The Yennefer/Triss choice in TW3

[BlackWolf500.298]

Yes, something happened...In Toussaint.
Geralt, Fringilla and Yennefer...They have a history. A lot of history. War, sex, magic....And books, of course.

I know Fringilla obviously (if I do not confuse her with someone else).

Spoiler

Wasn't she one of the members of the lodge? Maybe even the one helping Yennfer escape at the first meeting?

Anyway....

Spoiler

I'm glad to hear Yen and Geralt will meet again after the "Time of Contempt". Was getting worried they all had their own story arcs without ever meeting again. Sapkowski likes to torture his readers after all......

Spoiler

Still not sure if we (Geralt) ever meet Ciri again. I certainly hope so. Even if it's just for a short time

Just read Baptism of Fire. Will have to change to the fan translations now unfortunately (I just prefer lying in my bed and having a book in my hands if you know what I mean. There is something about the smell of a new book and the isolation of a private room, it's just unique to read in that way.....)

 

[Ljesnjanin]

I know Fringilla obviously

Yes, that's her...

---------- Updated at 05:04 PM ----------

You forgot our lovely Triss here XD i guess intentionally, but i wont let you slip with that
Even though Triss wasn t DIRECTLY involved in that "meeting" Fringi and Yen had ^^

Well, Triss...Nice girl. That is all I have to say on subject.

 

[BlackWolf500.298]

Triss kind of has a smaller role than I expected in the books.

You know what I noticed though? CDPR somehow has a tendency to use almost EVERY name Sapowski ever mentioned in his books in one way or another. Either they create characters or places and name them after something or someone in the books or they actually take those characters mentioned in the books (sometimes character which are just briefly mentioned, sometimes character which are an active part of the books) and include them in the game. They also take a lot of quest ideas from the stories or things that are mentioned in the stories (like the Troll and the bridge to just name one example).

 

[Giovanni1983]

Triss earns extra love points for being a redhead guys, you know this

 

[BlackWolf500.298]

Triss earns extra love points for being a redhead guys, you know this

Aside from the fact that her main character trait in the books is chestnut hair....

 

[Klavi]

Triss kind of has a smaller role than I expected in the books.

That's true, but as far as importance goes - she's not that far behind Yen. And I'm really glad that CDPR decided to focus on her and changed her character a little.

Spoiler

Screw the chestnut hair.

 

[Giovanni1983]

^ According to the books, yes it's chestnut. Still a redhead though, since it's pretty close

 

[BlackWolf500.298]

Screw the chestnut hair.

I just think it's a shame since more than one enchantress seems to have red hair in the books and since Triss hair was described as her trademark. If it wouldn't be for that I would really not mind.

It's not bad though, I just think it can be unfortunate here and there if it comes to certain situations.
I understand why they did it, they wanted to make her stand out from the other NPCs in the game obviously.

 

[Cathulhu81]

^ According to the books, yes it's chestnut. Still a redhead though, since it's pretty close

Well yes, BUT it doesn't exclude Triss being a redhead:



audio - "They are both considered class one nuts by european standards" ;D

 

[Klavi]

I just think it's a shame since more than one enchantress seems to have red hair in the books and since Triss hair was described as her trademark. If it wouldn't be for that I would really not mind.

Triss's hair was described as her "trademark" not just because of the color, but mostly because of how she was wearing it. And that's a real shame, even if long hair would be clipping through the universe without end, no matter the Hairworks.
Besides, I can't recall any redheaded sorceresses aside from Marti, and she's not important in any way.

 

[Tokei-ihto]

That's true, but as far as importance goes - she's not that far behind Yen.

We must have read two very different book series then. Yen and Ciri are much more prominently featured in Sapkowski's novels than Triss. And I'm not only talking about the number of appearances but also her impact on the overall narrative (or lack thereof) as well as her importance to Geralt himself. Don't get me wrong. I like Triss. I like how her shared history with both Geralt and Yennefer complicates her position in the Lodge, muddles her motivations and thus has an effect on many of her subsequent actions. I like and greatly appreciate her small but effective mini-arc that finds its beautiful culmination during the progrom of Rivia in Lady of the Lake.

But let's not kid ourselves. She's a minor character that - were it not for her enlarged role in the games - probably would come in somewhere in the double-digits on every "favourite/best female characters of the Witcher universe"-list. Milva, Angoulême, Philippa Eilhart, and yes, even Fringilla Vigo have far more prominent roles. And you could make some convincing arguments for why Francecsa Findabair, Assire var Anahid, Nenneke, Calanthe, Eithné and Mistle have greater importance in directly shaping or at least subtly influencing the unfolding events of the story and/or the character development of the main protagonists (especially Ciri).

And yes, it might be a small and ultimately negligible factor, but I was diappointed that CDPR not only changed Triss' actual hair color (chestnut brown) but also her preferred way of wearing her famed mane of long cascading hair lose. I understand that the later was in all likelihood a necessary technical compromise, but at least a small nod to the books - for instance during the opening or the elven bath scene -. would have been nice. Oh well ...

 

[Giovanni1983]

^ I do agree that Triss in the books wasn't as important as the games make her seem.

 

[Lieste]

And Nimue and Condiwiramurs, without whom Uroboros would still be flailing aimlessly.

 

[geraltthebleidd]

in the games triss is not important too
the real important person is geralt, he does all the work and rescues triss in part 2

you play as a witcher and dives deep in the witcher world with all these grass and monster parts
the world needs a witcher but the women part gives the witcher the adult adventure and of course
the mature tone

 

[Klavi]

But let's not kid ourselves. She's a minor character that - were it not for her enlarged role in the games - probably would come in somewhere in the double-digits on every "favourite/best female characters of the Witcher universe"-list. Milva, Angoulême, Philippa Eilhart, and yes, even Fringilla Vigo have far more prominent roles. And you could make some convincing arguments for why Francecsa Findabair, Assire var Anahid, Nenneke, Calanthe, Eithné and Mistle have greater importance in directly shaping or at least subtly influencing the unfolding events of the story and/or the character development of the main protagonists (especially Ciri).

I may have misused the word "importance" there. Of course Yen and Ciri are featured more prominently: Ciri might as well be the "main" character of the novels and Sapkowski loves Yen too much. Still, Triss is constantly mentioned throughout the first two books and appears in all of the rest.
She might not be as important to the grand scale of things as the leader of the feminist Illuminati or kings and queens, but she still was far from useless. Sparing Ciri from the witcher herbs and convincing Geralt to go to Yen is not important enough? Then what about saving Geralt's life when he was absolutely helpless? That alone makes her more important than half of the characters you mentioned. And she's one of Geralt's closest friends. Though to be honest, I've yet to finish the last two books, but I'm sure that there's more.

What did Fringilla do anyway, aside from letting Yen get away and trying to get something going with the witcher? Or Mistle, whose only deed is fingering Ciri a whole lot? Milva, who's destined to die in the most anti-climactic way imaginable after trekking through a whole lot of woods... etc, etc.

 

[geraltthebleidd]

weird, wrong thread sry, you can delete : )

 

[Tokei-ihto]

I may have misused the word "importance" there. Of course Yen and Ciri are featured more prominently: Ciri might as well be the "main" character of the novels and Sapkowski loves Yen too much. Still, Triss is constantly mentioned throughout the first two books and appears in all of the rest.
She might not be as important to the grand scale of things as the leader of the feminist Illuminati or kings and queens, but she still was far from useless. Sparing Ciri from the witcher herbs and convincing Geralt to go to Yen is not important enough? Then what about saving Geralt's life when he was absolutely helpless? That alone makes her more important than half of the characters you mentioned. And she's one of Geralt's closest friends. Though to be honest, I've yet to finish the last two books, but I'm sure that there's more..

Well, I didn't say she was useless, helpness or anything to that effect, did I? I stated that her importance as a character to both the other protagonists and the development of the narrative is comparitively small when measured against other characters. I think her significance has been retrospectively exaggerated due to the promotion to lead romantic interest that she received in the games. Again, that is not to say that she doesn't play a vital role in the proceedings - and I already pointed out that I quite like her - but that doesn't alter the fact that she is a minor character who not only wouldn't be mentioned in the same breath as "the big three" if not for the prominent part she now plays in CDPR's adaptation, but whose popularity would - and originally did - take a back seat to other supporting characters such as Geralt's merry band of followers: Milva, Cahir, Regis, Angoulême, Dandelion ... temporary companions and allies such as Yarpen, Zoltan and their bunch of inappropriately behaving dwarves ... or simply other fascinatingly portrayed people like Dykstra, Philippa, Calanthe, Nimue etc. pp.

The point is, there are dozens of other dramatis personae besides Miss Merigold that boast a similarly successful, often even more more nuanced, in-depth characterisation, and that simply play a greater, more impactful role overall.

What did Fringilla do anyway, aside from letting Yen get away and trying to get something going with the witcher? Or Mistle, whose only deed is fingering Ciri a whole lot? Milva, who's destined to die in the most anti-climactic way imaginable after trekking through a whole lot of woods... etc, etc

Fringilla Vito, admittedly, serves primarily as a story catalyst, but she is nevertheless a well-rounded character that exhibits clear wants and needs, and whose actions are motivated by a comprehensible agenda. Furthermore, she is simply a memorable creation who completely inhabits the scenes she's in. And while I wouldn't go so far as to worship the grounds she walks on (), it's easy to see why she left such a strong impression with a lot of readers.

And I'm not even going to try to explain why Mistle (and, to a lesser extent, the rest of the Rats) plays such a crucial role in Ciri's development and what incredible mark the events that ultimately unfold will leave on her, since, judging from the dismissive tone of your last paragraph, your qestions were purely rhetorical and my answer would be a waste of both your and my time. Perhaps you'll come around once you've finished reading.


PS: Milva is awesome.

 

[Klavi]

The point is, there are dozens of other dramatis personae beside Miss Merigold that boast a similarly successful, often even more more nuanced, in-depth characterisation, and that simply play a greater, more impactful role overall.

Well... I'm probably a little biased, since I played the games first and built something of a bond during that time. This could've changed my perception of the books, especially compared to someone who's read them before the games. Of course, I agree that there are plenty of characters that "shook the world" way more than Triss did, even with less overall appearances, but I'd still say that she's important enough in the books. Again, might be my personal bias.

And yes, most of the last paragraph wasn't meant to be taken too seriously. Despite not actually doing much, and being a shitty influence overall, Mistle has been an important part of Ciri's character arc. Milva is... alright, despite being a little disappointing. And I just don't understand what's so great about Fringilla, but hey, perhaps I'll come around yet.

 

[Tokei-ihto]

Well... I'm probably a little biased, since I played the games first and built something of a bond during that time. This could've changed my perception of the books, especially compared to someone who's read them before the games. Of course, I agree that there are plenty of characters that "shook the world" way more than Triss did, even with less overall appearances, but I'd still say that she's important enough in the books. Again, might be my personal bias.

And yes, most of the last paragraph wasn't meant to be taken too seriously. Despite not actually doing much, and being a shitty influence overall, Mistle has been an important part of Ciri's character arc. Milva is... alright. And I just don't understand what's so great about Fringilla, but, like you say, perhaps I'll come around yet.

Well, I can't say that I'm really fond of Mistle or any of the Rats. They commited some undeniable atrocities and generally behaved pretty despicable. However, despite their actions that went far beyond what one could consider as juvenile delinquency, Sapkowski, imho, accomplished to portray them in a believable and honest way that invites - if not necessarily sympathy - at least a measure of empathy and affection. In the end, characters don't have to be likable to be interesting. After all, the Rats are products of their environment, a direct result of not only the horrors of the war with Nilfgaard but the racism, misogyny and social injustices that run rampant in the Northern Kingdoms once the thin veil of civilisation has been torn.

Regarding your other point, yes, I do think that this might very well be a matter of perception. People who have played the games first probably subconsciously project their experience with "Triss, the romantic love interest" onto her book counterpart, ascribing more importance to her role and generally attaching more value to the scenes she's in. Which is understandable, even if it slightly distorts the actual text.

 

[Eruvadhor]

People who have played the games first probably subconsciously project their experience with "Triss, the romantic love interest" onto her book counterpart, ascribing more importance to her role and generally attaching more value to the scenes she's in. Which is understandable, even if it slightly distorts the actual text.

Which I do confess to doing, being in the situation you prescribe.

Love is irrational. There is that certain chemistry between them in the games. Triss is smart in a cheeky way, and conversationally playful; what she wants is obvious, and her companionship and otherwise appeal is certain. The real problem is her lack of depth in character; we don't know her past very well, and certainly can't get nearly as well a grasp on her emotionally.

Then we have Yenn and Geralt. Everything in her life is by her own design. She was born deformed and probably unattractive, being made fun of and spat out like cruel, sadistic humanity loves to do. Her gift with magic was the saving and self-empowering grace that made her who she is. She's extremely intelligent, knowledgeable, and insightful...and also cunning, witty, and charming in a frigid sort of way that is designed to scare people off.

Geralt has his own share of problems. Frankly, he's obtuse, inappropriate, poor-mannered, uncultured, slovenly, and full of excuses...the 'I'm a Witcher' attitude is his answer to any issue he's uncomfortable with or unable to resolve on his own. The only times he decides he has important emotions are when Yenn leaves him.

Perhaps their irregularities are the key to their magnetic attraction. Why not any of the other hundred(s?) of her sex interests? He's unconditional in his regard of her; it's not reverence or fear. She admires his noble, self-sacrificing character. He's a witcher for god's sake, could be rich if he actually wanted it, instead he goes about seeing the world for what is is, not even trying to change it...and sees her and loves her for who she is, beneath the trappings of her life. It's reasonable to assume Yenn doesn't badger other partner's constantly like she does Geralt. 'Geralt take a bath, Geralt dress properly, Geralt loose the pretentious ponytail for once' and so on. It's hard to picture her tolerating the same level of garbage from anyone else. Even Istredd falls short, he's her intellectual equal, undoubtedly an interesting conversationalist, and a friend...but friends and lovers are different things. Geralt and her make each other better people, without forcing each other to change.

In the end, does it even matter if it is logical? For us readers, we'd like good reasons for the plot, but these books are written with ink not from the mind, but from the heart. Love is like vertigo, an adrenaline rush. A pure emotional wave lapping on the shore of logic, eroding reason and denial. The chord embedded at the base of the soul, plucked mercilessly for the creation of feelings verbally unknown and never fully understood. One of the, if not the only time, people feel fully alive. I won't pretend to be able to coherently, concisely explain why Geralt and Yennefer feel that way to me. It's a feeling I don't think I can shirk...and I don't want to, ever.