The Witcher is getting a Netflix series

[Witchblade77]

Translation could be one issue for sure, however I've been told by people whose judgement I trust that the English translation of the Witcher books is fairly good as far as such translations go. Obviously it will never be the same as reading in the original, but you go by what you can. And it's not like we're talking about highly sophisticated literature here that stretches the limits of translatability.

I'm fairly confident that the English translation allows enough structural and technical analysis to make a comparison, and the world building etc. is usually also something that works well in translated works. The cultural differences are another thing, but honestly, I did not find the Witcher books too idiosyncratic. Then again, I have a Slavic background myself so that might be it.


I wouldn't simply call the Witcher "generic", at least not in a pejorative sense, but it's not exactly a revolution of the genre. The Slavic touch is nice and appreciated (gods know we could use more cultural diversity in fantasy literature) but it also doesn't exactly transgress any boundaries. Most of it is put together in a reasonably interesting way, but it's largely just familiar elements.

Now, it's not like ASOIAF is radically different either, of course. It just comes with more meticulous writing and world building than most mainstream fantasy, and, I suppose, a kind of gritty realism that was often eschewed in the genre in favor of epic tropes.

good translation mean that its very readable and enjoyable and its most likely that translator attempted to find cultural and linguistic equivalents of a phrase, rather then just translating word for word, so that it ends up making no sense - case in point, changing Jaskier to Dandelion in english translation, the purpose being to show that the name of the bard is just as dandy as the rest of him. it does NOT mean that subtlety and nuance is not lost. there is only so much that even the best translator can do. and given all that - writing in Witcher is good. its evocative enough to immediately paint a picture in my mind of what its describing without resorting to so much unnecessary padding that by the time I finish a page, I have to ask myself - where were we again?

my very problem with ASOIAF is that it tries not to be a fantasy while being a fantasy. adding just enough fantasy elements to technically qualify, but they are barely there so people are all like... oh this is so refreshing, when in reality its as generic as generic historical fiction goes, but because it uses original names and occasional dragon or ice zombie, we forget that. or possibly because most people tend to stick to one, maybe 2 favorite genres and not read outside of them... so they have nothing to compare to.

part of what I like about witcher is that it KNOWS its fantasy and it revels in it instead of treating it like an embarrassing skeleton in its closet. not everything needs to revolutionize the genre to be good representation of it.

as I said, part of my problem with song of ice and fire is that it doesn't exactly revolutionize the genre either, while also IMO not being a good representation of it. its neither here nor there. not that there is anything wrong with sitting outside of specific genre either, but even on its own merit if you take it as just fiction.. its ok. its not bad, but its not IMO exactly Lord of the Rings either.

[Airlick]

The Witcher books have some atrocious writing in my opinion. Some of the conversations just feel forced. Sometimes they speak as if someone selected the: "Could you explain who this faction / history / person is?"-option from the NPC dialogue tree.

Those are honestly novice writing mistakes.

Other than that I fully agree with Biomega's assessment. And I've got a lot of experience with literature, my own partner is an editor and two of my closest friends had a hand in writing A World of Ice and Fire together with GRRM.

But this could all just be me being a huge GRRM fan opposing the views of Witcher fanboys. I dont think we'll be able to see eye to eye on the quality of the books.

I would like to add to my defense though that I would never just randomly accuse a book of being bad writing if that wasn't my honest opinion about it.

I don't recall anything like it. I do recall some chapters started with random characters (often it was a conversation between a student and a teacher, or a historian writing a book or recalling something) that discussed some events happening in the world, not directly concerning the main story. You could call it a novice mistake, but ASOIAF did exactly the same, quite often with maesters, and I think it's not a bad way to introduce some backstory and avoid just slapping a backnote about it (or, wink wink, omitting a lot and just writing a whole new book about it). It's not brilliant writing, but it's passable and Witcher makes up for it with plenty of great dialogues. And so does ASOIAF, while we're at it.

I'm not seeing how having writer friends makes YOU an expert at writing. It's also funny how apparently GRRM fans are proper fans and Witcher fans are fanboys...

I guess you're entitled to your own honest opinion, but I wouldn't call it an educated opinion in any case.

[jackofwind]

You have an odd taste in literature in my opinion then.

For me the ASOIAF books were an absolute pleasure to read. To this day I still consider them one of the best books I've ever read (along with Fevre Dream a book also strongly recommended by the creator of Dark Souls, who forces his employees to read it at least once). I loved the attention to detail not just in describing the environment but in the carefully laid out plots and non-direct storytelling and insinuations in references towards past historical and mythological events in the world. The witty conversations and the occasional brush with philosophical murmuring. The mood building and the environmental storytelling that comes with it. Another great series in the same stylistic fashion is Foundryside, set in a more fantasy & sci-fi 1800s setting.

One of the biggest reasons why I didn't enjoy the Witcher books was because everything was so plain and basic, plebeian even. It's the same reason why I'm struggling with "Kings of the Wyld" right now too.

I assume I might be an elitist snob or such, because when I still actively engaged in writing role play storylines within a community we pretty much had the same sort of standard: people who wrote plainly, with a few lines of text, as their emotes generally weren't received well. The standard posting style encouraged by the moderators was two or more paragraphs per emote. I would argue that for the latter you would need a certain amount of literary and intellectual development to be able to appreciate and enjoy it. (/r/Iamverysmart ...)

It's like "WoW" vs "LOTR", "plain attracting noobies" vs "more elaborate attracting elitist snobs"...

GRRM is by no means a bad writer, strictly speaking. He is, however, vastly overrated and zealously defended by people who really haven't read much modern fantasy. That's why memes about Martin killing off people's favorite characters (like it's something new and surprising that a protagonist wouldn't survive a single book - Deadhouse Gates anyone?) make normies nod their heads vehemently and everyone else roll their eyes.

Brandon Sanderson, Steven Erikson and Joe Abercrombie all blow Martin out of the water. James Islington and Brent Weeks in many ways as well.

[Witchblade77]

https://screenrant.com/witcher-tv-se...-books-change/

as for season 2, no idea, seems like anything in 2020 is unlikely so sometime in 2021. there are rumors of potentially there being animated series covering some of the minor characters in between the seasons?

[Akka]

Didn't plan to watch the show, but I was at some friend for the 1st January and he wanted badly to show it to me, so well I went with it.
It was a mixed bag on the whole, but interesting enough that I might see the second season.

Cavill actually was a pleasant surprise, his love of the setting and the character is contagious, and he put a ton of effort to own the role. He might be a bit too "pretty boy" and burly to exactly fit Geralt, but he certainly nailed the voice, the attitude and the physicality. Really tips my hat to him.
I don't like Yen appearance, but I have to admit the actress DOES play her well.
Dandelion was great. I don't usually like comic relief, but for once it works. As with Cavill, the actor seems to have a blast and really go into the character.

On the whole, it's enjoyable, there is a good amount of humor and the fights were great (Geralt vs Renfri was jaw-dropping).


But the "diverse" casting was an absolute cringe, though. It seriously detracted from the setting, gives a very "American" feels to the show that voids a lot of its character (really don't feel "slavic" at all, just "generic european fantasy made by US people"), and feels like egregious politically-motivated insert. It's not like there is so much Eastern European culture in the West that they couldn't have got their beloved diversity by actually staying true to the root of the setting.
Even outside this point, some casting feels weird. Foltest for example was supposed to be tall, charismatic and cunning. Not really how he goes in the serie.
I don't really get why many changes were made to the story that don't seem to be relevant at all (girls morphed into eels and sacrificed ? Wut ? Fringilla from Aretuza ?).
Also, it felt often somewhat cheap (the dragon and the Nilfgaardian armors were pretty "wut" moments).
But worst of all is Triss. Seriously, WTF is this horror ?

[jackofwind]

Sure, and what about Andrzej Sapkowski ?

No, I don't think he's of the same calibre - at least not in English. From what I understand a lot of his writing draws on traditional Polish style, but I can't speak to that.

There's an argument to be made regarding things being lost in translation - the case may be that many people actually read the widely-circulated fan-made translations (that were even sold as physical paperbacks). These were notorious for their spelling errors, changing between English/Polish names (Dandelion/Jaskier) from book to book, and directly translating long-winded Polish sentences into English in a confusing way.

It's quite possible that those who read the books in English as little as four years ago were reading fan translations.

[JDL49]

What specifically was LAME about the Bard, in your opinion? Most people liked him AFAIK.

1) His style of humor did not fit the show. Imo generally speaking dark humor would have worked but tbh I'm not sure if that could be done being a bard.
2) I just couldn't see Geralt putting up with him. He was waaaay too annoying.

[Nerraw]

On a different note, when is S2, 2021?

Yes, 2021 is confirmed. I'm a little sad we have to wait that long, but it'll give them time to improve areas that need improving.

[JDL49]

TG somebody brought up translation. It can be a problem especially with humor. In fact there is an old saying in the entertainment industry that humor doesn't travel well. What's funny in the US may bomb in Poland. Ya never know. This is why spectacle movies do so well even in places where the audience needs dubbing or closed captions.

Besides that what's funny changes over time. The Three Stooges style is pretty rare nowadays and you will not imo in the future see humiliation comedy like I Love Lucy except very, very, rarely*. In both of these cases the audience changed. I 'think' modern women see Lucy's behavior as something unacceptable and can't put themselves in her position. But as for the Stooges unless it's less of a taste for physical comedy that borders on cruel and mean I'm not sure, I just know that it's changed.

*Lucy wallowed in humiliation. These days when it happens it's not dwelt on like it used to be.

As for GRRM I started ASOIAF and quit a third of the way through. None of his characters to that point were worth caring about and I could care less about his grand vision. This is purely a matter of taste.

[Mistame]

She looked fine to me, don't see the issue, ignoring the impotent rage from gamers that expected super bright red hair. /shrug

I don't have an issue with her not having bright red hair, I have an issue her with her not being attractive. In the story, most sorceresses are unnaturally beautiful (due to magic/alchemy). For Triss, in spite of her not being a major character, she was naturally beautiful so didn't need to use magic/alchemy to change her appearance. Not to mention that she was allergic to some of the potions/reagents they used. The actress they're using is homely, at best a 5/10. Geralt would not "hit" that.

[Witchblade77]

I don't have an issue with her not having bright red hair, I have an issue her with her not being attractive. In the story, most sorceresses are unnaturally beautiful (due to magic/alchemy). For Triss, in spite of her not being a major character, she was naturally beautiful so didn't need to use magic/alchemy to change her appearance. Not to mention that she was allergic to some of the potions/reagents they used. The actress they're using is homely, at best a 5/10. Geralt would not "hit" that.

um. I think you are taking your preference and stating it as fact. the actress is most certainly beautiful. its just the way she holds herself and the way she is dressed by costume designers is not helping along, but she herself is very lovely looking. they just need to figure out what the hell they are trying to do with her character because right now, she is acting very flatly and her main facial expression seems to be resignation mixed with sadness and "I just smelled something unpleasant" expression. something that can be fixed with better direction and character writing.

[Mistame]

um. I think you are taking your preference and stating it as fact. the actress is most certainly beautiful. its just the way she holds herself and the way she is dressed by costume designers is not helping along, but she herself is very lovely looking. they just need to figure out what the hell they are trying to do with her character because right now, she is acting very flatly and her main facial expression seems to be resignation mixed with sadness and "I just smelled something unpleasant" expression. something that can be fixed with better direction and character writing.

Of course there's some personal preference there. But what is and isn't attractive, from an aesthetic perspective, does have some standards that are fairly objective. Even in the picture you linked, she's not "beautiful", though not ugly, either. You're only as beautiful as you are without makeup, etc. And how she's presented in the show (frizzy hair, etc), she's nowhere near attractive enough for the role she's playing.

[arandomuser]

Why didnt people get mad when spielberg had morgran freeman play an irish guy with red hair named "red" in shawshank redemption, and because people didnt obsess over that detail it was one of the most critically acclaimed movies of all time, i guess people were so woke back then they cared about how the actual film was not some arbitrary characteristic that didnt fit the book.

and if people paid attention the actual witcher author was very happy with the netflix show and even collaberated for it, so the people triggered about "diversity" are literally triggered for no reason

[Witchblade77]

Of course there's some personal preference there. But what is and isn't attractive, from an aesthetic perspective, does have some standards that are fairly objective. Even in the picture you linked, she's not "beautiful", though not ugly, either. Also, you're only as beautiful as you are without makeup, etc.

again, this is entirely your personal preference, becasue according to the golden ratio - her face IS beautiful.

- - - Updated - - -

Why didnt people get mad when spielberg had morgran freeman play an irish guy with red hair named "red" in shawshank redemption, and because people didnt obsess over that detail it was one of the most critically acclaimed movies of all time, i guess people were so woke back then they cared about how the actual film was not some arbitrary characteristic that didnt fit the book.

back in those days we also had a Cinderella movie with black Cinderella, Philipino prince charming, whose parents were white guy and black woman, oh and fairy god mother was also black, and people loved it, because watching Woopie Goldberg, Whitney Huston, Brandy (who at the time was at the high of popularity) and Bernadette Peters was far more fun than even thinking about how "prince charming must have been adopted and Cinderela is a european fairy tale how dare they make her black, reeee!" /eyeroll

/random though.. I wonder if we have pulp fiction to thank for how season 1 is structured...

[Skizzit]

GRRM is by no means a bad writer, strictly speaking. He is, however, vastly overrated and zealously defended by people who really haven't read much modern fantasy. That's why memes about Martin killing off people's favorite characters (like it's something new and surprising that a protagonist wouldn't survive a single book - Deadhouse Gates anyone?) make normies nod their heads vehemently and everyone else roll their eyes.

Brandon Sanderson, Steven Erikson and Joe Abercrombie all blow Martin out of the water. James Islington and Brent Weeks in many ways as well.

I would add Mark Lawrence to that list as well. I wasn't the biggest fan of Prince of Thorns, but really enjoyed the Book of the Ancestor trilogy. Going to try The Red Queen's War next I think.

It is honestly not even fair to compare Martin and Sanderson. I looked into it because I was curious but Sanderson has released 11 novels since 2011, the year the most recent ASoIaF novel was released. That's not even counting all the novella, story stories, comics, and other projects he has been involved in. Hell, the first Stormlight novel was released in 2010 and he has already finished the first draft on the 4th and those books are massive. I have said it in the past, but that guy is a machine. I have no idea how he does it.

[Charge me Doctor]

GoT is for stupid people. It's fantasy genre for normies, particularly seasons 5-8. HBO did well to satisfy fantasy nerds while luring in the normies with dragons and tits.

The Witcher was enjoyable, not without it's flaws, and somewhat confusing to someone who hasn't read the books or played the games.

It's actually more confusing if you read the books, they fucked everything up big time to make it appealing for western auditory

[Mistame]

again, this is entirely your personal preference,

No, it's not.

becasue according to the golden ratio - her face IS beautiful.

Math doesn't magically make someone beautiful.



She's mediocre, at best. Regardless, we're talking about her portrayal of Triss Merigold, which falls short by a long margin.

[Ulfric Trumpcloak]

It's actually more confusing if you read the books, they fucked everything up big time to make it appealing for western auditory

I think it's plain bad writing, and not trying to make it appealing to anyone. The dialog is shallow, nothing is explained and introduced properly which leads to several things not making sense at all.

- The law of surprise(stupid even in the books) was just randomly thrown in there without bothering to explain wth it is.

- Why people look at Geralt in disgust despite looking like Henry Cavill who is one of the most attractive people in the world.

- The whole destiny thing being shoved down your throat.

- Eist hilariously taking his helmet off in the middle of a battle to end up taking an arrow to the face.

- Brokilon forest was written entirely different.

- Dandelion being used as a comedic relief, one liner machine.

- Mousesack getting killed by an evil doppler, which contradicts the lore itself because dopplers can't be evil.

- Foltest played by an old fat guy who can't speak full sentences even though he is described as still young, charismatic, and good looking.

- Ciri being forced into the story ahead of time, taking a lot of screen time that should have been used on Geralt and Dandelion.

- The whole Eyck of Denesle thing...

- Yarpen Zigrin also reduced to a one liner machine.

- Ciri and Geralt randomly rushing to meet in the middle of nowhere instead of meeting at Yurga's house.

There's a lot more but i've forgotten already.

[Witchblade77]

No, it's not.



Math doesn't magically make someone beautiful.



She's mediocre, at best. Regardless, we're talking about her portrayal of Triss Merigold, which falls short by a long margin.

you were talking specifically about how she is not pretty enough - and its YOUR personal preference. golden ratio is objective. you saying that it doesn't matter? is not.

i will not disagree with portrayal issues which I think in part at least are due to show runners having no idea where to take her character (game interpretation is just that - game interpretation, she doesn't have much character development in books to work with). i just don't think they have much to do with her looks. and yes I think she is beautiful in that shot you posted.

[Mistame]

you were talking specifically about how she is not pretty enough

I stated that she is unattractive. This is partly my subjective opinion and partly objective due to characteristics that are more often than not classified as unattractive (eg, freckles, especially with dark hair).

and its YOUR personal preference.

Not completely, no, as I've already stated. Repeating it doesn't change anything.

golden ratio is objective.

It's an objective baseline, but it alone does not dictate beauty. You can have a perfect face, but blemishes (eg, freckles), imperfections, etc, negatively affect the end result. Thus, it's not truly or fully objective.

you saying that it doesn't matter? is not

It only matters if one goes solely off the golden ratio. Failing to consider other factors is patent ignorance.