x

You have decided to merge your account with the GOG.com.

You can now start participating in the community discussions.

x

You chose to opt out from the merge process.
Please note that you will not be able to access your account until you opt in.

We strongly encourage you to merge your RED account with the GOG.com one.
If you want to do it later please try logging in again.

  • Register

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Question regarding Ciri and Geralt

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Funny how different people people can read the same thing and draw totally opposite conclusions.

    I also haven't finished the books, I just finished The Tower of the Swallow, so maybe my opinions will change. But the last 2 books haven't done anything else than to confirm my feelings. I'm glad that you felt that making Ciri the worst kind of murderer was necessary. It means that at least you can enjoy her chapters in the books. To me sadly they have became an incredible chore, I just wish I would be able to skip chapters when reading books, at least then I could enjoy this series.But I also can't remember a single instance in any other book that I read in which I felt that what a protagonist really needs to build character is to kill a bunch of innocent people and to watch fascinated his victims bleeding to death, so there's that. Also I would think that you don't actually need to kill a bunch of innocent people, and terrorize countless others, just to know that that is bad. And anyway even if that were true, Ciri is NOT the Source in the books, her unborn child will be. So if anyone needed to go on a murderous spree of innocent people for philosophical reasons that would have been her child and not her.

    You call Ciri incredible honest about herself while I find her incredible hypocritical. Like when she called Leo a murderer, after killing the Rats (in self defense). Or for calling evil the 4 bandits that waited her in the village for doing exactly what she and her friends loved to do. Man,y times in the discussions with Vysogota she leaves the impression that she still considers herself to be good and different than the other bandits even after all that she did. And lastly, the peak of her hypocrisy: calling herself a witcheress when she is nothing like them, even Letho when he killed innocent people actually did it for what he thought was the greater good, not for his sick pleasure. And btw, since she claims she will kill human monsters that do what she does (or did), why doesn't she takes a hard look in the mirror and cuts her own throat, since she is so honest? Honestly, if you want an example of a sincere and realist bandit, Angoulême is the one, not Ciri.
    Also the fact that she doesn't have any kind of remorse for her actions means to you that she just embraces her flaws and imperfections. To me just means a lack of empathy and conscience.

    I agree that in the books there aren't many good guys. But there are some of them: Shani, Nenneke and her volunteering pupils, Vysogota, Fringilla and Margarita (so far) for example, and there are plenty of those that are close enough like: Geralt, Cahir, Triss (so far), Yen (less in the first books, more in the last), hell even Three Jackdaws and many others. Many of them have been her tutors or role models.
    But my problem is not that she is not as good as them, is that she is a lot worse than many antagonists or people with dubious morality in the books. I will take any day someone like Phillipa, The Coroner, Dijkstra, who killed or get people killed because they are truly patriots or for some ideals over someone who kills and terrorize for her pleasure. I prefer Leo to her, at least while a sadistic bastard, he only killed or hurt people that deserved it, at least in this book. I can get behind someone like the Scoiatel guerrillas who envision themselves freedom fighters or even behind Milva who takes her own people to be slaughtered by dryads and elves because she has an obligation to the Matriarch dryad, at least those were soldiers. I can't get behind someone like Ciri. To me she is only under Rience, Schirru and Vilgefortz on a scale of "not goodness". In a world full of gray characters calling her not black makes to me as much sense as calling the sky not blue but green.

    Look I know that I sound very vehement in my dislike of Ciri after the Baptism of Fire. Probably because she was my favorite in the games and I loved her character in the early books. My point is that while I have no problems enjoying darker characters as villains or antiheroes I do have a problem in presenting basically a spree killer (or serial killer depending on definitions) as a hero we should root for because we saw her grow up and the main protagonists love her. I hate that just by changing her name back to Ciri from Falka all the evil that she did is just ignored like it never happened and that the only character that tried to punish her, and somewhat succeeded in doing that, is vilified.

    Anyway,after venting my frustrations, let me congratulate again all the book readers that enjoyed Ciri deveploment, wish I was you.
    Last edited by Dan_Florian_Eremia; 14-04-18, 08:50.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Dan_Florian_Eremia View Post
      Look I know that I sound very vehement in my dislike of Ciri after the Baptism of Fire. Probably because she was my favorite in the games and I loved her character in the early books.
      It is understandable, you said it yourself - your first encounter with her character was TW3, a non canonical sequel where any mention of her past wrongdoings was deliberately avoided (for obvious reasons). It is not something that was restricted to Ciri, either (also for the reasons that should be obvious).
      As for myself, I did have a sympathy for her, but I still hate reading those "Rats chapters" with passion because I think it's boring, uninteresting slog and all of the Rats are shitty characters.

      Comment


      • #18
        I agree those chapters aren't the best. I think it was viewed by the author as a necessary way to subvert the expectations of readers. Not my favorite part of the books ... but I didn't hate her in it.
        Read the Forum Regulations! This color means I am posting in my capacity as a moderator. Otherwise, feel free to ignore my random musings. Check out The Wild Hunt: A Tale by Master Dandelion & The Forlorn Hope!

        Comment


        • #19
          Question: The witcher Geralt is a very self-sufficient hero. Why did you need to create the destiny girl, Ciri, who appeared in the following novels? How did you come with her? What for?
          A.S. I meant for Ciri to be a monster. I wanted to show how people turn other people into monsters. Ciri is Evil, Evil incarnate. Everyone makes a monster out of her: the Rats, the sorceresses, Bonhart and even her own father Duny. She is already unconsciously taking revenge on everyone-Riens, the swamp people. "With these fingers, were you going to teach me pain, Riens?" She says. "With these hands?" They all teach her pain! When she comes to the village in the swamps, with black eyes, the old man asks her: "Who are you?", She replies: "I am death." Remember how in the end they go down the stairs to the enemies, the witcher and the girl, shoulder to shoulder? So, this is Good and Evil going down. Good and Evil. That's why no one can stop them.
          Question: So the witcher is Good?
          A.S. The Witcher is Good.
          Question: But then it means that the Good dies ...
          A.S: Yes it is. He leaves, he and Yennefer. But Ciri after that ceases to be Evil.
          Question: And what does she become?
          A.S. She doesn't know yet. And I won't tell you.

          Source : https://www.reddit.com/r/wiedzmin/co...scon_18022001/
          Last edited by Gwynbleidds; 15-04-18, 00:10.

          Comment


          • #20
            Thanks for the quote Gwynbleidds, at least we can now put to rest the notion than Ciri was a just a good girl that made some bad decisions. That she is Chaotic Good and not Chaotic Evil like I felt all along. I almost started to doubt my interpretation of what I have read with all the posts claiming it

            And now we reach the crux of my complains: The fact that even after all the evil deeds that Ciri does, she is still considered in the later books and Witcher 3 to be a good person by the rest of characters, especially by the truly good ones like Geralt. That is why I asked if Geralt knows all the truth about her actions, because she is now exactly what he has hunted all his life, a monster. And to ignore it, I don't mean hunt her down, but to not even address it reeks of hypocrisy to me.
            Last edited by Dan_Florian_Eremia; 15-04-18, 11:59.

            Comment


            • #21
              As, ooodrin said, the Witcher Games are a non-canon sequel for the Geralt-Saga books. Many things are changed, or many things are not told about.
              That's why you can show Ciri in such a "good" way
              Signature loading

              Comment


              • #22
                Ya I did not enjoy the sections of the books where Ciri became a bandit. Honestly loathed when I would come to a chapter about that and felt like I had to sort of "plod through it" to get to the better stuff.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Yeah, besides the fact that this arc spoiled Ciri's character irremediably for me I really didn't find anything really appealing about it. Angouleme or Milva are for me a far better example of enjoyable characters that deed some horrible things in their past than any of the Rats, Angouleme in particular being also a bandit like them. Also I thing this are the poorest pages writing wise from the whole series, especially Ciri character swings :
                  She is good, then suddenly she is the evil incarnate (authors words), then once again acts like she is good, but feels no kind of remorse for her crimes (while continuing to be really evil, once again Sapkowski words)
                  . I mean many readers didn't even pick up on the fact
                  that she is evil,
                  even if this was the authors intention. This is just bad writing when you have to explain in later interviews something like that. It really feels like he wanted
                  to make Ciri evil, then for some reason (probably his or his publicist fear that readers will stop liking her) changed his mind, and he just ignored what she had her do in the Baptism of Fire, or what the Rats did for that matter
                  . If someone would only read
                  the Blood of Elves and Time of Contempt and then jumped to The Tower of Swallows and Lady of the Lake
                  , he won't have any idea who Ciri really is, because while the effects of what happened to Ciri are shown, the effects of what she did are not, they are just ignored.
                  Last edited by Dan_Florian_Eremia; 16-04-18, 17:35.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    When did Sapkowski ignored the stuff Ciri did?
                    I can't remember the fact when he wrote "She is good now" or something like that. The story at the end is open. So I cannot see where Sapkwoski changed his mind about Ciri or ignored it.
                    Signature loading

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      What I mean by her past actions being ignored by Sapkowski in the later books is simple:

                      1) We never see anyone address it (for example
                      when when Bonhart tells Yen that he caught her and taught her to kill, which btw is a lie, since she loved killing before they met, and her crimes (with the rest of the Rats) are what led him to her. He wants to hurt Yen but he doesn't even say something like : she is infamous as Falka, she killed n persons, look what she became without you there etc),

                      2) We don't really see discussions between her and her parents or anyone else about what she did while she was with the Rats, we don't see her opinion about what she did (we don't know if she has bad dreams or good dreams about what she did, if she cries at night or touches herself
                      remembering her victims dying at her hand)

                      3) She never took blame for her actions,
                      or realized that those were the reason why she had multiple bounties on her head. She feels she was unjustly targeted by Bonhart, and that the Rats were Murdered, when in fact the Rats were just served the only kind of justice that worked in that world, maybe besides an army raid against them. She thinks Leo is just another person that hurt her and wanted to use her for who she is, when in reality who she is is the reason why she didn't deservedly suffered the same fate as the rest of the Rats.


                      4) We don't see how her past actions are affecting what she does now.
                      While her being a victim made her decide that "evil" men must die, and she is "death", she seems to be oblivious that she is as evil as them and she loved (or would still love) to do the same things.


                      5)
                      We don't even know if she would still love to kill indiscriminately but she doesn't do it because of a code. Or if she only killed peasants, merchants and their guards because they were available and they couldn't offer much resistance and now since she is stronger she can go after more interesting prey, while felling that she is "good" at the same time. Or if she could easily revert at killing anyone because that what she feels like in that moment.
                      Last edited by Dan_Florian_Eremia; 17-04-18, 06:22.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        As I said: I cannot see where Sapkowski wrote that she is now "good" and not evil anymore. Only because he don't write explicitly that Ciri told all the things to her parents doesn't mean she didn't do it or that she left all that behind. After her rat time and her revenge untill Stygga we only see her a short time and then the story ends. So we never now what she will do now and then.

                        I mean... do you really want this: That Ciri tells everybody she met at the last 90 pages what she did? "Hello I'm Zoltan, sorry that your parents died" - "Hello I'm Ciri, I was a bandit and killed people, and I liked it" ; "We are the lodge" - "And I am Ciri, I kille a lot of people while I was a bandit" etc. *sarcasm*
                        I for myself don't tell everybody I met, what I did wrong in my life, this is just normal, but it doesn't mean I never did it or ignore it. It just would seem weird to read such sentence in the last parts of the book, cause nobody act like this. We will never know if Ciri tell this to people she will know better, knew better or if she will keep it a secret for herself.


                        Yeah Bonhart didn't tell Yennefer much about Ciri, he wants to tell her about his strength wants to frighten her, that's why he show her the medallions and wants to rape her. This is no moment to have a long nice talk about Ciri
                        Ciri, Yennefer and Geralt went to the places where Ciri was before after Stygga. So she had to tell 'em why they go there. Or maybe she didn't cause she feel shame, hate for her actions. But we don't know, cause we never know is she "really good" now or "still bad".
                        And never forget, only because she adress people as bad and murderer, doesn't mean she cannot be this for her own. Another murderer can call a other murderer murderer and it's still true (weird sentence). Maybe it's bigot, but true. So your point "she never took blame for her actions, is true. She never did so far as we know, but this doesn't mean Sapkwoski decide ot make her "good" again or that he ignored her actions.

                        We will never now, untill Sapkwoski write a new story which takes places after the 5th novel. But this will never happen. So yeah, we don't know if Ciri will become a good person and will regret her actions some day or not. We will never know. She is what she is now: A person with a rough childhood, some good action and some really bad actions.
                        Last edited by Deemonef; 17-04-18, 10:52.
                        Signature loading

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Dan_Florian_Eremia View Post
                          [...]2) We don't really see discussions between her and her parents or anyone else about what she did while she was with the Rats, we don't see her opinion about what she did (we don't know if she has bad dreams or good dreams about what she did, if she cries at night or touches herself [...]
                          It seem to me that Ciri speaks about it with Vysogota of Corvo, no? I agree with Deemonef and for my part, I do not see how Sapkowski ignores the past actions of Ciri. The reader knows.

                          Originally posted by Dan_Florian_Eremia View Post
                          [...]4) We don't see how her past actions are affecting what she does now.[...]
                          Otherwise even if Something Ends, Something Begins is a non-canon humorous story, Ciri remained the same :

                          "South," she interrupted him at once, without averting her face. "Smoke is still rising from the ground after the war there, the restoration is under way, people fight for survival. They need protection and guard. I'll be of use there. And there is also Korath... And Nilfgaard. I have my unfinished business there. We both have our unfinished business there, Gevir and me."

                          She fell silent. Her face hardened, her green eyes narrowed, her mouth twisted in a hateful grimace. I remember, thought Geralt, I remember. It was like this that time, when they fought together hand in hand on the stairs of the castle Rhys-Rhun. The stairs were slippery with blood, and on them stood he and she. Wolf and Cat, two deadly machines inhumanly fast and inhumanly cruel, drove into a corner, pushed back against a wall. Yes, then the Nilfgaardians, awestruck, retreated before the flashes and whiz of their blades, and they slowly moved down, down the stairs of the castle Rhys-Rhun, wet with blood. They moved down, leaning on each other, linked together, and before them went the death, death on two shiny sword blades. A cool, calm Wolf and an insane Cat. Flash of the blade, cry, blood, death... Like that, that time it was like that... That time...

                          Ciri threw back her hair and among the blond strands shone a snow-white streak on the temple.

                          That time, her hair whitened.

                          "I have unfinished business there," she hissed. "For Mistle. For my Mistle. Even though I revenged her, but for Mistle one death is not enough."

                          Bonhart, he thought. She killed him out of hatred. Oh, Ciri, Ciri. You're standing on the edge of an abyss, daughter. Not a thousand deaths would revenge your Mistle. Beware of hatred, Ciri, it consumes like cancer.

                          "Watch out for yourself," he whispered.
                          "I'll rather watch the others," she smiled ominously. "It pays off more, it has more sense."

                          Source : https://witcher.gamepedia.com/Fan_tr...mething_Begins


                          P-S : Please, excuse me for my poor English.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            I think there is a problem of communication, sorry, like I said English is not my first language. I never claimed that Ciri is good now, quite the opposite, from my first post in this thread I argued that she is not, maybe too vehemently at that. What I said is that after Baptism of Fire her evilness was so downplayed by the author that someone who didn't read that particular book would not even imagine what Ciri is really like. Many readers on forums claim that Ciri is and always was good but only made some bad choices just because that. We certainly know that is not the case because of that authors interview, but the fact that many readers didn't even pick up on the fact she is indeed evil I think it proves my point.

                            I don't know if the author was afraid her character will become too unlikable or if he was trying to be more ambiguous, leaving to the reader the chance to reach alone to the idea he was trying to drive through, that the tragic circumstances did indeed turned her into a monster. But one thing is certain, pretty much the only monsterlike thing that can be imputed to her in later books is her lack of a conscience and the lack of regret of for her murders, once again only clear to people that read Baptism of Fire (and realized that her behavior in that book was the one of a spree killer and not the one of a romantic Robin Hood copycat). But people wanted to like Ciri, they have "seen" her growing up, they loved her and the protagonists of the books loved her. So it was easy to minimize all the evil that she did, to find excuses for her crimes (not unlike family members do for some of the most vile killers IRL), to find the silver lining (she learned to survive, she was finally free or she became a better character), or simply to ignore what she did since there where only a few pages stretched in a book and a half. And the fact that her crimes were never mentioned again helped them in their conviction, to maintain the idea of a "good" Ciri, one that is exactly the opposite of the one the author claims he meant.
                            This could be a study of case, how if evil is wrapped in the package of an attractive and charismatic young woman, with a tragic story, no matter how awful she acts, people don't even realize what they see

                            To be clear, while she doesn't act anymore like the monster that she is in the later books she still isn't good. For example I can't really remember a singe selfless thing she did in them. When she kills she still kills for her own interest (revenge or self preservation), only the type of her victims are different. It is unclear if she still has the same fascination with death and killing, it depends on everyones opinion.

                            Now to replies
                            Originally posted by Deemonef View Post
                            I mean... do you really want this: That Ciri tells everybody she met at the last 90 pages what she did? "Hello I'm Zoltan, sorry that your parents died" - "Hello I'm Ciri, I was a bandit and killed people, and I liked it" ; "We are the lodge" - "And I am Ciri, I kille a lot of people while I was a bandit" etc. *sarcasm* I for myself don't tell everybody I met, what I did wrong in my life, this is just normal, but it doesn't mean I never did it or ignore it. It just would seem weird to read such sentence in the last parts of the book, cause nobody act like this. We will never know if Ciri tell this to people she will know better, knew better or if she will keep it a secret for herself.
                            It would have been easy to bring up her actions if the author really wanted to show us how she felt about them, not in the last 90 pages, but in the entire 2 books after the Rats are killed. He could have shown us Ciri talking about them with Vysogota, Geralt, Yen. He could have shown us what she felt about them in all the pages that presented her POV. I don't think that she could just ignore them unless she is a true sociopath.
                            "We will never know if Ciri tell this to people she will know better, knew better or if she will keep it a secret for herself"- This is my point, we don't know any of this points because none of them are addressed in the last 2 books.

                            Originally posted by Gwynbleidds View Post
                            It seem to me that Ciri speaks about it with Vysogota of Corvo, no?
                            Not really, she does have a small quote that is not the wicked or immoral people that sink into the abyss, but the decent, good honorable ones . But then she says this to him before starting her story: "I'll tell you what happened to me" and then the chapters from her POV start with the Rats meeting with Hotsporn when they found out about the fact Bonhart was chasing them because of the large bounties on their heads. True Ciri claims they should haveraped the barons daughter, and Spark recounts happily how she killed someone to make him an example, and how they are terrorizing the post office, but we don't get to actually get to see Ciri actually do anything worse than taking drugs.
                            So she only tells Vysogota what happened to her, not what she did to actually deserve it. She only acknowledges how she was victimized again, but she doesn't really takes responsibility for her victims.

                            Originally posted by Deemonef View Post
                            or that he ignored her actions
                            Originally posted by Gwynbleidds View Post
                            I do not see how Sapkowski ignores the past actions of Ciri
                            How does he not? They aren't mentioned again , we don't know how many characters in the book know about them, how they feel about them (the ones that do know), what Ciri feels about them and how these past actions influence her current actions (if they do influence them at all).

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Dan_Florian_Eremia View Post
                              How does he not? They aren't mentioned again , we don't know how many characters in the book know about them, how they feel about them (the ones that do know), what Ciri feels about them and how these past actions influence her current actions (if they do influence them at all).
                              I would so much like to debate unfortunately I am limited by the language. But for how many characters in the book know about them, I imagine that there is only Geralt and Yennefer. There is certainly also Jaskier :

                              To say I knew her would be an exaggeration. I think that, apart from the Witcher and the enchantress, no one really knew her. When I saw her for the first time she did not make a great impression on me at all, even in spite of the quite extraordinary accompanying circumstances. I have known people who said that, right away, from the very first encounter, they sensed the foretaste of death striding behind the girl. To me she seemed utterly ordinary, though I knew that ordinary she was not; for which reason I tried to discern, discover — sense — the singularity in her. But I noticed nothing and sensed nothing. Nothing that could have been a signal, a presentiment or a harbinger of those subsequent, tragic events. Events caused by her very existence. And those caused by her actions.
                              Half a Century of Poetry

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Gwynbleidds View Post

                                I would so much like to debate unfortunately I am limited by the language. But for how many characters in the book know about them, I imagine that there is only Geralt and Yennefer. There is certainly also Jaskier :

                                To say I knew her would be an exaggeration. I think that, apart from the Witcher and the enchantress, no one really knew her. When I saw her for the first time she did not make a great impression on me at all, even in spite of the quite extraordinary accompanying circumstances. I have known people who said that, right away, from the very first encounter, they sensed the foretaste of death striding behind the girl. To me she seemed utterly ordinary, though I knew that ordinary she was not; for which reason I tried to discern, discover — sense — the singularity in her. But I noticed nothing and sensed nothing. Nothing that could have been a signal, a presentiment or a harbinger of those subsequent, tragic events. Events caused by her very existence. And those caused by her actions.
                                Half a Century of Poetry


                                Yeah, but even that is just a supposition. Maybe she told them that the Rats really were some kind of heroic Robin Hood wannabes, robing bloodlessly Nilfgaardians nobles to give to the poor, only to be murdered by that evil Bonhart, and that she never killed innocents. Hell maybe she even believes it from what we know, at least the first part. She surely still has a pretty high opinion about them, including the dude that tried to rape her, the girl that did raped he and the rest of those Psychos. And now she can definitely differentiate between good or evil.
                                Last edited by Dan_Florian_Eremia; 17-04-18, 22:33.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X