Yennefer of Vengerberg (all spoilers) - The Revival

[Thomas999]

You're welcome. :cheers:

I think it's silly to not discern a story from RL decisions, and as story character Yennefer, from a love interest point of view, is pretty much one of the few women who can "sustain" Geralt, maybe my choice of words is poor but I hope that I'm clear on that. Alas, the fact of her being silly, spiteful and unsociable woman who deserves pity and indifference far more than admiration, is pretty much clear in the first book I think, but that always come to the same point: she knows that. And her evolution, even if the smut attitude is one of her traits, is one of the main themes in the books. Hell, I might say that for a series based mainly of character development it's perfectly normal.

On the other hand, it would be also silly not to recognize how the character actually receive that indifference even if she may do some good, without others not even realizing. (and I'm not talking about trifles but really good deeds, I can point out some examples). The fact she is/was socially unable doesn't mean she was for all the things. If you read the books you know what I mean. So generalizing isn't really the good way to talk about the character development.

And yes, she has a stern/bitchy flavoured attitude, denying it would be a literary sin. I don't think the author's goal was admiring her character since the first time but, by progressing throught the story and development, understanding (and this is for almost every character) at the end what brought that behaviour, that attitude. And how, starting from both of them being absolutely negative to each other, putting aside pride and silly behaviours can really mend broken relationships.

There's so much to talk about that pointing out few things and not mentioning others is really a pity, other than dismissing the author's work.

Oh I forgot...


Lmao, just don't ruin this good start and don't bring this "argument" up. It's really why healthy discussion fail to have place. It hasn't anything to do with the main discussion, just a poor trigger. It's.. uh... silly... but I wrote that word many times already.

I'm sure I forgot other things for the time being but maybe I will recall them.

I don't disagree with a single thing, and have pointed out a lot of the same in earlier posts. And as I said, I specifically included "I don't think she's prettier than Triss" because "Triss is cool... but Yennefer is just GORGEOUS" or somesuch is an argument I've seen in every single thread on the subject, and which annoys me to all hell the same way and for the same reasons that the reverse statement annoys you. Read it as part of a frustrated tirade, not as an attempted argument in itself.

 

[Guest 3847602]

even if the smut attitude is one of her traits, is one of the main themes in the books.

 

[toudis815]

Well, that's very cute.

Tales are cute, that's why parents read them, not Cormac Mccarthy novels, to 3 years old kids before they go to sleep. As far as I can remember Snow White and Cinderella don't end with a total apocalypse.

aren't quite as relatable to the actual human condition.

once again - we are talking about tales, they are not created to show actual human condition. If you want this from literature you can pick Roth or Houellebecq, or whatever author you want but let fairy tales be fairy tales. Not everything need to be the same, and fit someone's view at actual human condition

Completely other thing is, that I think that Sapkowski did great job in showing relationship in fantasy literature that is different than in the most of books from this genre that I've read. Imao he wanted to show that relationships are hard, they are not everlasting honeymoon, there are, and there will be problems but two people can find the way to solve them, if they really mean it.

 

[Thomas999]

Tales are cute, that's why parents read them, not Cormac Mccarthy novels, to 3 years old kids before they go to sleep. As far as I can remember Snow White and Cinderella don't end with a total apocalypse.

once again - we are talking about tales, they are not created to show actual human condition. If you want this from literature you can pick Roth or Houellebecq, or whatever author you want but let fairy tales be fairy tales. Not everything need to be the same, and fit someone's view at actual human condition

Completely other thing is, that I think that Sapkowski did great job in showing relationship in fantasy literature that is different than in the most of books from this genre that I've read. Imao he wanted to show that relationships are hard, they are not everlasting honeymoon, there are, and there will be problems but two people can find the way to solve them, if they really mean it.

The original British version of Cinderella had her marrying a foreign prince, convincing him to invade Britain as revenge on her spiteful sisters and crowning herself queen of Britain for five years, and the sixteenth-century court romance Sleeping Beauty is based on had her marrying prince Troylus because he impregnated her in her sleep. Even the version of Cinderella you're thinking about is actually more a cautionary tale about entitlement and jealousy at other people's fortune, with the two step-sisters molesting themselves to fit their own feet into the glass slipper and getting their eyes pecked out at their sister's wedding, than a story about love conquering any particular obstacles.

And the problem with that last message is that, if you start out with the notion of "love conquers all" and then expands that to include patently dysfunctional relationships, it implies that there's no excuse for backing out of a relationship that makes you unhappy simply because there's love and at some point the love is sure to make everything alright. Geralt and Yennefer having a horrible relationship and feeling tragically devoted to each other is very different and realistic and I certainly appreciate that as well, but them suddenly working everything out and fitting together nicely after two decades of fighting and cheating and resentment isn't. In the real world, both of them would have been insane not to make any effort to cut their losses and get on with their lives instead of wasting time trying to make that trainwreck work again and again.

 

[Guest 3847602]

but them suddenly working everything out and fitting together nicely after two decades of fighting and cheating and resentment isn't. In the real world, both of them would have been insane not to make any effort to cut their losses and get on with their lives instead of wasting time trying to make that trainwreck work again and again.

But they did try to cut their losses and get on with their lives in the past, after A Shard of Ice, to be precise - they were separated clearly with no intention of reuniting. Then Geralt climbed the Sodden Hill, faced the prospect of never seeing her and being with her ever again and realized he doesn't even want to live without this "trainwreck relationship". Yennefer changed her mind more gradually while she was tutoring Ciri in Ellander later on, probably as she was listening Ciri's anecdotes of Geralt.

 

[Thomas999]

But they did try to cut their losses and get on with their lives in the past, after A Shard of Ice, to be precise - they were separated clearly with no intention of reuniting. Then Geralt climbed the Sodden Hill, faced the prospect of never seeing her and being with her ever again and realized he doesn't even want to live without this "trainwreck relationship". Yennefer changed her mind more gradually while she was tutoring Ciri in Ellander later on, probably as she was listening Ciri's anecdotes of Geralt.

Yes, but ending a relationship by betraying and running out on each other and then refusing to speak about the past or discuss it afterwards is obviously terrible and half-assed way to separate. Two passionate and estranged lovers with extended lifespans and unfinished business, both notorious and each with their sphere of influence and political associations - however reluctant - traveling independently around a group of countries not much bigger than modern Denmark, but with medieval population densities? How could they not eventually run into each other, get involved with each others' business and fall back into old habits? And Geralt is a mopey, impulsive, melodramatic idiot who doesn't know what's good for him, that much is established again and again in the books.

That's why closure is so important, and they never get any until that scene after The Last Wish(the quest) where Geralt potentially denies feeling the magic between them any longer. Finally closing that door, and/or taking up a much healthier and more conventional relationship first enabled by amnesia, allows Geralt to move on and find real, lasting peace and content elsewhere. No cheating or duping or epic fights included. Using the third game as evidence, Geralt and Yennefer are definitely emotionally capable of being content without each other, and all the 'can't live without her' is just an excuse to stay in the same rut hoping it'll eventually turn out okay. Which it magically seems to do if you go that way, but at this point Geralt has little actual reason to expect that and plenty of reason not to. Because "love conquers all" just isn't a thing.

 

[Samiel27]

That's why closure is so important, and they never get any until that scene after The Last Wish(the quest) where Geralt potentially denies feeling the magic between them any longer. Finally closing that door, and/or taking up a much healthier and more conventional relationship first enabled by amnesia, allows Geralt to move on and find real, lasting peace and content elsewhere. No cheating or duping or epic fights included. Using the third game as evidence, Geralt and Yennefer are definitely emotionally capable of being content without each other, and all the 'can't live without her' is just an excuse to stay in the same rut hoping it'll eventually turn out okay. Which it magically seems to do if you go that way, but at this point Geralt has little actual reason to expect that and plenty of reason not to. Because "love conquers all" just isn't a thing.

Can we please stop bringing Triss into this topic. I know you don't like that Geralt ends up with Yennefer in the books, so if you want to talk about Triss and his possible relationship with her (and his amnesia) there's a thread dedicated for that. There's also a thread if you want to draw comparisons between Yennefer and Triss and who you think is better for Geralt It seems you keep basing Geralt and Yennefer's relationship around the two short story collections.

 

[Guest 3847602]

How could they not eventually run into each other, get involved with each others' business and fall back into old habits?

Apparently it's possible in the witcher universe, else they'd been running into each other way, way before The Last Wish (short story). None of them is considered "young" at that time.

And Geralt is a mopey, impulsive, melodramatic idiot

Yes he is.

who doesn't know what's good for him

He knows what's good for him (he's certain of it by the end of the books), it's just not something you could ever agree with.

taking up a much healthier and more conventional relationship first enabled by amnesia, allows Geralt to move on and find real, lasting peace and content elsewhere.

Cute.

Using the third game as evidence, Geralt and Yennefer are definitely emotionally capable of being content without each other, and all the 'can't live without her' is just an excuse to stay in the same rut hoping it'll eventually turn out okay.

You can't really use the game (which is essentially a fanfiction) as evidence of what original, Sapkowski's Geralt is capable of. I never claimed "game Geralt" is unable to leave her behind, the game supports your decision in The Last Wish no matter what it is. Yes, he is perfectly capable of living happily without her in the game, just as he is capable of enjoying his vineyard in Toussaint after the "bad" ending of the main quest. It's just that I personally don't like his choice of words (it implies they've been living a lie), so I ignore that option. Simple really. It isn't the only instance in TW3 nor the trilogy where I ignored some of the choices offered to me for various reasons. In the case of The Last Wish it's the phrasing.

 

[Thomas999]

Can we please stop bringing Triss into this topic. I know you don't like that Geralt ends up with Yennefer in the books, so if you want to talk about Triss and his possible relationship with her (and his amnesia) there's a thread dedicated for that. There's also a thread if you want to draw comparisons between Yennefer and Triss and who you think is better for Geralt It seems you keep basing Geralt and Yennefer's relationship around the two short story collections.

I'm not drawing Triss into the topic or comparing her to Yennefer at all, her and Geralt getting together just so happens to also result in a content Geralt, meaning that being with Triss is one of the ways Geralt can be content without Yennefer, and they can do that without him even needing to shut the door on the latter in The Last Wish so I felt I had to include it as a caveat to the idea that closure helps Geralt move on. I get that you're sensitive about this not turning into a flamewar, or maybe just uninterested in views that even sound dissenting on what you consider home territory, but there are only so many other characters who are relevant to these two and Triss is bound to come up every once in a while. And when discussing what does or does not play a part in making Geralt content, the tone of the relationship in question is relevant, and his potential relationship with Triss being less rocky and more conventionally stable is indisputable whether you like them better for it or not.

And hell yes I base Geralt and Yennefer's relationship around the two short story collections, they only barely see each other near the beginning of and at the end of the main saga, and spend even less time together in the games. Their summarized history in the stories is the closest thing we have to a baseline of their relationship, and since that history covers fifteen to twenty years it would seem to carry a certain weight.

Apparently it's possible in the witcher universe, else they'd been running into each other way, way before The Last Wish (short story). None of them is considered "young" at that time.
He knows what's good for him (he's certain of it by the end of the books), it's just not something you could ever agree with.

You can't really use the game (which is essentially a fanfiction) as evidence of what original, Sapkowski's Geralt is capable of. I never claimed "game Geralt" is unable to leave her behind, the game supports your decision in The Last Wish no matter what it is. Yes, he is perfectly capable of living happily without her in the game, just as he is capable of enjoying his vineyard in Toussaint after the "bad" ending of the main quest. It's just that I personally don't like his choice of words (it implies they've been living a lie), so I ignore that option. Simple really. It isn't the only instance in TW3 nor the trilogy where I ignored some of the choices offered to me for various reasons. In the case of The Last Wish it's the phrasing.

Geralt only starts gaining a reputation, making political ties and involving himself with the wider world and higher-status personalities around the same vague time period he runs into Yennefer, and even then I'm sure you've "run into" hundreds of people over and over again without ever thinking about it unless it was someone you'd already met formally. It's possible but definitely not certain that "The Last Wish"(the short story) was the first time Geralt and Yennefer had ever been within a mile of each other, or even overlooked each other in a crowd.

And "book Geralt" died together with Yennefer and lived happily ever after with her because they died together. Their case is pretty open and shut, and the question of whether or not "book Geralt" could have torn himself free from that connection with better closure and/or happier alternatives is rendered moot and without evidence one way or another because those things never presented themselves in ways that wouldn't either compromise his effort to find and protect Ciri or ultimately lead right back to his feelings for Yennefer, such as his relationship with Triss whom he associated far more closely with the former than he does, at least at first, in the games.

It seems we've been talking past each other. If you want to completely discount the reality of the games then have at it, Yennefer and Geralt forever because that's how it turned out. That said, I'd still personally consider their relationship more tragic than romantic, and a simple "this is what it's all about" or "that's what I live for" moment is indicative of absolutely nothing in the course of your life, as you probably know if you've ever had one.

 

[Sephira]

I swear I didn't misspelled that word.

 

[Sephira]

And even though both were so different, they realized, as always, that those weren't differences that divide, but that bring together and bind, bind so strongly and so tightly, like siting of spars and the roof ridge, siting from which a house is born.

And hell yes I base Geralt and Yennefer's relationship around the two short story collections, they only barely see each other near the beginning of and at the end of the main saga, and spend even less time together in the games. Their summarized history in the stories is the closest thing we have to a baseline of their relationship, and since that history covers fifteen to twenty years it would seem to carry a certain weight.

I get your thoughts about not liking the whole thing. So I'll explain mine.

Basing only on that means ignoring the evolution happened after they thought they have lost each other forever, realizing that pride and understanding each other should surpass everything.

For Yennefer is believing he died in Riverdell.
For Geralt is believing she died in Sodden Hill battle.

Hell, even the infamous Shard of Ice short story serves as the base for the change. It points out a broken relationship, based also on a broken behaviour and character. What does make the difference? The author pretty much explained that, and you can see it both as a proof of your thoughts, based on your interpretation, that this kind of people are better not to be together or this. Warning, this is a long spoiler, it collects two posts written in this very topic I believe, on in the old one, I managed to save them before the forums got this... new look. Basically it explains why Geralt is hugely attached to her as well as she is.

Spoiler

There is rumor that Yennefer and Geralt have very different characters. I must agree that they are not copy of each other but I think many people don’t see how similar their fate was. Let’s start from the beginning. Both Geralt and Yennefer have very tragic childhood. Both were rejected by their parents. One was send to Aretusa second was left in Kaer Morhen. And I don’t know who’s childhood was worse. Don’t remember your mother or been abuse by your own parents. But I see that this situation had a huge impact on their characters. Actually I think this is one of the many things that unite them and make feelings between them so strong.
Don’t forget that both didn’t forgive their parents for what was done to them. Both planned to have their revenge… though only Yennefer was able to do it. Geralt didn’t have a chance. Also Yennefer don’t regret what she has done to her parents. While Geralt wanted to see his mother suffering not physical but mental. So this is also united them.
Both have similar fate in the world. Yennefer was hated by other because of her hump. Even her parents didn’t love her. This poor child was living in world of hate. And in Aretuse things got even worse so she decided to make suicide. Tissaia said that she wasn’t joking or trying to get attention to her after seen her wounds. Yennefer wanted to die. While we never learned why she wanted this what we learned from book is that she has no regrets. Also it wasn’t her choice to become sorceress. Geralt had similar fate. He didn’t choose to became Witcher, his childhood was full of pain and he could easily died and I think was near his death many times during trials of grass. Yennefer got Tissaia and Geralt had Vesemir as their teacher and closest persons in their life.
So I think this is the reason the feeling between them are so strong. You can’t fully understand other people feeling if you didn’t have similar fate. Both perfectly know what is been hated by whole world, been abandoned even by your parent, been alone your whole childhood.
This is the reason why everyone thinks Yennefer has no heart and is a bitch, Queen of Snow. Because of her damaged childhood. Now been beautiful and powerful sorceress she is returning to the world debts of her childhood. But she didn’t turned in to mean person. She cares about people she barely know if they are kind to her or don’t treat her like a bitch. For example she says to Geralt to leave her In last wish story because she can’t grant him safety. The Jinn was strong and she hadn’t power to protect Geralt so she says him to leave. She can risk her life but she didn’t want to risk a life of unknown person. Didn’t this remind you something? Some person who’s job is to risk his life in order to save unknown to him people.
Like Yennefer, Geralt is hated by whole world because of his job. No one likes the Witchers. And it’s a big issue for him. So big that he is willing to join random company if people don’t fear him. Because of his job he almost has no friend and always travel’s alone. And Yennefer understand this because she had similar experience. That is why she thanks Dandelion for been his friend, for been close to him so he wouldn’t feel lonely. And Dandelion says that it’s not a big deal and Geralt had more troubles because of him instead of help. But Yennefer knows how this is important for Geralt. How it’s important to have someone close to you when whole world hates you.
Also both of them are very intelligent and educated people. Remember that it wasn’t common in the Witcher world. Both have read a lot of books and know a lot of things about world. Both had live a long life and seen a lot of things bad and good.
Both have doubts about feelings. Geralt because of trial of grass. But Yennefer problem is more complicated. I think because of her childhood she thinks she can’t love anyone. More likely she didn’t know what is love. Her parents didn’t love her, in Aretuse other girls didn’t love her and even Tissaia didn’t show her love. In Shard of Ice story she run away from Istred and Geralt not because she can’t decide who is better for her but because she thinks she is Queen of Ice who can’t love. She think’s that she can’t accept love while been unable to return similar feeling to Geralt of Istred. The girl who never experience love in her life is afraid that she would break other people feeling. That when they will learn her true self they will abandon her like many other. Each season someone new is running behind my carriage Geralt each season but when they get to my castle magic is gone and they leave me, leave Queen of Ice.
A lot of sorceress were ugly before Aretusa. But magic make them beautiful though it didn’t change their eyes… the cold eyes of ugly girls who hates world. Yennefer isn’t like this. She knows the price of true feeling just she think she has nothing in return. The magic had take away all from her even the most valuable for a woman. Like with Geralt and trials of grass. It wasn’t their choice and they don’t have anything left in them. This feeling unite them more than any other things.
As for Triss… she is a great friend and beautiful woman. But I think she will never truly understand Geralt. Never truly understand what he is feeling.
P.S. Gold Dragon said that Yennefer and Geralt were bond to be together that they are perfect match, but it’s not enough for them to be together.

Spoiler

Yen's shell is more for her emotions, she just doesn't want to show them properly, that's because they would make her a weak being in front of the others, or being misjudged, that's is a double edged weapon because this shell has the same cons too, people can misjudge her. She may seems emotionally stable and she is, but she doesn't want to show any of her flaws. Let's not talk about her past now, but about Tissaia De Vries words:

'And now... We're here alone, without witnesses. No one is looking at us, and I'm not going to say anything to anyone. Cry, girl. Pour it all out. Make it your last cry. Starting now you will never cry. There is nothing more pathetic than a sorceress in tears.'

Speaking of Geralt, he has a shell and a witcher moral code invented by himself.

Th tragedy of this saga is that none of the characters can get the right amount of time to stay with his/her loved ones. This happens with Ciri as well but would you doubt the genuine nature of their relationship? What's worse? That the ending does the same to Ciri, whenever they are alive or not.

 

[toudis815]

The original British version of Cinderella had her marrying a foreign prince, convincing him to invade Britain as revenge on her spiteful sisters and crowning herself queen of Britain for five years, and the sixteenth-century court romance Sleeping Beauty is based on had her marrying prince Troylus because he impregnated her in her sleep.

You just ruined my childhood

Yes, but ending a relationship by betraying and running out on each other and then refusing to speak about the past or discuss it afterwards is obviously terrible and half-assed way to separate

But they reunited finally after long conversation, AS wrote that they explained everything to each other at Hirundum. It was moment of growing up for both of them

 

[Thomas999]

And even though both were so different, they realized, as always, that those weren't differences that divide, but that bring together and bind, bind so strongly and so tightly, like siting of spars and the roof ridge, siting from which a house is born.


I get your thoughts about not liking the whole thing. So I'll explain mine.

Basing only on that means ignoring the evolution happened after they thought they have lost each other forever, realizing that pride and understanding each other should surpass everything.

For Yennefer is believing he died in Riverdell.
For Geralt is believing she died in Sodden Hill battle.

Hell, even the infamous Shard of Ice short story serves as the base for the change. It points out a broken relationship, based also on a broken behaviour and character. What does make the difference? The author pretty much explained that, and you can see it both as a proof of your thoughts, based on your interpretation, that this kind of people are better not to be together or this. Warning, this is a long spoiler, it collects two posts written in this very topic I believe, on in the old one, I managed to save them before the forums got this... new look. Basically it explains why Geralt is hugely attached to her as well as she is.

Th tragedy of this saga is that none of the characters can get the right amount of time to stay with his/her loved ones. This happens with Ciri as well but would you doubt the genuine nature of their relationship? What's worse? That the ending does the same to Ciri, whenever they are alive or not.

(*) But we don't see anything of their relationship after the end of the books. They're both at hugely emotional points in their lives for completely unrelated reasons, and then they die and are effectively forced to spend eternity together in an idealized afterlife/alternate universe. Which says nothing about how their continued relationship would have functioned in the real world under normal circumstances, or to what extent they really had changed. Saying that Yennefer was "transformed" is a huge assumption, not least because humans generally aren't capable of such a thing. There's nothing to actually suggest that she wasn't just feeling really really really affectionate towards Geralt and very emotionally dependent on him after everything they'd been through and wouldn't sour on him again after a while, and vice versa.

I think maybe what you're missing is that I just don't buy grand gestures and declarations of love and surges of emotion and personal "transformations" as evidence that two people can figure out how to exist happily together in the long term, because that's a ridiculously complicated process even under the best circumstances, and all those things actually do is describe how you're feeling in the moment. A stable, functioning and happy relationship has to be demonstrated over time, or the very best you can justifiably say is "Gee, they look happy together. Hope it works out."

You just ruined my childhood

But they reunited finally after long conversation, AS wrote that they explained everything to each other at Hirundum. It was moment of growing up for both of them

Really? I love hearing earlier iterations of myths and fairy tales. It makes me feel like I understand our literary heritage and how our ancestors lived and thought about the world a little better. Makes me feel closer to them, and the rest of you by extension. They lived with death and brutality around every corner, and I don't want to forget that that's what life used to be, and still is for a number of people. And the brutality can be romantic in its own way. All of which obviously plays into my love for the Witcher. You can't play or read it without being forced to appreciate the harshness of history at least a little bit, which is something the fantasy genre otherwise tends to get all wrong.

But yeah, I've lived in Odense and had the original H.C. Andersen tales read up to me from the get-go. Which ruined quite a few Disney cartoons, let me tell you. Mostly just the girly ones though. In my world Ariel will always be walking on knives and never get her prince, mwuhahaha.

Refers to the (*) response above for your second point.

 

[Sephira]

(*) But we don't see anything of their relationship after the end of the books. They're both at hugely emotional points in their lives for completely unrelated reasons, and then they die and are effectively forced to spend eternity together in an idealized afterlife/alternate universe. Which says nothing about how their continued relationship would have functioned in the real world under normal circumstances, or to what extent they really had changed. Saying that Yennefer was "transformed" is a huge assumption, not least because humans generally aren't capable of such a thing. There's nothing to actually suggest that she wasn't just feeling really really really affectionate towards Geralt and very emotionally dependent on him after everything they'd been through and wouldn't sour on him again after a while, and vice versa.

I think maybe what you're missing is that I just don't buy grand gestures and declarations of love and surges of emotion and personal "transformations" as evidence that two people can figure out how to exist happily together in the long term, because that's a ridiculously complicated process even under the best circumstances, and all those things actually do is describe how you're feeling in the moment. A stable, functioning and happy relationship has to be demonstrated over time, or the very best you can justifiably say is "Gee, they look happy together. Hope it works out."

Are we talking about the game or the books? Because I was for the latter.
I think instead that you got only CDPR interpretation of that ending since I don't buy the fact they are alive, they may be, but not as we can imagine, my interpretation is far from the game one (which has however a plot hole in it) So I don't even consider that point. As I don't agree the whole "for completely unrelated reasons". We can say they were going to have a little chat after Yennefer and Ciri came back from Montecalvo, because of his silence. Not fogetting Geralt's mental state at that point was far from being relaxed, after Stygga and all of his hansa dead. We can say something would have changed. We cannot say what happens next, but they had surely the dream of retiring together, even if painfully they knew it couldn't be achieved or if it could that it would be like a difficult ordeal giving the state of the world they live in, and what they are.

As for the rest, it's not an assumption. Assumption is what I've just said above about the ending, still with proof and points from the books. Assumption is the epilogue to Season of Storms. Generally speaking, transformation is just a believable process after an emotional event or past. Speaking of a literary character, I didn't say she made a 360 turn, maybe a 180, but putting numbers aside you can cleraly read she improved on what we can consider social relationships at least with people she is close with. Not transformation, but simple learning.

When speaking of this series I don't make theories just out of the blue, but based on what I've read, what's written in black and white. Feel free to agree to disagree of course, but I wanted to make it clear.

 

[toudis815]

Really? I love hearing earlier iterations of myths and fairy tales.

I was joking with this "ruining" thing obviously. I had no idea about origin of Snow White and Cinderella, because honestly I have never been too intrested in it, so it's cool you brought it up

 

[Thomas999]

Are we talking about the game or the books? Because I was for the latter.
I think instead that you got only CDPR interpretation of that ending since I don't buy the fact they are alive, they may be, but not as we can imagine, my interpretation is far from the game one (which has however a plot hole in it) So I don't even consider that point. As I don't agree the whole "for completely unrelated reasons". We can say they were going to have a little chat after Yennefer and Ciri came back from Montecalvo, because of his silence. Not fogetting Geralt's mental state at that point was far from being relaxed, after Stygga and all of his hansa dead. We can say something would have changed. We cannot say what happens next, but they had surely the dream of retiring together, even if painfully they knew it couldn't be achieved or if it could that it would be like a difficult ordeal giving the state of the world they live in, and what they are.

As for the rest, it's not an assumption. Assumption is what I've just said above about the ending, still with proof and points from the books. Assumption is the epilogue to Season of Storms. Generally speaking, transformation is just a believable process after an emotional event or past. Speaking of a literary character, I didn't say she made a 360 turn, maybe a 180, but putting numbers aside you can cleraly read she improved on what we can consider social relationships at least with people she is close with. Not transformation, but simple learning.

When speaking of this series I don't make theories just out of the blue, but based on what I've read, what's written in black and white. Feel free to agree to disagree of course, but I wanted to make it clear.

I've been talking about the books because that's what you're talking about, and I guess you didn't catch it when I said 'idealized afterlife'. The series ending is WAY too vague on that point for you to make assumptions about it one way or another, and saving Ciri has nothing whatsoever to do with their dynamic as a couple, so yes, unrelated reasons.

Saying that Yennefer is particularly better adjusted for a normal relationship is an assumption, yes, because we never see it demonstrated. After the Thanedd coup we barely see her interact with anyone socially. Sure you can point at her concern for Ciri and Geralt and say that they've "opened her heart" or somesuch, but people aren't so simple that that guarantees anything when it comes to her long-term relationships, and her later interactions with those two come at a point where we can't expect them to be indicative of how the three would operate day-to-day under normal circumstances. Nor do we actually see enough of her before this supposed transformation to know exactly how different she was before Geralt's and Ciri's influence.

In short, you extrapolate a whole lot for theories supposedly based in the text, and no, I don't agree with wishful thinking as a rule.

 

[Sephira]

I've been talking about the books because that's what you're talking about, and I guess you didn't catch it when I said 'idealized afterlife'. The series ending is WAY too vague on that point for you to make assumptions about it one way or another, and saving Ciri has nothing whatsoever to do with their dynamic as a couple, so yes, unrelated reasons.

Saying that Yennefer is particularly better adjusted for a normal relationship is an assumption, yes, because we never see it demonstrated. After the Thanedd coup we barely see her interact with anyone socially. Sure you can point at her concern for Ciri and Geralt and say that they've "opened her heart" or somesuch, but people aren't so simple that that guarantees anything when it comes to her long-term relationships, and her later interactions with those two come at a point where we can't expect them to be indicative of how the three would operate day-to-day under normal circumstances. Nor do we actually see enough of her before this supposed transformation to know exactly how different she was before Geralt's and Ciri's influence.

In short, you extrapolate a whole lot for theories supposedly based in the text, and no, I don't agree with wishful thinking as a rule.

Ok, wanted to have it clear. Anyway the concern for Geralt and Ciri indeed is a result from the evolution this character had. Socially, this character had demonstrated that she is willing to give help when needed (dwarves pogrom and skelligan woman as examples).

However I get what you say, about people and long-term relationship, it's something I agree with you on a certain degree. Often it's like that, especially nowadays. Even though I said how things can change if related with strong events, before.

You say that for Yennefer character to be particularly better adjusted for a normal relationship is an assumption, ok, because we never see it demonstrated. Saying the contrary is an assumption as well, because even if we don't know what happens after the ending because it's not plain written, there is enough proof that something is moving, something is new. Therefore if you consider, let's say, Shard of Ice the irrefutable proof or assumption that a relationship won't work at all in the long term then you don't even consider one whole year of Ciri and Yennefer in Ellander as something that would happen on daily basis, it's enough proof for that time being, and that happens well before the walking hell they go in. The first is a start of something bad at that time but we discussed about it before, while the second... heh, is a start of something good. There's no wishful thinking of that. I'ts in the dialogues as well. Yennefer and Geralt talking at in ToC is a start as well. Let's write that later interations are something that's starting again, or continuing, after all they endured. Saying it won't work in any way is an assumption too.

Even if I'd iclued my previous quoted posts, sure at the end of the day we both cannot know precisely how it will work on a long term, because we don't read anything after the Apple Island. That the characters may struggle as their state after all they went through means a lot, they evolved. Both on positive or negative sides, because nothing is the same. Their world isn't, and that's why I said they painfully knew that it would be hard, and it is even before the ending, when they cannot go back to the really good times they were living before Thanedd coup happened but they're not lacking the will, it's not wishful thinking from my part, it's in the dialogues. That start doesn't deny a continue. The realization which come after all the events, yet destiny is at their heels.

You don't need the author to write an essay on it if he also did deliver clues and dialogues when the chapter wasn't revolving on it. If you say it couldn't work because reasons, you may say it could because other reasons as well.

 

[Thomas999]

Ok, wanted to have it clear. Anyway the concern for Geralt and Ciri indeed is a result from the evolution this character had. Socially, this character had demonstrated that she is willing to give help when needed (dwarves pogrom and skelligan woman as examples).

However I get what you say, about people and long-term relationship, it's something I agree with you on a certain degree. Often it's like that, especially nowadays. Even though I said how things can change if related with strong events, before.

You say that for Yennefer character to be particularly better adjusted for a normal relationship is an assumption, ok, because we never see it demonstrated. Saying the contrary is an assumption as well, because even if we don't know what happens after the ending because it's not plain written, there is enough proof that something is moving, something is new. Therefore if you consider, let's say, Shard of Ice the irrefutable proof or assumption that a relationship won't work at all in the long term then you don't even consider one whole year of Ciri and Yennefer in Ellander as something that would happen on daily basis, it's enough proof for that time being, and that happens well before the walking hell they go in. The first is a start of something bad at that time but we discussed about it before, while the second... heh, is a start of something good. There's no wishful thinking of that. I'ts in the dialogues as well. Yennefer and Geralt talking at in ToC is a start as well. Let's write that later interations are something that's starting again, or continuing, after all they endured. Saying it won't work in any way is an assumption too.

Even if I'd iclued my previous quoted posts, sure at the end of the day we both cannot know precisely how it will work on a long term, because we don't read anything after the Apple Island. That the characters may struggle as their state after all they went through means a lot, they evolved. Both on positive or negative sides, because nothing is the same. Their world isn't, and that's why I said they painfully knew that it would be hard, and it is even before the ending, when they cannot go back to the really good times they were living before Thanedd coup happened but they're not lacking the will, it's not wishful thinking from my part, it's in the dialogues. That start doesn't deny a continue. The realization which come after all the events, yet destiny is at their heels.

You don't need the author to write an essay on it if he also did deliver clues and dialogues when the chapter wasn't revolving on it. If you say it couldn't work because reasons, you may say it could because other reasons as well.

Except the only thing you have "clues" about is that they regretted how things had turned out, hoped for another chance and were feeling very good about the whole thing over those last couple of days. I'm not saying it wouldn't work, just that there's no realistic reason to expect it to given their previous patterns. You're the one saying it probably would simply because the characters were happy to see each other and lovely things were said, and the author intended it to be a heartwarming moment. As if that's what it takes to make a dysfunctional relationship work in the long run.

 

[Sephira]

Except the only thing you have "clues" about is that they regretted how things had turned out, hoped for another chance and were feeling very good about the whole thing over those last couple of days. I'm not saying it wouldn't work, just that there's no realistic reason to expect it to given their previous patterns. You're the one saying it probably would simply because the characters were happy to see each other and lovely things were said, and the author intended it to be a heartwarming moment. As if that's what it takes to make a dysfunctional relationship work in the long run.

All good. Except that the "wishful thinking" born in Thanedd was the same after one year and in the last couple of months they spent all three together, surpassing the supposed moments when they were happy to see each other. It's not about mere moments.

 

[Thomas999]

All good. Except that the "wishful thinking" born in Thanedd was the same after one year and in the last couple of months they spent all three together, surpassing the supposed moments when they were happy to see each other. It's not about mere moments.

My mistake, I had the ending timeline wrong. Still, Yennefer and Geralt have spent months together after heartwarming reunions, and that's about as far as they've ever gotten before running out on each other. One might even speculate that his suicide-by-mob was motivated by a subconscious desire to flee the pressures of their reaffirmed relationship...

There's no reason to think so, but it would be deliciously ironic and on some level fit his patterns of running away from emotional trouble AND slashing his way out of complicated binds.