The Witcher books (SPOILERS)

[erxv]

The Witcher books (SPOILERS)

Hey, i would really love for someone to explain to me a few things about the books..

Firstly i would like to buy the following 4 books.

The Last Wish
Blood of Elves
Time of Contempt
Baptism of Fire

my questions are:

When do these books take place in time? Are they all before The Witcher and The Witcher 2: Assassins of Kings games?
Secondly, is the main character of the books Ciri rather than Geralt? Because all the Previews of all the books listed in this topic seem to indicate that.
In all of the previews the story is being told from a womans perspective.. So is the Main character Ciri, in the books? or does it change during the books and there are maybe many characters through who the story is told?

PS: the http://witcher.gamepedia.com/Timeline doesnt help at all.. cause it doesnt say when the books start

Thanks for anyone who can help me with the questions

 

[Sibladosi]

The books take place before the games, so in a way... the games are the sequel to the books story =P. The story is about Geralt of Rivia, but Ciri and other characters are pretty important aswell(I don't whanna say too much because I don't whant to spoil the story =P) ; I haven't read all the books, Time of Contempt just launched in my country, but there is another one between The Last Wish and Blood of Elves that is called The Sword of Destiny. Last Wish is mainly a series of short stories about Geralt, while the Sword of destiny is kind of a transition between these independant stories and laying the ground for the series, that starts at Blood of Elves.
If I am not mistaken, these first two books where little stories that Sapkowski used to publish in a RPG magazine, after they were sucessfull they gather these stories and made these 2 books, but they are pretty good too!
But do buy them man, they are really good! And since Geralt's memory will be back in the third game, he will remember evrything from his past life! ( I think o.o)

:yes:

 

[StaGiors]

Chronologically, you would want to read the books in this order:

1) The Last Wish
2) The Sword of Destiny (there is a fan translation here on the forum)
3) Blood of Elves
4) Times of Contempt
5) Baptism of Fire
6) The Tower of the Swallow (also fan translated)
7) The Lady of the Lake (also fan translated)

Here is the link of the thread with the fan translations in English: http://forums.cdprojektred.com/threads/16494-Our-Community-Fan-Translations

The games take place after the events of the books.

You could say that Ciri is one of the main Characters in the books, just like Geralt is. There are other main characters, but Geralt and Ciri are the ones that get more time in the books. The story is being told from different perspectives all the time, not just Geralt and Ciri's though.

 

[erxv]

wow, 20 minutes and i have all the answers i wanted (coudlnt read the sword of destiny cause i dont know Polish)
Love the games, devs, and the community

Though i heard that the fan translated books werent that good but i will look into that and Thank You both

 

[StaGiors]

wow, 20 minutes and i have all the answers i wanted (coudlnt read the sword of destiny cause i dont know Polish)
Love the games, devs, and the community

Though i heard that the fan translated books werent that good but i will look into that and Thank You both

The fan translated books are great. They are actually really well written, if you take into consideration the fact that the guy who did translate them, Asheral, did not speak Polish, or French, or Spanish. He used a translator for all 3 versions and tried to translate the books as best he could. I thought that was really cool, when I first found out about it.

 

[erxv]

okay, im a little bit confused... how much time is there between The Lady of the Lake and the first game?

Spoiler

Is Geralts death in the books? Geralt first meeting Letho? Geralt chasing the Wild Hunt? and the beginning of the game where he is running from the Wild Hunt??

 

[StaGiors]

Spoiler

Ok so in the book "the Lady of the Lake", at year 1268, Geralt and Yennefer "died". The first witcher game takes place in May 1270. Which is about two years after the events of the books. Now the second question is a bit tricky. According to the game, Letho and Geralt met in July 1270 in Angren, which chronologically doesn't make sense, since the events of the first Witcher game, start in May 1270. So there is probably a mistake there.

There have been several discussions on the matter, the most recent one, can be found in this link. http://forums.cdprojektred.com/thre...Plot-How-wrong-am-I-*TW2-Book-spoilers*/page4

Read through pages 4 to 6, they contain lots of information. You can make up your mind afterwards.

 

[sfinx]

Hey, i would really love for someone to explain to me a few things about the books..

Maybe I came too late, but when I am already here..

When do these books take place in time?
- timeline: Short stories (Last wish, Sword of Destiny) -> Saga (Blood of Elves, Times of Contempt, Baptism of Fire, Tower of Swallow, Lady of the Lake) -> Witcher 1 (game) -> Witcher 2 -> Witcher 3

Are they all before The Witcher and The Witcher 2: Assassins of Kings games?
- Yes

In Witcher 2 are few moments (flashbacks), which should be placed between last book and the first game, but you will recognize that..


Secondly, is the main character of the books Ciri rather than Geralt?
- In short stories - no, in saga - it's ballanced more or less - you will read about Ciri and about Geralt ... there is always part about each one of them, small part about others. BTW, At least in my language it is also called 'Saga about Witcher and Ciri'

or does it change during the books and there are maybe many characters through who the story is told?
- Yes - for example, beginning of Lady of the Lage is presented as research of two sorceresses from different world. Another part is "diary" of old medic etc.

 

[erxv]

hey,

thank you for answering aswell, really helped.

Now i have no choice but to buy the books

 

[TheDespondentMind2]

Greetings everyone !

So far I've reached the Witcher series until the fourth chapter of "The Great Contempt" so please don't spoil it for me !

What sort of pisses me off about Geralt is his inconsistent use of signs, especially Ard seems like it could have made things way easier for him in most of fights.
Examples

Spoiler

When Rience and Michelet brothers meet Geralt in Oxenfurt, he could have simply blasted them to hell with the Ard and quickly finish off Rience.

I mean if he released that huge blast against the Striga, maintained it and still was able to continue the fight, the argument that Geralt gets exhausted from the signs is pointless, not to mention that he would need way less power for most of the humans or even monsters he encountered thus far.

He could have also raised queen when fighting the Reavers or ard them quickly so he can confront Yennefer, but Geralt's lack of balls when it comes to Yennefer is another issue

 

[StaGiors]

@TheDespondentMind

That wouldn't make for an interesting fight now would it?

Geralt uses signs quite rarely in the books. They are just "tricks", he uses when he does not have another choice. His instincts are always to use his sword though. It is what he does best, what he was trained to do. Witcher sings are just a little bonus, in no way as powerful as they are portrayed in the game.

 

[Kinley]

Plus using a sign often would probably just drain him of all his energy. It's not like in the games where he can just spam them every couple of seconds. These signs take their toll on Geralt, so he has to use them sparsely.

 

[TheDespondentMind2]

I'm not sure you read what I have written.

Plus using a sign often would probably just drain him of all his energy. It's not like in the games where he can just spam them every couple of seconds. These signs take their toll on Geralt, so he has to use them sparsely.

Spoiler

If Geralt was able to slow down a Striga for a few seconds straining himself to the maximum, and then continue the fight and perform almost flawlessly, not to mention that he was holding back.

and

Spoiler

He was throwing axi the whole day on Roach and didn't show any signs of exhaustion, if anything he was afraid to overdo it on roach.

in no way as powerful as they are portrayed in the game.

I think I never saw an ARD as powerful as in the short story with Striga.

That wouldn't make for an interesting fight now would it?

I agree, but I it's straining my suspension of disbelief and any tension for me, since I know what he is capable of.

His instincts are always to use his sword though. It is what he does best, what he was trained to do.

The best argument so far, but it would only make sense to me if Geralt is:

A) 100% Sure he doesn't need any trickery.
B) In no hurry.
C) Needs to hide his magic abilities.
D) He's not being himself, or in full berserk.

Or various combinations of those.

 

[StaGiors]

@TheDespondentMind

This is a passage from Blood of Elves, by Andrzej Sapkowski.

The so-called Sign of Aard, Ciri, is a very simple spell belonging to the family of psychokinetic magic which is based on thrusting energy in the required direction. The force of the thrust depends on how the will of the person throwing it is focused and on the expelled force. It can be considerable. The Witchers adapted the spell, making use of the fact that it does not require knowledge of a magical formula — concentration and the hand gesture are enough. That's why they call it a Sign. Where they got the name from, I don't know, maybe from the Elder Speech — the word "Aard", as you know, means "mountain", "upper" or "the highest". If that is truly the case then the name is very misleading because it's hard to find an easier psychokinetic spell.

Geralt's fighting "style" was governed by one rule. Never spend more energy than you need. His moves are simple, fast and practical. Using signs whenever, is not practical. Geralt has used the sign of Aard two times in the books. One in his fight with the Striga, and another when he and Yennefer were trying to control the Djinn. Both of these times he used the Sign when everything else seemed to have failed.

View it this way. Why would Jean Claude Van Damme try to rip your head off, when he can kill you with a roundhouse kick. I have no idea where this came from.

Still his abilities with the Signs were pretty much close to Zero. His tricks were easy to perform, and quite weak.

 

[TheDespondentMind2]

Makes sense indeed.

 

[Sephira]

Well, I don't think Geralt's Signs were weak, they were useful tricks, but strong enough.

I remember one time in the books when his sign was weak: in Baptism of Fire he cast Igni against a wood barricade: this weakness was due to his recent health issues.

 

[yayodeanno.831]

There's too much rationalizing in tis discussion The simple explanation is that Sapkowski concieved originally Geralt as some sort of superhero, which fit the scope of the short stories collection. But when he decided to write the saga he had to "tame" Geralt's abilities, the witcher would encounter lots of different opponents in the books and making him too powerful would have killed the sense of danger and uncertainty the author was trying to instill into the reader. And don't forget Geralt is seriously wounded by Vilgefortz on Thanedd, he limps through most of the novels. Also he loses his original sword and his elixirs, and it's hinted that he can use no magic if he isn't "high" on witcher's potions
Still I find Geralt's powers and swordplay ability somewhat unbalanced thru the books, in certain situations he's able to overcome incredible odds while there are moments when he can't replicate what he was able to do just a hundred pages before. Nobody's perfect I guess

 

[Sephira]

There's too much rationalizing in tis discussion The simple explanation is that Sapkowski concieved originally Geralt as some sort of superhero, which fit the scope of the short stories collection. But when he decided to write the saga he had to "tame" Geralt's abilities, the witcher would encounter lots of different opponents in the books and making him too powerful would have killed the sense of danger and uncertainty the author was trying to instill into the reader. And don't forget Geralt is seriously wounded by Vilgefortz on Thanedd, he limps through most of the novels. Also he loses his original sword and his elixirs, and it's hinted that he can use no magic if he isn't "high" on witcher's potions
Still I find Geralt's powers and swordplay ability somewhat unbalanced thru the books, in certain situations he's able to overcome incredible odds while there are moments when he can't replicate what he was able to do just a hundred pages before. Nobody's perfect I guess

You're right, Geralt can be a conceived superhero in some of the short stories, but for what we know from The Witcher, A Little Sacrifice, or better, Something more, even a superhero can be weak sometimes.
It's hinted he can't use magic properly withouth elixirs or at his maximum efficacy, not he can't use it. When he destroyed that wood barricade on the bridge of Jaruga, as I said before, he cast a sign:

Geralt flexed his fingers to form the Aard sign and walked over to the pile of burning wood. He did not count on a big effect, he didn't drink the elixir of witchers in weeks. But the effect was there. The mass exploded and dispersed, spraying sparks.

In short story A Grain of Truth he used signs a lot of times without drinking elixirs, while fighting the bruxa.

 

[Foxtrot1994]

Of course Geralt can use Signs without any elixir, every Witcher is trained for that, even though they are swordmasters mainly. Elixirs just enhance their already superior skills, but I wouldn't say they affect magic abilities, cause Signs effectiveness is only affected by willpower and of course, health conditions.

 

[yayodeanno.831]

You're right, Geralt can be a conceived superhero in some of the short stories, but for what we know from The Witcher, A Little Sacrifice, or better, Something more, even a superhero can be weak sometimes.
It's hinted he can't use magic properly withouth elixirs or at his maximum efficacy, not he can't use it. When he destroyed that wood barricade on the bridge of Jaruga, as I said before, he cast a sign:

Geralt flexed his fingers to form the Aard sign and walked over to the pile of burning wood. He did not count on a big effect, he didn't drink the elixir of witchers in weeks. But the effect was there. The mass exploded and dispersed, spraying sparks.

In short story A Grain of Truth he used signs a lot of times without drinking elixirs, while fighting the bruxa.

Yup, I get what you mean but *I think* there's a passage in one of the last two books where Geralt explains that he can't use signs. LOL, now I remember (I think) it's not that he can't use them without gulping elixirs first, he can't use them cause

Spoiler

he's lost his medallion