What exactly happened at the end of The Lady of The Lake? (Major Spoilers Obviously)

[sfinx]

Interesting idea, but that's now just about your interpretation and decision - what is true and what is not..
Ciri is not some main storyteller - she just had small bits from Lady of the Lake, but there was also Jarre, there were also Nimue and Tilly, all of them had their parts and I don't see a reason, why to think, Ciri is lying at this point. I would like to put away some things about character of Sapkowski. This is not some happyend, it's opened and unclear. Unicorns also arrived to save Ciri from world of Aen Elles (hope this is their right english name). Ihuarraquax also appeared from nowhere on desert just on the same place, where Ciri was.

I think she trully lied about their wedding, but in anything else. Or was she lying and covered her lies with another lie (or irony)? And what was real and what not? Pogrom in Rivia was real? And when Geralt and Yennefer woke up, that wasn't storry told by Ciri.. but that also wasn't true? Even when that was separated from Ciri's words. I am pretty sure, this picture of Yennefer and wounded Geralt was real - When they ask where they are, when Geralt asked, where Ciri is..
There is obvious difference about what she was telling and parts from real life. Part of Yen and Geralt on that islad is very different. So if you think, that was lie, you may also think whole pogrom in Rivia wasn't true.


About literary technique - I am not sure if this is good example of frame story. The Last wish is good example. This is just ONE story telled from different angles (Jarre, Tilly, Encyklopedist, Army school, Sorceresses academy,.., Ciri), but not frame story - some short stories connected in one main story. (Canterbury Tales, maybe Decameron - I don't remember that so I am not sure)

All I wrote I mean with respect to your opinion. I have no problem with your interpretation

Emperorzorn: TY for this informations, good explanation; +1

 

[EmperorZorn]

I think we are all ignoring a major point here:
Sapkowski's books are heavily inspired by the Arthurian legend.

The island of Avallach is an equivalent to the island of Avalon, where the Lady of the Lake resides.
In that legend, King Arthur is brought to this island to recover from his wounds and his people believed
that he would return from there one day to save them all.

That being said, I do not think that Geralt died.
I think that he and Yen were on the brink of death when Ciri used her space-bending powers to teleport them away,
to the island of Avallach.

My theory is that Ciri left them after that because she was aware that the Wild Hunt was searching for her,
the "Elder Blood" and she didn't want to draw the Wild Hunt to them.
What she didn't know is that the Wild Hunt was already on her trail and arrived at the island a while after she had left.

That's how I see it.

 

[wichat]

I think we are all ignoring a major point here:
Sapkowski's books are heavily inspired by the Arthurian legend.

The island of Avallach is an equivalent to the island of Avalon, where the Lady of the Lake resides.
In that legend, King Arthur is brought to this island to recover from his wounds and his people believed
that he would return from there one day to save them all.

That being said, I do not think that Geralt died.
I think that he and Yen were on the brink of death when Ciri used her space-bending powers to teleport them away,
to the island of Avallach.

My theory is that Ciri left them after that because she was aware that the Wild Hunt was searching for her,
the "Elder Blood" and she didn't want to draw the Wild Hunt to them.
What she didn't know is that the Wild Hunt was already on her trail and arrived at the island a while after she had left.

That's how I see it. />/>

Cannot be more agree! I exactly see the story this way. Thanks. You avoid me to explain that by my horrible metaphrase of my spanish thoughts into Englsih- />/>

 

[jediknight16]

Yes it's true, Sapkowski is a big fan of arthurian legends and make a lot of references to it all along the story, so in the end Geralt and Yenn end up on the Isle of Avalon.
But it's not Ciri who teleport them, reading this moment it's pretty sure Ciri has no idea of what she could possibly do to help them, until the unicorn arrives. To me, the unicorn showed Ciri the path to avalon's isle, which is magical and hidden to mortals, in order to help her save her friends ; Ciri won't stay with them because she knows they'll never be safe with her around, and she don't want to stay in the world that stole everything from her, so she just run away in arthurian's world, where nobody knows who she is nor what she's capable of, searching for a new life and identity.

 

[jjavier]

That was very well thought out; I had wanted to draw similar inferences myself, though you have done so much better.

Thank you very much.

I am not sure, though, that the use of a frame story to make it possible to impeach Ciri's narration was something Sapkowski would do. Tolkien condemned strongly the use of frame stories to enable suspension of disbelief in fantasy, "...since the fairy-story deals with 'marvels,' it cannot tolerate any frame or machinery suggesting that the whole framework in which they occur is a figment or illusion." [On Fairy-Stories], and I don't think Sapkowski would use it for such a weak purpose, either.

I prefer to give the story its full effect, more or less along the following line:

I am not sure either. If that was his intent, has worked like charm with me.
The "disbelibe in fantasy" was a Tolkien's worry and this is show in the childish tone of "The hobbit". Is common knowledge he did fear a fantasy world only will be accepted by children. I don't know if Sapkowski cares at all about this topic.

At that particular point, a strong character like Ciri may not want to tell to a complete stranger something that will make her break in tears and I mean seriously break in tears.
So, I doubt about the rescue not because there are magic in it, but beacause I see things in Sapkowski wrinting that lead to the tragical ending.

These are the seeds of doubt that leads to my interpretation:

Maybe something was lost in the translation (polish->spanish), but at the start of 'The Tower of the Swallow', before she start to tell the story to Galland, Ciri says something like "all my friends die".

Also someone (may be Ciri) says in that book someting negative about die from old age wet in your own urine. I a second read-through the saga I have interpreted that as an invitation to reflexion how would you like to see Geralt die, from old age or in action, 'cos sooner or later he have to die.

Before every dead in Geralts party, there are a flashback about that character. The flashback are also there for Geralt and Yennefer I did feel those as a dead sentences for the both of them. I have to admit there are also a flasback for Filippa and she doesn't dies. The only a thin diferece between Filippa's flasback and the others is hers occurs when she is not in danger, then it didn't feel as a dead sentence to Filipa.

I suspect from Filippa's kindness when she allows Ciri to meet Geralt in Rivia. Why she do that? 'cos Ciri makes the treat to escape? I don't think so. She looks at ouroboros serpent bitting its own tail. The beggining meets the end. I especulate she has god reasons to belive in Rivia that tool of destiny that keeps trashing hers plans will meet its end.

I know all this could be there only to create suspense, but it doesn't feel like that to me.

I prefer to give the story its full effect, more or less along the following line:

Geralt really did die of the wounds he suffered at the business end of Rob's pitchfork.
Yennefer really did die of exertion while casting spells in an attempt to save him.
But the "marvel" that must not be lessened or dismissed as Ciri's wishful thinking or imagining is that she really did take them to a place of peace and revive them.

Where the frame does break down in the way you describe is when Galahad presses Ciri for what happened after. At this point, the fairytale wedding she confabulates is clearly something she knows not to be true, and the impossibility of returning to a life in which this could happen brings her to tears.

Ciri is not some main storyteller - she just had small bits from Lady of the Lake, but there was also Jarre, there were also Nimue and Tilly, all of them had their parts and I don't see a reason, why to think, Ciri is lying at this point.

I don't think its typical "frame story". If that was the case, Ciri should be the only narrator. I think Sapkowski addapt this tool its needs.
I get the impresion the rescue is Ciri's version of the story even Ciri is not the narrator.
If I remeber correctly, there are some dialog between Ciri and Galagan just before the aparition on the unicorn. Thats where I believe the frame is broken even Ciri wasn't the narrator from this point.

Your line of thinking its a perfectly valid, and it has a more solid ground than my interpretation.
Its just feels out of tone with the rest of the story to me.

Interesting idea, but that's now just about your interpretation and decision - what is true and what is not..

Yes is about my interpretation and decision based in my taste and conjectures (not evidence) about where fits some the story's details that the author inocently left lying arround. But yes is 100% arbitrary.

I would like to put away some things about character of Sapkowski. This is not some happyend, it's opened and unclear. Unicorns also arrived to save Ciri from world of Aen Elles (hope this is their right english name). Ihuarraquax also appeared from nowhere on desert just on the same place, where Ciri was.

I think she trully lied about their wedding, but in anything else. Or was she lying and covered her lies with another lie (or irony)? And what was real and what not? Pogrom in Rivia was real? And when Geralt and Yennefer woke up, that wasn't storry told by Ciri.. but that also wasn't true? Even when that was separated from Ciri's words. I am pretty sure, this picture of Yennefer and wounded Geralt was real - When they ask where they are, when Geralt asked, where Ciri is..
There is obvious difference about what she was telling and parts from real life. Part of Yen and Geralt on that islad is very different. So if you think, that was lie, you may also think whole pogrom in Rivia wasn't true.


About literary technique - I am not sure if this is good example of frame story. The Last wish is good example. This is just ONE story telled from different angles (Jarre, Tilly, Encyklopedist, Army school, Sorceresses academy,.., Ciri), but not frame story - some short stories connected in one main story. (Canterbury Tales, maybe Decameron - I don't remember that so I am not sure)

All I wrote I mean with respect to your opinion. I have no problem with your interpretation

I think when Ihuarraquax appears in the desert he is truly lost and happens to be there.
When he appears in Rivia comes just in time and place to be the savior. The magic could explain what, but without autor further justification, I don't buy it. Even a world of magic should have back story and rules to be pausible. If someone that has been out of the story for a long time apears and save the day, I have a hard time believing the story.

I doubt about the narration just when the unicorn appears.
It feels like the greek plot device called "deus ex machina" (not the videogame).
"deus ex machina" was all rigth 2000+ years ago. Now days feels cheesy.

 

[sfinx]

If I remeber correctly, there are some dialog between Ciri and Galagan just before the aparition on the unicorn. Thats where I believe the frame is broken even Ciri wasn't the narrator from this point.

I don't remember that part, but, please, let me know, if you find that.

Your line of thinking its a perfectly valid, and it has a more solid ground than my interpretation. Its just feels out of tone with the rest of the story to me.

Ok. Sorry if my post was too confrontational.

The magic could explain what, but without autor further justification, I don't buy it. Even a world of magic should have back story and rules to be pausible. If someone that has been out of the story for a long time apears and save the day, I have a hard time believing the story.

Unicorns are strange, very strange beings. I think they are very smart and very important. I think they were also deciding if they let Ciri alive or not. And they are very important for life of Child of Destiny.
They appeared not only once - Ihuarraquax appeared on that desert from nowhere, I really don't think that was just by accident - from all places and even all times, he appeared just near Ciri. That is not an accident, maybe 0% miracle is better world for that
But that was just first time, next time he probably appeared in that village with strawy unicorn and helped her, they also helped her to escape from world of Aen Elles and Ihuarraquax again appeared in Rivia. But there could be good reason for that - firstly - they are probably watching her and secondly - Ihuarraquax is her friend and when she needs, he appears, no miracle, just abilities of unicorns.
I think chance, Geralt and Ciri arrived to Touissant just in the time of execution or when Yennefer appeared just in time to help Marigold is much smaller. But that is different with unicorns - they probably know about Ciri a lot and they can travell wherever they want.
And if this is not enough - Destiny is also very important..

I doubt about the narration just when the unicorn appears.

But introduction of this scene is in the different part.
"Kelpie noticed something, Marigold looked, Triss looked, all were amazed (or something like that I don't remember that sentence correctly).." and then there is cut of that part and after that normal continuing.

It feels like the greek plot device called "deus ex machina" (not the videogame).
"deus ex machina" was all rigth 2000+ years ago. Now days feels cheesy.

As I said - many other things are strange for me from that saga, but not those. Ciri can travel in time, she can visit different worlds and we don't even know much about unicorns, so everything is possible

But I understand and I haven't got any problem with your interpretation.

 

[jjavier]

I don't remember that part, but, please, let me know, if you find that.

Ok, I just checked and where I expected to see a little dialog I just see a separator like this:

********

I guess my memory is playing tricks on me.

Ok. Sorry if my post was too confrontational.

It wasn't too confrontational at all.
I know my interpretation is just a second reading, thats why I say your reading and Guy'N reading has more solid ground.

Ciri making up the apparition of Ihuarraquax may be is a long shot.
The dead of Geralt and Yennefer not that much.

The last dialog between Yennefer and Geralt could be the after life as well as Avalon.

Unicorns are strange, very strange beings. I think they are very smart and very important. I think they were also deciding if they let Ciri alive or not. And they are very important for life of Child of Destiny.
They appeared not only once - Ihuarraquax appeared on that desert from nowhere, I really don't think that was just by accident - from all places and even all times, he appeared just near Ciri. That is not an accident, maybe 0% miracle is better world for that />/>/>/>/>/>/>
But that was just first time, next time he probably appeared in that village with strawy unicorn and helped her, they also helped her to escape from world of Aen Elles and Ihuarraquax again appeared in Rivia. But there could be good reason for that - firstly - they are probably watching her and secondly - Ihuarraquax is her friend and when she needs, he appears, no miracle, just abilities of unicorns.
I think chance, Geralt and Ciri arrived to Touissant just in the time of execution or when Yennefer appeared just in time to help Marigold is much smaller. But that is different with unicorns - they probably know about Ciri a lot and they can travell wherever they want.
And if this is not enough - Destiny is also very important.. />/>/>/>/>/>/>
But introduction of this scene is in the different part.
"Kelpie noticed something, Marigold looked, Triss looked, all were amazed (or something like that I don't remember that sentence correctly).." and then there is cut of that part and after that normal continuing.
As I said - many other things are strange for me from that saga, but not those. Ciri can travel in time, she can visit different worlds and we don't even know much about unicorns, so everything is possible />/>/>/>/>/>/>/>

But I understand and I haven't got any problem with your interpretation.

I attribute a lot of coincidence in the saga to destiny.
The meeting of Ihuarraquax and Ciri at the desert is one example.
But at Rivia Ihuarraquax wasn't lost or just passing by. It wasn't a coincidence.

Why he awaits to the tragedy and then he appears and do what he does.
Could be several reason for that, but the reasons are unspoken and I get no leads from the text.
I admit unicorns are strange. Still, that behavior is a loose end at a critical passage.

 

[jediknight16]

Don't forget that Ciri helped and saved Ihuarraquax when it was hurt, and the unicorn is grateful for that.

 

[jjavier]

Don't forget that Ciri helped and saved Ihuarraquax when it was hurt, and the unicorn is grateful for that.

I do keep it in mind. I do not question his friendship with Ciri.
I just don't understand why he didn't show up before an save Ciri's beloved ones a lot of trouble or dead (depends on your reading).

We don't know anythig about him since the time he was sourrounded by the Allen sidhe (or whatever was their name).

No one was expecting him at Rivia. He just shows up and the reader has no clue where he come from. And he has the power to restore Ciri's powers. He hasn't that power before. Uniconrs doesn't takes Ciri's power away. Ciri rejects it by her self at the desert when she goes euphoric.

That really bothers me. But its a very personal apreciation.

 

[sfinx]

Why he awaits to the tragedy and then he appears and do what he does.
Could be several reason for that, but the reasons are unspoken and I get no leads from the text.

I try to bring one explanation. I think it was because in that moment (not before) was Ciri really desperate (in other moments also appeared her friends - she got lost somewhere in unhabitated swamps and Vysogota appeared, Rats appeared, Geralt appeared in Brokylon and now appeared Ihuarraquax.
I know this would be speculation, but her heppyness (don't take that literally, but just about important moments) could be important for them, because it maybe be important for future of the world. Strong moment - like death of her loved ones could cause her turning to dark side.
But that is only speculation - what is important - she needed her abilities in that moment and Ihuarraquax helped her.
His "amazing" appear at that moment is amazing for us, not for unicorns, they can be when they wanted, where they wanted and as I mentioned before, they probably somehow watch Ciri and when she needs, they can help. They aren't far away from her, they are just one step from her.

 

[wichat]

I do keep it in mind. I do not question his friendship with Ciri.
I just don't understand why he didn't show up before an save Ciri's beloved ones a lot of trouble or dead (depends on your reading).

We don't know anythig about him since the time he was sourrounded by the Allen sidhe (or whatever was their name).

No one was expecting him at Rivia. He just shows up and the reader has no clue where he come from. And he has the power to restore Ciri's powers. He hasn't that power before. Uniconrs doesn't takes Ciri's power away. Ciri rejects it by her self at the desert when she goes euphoric.

That really bothers me. But its a very personal apreciation.

Because till then Ciri was always able to defend herself with more or less difficult. But in Rivia she really need a little help of her friend.

 

[jediknight16]

Ihuarraquax says to Ciri that she never lost her magic, even if she believed she did and rejected it in the desert, it will always be in her blood

 

[Senteria]

I finished the books last night and I wanted to say that I think Ciri actually summoned the unicorn herself. She wanted to do something to help Geralt and Yennefer. She's desperate. And in desperate times, people can exceed themselves without knowing it. So I think she magically summoned the unicorn subconciously with her magic. The Unicorn has the power to help heal Geralt and Yennefer. Also, I thought the unicorn had already died while visiting worlds trying to get back to her own. She transported them with the help of the unicorn to a place where they would be safe and left them there to recover. This way they won't be in danger and have each other. I think the wedding part was made up. However among the guests she mentions Regis (my favourite character from the book) wasn't among them. I think I read something about vampires not going to an afterlife, but I could be wrong.

Well he sure leaves a lot to interpretation and a lot of stuff in the books are vague sometimes.

 

[Gollum007]

I think we are all ignoring a major point here:
Sapkowski's books are heavily inspired by the Arthurian legend.

The island of Avallach is an equivalent to the island of Avalon, where the Lady of the Lake resides.
In that legend, King Arthur is brought to this island to recover from his wounds and his people believed
that he would return from there one day to save them.

I know I'm a bit late to that discussion, but I just finished the last book and I thought it was in fact quite obvious that that island is an analogy for Avalon or even the very same place. Sapkowski clearly writes of a place smelling of "...grass, herbs, flowers. And apples." And Avalon stems from the indogerman root word aballo, literally meaning the "island of apples". Also the whole dying person on a boat crossing a misty lake is not the most subtile reference. Saying the book is heavily inspired by Arturian legend is actually a real understatement. It's not an inspiration, it's a part of the Witcher's world (or parallel-world), I mean it genuinely ends with Ciri riding along Galand towards Camelot.

 

[Goofiestchief]

purposely up in the air.

 

[a_one]

Just a small note:
Sapkowski also has an essay about Arthurian legends

 

[Meodoc]

An argument in favour of the death of Geralt and Yeneffer would be a statement from Ciri to Galahad in the first chapter of The Lady of the Lake (transl. from German): "Yes, Galahad. I have stained myself often recently. With the blood of enemies, that i have killed. And with the blood of humans, who were close to me, and who i tried to rescue ... and who died in my arms ... "
(sry for my potentially horrendous translation)

This last part of the statement could of course refer maybe to Mistle, Angouleme, or somebody else, but could of course also mention the potentially most recent deaths - those of Geralt and Yeneffer.