What's with Yennefer and Emhyr?

[TreesAreCanon]

Canon 'discussion' again? Seems like this never gets old. I always took the games as separate fanfiction.

Sapkowski is ultimately the person who says what goes in the books.
CDPR ARE the ones who say what goes in their games.

The books definitely shouldn't be used to try and overwrite the game canon.

Agreed with both. And the games shouldn't be used to 'overwrite' the book canon either, that's the crucial part.

Books ended with Wyspa Jabłoni and the author himself said that the games aren't a continuation of his story.

Just gonna leave this here as usual. Pay extra attention to what Sapkowski says at 1 minute and 45 seconds.

 

[xxRENEGADExx]

About cannon or non-cannon...

- Now, you have already released three games of "The Witcher". What do you think: How difficult is to adapt books in videogame? Is it more difficult to work like gaming writers? Has synthesis of the literature and videogames potential?

- OUR GAMES - IS NOT ADAPTATION OF SAPKOWSKI's BOOKS. We took the world, described in his novels and short stories, and wrote our own story. If we tried to adapt the books, I'm sure it would be much harder, because we will be inevitably compared with the original. The history of the first game begins where ends the saga of five novels. From the beginning, our writers wrote a story for the role-playing game, and it has it's own advantages, because the scenario could be adapt in media. What works in books, does not always work in games, and vice versa...

Spoiler: Link to interview (Russian language)

http://www.lookatme.ru/mag/people/experience/214327-the-witcher-3-interview

Also there is video, from what we know, that CDPR asked Sapkowski's opinion about "twisting" plot.

edit: already posted above


So...games events happen after books events, devs took from books what they want, "change" (even past events) what they want, "reform" what they want and etc.

If we are talking about books as games cannon, better to say "selective cannon"

 

[StandardEpiphany]

Regardless of what they claim in PR statements, CDPR do change characters compared to the books, and there are multiple examples of that. It would be rather disrespectful towards them to assume it is all "bad writing", rather than intentional.

Just because it's intentional doesn't mean it's not bad if it doesn't develop into something coherent and consistent. The Yennefer-Emhyr/Yennefer-hidden plans-Ciri threads are badly writen because they don't make proper sense in the context in which they have been presented. They are underdeveloped/discarded plot elements that don't lead no any satisfactory conclusion and therefore lose any actual significance in terms of characterization, both in the game world and in the extended universe.

If you are going to alter the relationships and the characters to the point where you make Yennefer buddy-buddy with Emhyr and a manipulator or Ciri, at least do it thoroughly.

 

[xxRENEGADExx]

Yennefer-hidden plans-Ciri

Lets pretend, for a moment, that these dialogue "plans" lines, Ciri talked about, are not something undeveloped or "relic of past developments".
Has Yennefer plans for Ciri in game? Yes, she has. They are: to find Ciri, to protect Ciri. Seems nothing worry about for Ciri, right? Yen has good intentions towards her...so maybe Ciri worries not about her intentions, but about possible negative consequences of Yen's plans? I'll explain.
Yen decided, without asking someones opinion, to cooperate with Emhyr and the Lodge to fulfill her plans. Both had plans for Ciri, in the past. Both have plans for her even now. Mention either of them makes Ciri to feel "uncomfortable". So it's quite normal to have doubts about Yen's contrivance, don't you think? Ciri doesn't distrust Yennefer's goals, she simply worries about probable effects of dealing with this company.
It's like during Thanned. There were no plans to harm Ciri, when Yen took her to solve mages conflict, but in the end, consequences for Ciri were awful.

 

[StandardEpiphany]

Lets pretend, for a moment, that these dialogue "plans" lines, Ciri talked about, are not something undeveloped or "relic of past developments".
Has Yennefer plans for Ciri in game? Yes, she has. They are: to find Ciri, to protect Ciri. Seems nothing worry about for Ciri, right? Yen has good intentions towards her...so maybe Ciri worries not about her intentions, but about possible negative consequences of Yen's plans? I'll explain.
Yen decided, without asking someones opinion, to cooperate with Emhyr and the Lodge to fulfill her plans. Both had plans for Ciri, in the past. Both have plans for her even now. Mention either of them makes Ciri to feel "uncomfortable". So it's quite normal to have doubts about Yen's contrivance, don't you think? Ciri doesn't distrust Yennefer's goals, she simply worries about probable effects of dealing with this company.
It's like during Thanned. There were no plans to harm Ciri, when Yen took her to solve mages conflict, but in the end, consequences for Ciri were awful.

Emhyr's plans are Emhyr's plans and the Lodge's plans are the Lodge's plans. In Ciri's line of dialogue Yennefer is presented as a separate entity planning her own machinations, besides those already mentioned. The co-operation with Emhyr and the Lodge (if a certain dialogue option is chosen) is done with Geralt's full implication and/or consent and yet Geralt is never suspected of having ulterior motives or being untrustworthy for working with the enemy and adapting to the situation.

If Ciri was indeed worried about Yennefer's way of doing things and not her intentions, then she should have said "Yennefer has some shitty methods when it comes to saving my ass and I don't like it", not that she has "plans" for her.

 

[xxRENEGADExx]

Yennefer is talked about as a separe entity planning her own machinations

Of course she is talked about as a separate entity, because it's her plan to work with those two.

The co-operation with Emhyr and the Lodge (if a certain dialogue option is chosen) is done with Geralt's full implication and consent and yet Geralt is never suspected of having ulterior motives.

But it is still not Geralt's idea. And as we see that Yennefer first makes something and only later notifies Geralt about it, like with Emhyr and Lodge cases.

 

[StandardEpiphany]

Of course she is talked about as a separate entity, because it's her plan to work with those two.




But it is still not Geralt's idea. And as we see that Yennefer first makes something and only later notifies Geralt about it, like with Emhyr and Lodge cases.

But that plan has already been completed. She planned to work with them, Geralt agreed, and they are working with them. Why mention it as some sort of looming thing when it is out of Yennefer's hands at this point? What Emhyr and the Lodge want to do on their own is beyond Yennefer. She secured an alliance against the Wild Hunt, not future decisions concerning Ciri. What are her plans at this point? It's implied that she still has something up her sleeve, because otherwise her planning was in the past and is in no way comparable to Eredin, Emhyr and the Lodge, whose machinations are in full swing.

 

[xxRENEGADExx]

But that plan has already been completed. She planned to work with them, Geralt agreed, and they are working with them.

And Ciri agrees, too, despite her clear dissatisfaction after battle of Kaer Morhen. But again, it Yen's plans, nor her or Geralt.

What Emhyr and the Lodge want to do on their own is beyond Yennefer. She secured an alliance against the Wild Hunt, not future decisions concerning Ciri. What are her plans at this point?

And who proposed her this alliance? Exactly. Ciri might understand that this alliance is the only one possible thing to withstand the WH, but still doesn't like it and be afraid of possible negative effects.

 

[StandardEpiphany]

And Ciri agrees, too, despite her clear dissatisfaction after battle of Kaer Morhen. But again, it Yen's plans, nor her or Geralt.



And who proposed her this alliance? Exactly. Ciri might understand that this alliance is the only one possible thing to withstand the WH, but still doesn't like it and be afraid of possible negative effects.

I understand that. But Ciri doesn't say that Yennefer "had" plans for her. She says that Yennefer "has" plans for her. "There are others who have plans for me". Currently. Or regarding the future. The alliance with Emhyr and the Lodge has already been established. That's not a plan anymore. It's something that is happening. If Ciri fears the consequences of that alliance, then she fears the consequences of Yennefer's past plans or the consequences of her methods. But what are Yennefer's current plans, the ones that warrant to be mentioned alongside those of Emhyr, Eredin and the Lodge?

 

[ReptilePZ]

I'm surprised at the discussion that's arisen from this.

Yen trusting Emhyr - there's no reason not to trust him, he had his chance in the books to fulfill his plan, he refused to do it of his own volition - i.e. if he wanted to harm Ciri or Yen or Geralt, he would have done so long ago, when he had the upper hand. Yen is ambitious and wants what's best for Ciri - being the empress of literally the known world is not a bad position - so she encourages Ciri to cooperate with Emhyr.

That said, Yen has always been very controlling and Ciri has always been free-spirited. And she likes to overreact. That's the whole "Yen plan" line right there. Ciri doesn't like being forced into things, Yen pushing her to listen to Emhyr is interpreted as scheming as a result - it's not the first time in the books or game that Ciri behaves in this manner.

As to why Ciri does what she does in the Empress ending - she's very much an idealist and taking up that burden is the grown-up thing to do. It's the 'responsible parenting 101' ending. If Nilfgaard wins and the player has given Emhyr a chance to extend his offer to Ciri by taking her there before confronting Imlerith, she takes up Emhyr's offer. Because she's no longer the teen that longs for freedom and adventure - that's the result of the player's parenting as Geralt and encouraging Ciri to see Emhyr.

If you as the player push Geralt into supporting's Ciri's more free-spirited nature and don't take her to Emhyr, she follows the more dangerous and hard life of a witcher, but that's her passion.

Like I've said before, TW3 is one big parenting course, more or less, and the whole game is focused on this.

Also, "plot holes" is a term that's being misused a lot in this thread. Plot hole is not a term to be used to mark plot events that you personally disagree with, that you think are cut off too soon etc. A plot hole is an event that occurs that contradicts what's been established in the story and the 'rules' that govern a fictional world.

Same goes for "bad writing". Writing that does not align with someone's expectations of the direction a story would take is not the same as bad writing.

On a moderating note, @Charcharo If you could stop insulting gamers' intelligence, that'd be swell. Think whatever you wish to think about the quality of the story in the books vs. that of the games, but please stop disparaging the "gamer" crowd - that's against the forum rules and will result in moderator action if it continues in your future posts.

And to everyone else, drop the ad hominems, please. Specifically referring to personal attacks aimed against certain users that have occurred in this thread. Try to be more civil in your discussions.

 

[xxRENEGADExx]

I understand that. But Ciri doesn't say that Yennefer "had" plans for her. She says that Yennefer "has" plans for her. "There are others who have plans for me". Currently. Or regarding the future. The alliance with Emhyr and the Lodge has already been established. That's not a plan anymore. It's something that is happening. If Ciri fears the consequences of that alliance, then she fears the consequences of Yennefer's past plans or the consequences of her methods. But what are Yennefer's current plans, the ones that warrant to be mentioned alongside those of Emhyr, Eredin and the Lodge?

At the moment of this conversation her plan is "protect Ciri from WH". She continue to work with Lodge and Emhyr. It's a "current process". That's why "has" instead of "had". Had in case of "ended process".

 

[StandardEpiphany]

At the moment of this conversation her plan is "protect Ciri from WH". She continue to work with Lodge and Emhyr. It's a "current process". That's why "has" instead of "had". Had in case of "ended process".

They are all currently working with Emhyr and the Lodge and they all share the plan to protect Ciri from the Wild Hunt. Why single Yennefer out? What Yennefer did by herself was to initiate the alliance to which they all gave their consent. That was her plan. The plan was turned into action and the rest is the aftermath: they are fighting the Wild Hunt together. But we are just running in circles at this point. Perhaps we should let it go.

Anyway, the idea that the plans refer to Yennefer wanting Ciri to acced to the throne is plausible, even though she is shown to be completely out if the loop in the Empress ending. It does make sense that Ciri would react negatively to Yennefer, or anyone else for that matter, telling her what to do. She's always been bratty. But even so, it is implied that, in Ciri's mind, a suggestion to meet and talk to the emperor is enough to place Yennefer in the same boat with the Lodge, Emhyr and Eredin, in terms of scheming and/or malintent. You could say it's just an overreaction on Ciri's part, but it adds a degree of tension and mistrust that, in my opinion, could have been interesting but is never properly adressed.

The problem is not that there is friction between Ciri and Yennefer. There's always been friction between them. The problem is that it's a blurry and unsatisfying kind of friction.

 

[ReptilePZ]

Anyway, the idea that the plans refer to Yennefer wanting Ciri to acced to the throne is plausible, even though she is shown to be completely out if the loop in the Empress ending. It does make sense that Ciri would react negatively to Yennefer, or anyone else for that matter, telling her what to do. She's always been bratty. But even so, it is implied that, in Ciri's mind, a suggestion to meet and talk to the emperor is enough to place Yennefer in the same boat with the Lodge, Emhyr and Eredin, in terms of scheming and/or malintent. You could say it's just an overreaction on Ciri's part, but it adds a degree of tension and mistrust that, in my opinion, could have been interesting but is never properly adressed.

The problem is not that there is friction between Ciri and Yennefer. There's always been friction between them. The problem is that it's a blurry and unsatisfying kind of friction.

To my mind, the friction between Ciri and Yen has always been an ongoing thing and doesn't need a resolution, because it's just a part of their relationship - even at the end of the books, Yen and Ciri are dealing with the Lodge, to Geralt and Ciri's displeasure. I don't think it means that Ciri distrusts Yen or really puts her in the same category as Eredin, she's just overly critical of Yen dictating what Ciri does. In the Empress ending, I personally interpret Ciri not wanting Yen to be involved in that business, because as an Empress, Ciri likely has different, more idealistic goals to what Yennefer would advise.

Remember in KM, when Yen makes that comment about Geralt needing to be more practical (in that case, regarding trolls), I assume that's exactly the kind of talk Ciri wishes to avoid - she ultimately agrees with Yen that becoming Empress is the wise thing to do, but she does it for her own reasons. Again, I personally link it to the idea of parenting, letting your child become their own person. Note that the "right" choices the game seems to promote, apart from being supportive, are those that have Geralt let Ciri be more independent and make up her own mind - taking her to Emhyr but not for the reward, so that she has the possibility to hear him out, letting her talk to the sorceresses of the Lodge on her own.

Anyway, probably straying a bit off-topic at this point, so to tie it back into the topic: I don't think there's some big conspiracy between Yen and Emhyr, it's just Yen doing what she does best - i.e. what she thinks is best. Only in this case, it's for Ciri's benefit, not her own, as Geralt and especially Ciri are the only people Yen cares deeply about. In doing so, she pushes too hard, as is her wont, and that's something Ciri doesn't generally like.

 

[StandardEpiphany]

To my mind, the friction between Ciri and Yen has always been an ongoing thing and doesn't need a resolution, because it's just a part of their relationship - even at the end of the books, Yen and Ciri are dealing with the Lodge, to Geralt and Ciri's displeasure. I don't think it means that Ciri distrusts Yen or really puts her in the same category as Eredin, she's just overly critical of Yen dictating what Ciri does. In the Empress ending, I personally interpret Ciri not wanting Yen to be involved in that business, because as an Empress, Ciri likely has different, more idealistic goals to what Yennefer would advise.

Remember in KM, when Yen makes that comment about Geralt needing to be more practical (in that case, regarding trolls), I assume that's exactly the kind of talk Ciri wishes to avoid - she ultimately agrees with Yen that becoming Empress is the wise thing to do, but she does it for her own reasons. Again, I personally link it to the idea of parenting, letting your child become their own person. Note that the "right" choices the game seems to promote, apart from being supportive, are those that have Geralt let Ciri be more independent and make up her own mind - taking her to Emhyr but not for the reward, so that she has the possibility to hear him out, letting her talk to the sorceresses of the Lodge on her own.

Anyway, probably straying a bit off-topic at this point, so to tie it back into the topic: I don't think there's some big conspiracy between Yen and Emhyr, it's just Yen doing what she does best - i.e. what she thinks is best. Only in this case, it's for Ciri's benefit, not her own, as Geralt and especially Ciri are the only people Yen cares deeply about. In doing so, she pushes too hard, as is her wont, and that's something Ciri doesn't generally like.

Yes, I agree. And I don't think there should be a resolution to the tension either. But the tension could bave been elaborated on and, if given some space to ferment, it might have fleshed out the characters more. As it stands it mostly gravitates around a stroppy line of dialogue that people dissect out of... I don't know... a desire to fill in the blanks, I guess.

I mean, earlier in the thread there was someone who, from that line of dialogue, had deduced that Yennefer was interested in using Ciri for her blood or whatever. It's one of those things that creates confusion in the game. And not the good kind of confusion, imho..

 

[ReptilePZ]

Yes, I agree. And I don't think there should be a resolution to the tension either. But the tension could bave been elaborated on and, if given some space to ferment, it might have fleshed out the characters more. As it stands it mostly gravitates around a stroppy line of dialogue that people dissect out of... I don't know... a desire to fill in the blanks, I guess.

Yeah, perhaps - I think it really comes down to priorities, in the end. The game had a lot of subplots, characters etc. to juggle, so I think they just chose to focus on Geralt and Ciri's relationship, since they're the 2 main characters in TW3 and so it's them that they needed to flesh out the most - and I think the devs did a really good job of it. I imagine they're relying on the books as a way for fans to dig deeper into the other characters, since the games build upon the books.

 

[Charcharo]

On a moderating note, @Charcharo If you could stop insulting gamers' intelligence, that'd be swell. Think whatever you wish to think about the quality of the story in the books vs. that of the games, but please stop disparaging the "gamer" crowd - that's against the forum rules and will result in moderator action if it continues in your future posts.

Well if you say so. I guess I have beat this dead horse for a long time. It is obvious to anyone anyway, so I guess it is useless to keep on stating it.
Even you agree here generally, but I will try to be less cynical and not "insult" them. I can see how it may piss some people. So I will tone those parts down completely or restructure them so as not to offend !

 

[calasade]

Yeah, perhaps - I think it really comes down to priorities, in the end. The game had a lot of subplots, characters etc. to juggle, so I think they just chose to focus on Geralt and Ciri's relationship, since they're the 2 main characters in TW3 and so it's them that they needed to flesh out the most - and I think the devs did a really good job of it. I imagine they're relying on the books as a way for fans to dig deeper into the other characters, since the games build upon the books.

Among the highest priorities for writers of any medium is overcoming the curse of knowledge (writing about something they inherently know which the reader will not). So to rely on history outside the scope of what you're currently developing is a bad idea. If what you're presenting is not substantiated or explained in context, you either fix the issue or remove what can be confusing or misleading.

In the case of TW 3, for a large part of the game's audience (English-only-speaking purchasers), the books are a non-factor since not all of the books are available in English. Too, many gamers will not bother to read the books outside the ones passionate enough about the games that they participate in the forums. What this boils down to is TW 3's ambiguity for a newcomer to the WItcher world puts certain characters in a very poor or suspicious light. Thus, if you're to consider 3 in the eyes of someone unfamiliar with the history, you start to see more flaws (or perhaps gaps is a better word) in the writing of the game.

 

[ReptilePZ]

Among the highest priorities for writers of any medium is overcoming the curse of knowledge (writing about something they inherently know which the reader will not). So to rely on history outside the scope of what you're currently developing is a bad idea. If what you're presenting is not substantiated or explained in context, you either fix the issue or remove what can be confusing or misleading.

In the case of TW 3, for a large part of the game's audience (English-only-speaking purchasers), the books are a non-factor since not all of the books are available in English. Too, many gamers will not bother to read the books outside the ones passionate enough about the games that they participate in the forums. What this boils down to is TW 3's ambiguity for a newcomer to the WItcher world puts certain characters in a very poor or suspicious light. Thus, if you're to consider 3 in the eyes of someone unfamiliar with the history, you start to see more flaws (or perhaps gaps is a better word) in the writing of the game.

I think they do give enough context for players, who are new to The Witcher, to get the general picture of what's going on.

The rest of the details are there for fans of the books to pick up on and dissect. I think it's a nice way to let each person decide just how much of the lore they want to uncover.

It'd be an issue if these questions were central to the plot, but they're not, they're very minor points - the core of the story is kept simple enough and given enough context to be coherent.

In the case of Emhyr and Yen - ruthless emperor wants his daughter back for reasons of state, calculating mother tries to do what's best for her daughter's future. Rebel daughter is kinda miffed at all of this.