[BOOK SPOILERS] Lady of the Lake. Just finished reading.

+
Zyvik;n9865001 said:
Your trolling is no longer amusing.

Im not trolling. This is just my point of view, if it does not coincide with yours, then do not be angry because of this, you are not the center of the universe.

Zyvik;n9865001 said:
Yet no Fringilla option

Geralt was well aware of what Fringilia wanted, so he would never return to her.
 
Zyvik;n9865001 said:
Yet no Fringilla option :(

It is possible to head-canon that for the Geralt alone ending, he settles down in Toussaint, is occasionally visited by Ciri, and maybe one day Fringilla returns to Beauclair.
 
Triss_One_Love;n9865121 said:
Im not trolling. This is just my point of view, if it does not coincide with yours, then do not be angry because of this, you are not the center of the universe.

You're presenting your point of view as the only right one.
And I'm not angry at all. Trolling merely amuses me.

It is possible to head-canon

But I don't want head-canon, I want canon :boredom:
 
Does it matter if games are officially canon or "head-canon"? It's fiction, it's not real however you slice it. It changes nothing. Personally I like to think of games as the continuation of the books, but I don't expect others to agree with me, nor do I care.
 
ImprovizoR;n9865621 said:
Does it matter if games are officially canon or "head-canon"? It's fiction, it's not real however you slice it. It changes nothing. Personally I like to think of games as the continuation of the books, but I don't expect others to agree with me, nor do I care.

Games are canonical continuation of the books, all events in the games are based on the books history
 
Last edited:
Triss_One_Love;n9865691 said:
Games are canonical continuation of the books

Stop spewing misinformation:
. "The game - with all due respect to it, but let's finally say it openly - is not an 'alternative version', nor a sequel. The game is a free adaptation containing elements of my work; an adaptation created by different authors."

"Adaptations - although they can in a way relate to the story told in the books - can never aspire to the role of a follow-up. They can never add prologues nor prequels, let alone epilogues and sequels.

"Maybe it's time to set the matters straight. "The Witcher' is a well made video game, its success is well deserved and the creators deserve all the splendour and honour due. But in no way can it be considered to be an 'alternative version', nor a 'sequel' to the witcher Geralt stories. Because this can only be told by Geralt's creator. A certain Andrzej Sapkowski."
 
Zyvik;n9865861 said:
Stop spewing misinformation:

CD Projekt have copyrights to the Witcher, so everything they do or write will be a canon, because copyright is copyright. While Sapkowski does not write his continuation of the story after the Malus island, the game will be the only possible canon, whoever says anything, with all due respect to Pan Sapkowski
 
ImprovizoR;n9865621 said:
Does it matter if games are officially canon or "head-canon"? It's fiction, it's not real however you slice it. It changes nothing. Personally I like to think of games as the continuation of the books, but I don't expect others to agree with me, nor do I care.

It simply means that Sapkowski does not consider the games to be a part of his saga, which is unsurprising. Of course, that should not detract from one's enjoyment of the games or books, it is even an advantage that there is no single "officially approved" path in the games (making them canon to the books might require one, since books do not support alternate world states). It would matter in practice if more books were to be written, then they could ignore or contradict any game events.
 
[BOOK SPOILERS] Lady of the Lake. Just finished reading.

I seriously think people misinterpret what happened at the end of Lady of the Lake. I just finished the book, I really liked it, but I read a few posts here and other places where people are saying stuff like "the ending was crushing."

Look, no question about it, Geralt died, but then he got revived. How? I don't know, magic, or some time traveling unicorn; that isn't the point. The point is, when he woke up with Yennefer, he was saying his side and stomach were still really sore, like you know, if maybe a weapon just impaled him there. If he was in some utopia afterlife world ala Frodo sailing to that place at the end of LOTR, then he would feel fine physically and there would be no aftereffects of feeling any pain from the wound. But he did have pain when he woke up.

This to me, is 100% proof he is actually alive at the end. And no, he isn't gone for good. He can come back, as can Yen. They have a freaking adopted child that has time traveling powers; they can easily come back to their normal time and place. This is why I consider the games cannon, which I couldn't say until I finally finished the books and read what happened at the end. Geralt's alive at the end of the books.
I feel the same way after finishing Lady of the Lake yesterday. My interpretation from the, in my opinion, very beautiful ending, is that Ciri as they were dying, brought them through space and time to a place that can heal wounds.
I mean... think of the ending of Bioshock: Infinite, Ciri has Infinite worlds she can choose and infinite time to choose it for Geralt and Yen's recovery, so she brought them to her favorite healing world of super magicalness.

Ciri's ending is her just being a teenage girl with time travel. She thinks -I forgot the Chamalot guys name- is hot. She's around 16-17 now, she might one night stand him and keep moving worlds, seeing what the -world's- have to offer her.

The Author does write in one of his "Sources" in the last book that someone had seen Ciri in 1908, But they dont believe him because he's a drunk.

Astounding ending to an astounding series of books, that one of my favorite games of all time is almost cannon to. I mean seriously, infinity is a lot, their is a world out there where ciri is developing The Witcher 4 [nope].
Post automatically merged:

@immessingaround
Even if they are alive, the lore of the books and its themes contradict what is in the games. Sapkowski tied the Arthurian legends into the ending of Lady of the Lake by having Yennefer and Geralt be transported to the Isles of Avalon. You can read about Geoffrey of Monmouth and how he introduced Avalon into Arthurian history in Historia Regum Britanniae (see also Le Morte d'Arthur). In those pieces of literature, Arthur is transported to Avalon on a barge/boat after being mortally wounded by Mordred. Similarly, Yennefer and Geralt are whisked away by Ciri with the help of Ihuarraquax. During the book, Nimue talks about the 'legend' and history of Yennefer, Geralt, and Ciri---by this time in the future they've all entered into mythological lore.


In relation to this, Ciri is a psuedo "Lady of the Lake"--Emhyr, Vilgefortz, Aen Elle, and the Lodge are all trying to capture her. Her interaction with Galahad is never mentioned in the games--another discontinuity.Her returning to the Witcher world would not make any sense--she's lost all her loved ones and even thinks of taking up witcher work in the Arthurian world.

I just finished Lady of the Lake yesterday, and I have a Very strong feeling that Ciri dropped off Geralt and Yen. Ciri is a teenage girl exploring her new found powers of time travel, and probably had a romp with galahad, Not marry him.. She's experimenting, just like the awkward rapey scene with missle. Geralt and Yen are healing in a timeless world, while Ciri, "Master of Space and Time" uses this ability in a way her character would. She found Camalot and said. "Huh, Ill give this world a go for a while." Probably went threw thousands of worlds, we just hear about Camalot.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Games are canonical continuation of the books, all events in the games are based on the books history

No they are not, so please don't spread false information.

I personally like to think of the games as a continuation of the books(even tho there are many plotholes and inconsistencies), however regardeless of personal preferences, the fact is that the games are not cannon. The author of the books does not seems them as cannon, argo they are not.

PS: Regardless of them being cannon or not, everyone is free to enjoy them for what they are.
Viewing them as a continuation of the series is a completly valid option since no official sequels are going to be made, however that is not to say that the games count as an official continuation.
 
Viewing them as a continuation of the series is a completly valid option since no official sequels are going to be made, however that is not to say that the games count as an official continuation.

^ Yup. That's the crux of it right there.

Canon is a bit of a wonky avenue, especially in the modern world of ownership vs. rights / licenses. Only the owner of a franchise can determine what is canon, and it's 100% possible for canon to change over time. (I'd argue this defeats the entire purpose of establishing a canon, but the money disagrees.) If I approach an author or film studio and purchase the rights to their IP, I may get to create whatever I want with it, but that does not "count" in literary terms. For that to happen, the owner (not the licensee) would need to declare something as canon.

Games are very rarely canonized. And for fairly obvious reasons, usually. Still, that doesn't mean that the games can't be great in their own right. Take Shadow of Mordor, for instance. It's understanding of Tolkien's world is outrageously bad, the concept ridiculous, and it actively contradicts things that were clearly written to have happened a different way. But it's such a great game. Cool story, too. It will never be canon, but there's plenty of room in the world for both the books and the game to exist!
 
[BOOK SPOILERS] Lady of the Lake. Just finished reading.

I seriously think people misinterpret what happened at the end of Lady of the Lake. I just finished the book, I really liked it, but I read a few posts here and other places where people are saying stuff like "the ending was crushing."

Look, no question about it, Geralt died, but then he got revived. How? I don't know, magic, or some time traveling unicorn; that isn't the point. The point is, when he woke up with Yennefer, he was saying his side and stomach were still really sore, like you know, if maybe a weapon just impaled him there. If he was in some utopia afterlife world ala Frodo sailing to that place at the end of LOTR, then he would feel fine physically and there would be no aftereffects of feeling any pain from the wound. But he did have pain when he woke up.

This to me, is 100% proof he is actually alive at the end. And no, he isn't gone for good. He can come back, as can Yen. They have a freaking adopted child that has time traveling powers; they can easily come back to their normal time and place. This is why I consider the games cannon, which I couldn't say until I finally finished the books and read what happened at the end. Geralt's alive at the end of the books.
This is my interpretation of the ending from the books: Lady of the Lake and Season of Storms

The only possible conclusion I can conclude from Season of Storms and Lady of the Lake is that Geralt and Yennefer are not dead. At the end of Lade of the Lake, Geralt was near death and
Yennefer had fainted from expending a large of her magic so quickly. Since their fates are tied by The Last Wish, if one dies the other one dies as well. Ciri arrived then cried thinking she can't
do anything, but soon the Unicorn arrived and healed them. Geralt is now resting as his body heals, and Yennefer is resting as well from exhaustion. Ciri gives Kelpie to the Unicorn and they both
stride off somewhere. Ciri tells everyone that she's gonna take Geralt and Yennefer somewhere, and Triss asks if she will ever return. Ciri tells Triss that she will return. Then Ciri takes Geralt and
Yennefer to the Isle of Avalon, a place where the dead or mortally injured are healed/resurrected. As Ciri rows away in the mist, Triss doubts that Ciri will ever return. Later, Geralt and Yennefer
wake up on the Isle of Avalon. Geralt wakes up, confused, but Yennefer comforts him. Yennefer tells Geralt that Ciri has gone somewhere, probably travelling between worlds, and that she
also doesn't know where they are. Soon Yennefer falls asleep, still exhausted, and Geralt as well falls asleep. They're not dead because one of them are still alive. If one of were to die, The Last
Wish would kill the other one. This is a sweet ending. Geralt and Yennefer now live on their private island, the Isle of Avalon, far away from humans, non-humans, and monsters. They longed
for peace and for them to spend time with each other. Triss and The Lodge of Sorceress continue executing their plans, whatever it may be. Dandelion and the others live their own lives.
So that's it. Geralt and Yennefer together forever. Ciri crying at the end of Lady of the Lake would suggest that Isle of Avalon could not be easily visited and the thought of her possibly never being
able to visit them brings tears to her eyes. Then Galahad and Ciri ride off in the distance holding hands. Ciri is now living her own life. The ending of Season of Storms makes me conclude that the
Witcher who saved Nimue was in fact the Geralt we love so much. It has been 105 years after the death of Geralt of Rivia in the Witcher universe, but time may be proceed differently in the Isle of
Avalon. To Geralt and Yennefer, it could've been a couple of months or years since Ciri had brought them there. That's probably the main reason Geralt asked what year was it to Nimue. Knowing
Yennefer, she probably found away to get them out of the Isle of Avalon. I strongly think that the Witcher who saved Nimue is not an illusion and is indeed Geralt which makes me believe that
Yennefer is also alive. Ironically, Geralt tells Nimue that the Geralt of Rivia she knew of is dead because it would be weird to think Geralt of Rivia would finally arrive 105 years later. Many
questions and conflicts would come about if people knew Geralt was alive. Later, Nimue tells people that the Geralt she saw was probably an illusion to not let out the secret of Geralt of Rivia and
Yennefer of Vengerberg still being alive after 105 years. So, yes I do believe Geralt and Yennefer is alive, and they're probably still spending their time together. Although it has been 105
years, Ciri is probably also alive since she could wield magic. Sorceresses have been using magic to slow down their aging proccess or even freeze it from advancing further. Happily Ever After.
Everyone is happy and spending their lives with the ones they love so much.

This is my interpretation and the conclusion I hoped it to be. If you did not like the bittersweet ending and the open interpretation ending of the book, feel free to use my interpretation to not distress
yourselves from constantly questioning if Geralt and Yennefer was alive, and questioning what happened to others after as well.
 
Last edited:
Is there anywhere in the USA where I can buy the Witcher series books besides Amazon? I can't find them anywhere! Covid-19 isn't helping, either.
 
Top Bottom