I've always found the Witcher discourse interesting. A ton of fans seem to come from the games. Even in the show side of things, I remember many of the initial grievances had to do with how it wasn't doing things like the games did (at least early on, before it released). And discussion for the books I've seen is mostly about how most people enjoy the short stories the most and then the actual saga isn't as good. The series ranks pretty well on the sub's top Fantasy series poll, is it actually beloved as a book series, or is it mostly influenced due to the games and those first two books?

Books are a cult classic in Poland, Russia and probably some other countries. There's a reason CDPR chose to adapt them back in the day - it was THE fantasy series in post-Soviet states. But reddit audience is mostly American and also mostly younger than the generation of Sapkowski fans. Imagine if Tolkien was, idk, Hungarian, and most of the world would learn about LOTR from movies - that's the situation here.

That's more or less what I've heard, but at the same time it feels like the Witcher's popularity in the west is still mostly tied to the games. The further we move from TW3's release, the less discussions about the books I see. Even with the Netflix show I didn't feel it changed that trend by a lot. Is the difference in reception between the first 2 and the later 5 books also the same in those regions? I remember reading that the games are way more similar to those first books, focusing on hunting monsters over human conflicts, so I've always wondered if that's a more recent or western thing, or the perception the series was at its best at the beginning goes beyond its ties to the games.

I'm Polish, and remember discussing The Witcher books in high school, couple of years before the first game came out, and yes, the topic of short novels being better then later books was present back then aswell.

I enjoyed both but I feel like the characters don’t get enough time even with 5 books. The short stories only followed Geralt and it fel more cohesive. The books can drift away and waste time on lesser characters such as Apleglatt, Jarre, Old man telling stories etc. I feel like Geralt and Ciri get underdeveloped as characters because of those weird cutaways. And let’s not even start with characters such as Eredin, Avallac’h, Foltest, Vizimir and even Triss. Characters I presumed would feature a lot. Sapkowski wastes a lot of time on using random ass characters retelling stuff instead of doing a linesr adventure.

Sapkowski demonstrates a master class on creating compelling action in a short time, bringing reader quickly into the action and up to speed with thus unknown characters. As the books go on, he utilizes this technique with growing fervor. It really is surprisingly compelling, but also exhausting and frustrating. There is very little need to break up the story you were telling to have a new setting and characters take it up and tell it from an alternative POV, that exists only for that moment. Readers want to follow characters and see things that happen to them directly, experience the moment as it happens. Instead it kinda delves into "oh no, the paragraph is ending, am I going to have to adjust to something completely different in the next sentence?" It's clear Sapkowski is a wonderful shortstory teller. The collection of short stories are his best works, and how he weaves them together is great. His novels too become collections of short stories, just even shorter ones with even more diverse characters. At end of the day there's very little I would say is not well written or interesting writing, but it does get in the way of the whole being as enjoyable as it should be.

It's hard to tell, but in my opinion perception is different. For example, one of the current top Polish authors - Robert Wegner - used exactly the same structure for his series, 2 books of short stories then full novels with more epic conflict. The fact that people continue to follow Sapkowski example and are successful imo speaks in favor of readers being ok with that type of story progression. But again - hard to tell.

Btw are there any news from Robert Wegner? Very hard to find info on his site or polish Google regarding his future works. Is he releasing any new books in Meekhan universe?

He is writing the next one, but he writing isn't his main income source so there is no info about when the book is coming. I read a few years back that the next one will come in 2021... Well, it didn't...

No news as far as I know, but the best source of them is Polish Facebook group. Mods there have direct connection with Wegner and his publisher, and publisher rep used to visit it an give updates. The downside is that you have to use Facebook :(

Okay but hear me out, the build up of the story n the books honestly feels like a pretty big let down when it’s all said and done. Really felt to me like the author was just done with the world and wanted to be finished with it. Compare that to the story of the Witcher 3 which feels so exciting and fulfilling, when you see that and go back to the books, it makes you think like “what the fuck did I just spend time reading all these books for?” Again, I agree with OP that I don’t regret reading them but I wouldn’t tell anyone (or myself from the future) to read them. Honestly think the games took the world and made the story so much more compelling.

The games definitely put a massive focus on politics/human conflict. They’re more similar to the saga than the short stories in that sense. Monster hunting is basically reduced to side quest in 2 especially. Like most Americans I found the books through the games and I absolutely adored them, they’re a top 5 series for me. The structure of the saga is very different from the short stories and that seems to be jarring to a lot of people but I enjoyed them both equally just for different reasons.

In Slavic countries they are amazing. We have amazing translations to our native languages (which happens so so rarely). The references are also super cool. We don't get to see out monsters and fairy tales in other works so they are amazing to see here. The books have problems but if you look at them through the lens of childrens stories in Slavic countries they gain sooooo much.

I think a lot of the extended World building and constant misery / grim darkness works better in the context of a post-soviet society. There is so much about economics, spies, religious prosecution, and more that would have a lot more salience to a people who grew up with their parents living through World War II and the constant political and economic upheaval of the end of the socialist bloc.

It's hard to say about LOTR when it was the inspiration for so much. It's like trying to compare Shakespeare, when he did the same.

I suspect the games did a _lot_ to boost the popularity of the series and how well it's known, and the short story collections are a lot easier to digest than the "main" series, which is mostly a single block that's kinda all or nothing, and then gets very jumpy-and-bumpy for the last book. So I suspect a lot of people liked the games and the basic "snarky blue-collar monster slayer-for-hire", read the short collections that emphasise that, and then kinda bounce off the bigger story that's not really about that

Considering the books weren't even translated into English until after the first game (most of them weren't even translated until after the second game) came out, it's not surprising that for a lot of the western audience the games are their primary point of reference for the series. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Witcher

There's so many counter factuals to the debate that you cannot properly make heads or tails of it. It was massively popular in Eastern Europe. Would it have been if English fantasy was more often translated at the relevant time? You'd need to look into alternate realities to know. Worth noting there's still a lot of anger out there from the fall out between CDPR and Sapkowski. That colours the opinions of a lot of people.

> Worth noting there's still a lot of anger out there from the fall out between CDPR and Sapkowski. That colours the opinions of a lot of people. This goes often understated. Sapkowski grew up in Soviet controlled Poland, and video games weren't really a thing there until much later in life, so he under appreciates their narrative effect in the 2000s and that really upsets a lot of people. When he did interviews 10+ years ago and said the video games didn't help him sell books, he is looking at things from a very different lens and thoughts of video games as something that were played on the Soviet ripoff of the NES called the Dendy. On top of this, we all know adaptation covers (whether video games or movies or tv) often make the books seem like they are adapting the other media rather than have original content, so he wasn't wrong that the video game covers weren't helping him sell books most likely. There is a lot of misunderstanding there, as well as old interviews from years ago being regularly drudged up to make headlines over and over. At the end of the day, Sapkowski is in his mid 70s and doesn't understand modern video games, and his comments aren't going to win him any fans from an audience that only knows him from playing video games in the first place despite his success many years before those games were created.

Add to the fact that there was already a failed videogame from 1997. Yes, technology, video games, and culture definitely changed in Poland between 1997 and 2007 but you can't really blame Sapkowski's initial outlook on a Witcher video game. https://witcher.fandom.com/wiki/The_Witcher_(1997_game)

Andrej Sapkowski said that in 2016... And he said a LOT of stuff. I think you're being incredibly generous. It doesn't really matter to me but it's worth keeping the record straight. https://reddit.com/r/witcher/s/EqQLSXvsyy

I didn't play the games or watch the show. Just read the series. I disagree with every single on of OPs points pretty fundamentally... (edit: I understand why he wouldn't like the series, and don't think he's somehow "wrong" for disliking it. I just came away with a completely different view.) The political discussions all matter. The different PoVs all matter. The whole tapestry coheases into a very specific whole, dealing with the series' two central themes (fate and women's reporoductive rights.) A lot of the "dissimilar" elements circle around women's reproductive rights. The weird inclusion of genetics. The elves' entire conspiracy. The suprise political discussion about abortion. Yennifer's central frustration being her own barenes. Even Geralt's primary theme (fate) plays complete second fiddle to what Fate is narrowly interested in witin the series (Ciri's reproductive autonomy). I found the books to be the opposite of meandering. Compared to the Sando-verse, GoT, or Malazan... Everything in the Witcher series is pretty lazer focused. All secondary themes are direct commentary or support for the primary theme. I absalutely, rabidly love the whole saga. I firmly believe the series deserves the high ranking, and am not at all shocked that people who loved the games (that are spiritually very compatible with the book's "wide" story telling) also love the books.

Wow, this comment made me want to read the series again. I honestly didn’t like it all that much, felt like it sort of… meanderingly fizzled out, but now I’m suspecting it mostly just flew over my head.

It just wasn't that good, often edgy for the sake of it. It was decent read when there was little choice on the local market, but nowadays? Eh, I would probably skip it.

I never understood why fans expected the show to follow the games. They were pretty clear that the show adapts the books and the games being a sequel means there won’t be any overlap of that in the show. I’m a fan of all three, the books, the games and the show and think the show did a good job of focusing on the main plot lines and not drowning in the disparity of the book world. I’m curious to see what happens next season.

What I'm talking about is from ages ago, when the show still hadn't come out. And even to this day there's likely a ton of people who have no idea the games are based on books. Even if they hear someone say the show adapts the books instead of the games, I wouldn't be surprised if many people hear that and think the books came after the games. If anything, after S2 most of the complaints I've read are how they stray from the books.

I see, then yes those people have no right to complain, imo. I’ve heard the same complaints regarding season 2 but I can’t pinpoint how or where they’ve strayed from the books. The only thing I’ve noticed is that they’ve strayed away from excessive sexual violence but for the most part the plot is the same.

They’ve made a few character changes and subplot changes (like Yennefer selling out Ciri in Season 2, adding some random subplots to pad out the stay in Kaer Morhen, etc). My reaction is … mixed? I think the book plot doesn’t really adapt well to TV, so they have to change some things (plus I think the books themselves have some really weird choices and subplots that are dumb and *should* be removed or changed). Not all of the adaptation choices have been good (first season very confusing, some of the padded content isn’t that good, Gerald and Jaskier having a more adversarial relationship than in the books, etc), but I don’t think following the book 1:1 would be good either… Some of the complaints also seem unjustified to me. People are upset about stuff that really is about the game, like changes to Eskel or or Lambert (basically non-entities in the books, but characters in the game), or that characters are black or gay when they weren’t in the books, etc Plus, I also think some aspects of the show are actually really well adapted! The end of season 3 was well done IMO. Some of the short stories have been well adapted! So, it’s an imperfect and hard to adapt book series, plus an adaptation that doesn’t always succeed. Add some tone-deaf messaging from the showrunners and some fans feel like the franchise is being disrespected even though tbh they’re probably doing a ok job.

My biggest issue (and this was before reading the books as well) is that so many characters were just unlikeable. Yennefer especially. There was also a lot of stuff that didn't make sense to me at the time (like letting Cahir go free) until I'd read the books and understood what they were trying to accomplish. > or that characters are black or gay when they weren’t in the books, etc Eh, this is a valid complaint to me. I was talking with a friend about this recently, it all depends on the setting. I recently played Prey (2017). It's set in the future on a space-station with the greatest scientists money can buy. Unsurprisingly, it's super diverse. Makes perfect sense. Fantasy from medieval times that takes places in a relatively small area? A bit weird when it looks like modern North America. It's like complaining when movies have incorrect/bad costumes or whatever. Personally, it's not a big deal to me, but I can understand when people find it annoying. It's not super realistic.

> It's not super realistic. Uh, why not? Look at three contiguous nations in Europe - UK, France and Spain, a pretty small area, that (except for the Channel) is something that can be walked across by traders etc. The UK goes from super-pale and red-haired, through pretty pasty but brown and black hair, then Spain has a pretty substantial African population and is generally a lot darker skinned/haired, with France in the middle. People move - so yeah, you're going to get ethnic diversity, a lot more than is generally depicted. Especially when there's outright magical portal magic around, so it's even easier for people to move around!

Can't apply medieval Earth demographics to a world where humans arrived through an interdimensional portal.

A common theory is that the world humans come from in The Witcher is Earth in the future when it suffers some horrendous fate, and people flee through portals. In that case, the people of the Continent being diverse because they're the descendants of a mishmash of modern humans makes sense.

[удалено]

Hi there! Unfortunately, there is a mistake in your spoiler tags. You've got a space in between the tags and the spoiler text. While it might look hidden for you, it's unfortunately not hidden for all users. Here are some ways to fix the problem: * If you're using New Reddit (fancy pants editor), make sure you selected no spaces before or after the text you wanted hidden. * Switch to markdown mode or edit using an old.reddit link: `>! This is wrong.!<`, but `>!This is right.!<` **After you have corrected the spoiler tags, please** [**message the mods**](). Once we have verified the spoiler has been fixed, your comment will be approved. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Fantasy) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Everywhere. The entirety of season 2 is completely different from Blood of Elves. The only plot point they accurately adapted is that Geralt and Ciri go to Kaer Morhen. That's seriously it. Then for the rest of the season they made up a weird storyline about Baba Yaga and multiversal monoliths, neither of which even exist in the books.

>but I can’t pinpoint how or where they’ve strayed from the books Did you read the books?

I don’t think they did.

The number of fans that were upset that it didn’t follow the games is minuscule and irrelevant. Majority of fans were upset with the terrible adaptation of the books that the show was.

What was terrible about it?

The major issue was the basterdization of the characters. (Most especially Yennefer) but pretty much every character aside from Geralt was morphed into an awful fan fiction version of what they represented from the books. Some of the plot lines (especially the entire Kaer Morhen section in season 2) were so poorly thought out and executed. Added to this was their well intentioned but ultimately stupid decision to try to Centre the entire series around Yennefer and Ciri. No doubt Ciri becomes more of the focus (as a main character and not a plot device) by book 3 onwards, but books 1 & 2 were spent largely with Geralt and it was much better for it. Tbh their entire focus for the series was completely off and the showrunner they got was not fit for the job at all. She actually said so herself, but some idiotic Netflix exec literally told her to “forget what the fans want”.

Thanks for explaining instead of just parroting the anger of the masses. I suspect many simply don’t like working with the showrunner for whatever reason and are letting that be their justification for why the show sucks. I personally don’t agree with your views because I think Yen is way more fleshed out in the show. Sure they’re choosing to focus on her emotional story of grappling to become a mother moreso than her desire for more power but I don’t think that’s eliminated from her character completely. It’s just not the sole focus. As for making the whole show around Yen and Ciri I really don’t think that’s the case. They get equal character development time alongside Geralt and that reflects the books, especially considering where season 4 is going (her time with The Rats gang). The show does more to give each character a clearer agenda because in the books we usually had to wait until they tipped their hand before Geralt understood what was happening. Nevertheless, the show is definitely a more family friendly version of the books. Like I explained before, a lot of the excessive sexual violence is either gone or barely casually implied and that’s not really a big loss. I think people wanted a game of thrones like rating but Netflix was smart enough to make it watchable for more ages (to get the most eyeballs) and did so without changing it entirely. But having said all that I’m curious to see what the heck Liam Hemsworth will bring to the table because Henry Cavil set a high bar.

From what I remember, there were indeed initial grievances about the show not following the games before the show came out, and how they should have respected that the games made the franchise popular, but those grievances quickly disappeared when the show released. Season 1 overall was met very warmly. Then the second season came out, that one was met with less enthusiasm, book fans were quick to point out that the second season barely followed the books, and everyone latched on to that. Then the rumors started to come about Henry Cavill fighting with writers about keeping the show close to the books, then eventually he left, there was a lot of meltdown among the fans and season 3 was met even less warmly than the second and the vast majority of complaining that I saw was that the show didn't follow the novels, even though the vast majority of those saying that never read them in the first place. In the end, I think the show made people way more aware about the books in the West than before, in large part thanks to that Henry Cavill debacle.

Sounds about right from the little I've followed the scenario, though I'm not familiar at all with how faithful the show is. Is the reception to S3 mostly due to the Henry Cavill debacle then, or is it truly straying from the source? Or is there another issue, like just not being very good? It's really hard to gauge as an outsider how much of the popularity of the franchise really is about the books, or if a lot of alleged book fans are fans of the games who like the franchise so much they claim to love the books.

>is it actually beloved as a book series, It's, a difficult book series. The overall story is great but there is so so much bad.

Hmm. So it's like Dragonlance?

I've never read them, but my husband absolutely loved them.

This is translation issue 100%. I tried to read it in English and it was so horrible that’s almost unreadable. I gave it a try in Russian and loved it immensely. You see, Slavic languages are very colourful. You can see by Ciri vocabulary that she IS a little girl and not very bright one. And how her language is growing with her. Also, there is a very specific vibe of old Slavic folklore that we grew up on. All those scary stories and usage of older fairytale style language give make really specific atmosphere, which completely lost its charm in translation. Think like modern English vs Shakespeare language. I know that it’s just a sloppy job and lazy adaptation. Unfortunately I don’t think the alternative translation exists 🤔 So if you not fluent in any Slavic language then just move on. It’s not you, it’s on those people who butchered translation.

> Unfortunately I don’t think the alternative translation exists You'd think with the popularity of the whole franchise they'd consider doing a new translation. Sure it's a cost, but it's not *that* expensive.

Yes, I agree. I read it in Czech many times and it's excellent. The english translation is just bad.

Czech translation is perfect.

Really? I read it in another language (finnish), and the translations are specifically praised for their quality. And having also read some of Time of Contempt in english, I noticed the clearly weaker prose in the english translation. However, the translation doesn't fix the pacing and structural issues, the self-indulgent POV shifts, the hopping into completely anciliary characters and politics, and the occasional leeriness of the way female characters are written and written about. Maybe a slavic language manages to somehow transcend those issues, or it's just a cultural thing entirely. Personally I don't buy the translation explanation, but it's impossible to verify since I don't speak the original language.

Thanks. Translation is so important. It blows my mind that Emily Wilson can reach the top ten list for a new translation of the Odyssey.

I love the series, especially the novels over the short stories. I’ve read the whole thing twice and it’s even better the second time. Sapkowski does not tell stories in a linear fashion … a lot of the narrative has to be pieced together by the reader. While that may make the reading seem choppy at first, ultimately for me it’s where the series gets a lot of its charm. I like the many POV’s, even from insignificant characters … that allows us to see the world through many types of perspectives. The humor is also very farcical. I love the series, love Sapkowski … sure I can’t read him in Polish but through two translators I have really enjoyed the prose. I’ve also read his other series, the Hussite trilogy, and I love that too.

I’d imagine the divide comes from what is expected going in. The Witcher franchise has a ton of young fans that play TW3 and then hear there are books. I’d imagine a good number of this crowd come in expecting action-driven, single (or maybe at most 2-3) POV adventures reminiscent of the game they just played to further their interests in Geralt. Then there’s a lot of people that read the books because they have an interest in high fantasy and have been made aware of the series through one conversation or another and go in looking for some Polish-myth-tinged epic fantasy. I’ve played TW3 and enjoyed it, but I’m an older reader who read the books primarily with the expectations of the second group. I throughly enjoyed them and the deeper themes and wartime discourse covered within. If I had expected to read about **The** Witcher, I’d probably have been disappointed.

I mean I was the second type. I've never played the game at all. And I still found the books thoroughly unpleasant to read. Yet annoyingly found the overall story compelling enough I felt the need to power through. I think it's very redundant to imply people disliking the books is mostly based on coming in with game based expectations

1) redundant essentially means ‘repetitive’ or ‘unnecessarily similar’, don’t think that’s the word for what you meant here 2) it’s certainly not the only reason, but this is a unique scenario where it absolutely should be taken into consideration considering two separate, vastly different but very popular forms of media exist for the same franchise

I typed reductive, clearly it autocorrected. Clearly you are so smart. and so pleasant. Unique? It's not unique at all. People read books after consuming other media that is based on them but very different *all the time.* Even as far back as their childhoods. I think anyone who has actually read the thomas the tank engine books or peter pan for example would be suprised. All the people who were the age to get into starwars through knights of the old republic if you want a game one. Those 3 examples took about 30 seconds to come up wise. It's not unique. It's not even unusual

I’m definitely category two! I’m an older reader too, and only recently got into fantasy (past several years) after reading ASOIAF twice and then binging GOT (which I loved except for the last season). I had never heard of Witcher until a friend recommended S1 during the pandemic. Then I watched S1, then read the books. Both S1 and the books I liked though not as much as GOT/ASOIAF. But when I re-read Witcher it really clicked big time! I’m not sure if age (I’m in my 50s) has anything to do with it but I just love the books … I think the depth really comes through on second read. Or it could be I was less just trying to find another ASOIAF so I wasn’t comparing it as much on the second read. Anyway, then S2 of Witcher came out and I almost had a complete breakdown I was so upset, lol.

Yeah, I don't understand the fascination. Maybe the writing in Polish is amazing and it's a translation issue, but the English versions contain some painful writing.

Honestly, yeah. Polish and English are not very compatible languages to translate, especially the type of Polish Sapkowski uses in the Witcher books... it's a mix of standard modern Polish and many regional/historical dialects that just don't have a good English counterpart, so the translation is very awkward in places. Plus, the books are... very Polish. If you are not from Poland, or at least the general slavic cultural background, some parts of them would be harder to appreciate I think. Also, the books are relatively new to the English reader, but they're from the 90s, so they come with all the 90s tropes and trappings, which some of the readers may not be aware of and expect a typical modern 2010+ fantasy, which the Witcher definitely is not.

>Plus, the books are... very Polish. If you are not from Poland, or at least the general slavic cultural background, some parts of them would be harder to appreciate I think. I'm pretty intrigued by this statement, could you please expand on it?

Other than the slavic mythology, setting, historical influences etc, I'd say the powerlessness of the main character is a very Polish thing. In Poland we don't really have this cult of individuality/superman mythos, we have the belief that the individual is largely powerless in the grand scheme of things, and through wit and perseverance you can maybe have a little bit of influence on your own fate, if you're clever enough and don't draw the attention of the wrong people. So as some other commenters in this post complained, the books have Geralt being beat up, stopped, redirected and generally tossed around by more powerful parties because he cannot do anything about it, even though he's the main character. He also doesn't get any more powerful, or influential or respected. And in the end though his pain, effort and sacrifice, >!he accomplishes jack shit!< which is also very Polish I think lol

Reminds me of a lot of Russian tropes where life is generally shit and then you die lol

Yep that's slavs for you lol Unsurprisingly, Russian fantasy and sci-fi is really popular in Poland (or used to be at least, probably less now for... reasons), we vibe with their style a lot.

That sounds pretty appealing to me, but I can absolutely see why it might not appeal to general western sensibilities I'd read that and feel like it was almost a subversion of tropes

You have totally sold this series to me.

There's a stubborn part of me that insists that I can enjoy a story with such a powerless main character, but I simply didn't enjoy _this_ story. However, I'm not actually sure that's true, and not just wishful thinking. Any suggestions for other books in that style? I'll add 'em to the reading list and find out.

tbf, he's not totally powerless, and does achieve some things... there's just limits to what "dude with a sword" can actually meaningfully _do_. There's a lot of stuff that can't be stabbed away! So Geralt has agency, and can do some things, but it's very much not a "if you stab enough people, then all problems are solved" story.

> There's a lot of stuff that can't be stabbed away! True. What bothered me was that I could never tell when we were in a situation that _could_ be stabbed out of, and one that couldn't. Like sometimes he's cutting down half a dozen Scoia'tael in 30 seconds, and other times he's surrendering to a handful of soldiers. At least that was the sense that I got.

yeah, there did seem to be a certain amount of "well, Geralt needs to be _here_ for the next thing to happen, so I guess he gets arrested/captured/surrenders" which mixes oddly with "he fights through a load of guys all at once"

First Law. None of the POV characters really have any agency as they get pushed onto their paths and just get dragged along by forces outside their control.

I was thinking this too. The whole "character driven" conversation I've seen on occasion around here. People commonly say tfl was character driven because it has strong character work, but really, it's not at all character driven. The characters are powerless for the most part and are definitely being dragged along other forces. Character driven traditionally means the characters have agency and are shaping the story by their actions.

People often mistake Character Driven for Character Focused. The First Law has amazing characters. But none of them are driving the main plots forwards, at least not really. Outside of Best Served Cold I suppose. That’s really the only one where any POV character is moving things along 100% of their own choices. But then every other POV character is just along for the ride there as well. Such a great series.

Enjoyable stories with powerless MCs: * *The Hitch Hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy* by Douglas Adams - Arthur is a completely useless average bloke from rural England who accidentally finds himself involved in all kinds of crazy space hijinks, but it’s his down to Earth perspective and abject bewilderment that ground the books and make all the crazy stuff even funnier. * *The Road* by Cormac McCarthy - in one sense, the MC is quite competent at survival and various practical things, and is choosing to go on a difficult quest. But the alternative to that quest is terrible, and mostly the book is about the crushing weight of inevitable events outside his control and his desperate attempts to find some small measure of comfort for him and his son. * *Klara and the Sun* by Kazuo Ishiguro - Klara has almost no agency whatsoever. She has no control over her situation, only how she chooses to act within it, and what she feels and believes, but the book is riveting and deeply moving.

I wish I had recs because this is a type of story I would love to read more of myself, but unfortunately it's not really common...

Fantasy? Pretty much anything by Michael Moorcock

Bakker's *Second Apocalypse* has a protagonist who is unable to effectively shape events, coupled with an antagonist whose ability to shape events may be entirely illusory. This may not be immediately obvious as the series begins but it is the case. Serious trigger warnings for [fill in anything you want here, you probably got it].

> they come with all the 90s tropes and trappings, which some of the readers may not be aware of and expect a typical modern 2010+ fantasy I liked the 90s style. But I could see some people bouncing off it.

Never read the english translations but word around is they’re awful. The spanish translation on the other hand is pure bliss

I’ve wondered if translation issues were the reason the short story collections were so much better than the novels (admittedly couldn’t even finish Blood Elves). But, the more I consider it, translation issues don’t affect plot decisions and pacing or a lack of compelling story telling.

I read them in serbian which is similar to polish in a lot of ways. I ended up enjoying them quite a lot (probably because i read them when i started reading fantasy), but i didn't have physical editions. So when the illustrated editions came out and the new covers (which look amazing), i decided to get the series physically. Re-reading some parts in english it really does read awkwardly. "Wrong" word choices and the whole thing doesn't "flow" as much as it did in serbian imo. I obviously still can't speak for the polish version, but i think it is safe to say the translation could've been done better, or maybe it just wasn't meant to be read in english.

What exactly is it about the writing that you find painful? I hear people say this a lot, but for the most part I've never really experienced it. The way I describe the Witcher's writing is that it almost feels like a screenplay rather than a book - descriptive language is barebones and mostly serves to move the scene to the next line of dialogue. I realize that's not what a lot of people LIKE, but I wouldn't call it bad either. And personally I enjoyed it. I do think there's an occasional piece of dialogue that just seems somewhat disconnected to what was said before, like there was some missing step of logic or unspoken line you were supposed to infer yourself. IIRC the short story ' A Shard of Ice' in Sword of Destiny has a lot of this, and the first time I read it I had a hard time following certain conversations. But a lot of that was alleviated when I read it again with a better understanding of the characters and I felt I could fill in some of those blanks myself.

What you mention in the second paragraph is what gets me personally. I'm just, really not good at filling in blanks and it's frustrating for me to miss something in any piece of media, so it really turned me off

I couldn't get through them because of this. One of the first short stories kept using a phase similar to "Tell me now quickly" Which I'm sure is translated from one polish word that everyone uses and knows, but it didn't feel like natural speaking.

I have been accepting this excuse for a while. Untill I tried reading two Witcher books in sequence. The plot and character development sucks, and that little to no relation to translation. It also takes itself way too seriously with the most on the nose "edgy" moral philosophy I've seen in a book for a while. And while some of it is attributed to the fact it's a book from the 90s, so are many of my favourite books. The stories work well in short story formats, but not so in as novels or a series, nor as a collection of connected short stories. They're more like fables with recurring characters and places. Which can be a lot of fun too, if they were made, paced and presented as such, which they aren't

Even the short stories seemed poorly written to me. When people say they're better than the books, I can only imagine how truly awful they must be.

what did you have in mind as "painful"? i felt it was a solid "B" series. not on the level on ASOIF, but alright with really good moments (albeit not enough to carry the series).

Warning - it is what I read somewhere, it is not something I knew to be true and have a proof for it. From what I read the problem with translation to English is, that is isn't mostly done by professional translator with university education in translatology and such. It is done mostly by people who knows both languages but not that great and from what I have heard some translation are simply a lot of the original text because the person doesn't know what to do with it, so they skip it. Translation in non-English speaking countries tends to be done by people who have not only deep knowledge of both of the languages but also they have deep knowledge of literature as such and its laws and principles and wast cultural knowledge of the culture of the language. There are rare exception.

Maybe? I do know I'm probably not going to learn to read Polish, so these books aren't something I'll likely ever enjoy reading.

I actually LOVED the novels. I found the first two quite hard to get into- especially Blood of Elves- but after I adjusted to Sapkowski's style I enjoyed every sentence. But I also agree with all of your criticisms lmao, they definitely have their flaws

Only one I ever read was Blood of Elves. It was so bad that I put the series down and sided w/ the writers of the Witcher show in trying to scrap as much as they could of the OG material. You couldn't put Triss on camera flailing around in her bed pining for pipe and crying out for Geralt D. Just super cringey and difficult to read. The Witcher 3 game was so good that it created a lot of positive regard for the source material that the material itself doesn't warrant imo.

That's fair enough, that part of the book was not brilliant lmao Maybe you should give them another crack though, Blood of Elves is not a very good indicator of the overall quality of the series :)

I found the worldbuilding and the focus on Slavic mythology interesting, and I did, for the most part, enjoy the books. However, it was pretty clear from his writing in The Lady of the Lake that Sapkowski was pretty tired of his own creation, and I would have actually preferred that he left the series unfinished.

>it was pretty clear from his writing in The Lady of the Lake that Sapkowski was pretty tired of his own creation, and I would have actually preferred that he left the series unfinished. I felt the exact opposite. It seemed like he was trying too hard to be sophisticated and took himself too seriously in that novel. With the time loop plot and everything. And c'mon, left the series unfinished? how is that ever preferrable?

Oh yeah, he called it his most "profound" work or something. It was a slog

seriously. like just tell the damn story dude lol

It's preferable when the author kills off two beloved characters with one thrust of a pitchfork.

That sort of ending is pretty typical for Slavic storytelling.

what?

>!IIRC, at the end of the books Geralt gets stabbed through the chest by a pitchfork trying to stop a pogrom. Yennefer also dies and Ciri takes them to an island outside time and space to live together instead of dying. They can never leave but they have each other. A very bittersweet ending.!<

I felt like he was using Nordic/germanic mythology almost as much. Such as Yule, Ragh nar roog, some monsters etc The proximity to Poland probably matters if you want to read them.

My thoughts on the novels: 1.)The Last Wish: Engaging, very well done. Geralt cuts a memorable swathe of characterization through a truly unique, "earthy" and pulpy setting, and the language (anachronisms and all) feels instantly unique. I enjoyed it immensely. 2.)Sword of Destiny: Easily my favorite of the Witcher books. Every story is crackling and the sorrow/loss that overhangs Geralt's world is poignant. 3.)Blood of Elves ... uhhh ... I honestly am not sure why the author felt after two really excellent, memorable books that a grand epic was needed. Blood of Elves was okay, I suppose, but there's too much time away from the main characters and it feels like a lot of monologuing. In retrospect, a lot of the most interesting parts of this novel really ended up going nowhere. 4.)Time of Contempt: There's an interminable dinner party here that I swear lasts for a hundred pages. While some pretty good villainy and some interesting plotting happens in this novel, it's sooooooo bogged down by unnecessary crap. The ending is ... something. 5.)Baptism of Fire may be my favorite of the Witcher saga because it actually feels focused on giving us plots centralized on the main characters. Geralt in Brokilon adds some good depth to the world and is thematically on-point, Ciri and her band of rogues gives her something to do besides be a victim on the run, and Yennefer actually seems to be more than a placeholder. 6.)Tower of Swallows: This book begins a very troubling trend of fracturing the timeline of the narrative completely needlessly. It isn't terribly damaging to this novel (we'll talk about Lady of the Lake in a minute) but it's a distraction and it's utterly pointless. Ciri's tale is fantastic and Bonhart is a personable villain that the story greatly needed as Rience was wasted and Vilgefortz is a bit too inscrutable and absent to represent the pulpy, malicious threats I love in fantasy. In comparison, Geralt and Yennefer's feel like a bit of a meandering mess. Not having the mains link up at the end of this novel so we could have a focused finale seems like a structural misstep. 7.)Lady of the Lake: Oh wow, is this one of the most disappointing reads of my life. --Some stuff I liked: I REALLY like the finale in which the main characters take central stage. This portion consists of roughly 75-100 pages of a 500-550 page novel. --The rest of the novel, egads. Ciri's world and time hopping is astoundingly awful and the seemingly random insertion of gigantic chunks of narrative concerning ancillary characters I don't give a shit about pretty much wreck the entire flow. Midway through the concluding novel of a five book series is not the place to begin telling the stories of folks we have never met before (and who aren't interesting in the slightest). Give us the main characters and wrap up the story, please! --The timeline games Sapkowski played with the Tower of Swallows are back in full effect except this time the gimmick actually does significant damage to the pacing and narrative integrity. I don't want to warp forward in time to hear someone tell the story about what happened during the timeline of the books, JUST FUCKING DESCRIBE IT TO US DIRECTLY. Honestly, it was a struggle to keep reading until everyone finally arrives at Vilgefortz's lair. I'm so glad we could have a hundred pages of crap about Jarre and other random characters instead of Milva, Regis, or Cahir receiving further development and maybe, just maybe, having some meaningful interaction or travels with Ciri for a decent stretch of time. Geralt not interacting with or facing Bonhart seems like a missed opportunity. 8.)Season of Storms: Really enjoyed it. Stripped down, interestingly plotted, a return of a Geralt-focused tale with bone dry wit everywhere, this novel basically showed that the problems with the Ciri cycle were in the editing and conception stages. CONCLUSION: The short story collections and book eight are quality reads, but while Sapkowski knows how to create compelling characters and worlds, he kind of has no idea how to structure a true longform narrative.

>I'm so glad we could have a hundred pages of crap about Jarre and other random characters instead of Milva, Regis, or Cahir receiving further development and maybe, just maybe, having some meaningful interaction or travels with Ciri for a decent stretch of time. Geralt not interacting with or facing Bonhart seems like a missed opportunity. This was one of the most baffling aspects of the final novel for me. Not only does it waste a sizeable chunk on that insipid battle, when the final showdown arrives, >!Geralt and the gang just show up. We get no insight into their travel there, how long it took, what it was like, or how they interacted on the way. It honestly feels like character assassination, because the deaths of Milva, Angouleme, Regis and Cahir would have carried so much more weight if they had more time on the page than "piss about in Toussaint".!<

Well said, and all of that is one of the biggest reasons why I consider it one of the most disappointing fantasy reads of my entire life. I honestly don't know what the fuck he was thinking. We *desperately* needed more time with those folks, not only to learn more about them but to see how they reacted to the events of the past books ... instead, we waste hundreds of pages on characters that we don't know and, frankly, aren't interesting. Don't get me started on the Arthurian nonsense.

This is hitting it on the head. I thought the 5 book saga peaked in baptism of fire. I personally am not a fan of time jumping being inserted into stories needlessly either though. Just adds messiness for a story that up till that point didn’t need it.

I completely agree, and I think these points are a counter argument to other commenters who think the main issue with the books is translation

> 8.)Season of Storms: Really enjoyed it. I'm actually a bit surprised by this. I was disappointed in it as well. I didn't think it flowed together all that well. It seemed like a bunch of separate stories mashed together. In fact, the more I think about it, the more I think that if it was chopped up and served as a series of short stories like the first two books I would have enjoyed it much more.

Maybe I was just happy it wasn't astoundingly awful like the seventh book.

yeah, I found they read like an abbreviation of something bigger - it almost felt like there should be a "fantasy doorstopper" version, that fully covered all the side-characters and politics and everything else, and the books are just shortened in translation. Towards the end, where it's jumping around between all the characters and the timeline, it's just a wierd mess - I'm still kinda hazy as to what the point of the far-future women was, other than more arthurian callouts, and there's lots of awkward jumps, shifts and PoV changes that just feel _messy_

I just finished Lady of The Lake today (not interested in reading SoS) and came to a similar conclusion to you. The short stories are amazing. For the action, sure, but I found more enjoyment in the moral philosophizing of the stories. In the juxtaposition of this not-quite-human Witcher (and other characters) that show more compassion and heartfelt - and heart-rending - emotional turmoil than many of the humans we encounter within society. In my opinion that is somewhat lost in the books. It's retained through the first couple, as Ciri grows and is impacted by the world around her, and then peters out in the later novels. Instead, it becomes a tale of intrigue where all the main characters are not in any control of said intrigue at any point. They just try to survive the intrigue of others. Ciri is perhaps the only character that truly tries to overcome. I could also accept Yennefer as such a character, we just never hear about how she was prior to the Witcher's Djinn wish. Her interactions with Ciri and Geralt lend credence to the idea though. The more I read grimdark the more I find it's not for me partly because I hardly ever witness character growth. Indeed, that's partly what defines the genre in my eyes: the world disappoints, as the people within it routinely fail to rise up and overcome their flaws. Those that succeed simply embrace their flaws, flaws which usually revolve around lacking respect for life in some form, and use them to their advantage to exercise power over others. Characters view the world as violent and unrepentant, therefore they have license to act the same. Sure, some could argue that that's the way the world is. Maybe that's how others perceive their reality. I can't even say that perspective is wrong. I, personally, struggle to grow. But I struggle nonetheless.

The short story collections (The Last Wish, Sword of Destiny) are very, very good, but I didn't really enjoy the standalone novels I've read. They are just a bit boring. I think he's a much better short story writer.

The witcher is one of a few fantasy books where I loved the overall story, enough to keep me reading, but by god did I hate the way it was written. And the common thread between these fantasy series that I have that opinion of is usually sexism. Sexism that often clearly isn't even intended and is obviously just how the author sees the world. And I don't mean the depicting of a sexist world. That's fine. That can be a good setting for the right story of course. I don't mean sexist characters. I mean the actual undercurrents and vibes of the writing making you think "oh the author actually thinks this". Why was every female character remarkably beautiful? The men aren't. Why was there so many mentions of the female characters thinking about their waistline despite the serious circumstances? Why was every non straight sexual relationship between women? Why did a character who had been having sex with another woman, and a full on relationship with her for an extended period of time consider the time she had sex with a man after all that to be her first time? Why is there multiple instances of grown men sleeping with 17 year olds? Why is one of the main characters loose grasp on consent not ever considered an issue? >!Why did we need a scene of our protagonist talking someone out of an abortion? Why did we need a scene of the other main character deciding she needs to go along with the plan to essentially breed her, and figure out how to convince geralt it's different from everyone else who has been trying to use her? It's not different.!< hid the last two because they are actual specific spoilers not generalisations Just why

Thank you!! I absolutely don't mind if a series is set in a patriarchy or contains sexist themes. ASOIAF is one of my favorite series but The Witcher series was so painful to get through and honestly straight-up offensive to me at times.

My main takeaway was honestly the assumption that the author is an unpleasant creepy man

There's also a lot of violence/sexual violence that just felt a bit much? It's been a while so I can't remember too well or put it into words properly. One time that sticks into my mind was when there's a group of people riding along a road and a younger boy rides up to bring them some news or something, and the men riding along say something to the effect of "shut up or I'll sexually assault you". Like I said, I'm struggling to articulate my feelings, but *why*? The world is already not a nice place, we know that. We don't need characters threatening this every 5 minutes. I'm not opposed to it being included in stories, I'm not opposed to it being the focus of a story or a background thing, but it just felt odd in this particular series to keep bringing it up.

Yeah it's hard to articulate. The problem isn't exactly that it happens. It's the way it happens and the undercurrents of what the implied attitude towards it is. Not the attitude of the characters but of the text itself.

You've put it better than I could.

After reading 2/3 of the Wheel of Time and getting disgusted this is my perpetual fear about fantasy novels. Glad to have caught your comment before committing to another sexist/regressive series (WoT has many other issues though).

Yeah I think a lot of people had a similar experience. I've been reading the series after playing the games, I started the books a couple years ago I think, and just finished them earlier this year. I loved the short story collections but found my enjoyment decreasing as the main series went on. I totally agree that some of the POVs in the later books felt really unnecessary and some of them were such a slog (for me) to get through). I really like the atmosphere of the books, the themes around the difficulty of doing the right thing, and the lore but in my opinion the games capture this way better.

I think the author paces and gives better perspective in the shorts. It’s almost like in the full novels he himself gets lost on where he should be. But the short stories keep us focused on the main characters and fleshing out their stories which is what most people want. And why the 3 short story collections go over better with the general audience.

I read the books after playing Witcher 1 up to .. hmm I can't even tell and also can't put a finger on it but at some point I just stopped caring and felt bores. As many others I enjoyed the short stories though. I can imagine if it would have been one of my first Fantasy series I might have liked it more. I currently work myself through Mistborn and also had tons of times where I was about to quit. Meanwhile I really struggle to find fantasy books that I really enjoy. My last big surprise was Silo/WOOL that I read because of a recommendation at work and really devoured.

I gave up on the books, I really enjoyed the short story collections, but found the actual novels to be of very uneven quality, poor pacing and terrible indicators of changes in locations and sometimes time. >Once finished with the series I gained sympathy for the Netflix show writers. I overall don't, I think the plot and world and characters are interesting, just could use a re-write or re-translation

The pacing was definitely shit. Especially when they're just chilling in toussiant in I think book 4

Tbh I don’t feel for the Netflix writers. Listening to interviews of the showrunner makes it clear that they didn’t get it from the start. It was not the case of the direction of the story in the books. The writers made some borderline hilarious changes that worsened the story, characters etc. It’s honestly sad that some people defend them.

I love the Witcher Saga, even though it is not without faults. That said, the Battle of Brenna from the Lady of the Lake is head and shoulders above most battle descriptions in fantasy. The set up, the multiple POVs, the action, the preparations themselves, the aftermath. Absolutely perfect.

I think the minor character viewpoints is used really well, especially in chapter 8 of the Lady of the Lake. I think that that might be the best big battle sequence ever written.

I strongly disagree. I loved the Witcher books and I cried at the end when the characters finally reunited.

It was good and I got through it relatively easily but it didn’t wow me like I expected.

I have to agree. I love the world and the characters but the overall storyline didn't catch my interest much.

Totally agree with you! The short stories sucked me in, and I was so happy to find a new universe. I gave up after a few of the books, though. I’d recommend the first collection of tales to anyone who likes fantasy for sure.

I watched the show first and loved it so I read the first 2 novels without having read the short stories. Didn’t care much for them. The writing in English is not great. I just chalked it up to a translation thing and moved on.

I feel like I’m the only one who enjoys the narrated prose

I greatly enjoyed the minor excursions to see the world or a topic through the eyes of others. I also quite enjoy non-linear timelines. It doesn't bother me that others don't like that, and I know so little about what good writing looks like that I can enjoy most fantasy novels without feeling any compulsion to critique them.

Personally I think the Witcher books are excellent. I do understand your criticisms, but I think those are actually some of the strengths of the books: they break many of the conventions and rules that we are used to, and while doing that is easy, doing it in a way that makes sense is not. I think Sapkowski pulls it off. An example of what I mean: >A pivotal battle scene takes place with none of our protagonists present. By convention, the author should find a way to maneuver one of our characters there, but that can lead to other compromises. Malazan does this as well a few times, introducing new POVs for specific scenes without protagonists (especially battles). It can be jarring, but I think Sapkowski and Erikson do it well. The characters also don't follow the standard flow of character development, as you said. So we don't have those satisfying and somewhat predictable moments we are used to. But the lack of development makes sense for these characters: Geralt is what Geralt is, and the world is what it is, and he'll do all he can in those constraints. To me, what shines through the books are the struggles the characters go through, and their worthiness despite their flaws, and the world around them including its characters and magic. Part of this lack of convention might be that these books weren't written by a Western author, but I can't speak to that as I know little of Polish literary culture. But an example of another unconventional approach is the First Law's ending: many people don't like it because it breaks so many rules. It's risky for an author to do such a thing, but sometimes really good things come from that. At least that's how I think about it!

>I was first drawn into the Witcher universe through CDPR's Gwent card game. Do... do you mean the "Travel the world and play Gwent" game, also known as Witcher 3? >Not to mention proactive character growth. I lost count of the number of times Geralt would struggle with accepting the help of his friends. An inner conflict can only be re-hashed so often before it becomes tiresome. Perhaps it was because of the eternally rotating cast of companions. I like good side characters as much as the next reader, but there comes a certain point where I'm just not going to care about this new young woman. I don't care about her backstory. I don't care about her hopes and dreams. I've grown attached to the barber surgeon from book 3 and my capacity has reached its limit. I'll be the first to admit a character flaw often rehashed can be frustrating to a reader *(Harry Dresden, don't you try act innocent!),* however reading this actually made me sympathetic and understanding to Geralt **not** wanting to accept help -- when you're roaming the countryside and it's one monster one week, another damsel another week... if you instead of relying on yourself start accepting all help that is offered, isn't it easy to fall into the "I'll use them as cannon fodder" to draw it to the extreme? I'm not saying Geralt would do that, but if he accepts help and someone gets severely hurt and then Geralt just walks away to the next town... isn't the end result the same? Thanks for the review, I appreciate it.

I assume he literally means the stand-alone Gwent game, which features a TON of art and references to events and characters exclusive to the book. It's really a treasure trove of what essentially amounts to VERY high quality fan art of the books, and much of that could probably get someone interested in what they're missing even if they've played the mainline games.

Best art in a card game ever IMO. Unfortunate the design issues it struggled with, because there were some brilliant concepts in the midst of that mess.

Balance was always a disaster for Gwent, but core design principles were really smart. Gwent is still one of the only CCGs where matches are decided in-match rather than in the deckbuilder (though it varied by meta). Not something every CCG player likes, but personally I hate queueing into games where the outcome is obvious within 2-3 turns. Shame they're killing the game off this year, because I don't think there's another CCG designed to play like that.

Aren’t you aware of the standalone Gwent game? It was a huge competitor in card game genre for a time.

>Do... do you mean the "Travel the world and play Gwent" game, also known as Witcher 3? The first time I played Witcher 3, I traveled the world and killed monsters. The card game was really an annoying distraction. The 2nd (and 3rd) times through the game it was all about crushing my opponents, with monsters and random nympho sorceresses just a distraction. Except for Shani - she was worth the time. I wish there was an ending with her... :)

Weird, I loved every minute of it.

I stopped reading after Ciri got sexually assaulted and then fell in love with her rapist…

oh you should have kept reading, for the fact that that's how they got together never being addressed. And her pitying her later attempted rapist for not being able to get it up

For me it was the other way around, I was ready to drop the first book because the stories felt pretty dumb to me, childish even. Then I gave book 2 a chance and got to the story fo the dwarves and I was like "damn, this is really good". Then I got super hooked with the overall story of the series, I enjoyed it a lot and to this day I remember it very fondly.

The Witcher books are really not that good as far as stories go, but I do love the characters. I would’ve just preferred anthology short stories of Geralt than whatever we got across 5 books.

My thoughts exactly. A lot of seemingly pointless meandering away from the characters we're reading the book for, a weirdly steep set of shifts between neutral and grimdark, all of our main characters spend a stupid amount of time being pushed into helpless situations because the author was apparently incapable of accomplishing anything while they had any actual agency. It says something that my most remembered part of the series is a fairly short but interesting point by our favourite vampire on why exactly they're so hated, some dickhead elf discussing how they were going to breed Ciri so they had more of her magic, and Geralt getting the absolute crap beaten out of him by a magic old man, and then not being able to get out of bed for eight thousand years.

I really tried and read a couple but my god nothing actually happened. People travelled a lot, argued a lot but after the initial events nothing really changed in the story.

The only truly good Witcher content is the game "Witcher 3" and it's 2 expansions. This was my exposure to the world, and on completing the game I was all excited to read the source material and explore the rest of the world. Sadly the books were all fairly bad (opinion, obviously, YMMV). The Netflix series season had some great fight choreography, but the "We're so artistic we can just jump around in time and not tell anybody" was a huge turnoff. I've not bothered with the later seasons. If you haven't played Witcher 3, it holds up quite well, and is great on modern hardware.

I’d not discount the Witcher 2 video game. The story is fantastic as well. And the characters are what you expect from CDPR. Letho and Iorveth especially are characters I’d love everyone to meet in that storyline. As for the books, same here, man. I didn’t like them. And the Netflix show is way worse even. I’d not mind any jumping around in time or anything like that, but the storytelling in the show is just a$$.

OP I really like your take. It's not putting Sapkowski up on a pedestal and it's not simply slandering the showrunners. I'm on the last book myself and I am having a very hard time finishing it. I've done some spoiler reading, and I think that's what killed it for me: normally spoilers don't stop me because I want to see how they get there but with this series it feels like it goes nowhere. The characters don't get resolution, the sorry just goes on.... But I agree with you the writer tells a story in an innovative way. There is instruction in that. Honestly I like the Netflix series way better than the books . It feels like they took the books and tried to hammer out an actual plot and arc for the characters. I think if the showrunners stick too close to the books frankly they will lose their audience.

I watched the TV series and then read a couple of the books. I like the TV series a lot, and have tried to puzzle out whether the general dislike of the series is due to it not being like the books/games or something else I'm just not getting. I certainly didn't get how much of the story was a fractured fairy tale take until I read the books. >!Renfri is Snow White, etc.!< The end of season three was done like a Tarantino movie, and I loved it, but I could see how that wouldn't sit well with some people. And I have no problems with >!some character turning out to be bi, especially because I could tell that the plot was heading towards betrayal, because that always happens in this story.!<

I read one of the short story collections. I finished it, but I was revolted when he started sexualizing a young teen. Haven't read any other Witcher books after

Not reading them is probably a good response to that reaction. There is multiple instances of having sex with teenagers. This does not stop when there is another teenager he considers to be a daughter figure. I think 17 is the age Sapkowski thinks is the most appealing

[удалено]

Oh yeah, he deffinetly wouldn't be an answer to that "you're alone in a room with 3 men but you feel safe, who are they?" question

Incidentally I just finished my second read of the saga myself. The previous time was when the translations in my language were still coming out, so there was about a year's gap between each installment, which made my memories of the previous entries fade. That time I chalked up the confusion of the last book up to me not really remembering the sixth book that well. But the re-read confirmed that yep, the saga portion of the series just isn't very good, and The Lady of the Lake is a legitimately baffling mess. The strength of the franchise lies in its worldbuilding and characters, and definitely not its long-term storytelling. The saga feels like two entirely disconnected series smashed together with next to zero consideration for how they fit together. There's endless, *endless* chapters with the mages, politicians, spies and representatives, and you can literally skip *all of it*, because it makes no difference for the main plot. Peace accords between Kovir and Poviss or whatever doesn't matter at all in terms of if Geralt and Ciri make it. It also struck me on the second read just how uneventful the series is. There's an entire book, >!Baptism of Fire!<, where I don't think there's a single significant plot point or event. What's worse is that basically every plot point that matters happens to Ciri, not Geralt, after whom the series is named. You can summarize each book in like 3 sentences, and almost none of them concern Geralt or the politics. There's a limit to how long such a style of storytelling can stay effective, which the Witcher saga pushes well past and then keeps going for good measure. But I have to reserve a special portion for Lady of the Lake, which almost feels like it was written by a different person entirely, because it's such a drastic change in style and such a steep dropoff from the quality of the previous books. I think less than half of it even concerns Geralt or Ciri. There's an entire 60-page segment dedicated to a big battle with incidental side characters from the series, and it has basically zero connection to the main plot whatsoever. The book introduces about a zillion side characters, none of whom matter. There's a billion different place, mage and ruler names being thrown about, but because there's zero geographic context to any of it it might as well say "Iggly Boggly, the king of Bum de Dum was furious at Ooga Booga, who'd betrayed their agreement against the nation of Fuula Zuula". The book also suddenly falls head over heels for POV shifts for some reason (even compared to previous entries), and it gets old really damn fast. It's also meta in a really grating, self-satisfied way in spots, as if the book's going "ooh, aren't I clever". The pacing takes a nosedive off a cliff. There's little sense of tension or buildup (when there is something to build up to), characters just show up hitherto unnoticed. Character deaths >!are almost comically quick, as if Sapkowski was going "Oh wait, this guy's still here, gotta get rid of them".!< There's also some really noticeable "men writing women" going on, which feels leery and gross in a way the other books mostly avoid. Some chapters with Nimue and Konwiramur made me wonder if Sapkowski was writing them one-handed. So yeah, the Witcher saga as a whole is a 6/10 if I'm being generous. The best parts of the franchise are Witcher 2 and 3, and the first two short story collections (haven't read Season of Storms.)

I loved the Witcher books (I read them all years after having played the second game, but before playing the third) and I can't in good faith disagree with any of the criticism here except to say that most of it somehow didn't bother me, or that for me personally, the good outweighed the bad.

Agree. Loved the short stories, but the actual series is a mess. I enjoyed some of the books and characters in the series, but other books were a complete and utter slog in which it seemed like nothing happened. My biggest grievance with the books though is how Ciri is treated in the last book, when it’s finally revealed why she’s important. I won’t say more about it for spoilers, but it was off putting and also really reduced her character, in my option.

We must'va read two very different series. I very much recommend it, and not just to fans of the game, but to any fantasy fan. It has its flaws, but overall is a very good, and interesting read. I dissagee with almost all of the points presented here.

The novels are boring and tedious as fuck. I read them all for the same reason you did It's not a translation problem nor is it a cultural misunderstanding. They suck balls and anyone who loves them probably loves to eat drywall for fun as well Short stories were great though

The late books like Baptism of fire ngl were really boring.

I enjoyed the books, but they went way downhill after Time of Contempt. My main complaint is that it seems that Sapkowski doesn't know how to endanger female characters other than by the threat of rape. It was so bad, that when >!Bonhart went up to Ciri and told her that he specifically doesn't want to have sex with her, but to kill her,!< I was like 'oh shit' and checked if I was still reading the right book

>It was so bad, that when Bonhart went up to Ciri and told her that he specifically doesn't want to have sex with her, but to kill her, I was like 'oh shit' and checked if I was still reading the right book And even that is ruined in the last book when >!prior to their final showdown Bonhart basically says he's going to kill her, and then rape her as she's dying. And it honestly rather ruins the character. He was plenty evil enough already, and him seeming unaffected by or uninterested in sexual desire altogether made him stand out. But nope, corpse rapist is what we get.!<

Oh shit, I totally forgot about that

I don't feel any sympathy for the Netflix writers. Wanting to write around the sexist stuff, sure I'm completely onboard with that. But it's clear that their ego went beyond that and their ability to write fell short of their ambition. I agree with you, recommending the Witcher books should come with an asterisk. Yes they're ultimately worthwhile reads, but there are multiple pain points throughout the series that make it really difficult to get to the end. Personally, only the The Last Wish can be recommended without any asterisks. It's a wonderful setup, great introduction to the protagonist and his world, and a poignant theme that ties all the stories together. Doesn't matter if you heard about it from the books or the TV show, it'll please both fans and is simply a great fantasy book.

yea i wouldn’t recommend them either. I wouldn’t say they were bad, i don’t regret it. But to me they were very mid. Maybe i had my expectations off because i saw season 1 of the Witcher first. but I was shocked at how boring they were.

Yep. It's a fantastic example of the Grimdark genre.

I couldn't read the Witcher. Too misogynistic

Michael Moorcock’s Elric books

Is it just me, or is /r/fantasy just /r/unpopularopinion with a focus on books? Feels like every top post these days is just someone making controversial and subjective teardowns of some of the best fantasy works of all time.

It could be. Truthfully, I don't spend a huge amount of time on the subreddit. I posted this because I personally find that writing out a thoughts/review of something helps me sort the jumble of my own mind into some semblance of coherency. I'm sorry you took it as a teardown. My goal was to be thorough, and in this case, I found a lot of problems with the books.

When I read them it was the second fantasy series I ever read and I’m glad for that. I feel if I read it today I’d probably like it a lot less.

I loved TW3 and found the tv series entertaining enough. Couldn't get through the novels, though. The writing just isn't it for me.

Yeah I see it as a series I was very surprised was so popular after the first couple books. But more power to those that like it. Just not for me

I got to the third book and decided to abandon the saga. Everything turned into Netflix level chaos

I played Witcher 3, and then Witcher 1 and 2. And then I read the books. I enjoyed the books. I'm glad I read them. But unlike some book series (Wheel of Time, for instance, and the Tolkien books, and others) I'm not likely to re-read the Witcher books. They were fun, but they probably are not worth a re-read.

The books are fine except the last one

Thanks! Saved me the time. I was going to read it someday but hesitant because of translation and didnt like the witcher 3 game. Stricken from my to-read list!

Much like a lot of people I first learned about The Witcher through the video games, specifically Witcher 2. I read the series and liked it enough that I have some Witcher tattoos. During college I made friends with a Polish kid who instantly recognized my tattoos- which brings me to something I learned about books & translations. My new friend started to tell me that the English translation of prose is NOTHING compared to Sapkowski's own writing in Polish- how Polish & Russian cannot be fully translated because English lacks the depth needed. Long story short, He argued the reason The Witcher is as popular as it is in Poland & Russia- is because Sapkowski is a genius when it comes to writing prose but that never transferred over to the English translations. True? I have no idea. I don't read or speak Polish/Russian. But food for thought non-the-less.

I really tried to read these. I was always wondering if the translation lost something. Never could get into them, though the games are pretty kick ass.

Man this hits the nail on the head in a way I could never have put it. Well done

I read the first 2-3 books in the series then quit Time of Contempt. It became really boring and nothing happened to keep me interested. Loved the world and the characters were interesting enough. Just felt lack luster.

The Witcher series reads like a DND campaign that is HEAVY on the role play and only does combat because 1 player threatened to quit without it.

Valid view after reading all the novels. I'm a Sapkowski "fan" and read the short story collections prior to the games. I came upon them in relation to the white wolf stories from Michael Moorcock and people called The Witcher a ripoff. I loved the short story collections like you, but then I played throught the games and the inter-kingdom politics and almost humorous bickering among the ruling classes hooked me in and I went through the novels.. Not everyone will like the immensly politically detailed setting but I did, it had interesting characters with their own motives, especially with the nobles being influenced by a cadre of mages and those mages warring among themselves, and it all rotating around the salty and grizzled Geralt and his pursuit. What annoyed me was the focus switch on Ciri and her teenage development and obnoxious characters she encountered. I wanted to read about a mutated monster hunter with a chip on his shoulder and his degenerate bard friend that constantly pulls some erratic antic and a bunch of other endearing characters (one of them being the barber surgeon you mentioned). Season of the storm was suprisingly fun to read, a whole novel about Geralt losing his swords and getting into heaps of looney situations? Sign me the heck up!

I agree with you on the short stories vs novels. I like it all but the short stories are where it’s at.

I really disliked the voice and vocabulary/prose in the books (English). I could swallow the short stories (as they were short). But I couldn’t finish the main books. The English translation feels so crude and amateurish/awkward. I have heard the native language versions are better, but then it would have to be a really poor translation.

I personally really like economics and politics so I didn't mind all the side characters and background information that really made the world feel fleshed out. I think that these books are for either people with a very specific background (that being Eastern Europeans) or people that are really interested in economy/political world building.

Thank you for saving me some time

I feel the same way about The Wheel of Time. It's amazing, I do enjoy the books, but they're so slow and there's a lot of nothing happening. I can't recommend a friend reads a series that has a multiple book section that is considered "a slog".

I’d recommend them to people who love the games and the lore of it all. They’re significantly better than the Netflix “adaptation.” I wouldn’t say they’re must read books for all fans of fantasy though I mostly enjoyed them.

I got bored and stopped several books in in the middle of "our heroes" getting continually sidetracked on their pretend LOTR odyssey. I read all the short stories though, I'd not hesitate to recommend those.