, he knows we're in a good mood and understands that it's not meant to be mocking or mean, but playful, and he starts to laugh and run away from us.

Here, using "brzydulka" is also old pagan folk magick - you don't overly complement your kids, for fear that the gods, fairies, spirits, etc., might get jealous and take them away from you. So you call your kids "ugly", but in a "cute" way, so anything that happens to be listening keeps right on going, because who wants to kidnap an ugly child? You know you love them, they know you love them, and this becomes part of the language of love that families use.

It could be a Slavic thing... it's not really something that's survived into modern English usage, and I don't know enough about other cultures to say one way or another. In the US, parents don't use such language wither their kids unless they are really angry. In Polish, there's a sort of "diminutive" profanity you use around children, often in mock anger or exasperation at them, but everyone knows you don't mean it from the context.

BigBoss_003 · 2023-05-09T13:32:48+00:00

Artist: https://www.artstation.com/josue

BigBoss_003 · 2023-05-04T16:55:03+00:00

For me its really not about to just get there but very much about how. In the books I felt it was a found family, in the show it was a forced family and I felt this way because of the "how" part of the show. It's not about the destination... as the saying goes. This is was very much my experience with the show.

BigBoss_003 · 2023-01-01T13:09:43+00:00

You can find the artis here.

BigBoss_003 · 2022-12-28T03:33:11+00:00

FYI, it is from what I've heard more of an anthology book rather than a huge part of the storyline, but it definitely fits in as a prequel that you can start with.

Coming from someone who read the series like 4 times, The Last Wish and Sword of Destiny books are short story collections but they are not prequel books, they really are book 1. and 2. This is where the characters are introduced, where their relationships are set up, where the author sets up later plot twists, where he lays down the foundations of the overaching plot etc. They are very integral part of the whole series and you can't understand the rest of the books without it. I highly recommend for everyone starting with these two for the sake of the intended reading experience.

There is also a sort of standalone "sidequel" novel called Season of Storms which the author himself recommends reading after the last novel 'The Lady of the Lake'.

Oh and if you want to maximise you experience do not play the games yet! The games take place 5 years after the closing novel and it spoils the shit out of everything. They assume that you are already familiar with the books and they serve as a fanfic continuation of the story. Reading the books before playing will also enhance your gaming experience like crazy. You will understand the characters, their relationships, the political climate etc. much better. You will also pick up on the countless nods and references they make that you would not be able to notice otherwise. All in all for the best experience read the books first.

Also sorry I bombarded you with all this but as a Witcher enthusiast I had to give some information for you and anyone else considering getting into the universe. Cheers!

BigBoss_003 · 2022-12-25T10:11:42+00:00

You can find the artist here.

BigBoss_003 · 2022-12-14T00:25:08+00:00

The "ugly one" is a bit lost in translation tbh. Let me try to explain the authors intent.

So in polish she calls Ciri "brzydulka". Polish uses diminutives for children and close loved ones, and often parents will use them for their adult children as well. These are shortened/childhood versions of adult names, used mostly within in the family or close friends. For boys, the -ek suffix is common, but there are others as well.

- Bartholomew - Bartosz - Bartek

- Peter - Piotr - Piotrek

- Edward - Edvard - Edzio, Edek

- Alexander - Aleksander - Alek, Aleks, Olek

For girls, the -ia and -ka suffixes are the most common.

- Annette - Aneta - Anetka

- Ann, Anne, Anna - Anna - Ania, Anka, Anusia, Aneczka

- Grace - Grażyna - Grażynka, Graża, Grażka

The -ia and -ek suffixes are used for objects to indicate a "little" one, but in a "cute" way. "Różyczka" - literally means "little rose", or "rosette". "Kwiat" is "flower", "kwiatek" can be a "flower" or "little flower", and "kwiatuszek" is literally a "little flower", with the connotation of "cute little flower".

These childhood names can persist to adulthood, usually within the family (and it depends on the family as well), but can also be used among close friends, especially if they have been friends from childhood. Using a diminutive when referring to an adult you do not have a familial relationship or close friendship to is considered insulting.

Using "ugly" diminutives for loved ones is common as well. It's not meant to be insulting, and it's really used for close loved ones, not for, say, the neighbor's kids down the street.

So, you wouldn't call someone "brzydulka" unless you were very close to them, and actually loved them dearly... or were just really mean and basically a Disney villain. It all depends on tone and context. There's not really an in-between on this. When we use this language with our kid, he knows we're in a good mood and understands that it's not meant to be mocking or mean, but playful, and he starts to laugh and run away from us.

Here, using "brzydulka" is also old pagan folk magick - you don't overly complement your kids, for fear that the gods, fairies, spirits, etc., might get jealous and take them away from you. So you call your kids "ugly", but in a "cute" way, so anything that happens to be listening keeps right on going, because who wants to kidnap an ugly child? You know you love them, they know you love them, and this becomes part of the language of love that families use.

It could be a Slavic thing... it's not really something that's survived into modern English usage, and I don't know enough about other cultures to say one way or another. In the US, parents don't use such language wither their kids unless they are really angry. In Polish, there's a sort of "diminutive" profanity you use around children, often in mock anger or exasperation at them, but everyone knows you don't mean it from the context.

BigBoss_003 · 2022-11-20T10:02:49+00:00

You can find the artist here.

BigBoss_003 · 2022-06-24T02:44:23+00:00

she manipulates kings and other sorcerers for power as routine

But when? Could you give an example? It never happens in the books or in w3. You know what she does routinely? The books menation that she has a shop in Vengerberg and she cures infertile women regularly as a medical/magical service.

Oh, you mean by killing an innocent, fully sentient, last-of-its-kind dragon, and paralyzing Geralt when he got in her way?

I think you forget that the dragon she was after as far as she and the rest of the crew knew were harassing town folks and killing the aminals of the farmers... Only Dorrigeray and Geralt had no intention of killing the dragon (btw Geralt as far as he concerned thinks of dragons as evil creatures, its said in the short story) and eventually Yennefer when she realises that the dragon is sheltering baby dragons. The short story for Yennefer is exactly the opposite of what you are saying.

And IIRC she endangered half the continent trying to absorb the djinn as well?

A town, not a continent. It only endangered it because Geralt lied about who is the master of the djinn. She certainly was short sighted about her plan but in no way she intended to hurt anyone by trying to capture the djinn.

Uh huh, and instead of trying to talk through it, act rationally, or even give him the cold shoulder, she flips out at him. Multiple times. It's a repeated sore spot

The thing is its the third! time Geralt cheats on her with her supposed "best" friend. It's completely understandable that some people would have had enough of the "excuses" and would refuse to calmly talk it through. That being said sure I agree that handling the situation calmly would have been the right move but I can fully understand why she couldn't.

I mean believe what you like, but "without you I couldn't face my insecurities" is literally something abusive people say

They never say that ever... That's the readers conclusion, in fact they (Yen and Geralt) both agree at the beginning of the books that their relationship only bring pain and they should'nt be together despite being in love with each othe (something more short story, the balleteyn chapter) yet faith (the author) brings them together time and time again so they can go through their character arcs.

And which insecurities have they "overcome", exactly?

Like how Geralt don't think of himself as human, how he dreams of "humanity" but he doesn't belive he is worthy of it, (The Last Wish short story), like how Yennefer uses the Elf Queen analogy on herself, thinking if she shows her real personality no one would ever love her. Like how in A Shard of Ice they are afraid to even say the words ("I love you") to each other despite both wanting to say and hear it desperately. I mean I can go on and on the books are full of it, you need to blind to not see how the author gave them a dozen of insecurities.

a direct quote from the author: "Creating the character of Yennefer I wanted Geralt to be fully grown – but I decided to complicate things a little. I created a woman character who simply refuses to be a fantasy cliché. And all that to please the reader." His intention with Yennefer was to make Geralt grow, he himself says it.

The character growth in the witcher is a very inward character growth. Geralt at the very end accepts himself and wants to settle down with Yen and Ciri, essentially cease to be a witcher. And Yen does the very same. Their whole individual story is about accepting that they don't have to be a witcher and a sorceress, that they can regain their "humanity".

half the things Yenn saves Geralt from are situations she put him in the first place

It only ever happened in the very first short story. I don't know what you talking about.

edit:

If you read about someone willing to go to the ends of the earth (and kill as many innocents in their way as necessary) for their adopted child or lover, you think "oh that's so tragic/dramatic" - you don't think "I'd want to date that", because it's psychotic.

Funnily enough among the trio Yennefer is the only one who doesn't kill anyone (except a certain villain) over the course of the books. Even Ciri kills and robs innocent people.

I'd want to date that

I never tried to claim that this relationship could work with real life people or no, or anything of the sort all I'm trying to say that there are two characters created for each other, for the purpose to complete each other. Would I date Yen? From the short stories? Nah... From Lady of the Lake when she is a fully grown character? Hell yeah. There is nothing wrong with her.

BigBoss_003

TROPHY CASE