After reading the books, do you feel sympathy for the character of Ciri?

[Mizzen01]

I think the moral we can extract from this debate is that evil can be so atractive that some people is ready to "understand the motives", "feel pity", "feel simpathy", "not to judge", "have to walk a mile in her shoes", etc. Yes, Ciri is young, is pretty, is strong, skillful, full of life and charisma... is atractive. But is evil. Atractive evil don´t stop being evil. The character is a cold-blooded killer and could have chosen not to be, that´s a fact.

Of course a literary character is what is, and of course can be object of condemnation or pity. Over all, when the author tell us so clearly that she´s evil. Usually the author don´t makes moral judgments of the characters in the books, he just narrate the facts, but in this case, he breaks his own rule. The old man that narrates the story is the voice of the author, and he sais that the character and the other Rats have an evil nature. No mitigating circumstances. They kill mostly because they "adore to kill" and obviously, that´s wrong. That´s a judment.

And of course, a player of a role game judges the character that is playing, and feel simpathy or antipathy for her. And usually, people prefers to play as characters that they feel simpathy. That´s why I´m asking: knowing that Ciri is evil in the books, do you feel simpathy for her as character of a game? But seems that some people thinks that the character has "extenuating circumstances" for becoming a criminal because her life was hard, she was alone, sad... And I think that no, there is no excuses and I think that´s what the author wanted to say to us.

 

[Devils4dvocate]

Funny how same books resonate so differently to each of us. Suposse that is (partialy) what literature and art is about

Very nicely put, @GuyNwah

 

[Paprikamann]

I think the moral we can extract from this debate is that evil can be so atractive that some people is ready to "understand the motives", "feel pity", "feel simpathy", "not to judge", "have to walk a mile in her shoes", etc. Yes, Ciri is young, is pretty, is strong, skillful, full of life and charisma... is atractive. But is evil. Atractive evil don´t stop being evil. The character is a cold-blooded killer and could have chosen not to be, that´s a fact.

No. That's just what you think.

But seems that some people thinks that the character has "extenuating circumstances" for becoming a criminal because her life was hard, she was alone, sad... And I think that no, there is no excuses and I think that´s what the author wanted to say to us.

Again: No. That's not what the author wanted to say us.
There simply ARE reasons for what Ciri became. You must stop reading only what you want to read.

Even you quotation earlier explains it a bit:

Devils4dvocate, the author can´t say it more clearly: "She took to the bandit’s life because, although nobody knew it then, in that girl was wickedness and cruelty, all that is wrong, which is hidden in each person, had emerged from her and gradually took advantage over the good."

So, Sapkowski even tells that she is nothing "special" in terms of evilness. This could happen to everone. That's what this little part of the sentence says.

He don´t say "the poor Ciri was a broken girl, she was sad, lost and alone, and so she become in a criminal,

That's what is meant with "reading between the lines". You seem only to read cursorily and not what's "behind" that (kind of meta text). The reader has to think about what a character is doing and why he is doing it. Maybe the author just writes it down himself. But maybe he doesn't. A good author is able to let the reader comprehend the character's motives and reasons.
I don't want to be offensive, but for me, you total seem to lack empathy and getting the "hidden (psychological) motives" behind the "objective layer" of a text. (I hope, I explained it properly, as I'm not a native speaker, too.)

But if you really need to have reasons that are written down, just look at the history of the other Rats. The author explains why they are how they are.
Ciri is not very different to them, but only because there is not one more sentence "she is evil because reasons" doesn't mean there aren't any reasons. That's probably the main thing, what you don't get (it seems so at least).

And here the other text by Sapkowski himself:

Ciri personifies evil, that’s how i intended her to be – a monster, because (almost) everyone is trying to make a monster out of her.
Geralt, on the other hand, personifies good.
And in that scene, a girl and a witcher are coming down the stairs, good and evil hand in hand – that’s why no one can stop them.
Does that mean that good dies at the end of the day? Yes. Does that mean that evil wins? No. Geralt dies, and Ciri stops representing evil. Who is she, then? That, she doesn’t know. And i won’t tell you.


-A.Sapkowski

Just take a look at both fat marked terms.
The first one is again a reason(!) for why she became(!) evil! All evil things that happen to her making her evil. She is not simply evil right from the beginning. It's more like all evil "transforms" and concentrates and solidifies in Ciri. She's the product of all evilness around her. Finally, when she is with the rats all the cumulated evil in her emerges, as Sapkowski said. There's not Geralt or Yennefer anymore who could stop this break-out of evilness.
So, according to the author, there are reasons why she is evil. To see and understand the reasons.
In the end: "personify evil" =/= "being pure evil just because of being evil"


The second term just shows that she is not evil anymore. She left a the evilness behind. I don't see why a player can't see her game-character as "being good".

 

[GuyNwah]

"I will not discuss with you things that are obvious" is no form of argument but an open insult to your counterpart. Post deleted for cause.

Respect each other and each other's opinions if you want this discussion to continue. That is an order from the moderators.

 

[Paprikamann]

I
The author don´t make moral judgement about any character in his books. He don´t say for exaple that Yennefer is bad because cheats on Geralt with a mage during years, he don´t say that Geralt is bad because dumps Yennefer in a bad way, he don´t say that Triss is bad because seduces Geralt, he don´t even judge explicitly the members of the Loggia or even Kings and Queens, but he explicitly sais that the Rats are cruel criminals that kills because "they love to kill" and that there is evil inside Ciri and everybody failed to see it. There is evil in everybody? Of course, that´s obvious. But that´s also obvious that most of the people control the evil side and don´t let emerge, unlike Ciri, and that,obviously, is the difference between a good person and a bad person. And do not fool yourself: to feel pity or sympathy for a criminal, thinking that a criminal "is the product of all evilness around her" is not being good person: it is to feel it for the victims. Criminals, in fiction or in real life always can chose not to be criminals.

Well, actually he judges Geralt as being "good". ^^
And just because Sapkowski mentions the word "cruel" in association with the Rats you claim that's the only judgement in the whole series? Seriously?! If I would search for it, I'm sure I would find many other judging adjectives.

And it's also very, very obvious that hardly any person has to deal with such things Ciri had to deal with.
And here we also come to the point where we kind of have to agree to disagree. You think she can't control the evil side because she is simply evil. Point. I, many other forum members and Sapkowski himself see reasons for why she can't control it anymore.

I never said I'm feeling sympathy for her actions. All the things she and the other Rats are doing in those chapters are bad and truly evil things. That's what the author has written and wanted to say.
If I remember correctly even Sapkowski decribed the Rats as "products of their environment and society" or something like that. I don't have the books right now, so I can't prove it with citations. Maybe someone else can do it?

I think, there's a difference between sympathy and empathy. While sympathy is mostly used for liking someone. I doubt anyone here on the forum likes what Ciri is doing together with the rats. The other word is "empathy". You can use it for similar description, but this word is not really connected with a moral judgement. It's more like "recognize and understand someone's actions and motives". Attention: "understanding" does NOT mean "agreeing"! It does mean "seeing why one thing came to another and how/why the result happend".

Sorry, but you last senctence is not only way to idealistic, but also unrealistic. So you would go into a psychiatry and say to a "mentally disturbed rapist": "Just stop being evil and raping other people." Lol?!

 

[JohnnyWalks]

I deeply cared about Ciri in the books and throughout the game, but like most readers I also felt that Ciri's character in the game was nothing like the Ciri from the books; she wasn't proud like Geralt, wasn't witty like Yen, nor did she seem affected by all the shit she had to go through at a young age (which in the books result as her becoming a "gangster" at some point and so on, though she was never truly bad as I see: Remmember she was subject to many changes in her life, by the ending of the books she has recovered and lost much, learnt even more and therefor must have changed from being the rebellious gangster she used to be). In any case, to answer your question I did care, but by the end of the game I couldn't help but feel that something was off, something was wrong. Still, we have to agree that had CDPR made Ciri as arrogant as in the books those who haven't read them would NOT have liked her, their reaction would be something like "F**k this bi**h, I'm off monster hunting".

Something I'd like to add: I mentioned Ciri going through many changes in the books, leaving the gangster life, becoming a better person (with Vysogota). I don't mean to say she is a good person, she is not good (was not, now? we don't know for sure but she's defenetly changed for the better), but none of the characters are good or evil, black or white (except maybe dopplers), they all have their reasons, purposes and interestests. I do sympathise with her and even though CDPR made her a bit too perfect, she is not evil and that's a fact.

Anyway, for me the perfect game would have been one where the relationship Geralt-Yen, Geralt-Ciri, and Yen-Ciri is most important (like I felt was the main theme of the books), but in order to nail that CDPR would have had to make a linear game, or reduce the amount of choices the player has. Sadly they can't satisfy our every wish but they came pretty close didn't they? Praise to them and their hard work *everyone stands up, round of applause*

 

[Scholdarr.452]

After reading the books: yes.

After playing TW3: no.

 

[JohnnyWalks]

Well, actually he judges Geralt as being "good". ^^
And just because Sapkowski mentions the word "cruel" in association with the Rats you claim that's the only judgement in the whole series? Seriously?! If I would search for it, I'm sure I would find many other judging adjectives.

And it's also very, very obvious that hardly any person has to deal with such things Ciri had to deal with.
And here we also come to the point where we kind of have to agree to disagree. You think she can't control the evil side because she is simply evil. Point. I, many other forum members and Sapkowski himself see reasons for why she can't control it anymore.

I never said I'm feeling sympathy for her actions. All the things she and the other Rats are doing in those chapters are bad and truly evil things. That's what the author has written and wanted to say.
If I remember correctly even Sapkowski decribed the Rats as "products of their environment and society" or something like that. I don't have the books right now, so I can't prove it with citations. Maybe someone else can do it?

I think, there's a difference between sympathy and empathy. While sympathy is mostly used for liking someone. I doubt anyone here on the forum likes what Ciri is doing together with the rats. The other word is "empathy". You can use it for similar description, but this word is not really connected with a moral judgement. It's more like "recognize and understand someone's actions and motives". Attention: "understanding" does NOT mean "agreeing"! It does mean "seeing why one thing came to another and how/why the result happend".

Sorry, but you last senctence is not only way to idealistic, but also unrealistic. So you would go into a psychiatry and say to a "mentally disturbed rapist": "Just stop being evil and raping other people." Lol?!

I'll clarify this from the start: I dislike what Ciri did with the Rats, it was awful. But I put myself in her shoes and I understand, she's been through all the possible sh*t a girl can go through and although that does not justify her actions, it helps me undestand them. Fortunately Vysogota was there when she needed someone and he saved her from herself.

Therefor I can't help but agree with Mr Paprikamann and so I'm here to help haha. Here are some quotes from the book Time Of Contempt:

"[...] They were outcasts. They were a strange, mixed bag created by war, misfortune and contempt. War, misfortune and contempt had brought them together and thrown them onto the bank, the way a river in flood throws and deposists drifting, black pieces of wood soomthed by stones onto its banks. [...]"

"[...] Kayleigh had woken up in smoke, fire and blood, in a plundered stronghold, lying among the corpses of his adoptive parents and siblings. Dragging himself across the corpe-strewn courtyard, he came across Reef. Reff was a soldier from a punitive expedition, which Emperor Emhyr var Emries had sent to crush the rebellion in Ebbing. He was one of the soldiers who had captured and plundered the stronghold after a two-day siege. Reef's comrades abanoned him, although he was still alive. [...]"

"[...] Mistle's family also fled, but Mistle got lost in the panic-stricken corwnd. The elegantly dessed ad delicate maiden who had beed carried in a sedan chair from early childhood, was unable to keep up with the fugitives. After three days of solitary wandering, she fell into the hands of the manhunters who were following the niflgaardians. Girls younger than seventeen were in demand. As long as they were untouched. The manhunter's didn't touch her, once the'd checked she really was untouched. Mistle spent the entire night following the examination sobbing. In the valley of the River Velda, the caravan of manhunters was touted and massacred by a gang of Nilfgaardian marauders. All male captives were killed. Only the girls were speared, they didn't know why they were being speared. Their ignorance didn't last long. [...]"

 

[BobZilla84]

I love Ciri but I am not liking the whole Ciri is PC of the Witcher Franchise going foward because she's not a Witcher she doesnt have the Mutagens so Potions are a no go sure can use Oils but she's not a true Witcher.You know my biggest fear for The Witcher 4 is it will be too sanitized and politically correct seriously I can hear the SJW's having a fit over Ciri sleeping with all kinds of Men/Women.

 

[RiseOfRose1]

I love Ciri but I am not liking the whole Ciri is PC of the Witcher Franchise going foward because she's not a Witcher she doesnt have the Mutagens so Potions are a no go sure can use Oils but she's not a true Witcher.You know my biggest fear for The Witcher 4 is it will be too sanitized and politically correct seriously I can hear the SJW's having a fit over Ciri sleeping with all kinds of Men/Women.

Read page 26 and 27 and look for my comments

http://forums.cdprojektred.com/threads/51985-Do-we-want-Witcher-4/page27

 

[JohnnyWalks]

Of course the experiences that people live change them. That, and their own natures, carry people to become in a criminal. Of course is a legitim twist of the plot of the books that Ciri becomes in a criminal. But this is not a excuse for becoming in a vicious murderer, and so, I don't feel pity for criminals, but for their victims, in real life and books.

Probably, all the criminals in the world have similar excuses as Ciri: I had bad fathers, or I had no fathers, I was poor, the bad luck, bad companies, the society made me like that... bullshit. And yes, Ciri and the rats are vicious murderers. The author does not sweeten that at all.

"They plundered and murdered, and their cruelty became legendary."
"They attacked, robbed and killed for entertainment"
"The Rats attacked like rats. Quietly, treacherously, cruelly. The Rats adored killing."
Time of Contemp.

I encourage you to one of my comments in the next page, it's a quote actually where I quote, also from Time Of Contempt, the past of some of the Rats.
Hoping that you read that I tell you in defence of Ciri and the Rats what you've probably already read, it was what they expirienced in life that pulled them to choose the life of a criminal. No, it does not excuse them, but putting ourselves in their shoes should make us feel sympathy. Sympathy, pity of their situations and their consequences. They did choose to become criminals, nobody threatened them with a sword, but the fear those kids must have felt was pretty close to becoming that sword held at them.

Now, just like Ciri chose to join the Rats, she also chose to leave them at one point. Unfortunatly I can't defend the other Rats with this argument because if not for Bonhart they would have kept killing and all that. But Ciri did dicide to leave, even leaving Mistle behind. You could say that's the first sign of change, all she went through with Bonhart too (he although not intentionally, showed her what killing really was, what mistakes she had made). Then, although no Yen or Geralt were there to help her and "save her fron herself", Vysigota was there for her, and their late-night chats helped, a lot. There's much more to this "change" but it's already in other comments, check out Mr Paprikamann as well in page 7