Sapkowski on non-canonicity of the games in context of the new book

[Kodaemon5924]

Sapkowski on non-canonicity of the games in context of the new book

Article in polish:
http://www.gram.pl/news_8AnkGu,3_Tylko_u_nas_Andrzej_Sapkowski_nie_uznaje_gier_z_serii_Wiedzmin_za_kanoniczna_kontynuacje_swoich_dziel.html

My translation of Mr Andrzej Sapkowski's words:

Let me explain: the computer game cannot, in the slightest, be treated as a continuation of the witcher cycle, a sequel or a furthering of the events described in the last volume of the saga, titled "Lady of the Lake". Any and all adaptations - films, comics or games, including the game "The Witcher", are only adaptations, entirely separate narrative creations, the works of their creators. They have no relation to the adventures of the witcher Geralt as written by me, and definitely and absolutely cannot be treated as canon of any kind - as the only canon is comprised of my own writings, published in printed form. Therefore, if I indeed continue the tale of the witcher - regardless of whether as a prequel, sequel or spin-off - I will not, even in the slightest, base my writing on any adaptation, I will entirely disregard elements of these adaptations - as there is no place for them in the actual canon of the witcher stories. I stress that this is in no way a judgement regarding their quality - I especially view "The Witcher" game as a high quality product, a particularily well-made adaptation, true to the original source.

The game cannot be canon however, and may not be treated as such. The game world and the world of literature are entirely separate creations.

(bolded parts as in the article)

 

[Aver]

He said this already several times. I don't know why people keep asking him about this.

 

[username_3218976]

I've used Google Translator on the page, What does that mean separate from the saga?

apparently the new Witcher is neither a sequel nor a prequel , but something completely separate from the saga.

 

[Kodaemon5924]

"The saga" usually refers to the five novel series here, from "Blood of Elves" to "Lady of the Lake". So, it means the new book is not part of that cycle, not a sixth (or "zeroth") volume.

 

[Aver]

I've used Google Translator on the page, What does that mean separate from the saga?

That it's not about Geralt or about any of his companions. For example it may be story about bounty hunter from Nilfgaard or about maid from Kovir.

 

[Kodaemon5924]

That it's not about Geralt or about any of his companions. For example it may be story about bounty hunter from Nilfgaard or about maid from Kovir.

I don't believe that's correct, I haven't seen Sapkowski say anything about what characters he will or won't use.

 

[wunderbar_007]

Well, the way I understand it, the people creating the adaptations should adapt their medium to his work, not the other way around. Still, it would be nice to see them collaborate.

 

[dragonbird]

He said this already several times. I don't know why people keep asking him about this.

Human nature. The general intelligence level of interviewers.

It's nice to see him saying good things about the games, but I feel sorry for him if he's having to address this point all of the time. Of course the games aren't canon.

 

[Chewin3]

I especially view "The Witcher" game as a high quality product, a particularily well-made adaptation, true to the original source.

By Sapkowski simply respecting what CDProjekt has done, and achieved, makes me smile actually.

I didn't expect that Sapkowski would ever consider writing or including "The Witcher" game as canon, even though I'd badly want that. Him simply saying these words, whether true or not, does bring great comfort to me.

But still hoping it's a spinoff or prequal of some sort.

 

[Kodaemon5924]

Yeah, it's unusually high praise by Sapkowski's standards

 

[Oloroar]

As Dona now knows , this is why I constantly disregard anything from the books when it comes to discussing TW lore in the games. As far as I am concerned (and the creators), the two exist in different universes. To me, TW1 is the start...anything the characters said or did before that point in other mediums is irrelevant.

That is why I refuse to join in discussions that have: "but Triss did this in this novel" or "Geralt said that in that book". No they did not, not as far as the games are concerned.

Just my opinion. I can imagine one person who is not going to like what I said. Waiting for their reply now .

 

[Kinley]

As Dona now knows , this is why I constantly disregard anything from the books when it comes to discussing TW lore in the games. As far as I am concerned (and the creators), the two exist in different universes. To me, TW1 is the start...anything the characters said or did before that point in other mediums is irrelevant.

That is why I refuse to join in discussions that have: "but Triss did this in this novel" or "Geralt said that in that book". No they did not, not as far as the games are concerned.

Just my opinion. I can imagine one person who is not going to like what I said. Waiting for their reply now .

But the games constantly make references to events that took place in the books. So how can you say that whatever one character said in the books is irrelevant when the games take them as relevant?

 

[not_slimgrin]

Article in polish:
http://www.gram.pl/news_8AnkGu,3_Tylko_u_nas_Andrzej_Sapkowski_nie_uznaje_gier_z_serii_Wiedzmin_za_kanoniczna_kontynuacje_swoich_dziel.html

My translation of Mr Andrzej Sapkowski's words:



(bolded parts as in the article)

You need to be clear about this Mr. Sapkowski. Don't beat around the bush...

 

[Oloroar]

But the games constantly make references to events that took place in the books. So how can you say that whatever one character said in the books is irrelevant when the games take them as relevant?

Making references to specific events from the books legitimizes them, in the way CDPR wants them to be, by explaining them in the journal/codex entries or by explanations from the characters. We know for a fact that just because an event/entity is referenced, it does not mean it happened/exists in a way identical to the books.

For example, the Wild Hunt exists in both universes, and references are made to Geralts encounter with them from the books. However, are they aliens from another world in the books? No. Therefore, you can not use what the Wild Hunt says in the books as a direct reference in the games...they are not identical entities. What the different writers envision the Wild Hunt to be is different.

I guess I should clarify my previous statement: Anything a character said or did in the books (or any event) is irrelevant to the game universe unless CDPR specifically states that it is relevant. This is because these characters and events are subject to change when (and if) they are incorporated in the game by the writers at CDPR.

 

[Dona.794]

It's hard to say because they make books relevant, then not really. TW1 was more of an AU, with Alvin instead of Ciri and Triss adopting a bit of a Yen's personality. Then in TW2 they did the whole 'memory coming back' thing and suddenly book events are relevant and Yennefer is shown as Geralt's lover, while Triss regained some of her book personality. Which is confusing for those who haven't read the books because they know only Triss (and Shani, for that matter) and Triss is established as his girlfriend.

I personally think games fall somewhere in between, but it's hard to distinguish the two when they keep referencing book events as part of the game canon.

 

[Kinley]

Making references to specific events from the books legitimizes them, in the way CDPR wants them to be, by explaining them in the journal/codex entries or by explanations from the characters. We know for a fact that just because an event/entity is referenced, it does not mean it happened/exists in a way identical to the books.

For example, the Wild Hunt exists in both universes, and references are made to Geralts encounter with them from the books. However, are they aliens from another world in the books? No. Therefore, you can not use what the Wild Hunt says in the books as a direct reference in the games...they are not identical entities. What the different writers envision the Wild Hunt to be is different.

I guess I should clarify my previous statement: Anything a character said or did in the books (or any event) is irrelevant to the game universe unless CDPR specifically states that it is relevant. This is because these characters and events are subject to change when (and if) they are incorporated in the game by the writers at CDPR.

So the books are relevant as long as CDPR sees them fit. That still makes them relevant.

 

[masos]

I don't believe that's correct, I haven't seen Sapkowski say anything about what characters he will or won't use.

As MM360 once said at our HQ - this is the case of dinosaurs in the Bible. Teologist say that the fact they are not described doesn't mean they weren' there.
This fits Sapkowski - if he hasn't said nothing about using new characters it doesn't mean he won't use them. Logical.

 

[Chewin3]

I personally think games fall somewhere in between, but it's hard to distinguish the two when they keep referencing book events as part of the game canon.

Interesting.

Even more interesting on how they'll do it TW3. Both about the differences of the books and game, and the "love triangle", of some sort.

 

[Oloroar]

So the books are relevant as long as CDPR sees them fit. That still makes them relevant.

No, not in arguments that claim "character A said this in this book", where the thing said has yet to be referenced in the games....maybe CDPR does not want Character A to say that. Maybe Character A says it in a different tone. Perhaps the circumstances and events around that statement will be changed. In my eyes, that makes what Character A said irrelevant, and any proposed connections between that statement and the game universe to be without ground.

Example, can you use the books to determine Yennefers personality? No. As Dona stated, Triss Merigolds personality was changed in the games, maybe Yennefer's will too. Therefore, at this very point in time, EVERYTHING that Yennefer is, did or said in the books is irrelevant as it is all subject to changes. Why bother referencing/discussing them within the context of the game?

Edit: Sorry if my reply seems hostile, it was not intended to be. Just getting passionate about the discussion. I mean no offense Kinl3y.

 

[dragonbird]

I'm with Kini3y on this.

As far as I'm concerned, the games follow the books, and are based on the understanding that the events in the books took place as written. I don't see any contradictions in that direction.. That Geralt discovers new "facts" about the Wild Hunt in the 2nd game doesn't invalidate the description of the Wild Hunt in the books, it just means that people during the period of the books didn't know the truth. That Geralt would ally with the Order in its fight against non-humans, or fall madly in love with Triss or Shani in the games doesn't change his history, it's just the effect of the amnesia. So from the game perspective, the books are canon.

But we can't do this the other way round. If you play the games and then read the books, you have to ignore everything you "know" about Geralt, or the Wild Hunt, or anything else from the games, because the games are not canon.

And regarding Yennefer - she has also lost her memory, so CDPR can change her as much as they want but it still won't invalidate the Yennefer of the books. We are the sum of our memories, so the loss of those memories gives you a blank sheet of paper to work on.