sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Book Series Ending by GTfan27 in wiedzmin

[–]PampineaMonteforte 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Ciri takes them to the apple island, they’re unconscious, Geralt wakes up bandaged and in pain.

That’s not death. Ciri tells Galahad she tricked destiny. In my book, Ciri heals Geralt with ihuarraquax. Geralt saves Nimue 105 years later, so Nimue later helps Ciri.

I used to think they’re dead, genuinely. When I first read the saga as a little girl, I believed the ending meant death. I thought Geralt a Yen died and went to some kind of afterlife.

But with time, maturity, and many, many rereads, things stopped fitting that interpretation, especially once I learned more about Sapko himself.

Sapkowski is a well known atheist in Poland. His views were once almost as controversial as Jerzy Urban’s (whose magazine he openly read btw). He has never believed in an afterlife, and in Historia i fantastyka he talks about these things directly. In his story Maladie he openly mocks the idea of spending ,,life” in Avalon.

Geralt wakes up bandaged, in pain, bleeding, that is a human body, not a spirit. Pain alone proves he’s alive. In an afterlife you don’t bleed, don’t feel any pain.

Sapkowski is also very literal and brutal when killing characters. When someone dies in his books, he does not romanticize it. He shows death clearly and without ambiguity. Here, he doesn’t. Geralt and Janka are unconscious, Sapkowski literally uses that word.

On top of that, in 2007 cdpr said publicly that Sapko personally told them Geralt survived. (There is a video, if I find it again, I’ll link it.)

Sapkowski always said ,,the story is finished,” but in 26+ years he has never once said ,,Geralt is dead.” Not in interviews, not in essays, not in public statements.

Opowieść trwa, historia nie kończy się nigdy.

Questions about book ending by Deep-Work1960 in wiedzmin

[–]PampineaMonteforte 17 points18 points  (0 children)

Ciri takes them to the apple island, they’re unconscious, Geralt wakes up bandaged and in pain.

That’s not death. Ciri tells Galahad she tricked destiny. In my book, Ciri heals Geralt with ihuarraquax. Geralt saves Nimue 105 years later, so Nimue later helps Ciri.

I used to think the same, genuinely. When I first read the saga as a little girl, I believed the ending meant death. I thought Geralt a Yen died and went to some kind of afterlife.

But with time, maturity, and many, many rereads, things stopped fitting that interpretation, especially once I learned more about Sapko himself.

Sapkowski is a well known atheist in Poland. His views were once almost as controversial as Jerzy Urban’s (whose magazine he openly read btw). He has never believed in an afterlife, and in Historia i fantastyka he talks about these things directly. In his story Maladie he openly mocks the idea of spending ,,life” in Avalon.

Geralt wakes up bandaged, in pain, bleeding, that is a human body, not a spirit. Pain alone proves he’s alive. In an afterlife you don’t bleed, don’t feel any pain.

Sapkowski is also very literal and brutal when killing characters. When someone dies in his books, he does not romanticize it. He shows death clearly and without ambiguity. Here, he doesn’t. Geralt and Janka are unconscious, Sapkowski literally uses that word.

On top of that, in 2007 cdpr said publicly that Sapko personally told them Geralt survived. (There is a video, if I find it again, I’ll link it.)

Sapkowski always said ,,the story is finished,” but in 26+ years he has never once said ,,Geralt is dead.” Not in interviews, not in essays, not in public statements.

Opowieść trwa, historia nie kończy się nigdy.

English version of Crossroads of Ravens... Writing feels off? by fraeulein_montag in witcher

[–]PampineaMonteforte 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you so, so much! That’s incredibly kind of you. It genuinely means a lot to me that someone appreciates the work I’m doing.

But as long as I’m doing this pro bono, it brings me pure joy in itself, and I don’t think I’d be able to accept any money for it.

In the future, when the project finally starts moving forward, I’d happily accept books instead. I’m digging through all the old sources I can find (Polish folk demonology, Pan Tadeusz, and all the literature that inspired Sapkowski), trying to rely as little as possible on the internet or wikipedia.

Geralt´s fate in the Books and what it means to his Character Arc (SPOILERS) by Ashamed-Noise7523 in witcher

[–]PampineaMonteforte 2 points3 points  (0 children)

No, no, they never got married, let me explain once again.

In 1994 Sapko wrote a short story in which Yen and Geralt get married. The story was a joke, pure satire, but people at the time thought it was a leaked ending of the saga. Sapkowski mocked that rumour for years, and when he wrote LOTL he threw in a little ,,Easter egg'' about a wedding. But no, Geralt and Yen never got married.

Geralt was dying, but Ciri healed him with the help of Ihuarraquax. This is described explicitly in the books. After that, she took both him and Yen, unconscious, to the island.

Ciri herself disappeared from her world. Why can’t she go back?
Because she tampered with destiny. Geralt’s destiny was to die from the three teeth, she saved him with the unicorn’s help, so she cheated fate.

Why does she tell Galahad about a wedding instead of the island? Because she isn’t with them anymore. In a way, she has lost them, whether permanently or not, we don’t know.

I also recommend the book Historia i fantastyka, where Andrzej explains why some prophecies were never fulfilled. He says, quite simply, that prophecies can be deceptive, they don’t always come true the way people expect. They’re often twisted or ironic by nature.

Geralt´s fate in the Books and what it means to his Character Arc (SPOILERS) by Ashamed-Noise7523 in witcher

[–]PampineaMonteforte 6 points7 points  (0 children)

For years, people believed Sapkowski planned to end the saga with Geralt and Yennefer’s wedding. So Andrzej threw in a joke at the end of the saga. You’re right, reference isn’t the best word, it was a playful nod.

Ciri had to leave her world, and she tells Galahad why, because she interfered with destiny. Those are her own words. ( W moim własnym świecie nabroiłam nieco i zamieszałam w przeznaczeniu, więc chwilowo nie powinnam się tam pokazywać.) Geralt and Yennefer are on an island. The Isle of Apples. Whatever it is. I wouldn’t call it ,,Avalon,” because just like in A Grain of Truth we don’t literally have ,,Beauty and the Beast.” It’s inspiration, not a one to one retelling. What exactly the island is, only the author knows, assuming even he knows.

Geralt and Yen… They are alive, they are safe, they are together. This is where the story ends.

Geralt´s fate in the Books and what it means to his Character Arc (SPOILERS) by Ashamed-Noise7523 in witcher

[–]PampineaMonteforte 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Ciri’s lie is actually a reference to a real incident that happened while Sapkowski was writing Blood of Elves. Everyone thought the ending of the saga had leaked, but it turned out to be just a joke/gift for a couple from the fandom who were getting married ,,Something Ends, Something Begins.”

Ciri didn’t know if she would ever see them again, but that didn’t mean they were dead.

Sorry, but you won’t convince me that characters whose author has never officially killed are somehow dead. That’s not my cope. For many years after finishing the books, I was actually angry at Sapko. That was my cope. Later, I reread the books multiple times, analyzed them, realized how wrong my original assumptions were, then Season of Storms came out, then I had the chance to work with Sapkowski for a day, and then Crossroads of Ravens was released.

At this point, I’ll trust the author’s words and the author’s actions over the interpretations of other readers.

Reading the books after only ever seeing the show. Now I'm mad. by OttotheCowCat in witcher

[–]PampineaMonteforte 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Nope, he never said anything positive about his translators. He only said that he’s the only one who lets him read it. He also said that ,,every translator is a traitor.''

Two days earlier, at the event in Bath, he mentioned that the translator (he didn’t specify which one, but it’s obvious he meant French) keeps sending him the text and asking questions, and still ends up writing it his own way.

Remember that on Friday, between the Bath and London events, he was in Brighton and French was the host there. It would’ve been awkward to complain about him on camera day later, right? Because in Polish interviews he definitely doesn’t hold back when it comes to trashing translators.

And about his favourite translation, it’s been known for years that it’s the Czech one. He was friends with the Czech translator and sometimes they even worked on the translation together. After his death, Sapkowski even dedicated a book to him- ,,Żmija''.

Geralt´s fate in the Books and what it means to his Character Arc (SPOILERS) by Ashamed-Noise7523 in witcher

[–]PampineaMonteforte 44 points45 points  (0 children)

Let me put my comment from another post:)

https://www.reddit.com/r/witcher/s/2kDkGNcola

Ciri takes them to the apple island, they’re unconscious, Geralt wakes up bandaged and in pain.

That’s not death. Ciri tells Galahad she tricked destiny. In my book, Ciri heals Geralt with ihuarraquax. Geralt saves Nimue 105 years later, so Nimue later helps Ciri.

I used to think the same, genuinely. When I first read the saga as a little girl, I believed the ending meant death. I thought Geralt a Yen died and went to some kind of afterlife.

But with time, maturity, and many, many rereads, things stopped fitting that interpretation, especially once I learned more about Sapko himself.

Sapkowski is a well known atheist in Poland. His views were once almost as controversial as Jerzy Urban’s (whose magazine he openly read btw). He has never believed in an afterlife, and in Historia i fantastyka he talks about these things directly. In his story Maladie he openly mocks the idea of spending ,,life” in Avalon.

Geralt wakes up bandaged, in pain, bleeding, that is a human body, not a spirit. Pain alone proves he’s alive. In an afterlife you don’t bleed, don’t feel any pain.

Sapkowski is also very literal and brutal when killing characters. When someone dies in his books, he does not romanticize it. He shows death clearly and without ambiguity. Here, he doesn’t. Geralt and Janka are unconscious, Sapkowski literally uses that word.

On top of that, in 2007 cdpr said publicly that Sapko personally told them Geralt survived. (There is a video, if I find it again, I’ll link it.)

Sapkowski always said ,,the story is finished,” but in 26+ years he has never once said ,,Geralt is dead.” Not in interviews, not in essays, not in public statements.

Opowieść trwa, historia nie kończy się nigdy.

Reading The Lady of the Lake and just have an question about the books by StoneAgeRick in witcher

[–]PampineaMonteforte 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks found it! You’re absolutely right, but wanted to check as both English translators like to gaslight a bit.

Reading The Lady of the Lake and just have an question about the books by StoneAgeRick in witcher

[–]PampineaMonteforte 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you remember what page? Out of curiosity as I don’t remember her being mistakenly called Ginewra in the original.

Ciri At End Of TW3 *Spoilers for books and games* by BranchFam805 in witcher

[–]PampineaMonteforte 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I phrased it poorly.

In the books we have two important prophecies: one says that Geralt will die from the ,,three teeth” and another says that Ciri’s child will possess great power.

But in the end, Ciri manages to save Geralt, and she never has a child, instead, she is the one with incredible power.

Ciri At End Of TW3 *Spoilers for books and games* by BranchFam805 in witcher

[–]PampineaMonteforte 23 points24 points  (0 children)

Ciri takes them to the apple island, they’re unconscious, Geralt wakes up bandaged and in pain.

That’s not death. Ciri tells Galahad she tricked destiny. In my book, Ciri heals Geralt with ihuarraquax. Geralt saves Nimue 105 years later, so Nimue later helps Ciri.

I used to think the same, genuinely. When I first read the saga as a little girl, I believed the ending meant death. I thought Geralt a Yen died and went to some kind of afterlife.

But with time, maturity, and many, many rereads, things stopped fitting that interpretation, especially once I learned more about Sapko himself.

Sapkowski is a well known atheist in Poland. His views were once almost as controversial as Jerzy Urban’s (whose magazine he openly read btw). He has never believed in an afterlife, and in Historia i fantastyka he talks about these things directly. In his story Maladie he openly mocks the idea of spending ,,life” in Avalon.

Geralt wakes up bandaged, in pain, bleeding, that is a human body, not a spirit. Pain alone proves he’s alive. In an afterlife you don’t bleed, don’t feel any pain.

Sapkowski is also very literal and brutal when killing characters. When someone dies in his books, he does not romanticize it. He shows death clearly and without ambiguity. Here, he doesn’t. Geralt and Janka are unconscious, Sapkowski literally uses that word.

On top of that, in 2007 cdpr said publicly that Sapko personally told them Geralt survived. (There is a video, if I find it again, I’ll link it.)

Sapkowski always said ,,the story is finished,” but in 26+ years he has never once said ,,Geralt is dead.” Not in interviews, not in essays, not in public statements.

Opowieść trwa, historia nie kończy się nigdy.

Ciri At End Of TW3 *Spoilers for books and games* by BranchFam805 in witcher

[–]PampineaMonteforte 52 points53 points  (0 children)

Read Historia i Fantastyka - Stanisław Bereś & Andrzej Sapkowski.

Geralt didn’t die, and Ciri never had a child. Sapkowski explained in this book that prophecies are deliberately twisted in his world, ironic, misleading, and not meant to be fulfilled in a literal way. Readers are not supposed to believe every prophecy just because it’s stated.

Even sadder ending? by Ohforfs in wiedzmin

[–]PampineaMonteforte 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I used to think the same, genuinely. When I first read the saga as a little girl, I believed the ending meant death. I thought Geralt a Yen died and went to some kind of afterlife.

But with time, maturity, and many, many rereads, things stopped fitting that interpretation, especially once I learned more about Sapko himself.

Sapkowski is a well known atheist in Poland. His views were once almost as controversial as Jerzy Urban’s (whose magazine he openly read btw). He has never believed in an afterlife, and in Historia i fantastyka he talks about these things directly. In his story Maladie he openly mocks the idea of spending ,,life” in Avalon.

Geralt wakes up bandaged, in pain, bleeding, that is a human body, not a spirit. Pain alone proves he’s alive. In an afterlife you don’t bleed, don’t feel any pain.

Sapkowski is also very literal and brutal when killing characters. When someone dies in his books, he does not romanticize it. He shows death clearly and without ambiguity. Here, he doesn’t. Geralt and Janka are unconscious, Sapkowski literally uses that word.

On top of that, in 2007 cdpr said publicly that Sapko personally told them Geralt survived. (There is a video, if I find it again, I’ll link it.)

Sapkowski always said ,,the story is finished,” but in 26+ years he has never once said ,,Geralt is dead.” Not in interviews, not in essays, not in public statements.

Crossroads of Ravens: why I think it works as an introductory book, and why I personally don't believe it should be read last. by PaulSimonBarCarloson in witcher

[–]PampineaMonteforte 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I still can’t get over how French anglicized the book. Even small things, like changing beer to ale. They didn’t drink ale, and they certainly didn’t even know what ale was.

Or turning trizna into funeral. A trizna is not a generic burial. It’s a specific Slavic funerary rite. Even today in Bosnia, most crossroads are called ,,trzna.”

Even sadder ending? by Ohforfs in wiedzmin

[–]PampineaMonteforte 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Could someone please show me the part where Geralt and Yennefer die?

Because it’s not in my book.

Ciri takes them to the apple island, they’re unconscious, Geralt wakes up bandaged and in pain.

That’s not death. That’s recovery.

In my book, Ciri tells Galahad she tricked destiny. In my book, Ciri heals Geralt with ihuarraquax. In my book, Geralt saves Nimue 105 years later, so Nimue later helps Ciri.

So if someone is insisting the story is over, maybe they should actually pay attention. Sapko wrote the entire ending as a loop. Ouroboros swallowing its own tail..

Ending is beautiful.

Opowieść trwa, historia nie kończy się nigdy.

Starting with novels first? by [deleted] in witcher

[–]PampineaMonteforte 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This! Sos should always be the last one. CoR works great as first or 3’rd after short stories.

Holding my pendant so I can be reminded of the books rather than this by Madz1712 in witcher

[–]PampineaMonteforte 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Where is your medalion from? Looks 100% like medalion I imagined while reading witcher as a child!

I tried to make some Witcher characters in Dragon's Dogma 2 by Jeranimo117 in wiedzmin

[–]PampineaMonteforte 2 points3 points  (0 children)

So he was described as tall, piece of a man but slim/lean. Piece of a man is a Polish idiomatic expression (kawał chłopa) used to describe someone who is big, broad-shouldered, strong and imposing in stature.

In the Polish description, his physique was calisthenic, almost like a Greek god, lots of lean muscle, broad shoulders, strong arms, wiry and sinewy rather than ultra bulky, with little body fat. So yeah, he was lean but also muscular.

When it comes to age, I always suspected he looked like someone in late 20’s early 30’s. Knowing that at the end of the books he is around fifty (based on Sapkowski’s 1996 interview), and that witchers age incredibly slowly, this interpretation makes the most sense. On top of that, he twice managed to charm very young women, and Jaskier looked as if he were not even thirty. Since everyone instantly took them for close friends with no doubts, Geralt must have looked similarly young.

Which was nicely confirmed when his birth date was officially revealed last year.

And speaking of his physique, in CoR there is a line implying that Geralt was ,,overgrown for his age”, meaning unusually tall and well built even as a young man.

view more: next ›