Yennefer of Vengerberg (all spoilers) - The Revival

[Samiel27]

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.

Was it months that they stayed together during Shard of Ice and during a night at Belleteyn? Yes, Geralt was trying to get himself killed so he could escape Yennefer and leave Ciri behind. Like you said, it's wishful speculation to think Geralt trying to intervene at Rivia was a desire to "flee the pressures" of a reformed relationship.

 

[Thomas999]

Yes, Geralt was trying to get himself killed so he could escape Yennefer and leave Ciri behind. Like you said, it's wishful speculation to think Geralt trying to intervene at Rivia was a desire to "flee the pressures" of a reformed relationship.

Like I said, there's obviously no reason to think so. Geralt wouldn't have to be a very different person for it to be vaguely plausible though. I wouldn't call it wishful thinking either, it's not something I'd especially like to be true.

 

[Sephira]

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.

In LotL case before getting called somewhere else or, well, dying. But we already discussed that. There's a non canon short story but for the very reason it's non canon I cannot quote it as whole (I did before anyway, just a sentence).

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.

Ahahah

 

[xxgwxx]

Oh god...I haven't checked in here for a while..good to see that the discussion is as productive as ever...


Sigh. This whole "Yen & Geralt would never work out in a long term" thing is pointless. Thinking about this is pointless. They're fictional characters and their story is done. The author of the books ended it in a certain way and the games did the same. What happens after that is nothing but your imagination and assumption. If you choose Yennefer in the game, the story tells you that somehow they manage to retire and make it work. Is this ending less valid than the Triss' one? Everyting makes 100% sense as long as the author who tells the story decides for it to make sense.

But if you say that the books don't give any basis for their relationship to work out..then I will have to disagree I guess. You'll have to disregard all the character development that took place and throw it out of the window. If there's not enough of it for Yennefer, then there's even less (pretty much nothing) for Triss and other female characters connected to Geralt. She and others might be "nicer" and "stabler" but all of it doesn't matter when you don't have a thing that is the most imporant - love. Relationships based on common sense usually don't work out and if they do - they're not happy ones anyway.

But if we want to 'assume'...what gives you the certainty that Triss and Geralt's relationship (after the games) would last? How would you know that, after a while, Triss wouldn't put politics and her self-interest above Geralt? She already did that in the past after all. She's not known for being the most loyal pup out of the bunch, especially if we take her character from the books.

So all in all, enjoy your game and your choices and let other people do the same instead of coming here and trying to convince others that their waifu is inferior. It's a lost battle.

 

[Thomas999]

Oh god...I haven't checked in here for a while..good to see that the discussion is as productive as ever...


Sigh. This whole "Yen & Geralt would never work out in a long term" thing is pointless. Thinking about this is pointless. They're fictional characters and their story is done. The author of the books ended it in a certain way and the games did the same. What happens after that is nothing but your imagination and assumption. If you choose Yennefer in the game, the story tells you that somehow they manage to retire and make it work. Is this ending less valid than the Triss' one? Everyting makes 100% sense as long as the author who tells the story decides for it to make sense.

But if you say that the books don't give any basis for their relationship to work out..then I will have to disagree I guess. You'll have to disregard all the character development that took place and throw it out of the window. If there's not enough of it for Yennefer, then there's even less (pretty much nothing) for Triss and other female characters connected to Geralt. She and others might be "nicer" and "stabler" but all of it doesn't matter when you don't have a thing that is the most imporant - love. Relationships based on common sense usually don't work out and if they do - they're not happy ones anyway.

I'm sorry, but you've clearly never been in a mature long-term relationship if you even for one second credit the notion that sense, pleasantness and stability are irrelevant compared to the romantic spark. If and when you ever find yourself in a situation with a guy or gal who makes you feel so small and alone that you want to throw up every morning when you wake and cry every night before you go to sleep(not an exaggeration), but whom you love so passionately and have so much invested in that you're inclined to forgive them that as long as there's a vague hope for things to eventually become better, I hope for your sake that you'll have the wherewithal to end the relationship, look out for your own heart and not waste years of your precious, precious life terrified of disappointing that ridiculously romanticized idea of love.

Debating the motivations of fictional characters is only pointless if you aren't interested and don't want to talk about it, silly, and reading into characters and identifying their driving forces is worthwhile for several reasons. It teaches empathy, for one thing. Especially with works like the Witcher, which don't spell everything out and leave plenty up for interpretation. Nobody is talking about valid or invalid endings, just what character development and character tendencies are actually demonstrated and what sorts of thoughts Geralt could be having by the third game. And what is and isn't realistic to expect of the dynamic between two people. None of that is quite as black and white as you're trying to make it sound.

 

[Samiel27]

She and others might be "nicer" and "stabler" but all of it doesn't matter when you don't have a thing that is the most imporant - love. Relationships based on common sense usually don't work out and if they do - they're not happy ones anyway.

I'm sorry, but you've clearly never been in a mature long-term relationship if you even for one second credit the notion that sense, pleasantness and stability are irrelevant compared to the romantic spark.

Where does xxgwxx say that love is a "romantic spark"? I didn't know the relationship that Sapkowski established in the books (over a number of years) and CDPR included in W3 was a "romantic spark".

If and when you ever find yourself in a situation with a guy or gal who makes you feel so small and alone that you want to throw up every morning when you wake and cry every night before you go to sleep(not an exaggeration), but whom you love so passionately and have so much invested in that you're inclined to forgive them that as long as there's a vague hope for things to eventually become better, I hope for your sake that you'll have the wherewithal to end the relationship, look out for your own heart and not waste years of your precious, precious life terrified of disappointing that ridiculously romanticized idea of love.

Let's reiterate that these are fictional characters ---fictional. If I'm guessing correctly, you may be putting too much personal emotion into your analysis of Geralt's character. Also, if you're trying to insinuate that Sapkowski or the developers would ever have Geralt act in this manner then you wouldn't be correct.

Nobody is talking about valid or invalid endings, just what character development and character tendencies are actually demonstrated and what sorts of thoughts Geralt could be having by the third game.And what is and isn't realistic to expect of the dynamic between two people. None of that is quite as black and white as you're trying to make it sound.

Like I said before you could have Geralt bring Ciri to Emhyr for coin--this is a video game where you make decisions for a fictional character. What is realistic or unrealistic in your personal view doesn't matter anymore; the developers offered differing choices in the games. There is a seperate thread for discussing what romance choice is better or who you think Geralt would "choose".

 

[Thomas999]

Where does xxgwxx say that love is a "romantic spark"? I didn't know the relationship that Sapkowski established in the books (over a number of years) and CDPR included in W3 was a "romantic spark".



Let's reiterate that these are fictional characters ---fictional. If I'm guessing correctly, you may be putting too much personal emotion into your analysis of Geralt's character. Also, if you're trying to insinuate that Sapkowski or the developers would ever have Geralt act in this manner then you wouldn't be correct.



Like I said before you could have Geralt bring Ciri to Emhyr for coin--this is a video game where you make decisions for a fictional character. What is realistic or unrealistic in your personal view doesn't matter anymore; the developers offered differing choices in the games. There is a seperate thread for discussing what romance choice is better or who you think Geralt would "choose".

I can't even begin to imagine what you have against describing love as "the romantic spark" while completely ignoring the actual point of my statement. Talk about squabbling over semantics. I only even used that phrase because otherwise I'd be repeating the word love too often in that paragraph.

So, now you're pretending that Geralt can't be miserable in a relationship and feel dissatisfied with that because... what? The whole idea is for us to empathize with these characters so as to give the story the intensity of real emotion, and they're definitely written as capable of grief and disappointment and insecurity and sick longing. Especially Geralt. He never explains his reasoning, and whether that scene between him and Emhyr displays mercenary undertones to his relationship with his foster daughter or just a little bit of totally believable insensitivity to her need for confirmation is left in our hands. As such, the ideas that we as players and readers don't have the authority to give Geralt complex or powerful emotions, and that Geralt somehow isn't intended to have them, are complete bullshit.

Just because you're satisfied playing the game as a caricature instead of a character doesn't mean the rest of us have to be, and you certainly can't argue with me about his potential feelings about a painful and complicated relationship from the position of "You're overthinking it, assuming that Geralt is capable of human emotions would just confuse our discussion about which human emotions he might be feeling."

And this isn't a discussion about his relationship and history with Yennefer vs other possible relationships in the game, this is a discussion about his relationship and history with Yennefer vs relationships in general, as well as common sense and emotional self-preservation. And all I'm arguing is that it's plausible for him to want to reject it on its own merits after everything they've been through.

 

[Sephira]

And this isn't a discussion about his relationship and history with Yennefer vs other possible relationships in the game, this is a discussion about his relationship and history with Yennefer vs relationships in general, as well as common sense and emotional self-preservation. And all I'm arguing is that it's plausible for him to want to reject it on its own merits after everything they've been through.

It's an opinion I respect labeling with "what if". What if something happened. It's plausible. Another event leading to a transformation. Given the complex character development taking place in the books, the development we love, it may serve as a bridge to build another theory.

On the other hand, it's not a discussion based on black and white, so it's also plausible for him it can work on a long term. To shrug it off is as bad as ignoring the motives for which the relationship could go on if Rivia had not happened, tossing all the author's work away, the character development we love.

 

[Thomas999]

It's an opinion I respect labeling with "what if". What if something happened. It's plausible. Another event leading to a transformation. Given the complex character development taking place in the books, the development we love, it may serve as a bridge to build another theory.

On the other hand, it's not a discussion based on black and white, so it's also plausible for him it can work on a long term. To shrug it off is as bad as ignoring the motives for which the relationship could go on if Rivia had not happened, tossing all the author's work away, the character development we love.

It would be, yes, if anyone was actually arguing that. But nobody is saying that the Yennefer/Geralt relationship can't possibly work out, just that it's realistically unlikely based on their history and what little of their character development we actually see. And for Geralt to realize that and act on it wouldn't require any "transformation" or outside event that isn't already present or allowed for in the games. All it would take is a bit of pondering of his own history upon remembering it, and a conscious decision to try not to repeat one of his old patterns which caused him a ridiculous amount of grief in retrospect. And given that his underlying feelings and motivations in the games are left mostly to us, that isn't unreasonable in the slightest.

That isn't throwing anything away at all, it's just giving a character a little more agency in pursuing his own happiness than you would personally prefer because it gets in the way of your favorite dysfunctional romance, even just in other people's games. The books don't stop being great and the world isn't suddenly invalidated just because Geralt and Yennefer don't try to live happily ever after together for the umpteenth time, and Yennefer's character development thanks to Geralt and Ciri - to whatever extent you think it manifests - will serve her well for the next two or three centuries of her existence regardless.

 

[Sephira]

It would be, yes, if anyone was actually arguing that. But nobody is saying that the Yennefer/Geralt relationship can't possibly work out, just that it's realistically unlikely based on their history and what little of their character development we actually see. And for Geralt to realize that and act on it wouldn't require any "transformation" or outside event that isn't already present or allowed for in the games. All it would take is a bit of pondering of his own history upon remembering it, and a conscious decision to try not to repeat one of his old patterns which caused him a ridiculous amount of grief in retrospect. And given that his underlying feelings and motivations in the games are left mostly to us, that isn't unreasonable in the slightest.

That isn't throwing anything away at all, it's just giving a character a little more agency in pursuing his own happiness than you would personally prefer because it gets in the way of your favorite dysfunctional romance, even just in other people's games. The books don't stop being great and the world isn't suddenly invalidated just because Geralt and Yennefer don't try to live happily ever after together for the umpteenth time, and Yennefer's character development thanks to Geralt and Ciri - to whatever extent you think it manifests - will serve her well for the next two or three centuries of her existence regardless.

Sure, that's something you achieve thanks to the game, it's a rpg after all, sure it's reasonable. I mean, that's what the rpg serves for, I don't think anyone here is denying it, just people having their opinion that it would work, because there is a point on it realistically as well. Or it wouldn't. Going back to you, based only on the history you consider, it really is realistically unlikely indeed. Note down, that the unlikely umpteenth time is not a pattern repeated in the same circumstances manifested before. But, for the umpteenth time, I get what you said and told you what I agreed on.

As for "a bit of pondering of his own history upon remembering it, and a conscious decision to try not to repeat one of his old patterns which caused him a ridiculous amount of grief in retrospect." It took months after their final reunion for him to understand their "wishful thinking" could work, it's not Shard of Ice all over again. For me it's that he achieved C going through B, even if his starting point is A. We're not talking only about Yennefer at this point, but Geralt himself. To be honest for me, at this very point, starting again with a new pattern can only be possible with the amnesia, a tool CDPR gave you.

I know your point is years vs months. Blablabla, what I said before.

"To whatever extent you think it manifests". I'd ask you the same. And welp, I don't think we both are into Sapkowski mind, but surely we read the books. Nothing will change, the book will remain great. I just don't feel that putting it on a grand scale, based only on personal reasoning is the good way to discuss it.

it's just giving a character a little more agency in pursuing his own happiness than you would personally prefer because it gets in the way of your favorite dysfunctional romance, even just in other people's games

What...?

Yeah it will surely wreck me internally, giving me nightmares for the rest of my life. I don't even know how do you think I'm discussing this. *backs off*

Please.

 

[Thomas999]

Sure, that's something you achieve thanks to the game, it's a rpg after all, sure it's reasonable. I mean, that's what the rpg serves for, I don't think anyone here is denying it, just people having their opinion that it would work, because there is a point on it realistically as well. Or it wouldn't. Going back to you, based only on the history you consider, it really is realistically unlikely indeed. Note down, that the unlikely umpteenth time is not a pattern repeated in the same circumstances manifested before. But, for the umpteenth time, I get what you said and told you what I agreed on.

As for "a bit of pondering of his own history upon remembering it, and a conscious decision to try not to repeat one of his old patterns which caused him a ridiculous amount of grief in retrospect." It took months after their final reunion for him to understand their "wishful thinking" could work, it's not Shard of Ice all over again. For me it's that he achieved C going through B, even if his starting point is A. We're not talking only about Yennefer at this point, but Geralt himself. To be honest for me, at this very point, starting again with a new pattern can only be possible with the amnesia, a tool CDPR gave you.

I know your point is years vs months. Blablabla, what I said before.

"To whatever extent you think it manifests". I'd ask you the same. And welp, I don't think we both are into Sapkowski mind, but surely we read the books. Nothing will change, the book will remain great. I just don't feel that putting it on a grand scale, based only on personal reasoning isn't the good way to discuss it.


What...?

Yeah it will surely wreck me internally, giving me nightmares for the rest of my life. I don't even know how do you think I'm discussing this. *backs off*

Please.

Then take your own advice. You're the one agreeing that I can play my game and read the characters my way, which makes perfect sense and is completely realistic and plausible within the lore, only by conceding to calling it a "what-if" scenario, and complaining that I'm stepping on the author's toes and throwing his work away just because I don't view a particular relationship that neither of us see enough of to say anything for certain about with the shiny optimism you do.

Have I said anything to the effect of "If you play Geralt as completely lovestruck with Yen then you're playing without actually thinking about your characters or their actual emotional states or happiness whatsoever, with no imagination or empathy of your own. Sure, you can play that way, but the author would be disgusted at how mindlessly and tastelessly you're abusing his work while pretending you're somehow taking part in it because you try not to evolve anything"?

No, because saying something like that would be completely irrelevant to our in-lore discussion of Geralt and Yennefer as emotional creatures, in addition to making me a huge ass for trying to bully you and stick my nose in your business and pretend that I have some magical understanding of a 68-yearold Polish guy's writing that you don't, making it somehow wrong for you to engage me in a debate about his characters. So please do me the same courtesy and stop pretending that.

And again, in the context of Geralt's possible behaviors in the games, at the very least taking the premise of the games for granted seems kind of a no-brainer, don't you think? Not to mention that your own premise is flawed, you have no actual idea how close Geralt might or might not have been to making this determination sans amnesia before the series epilogue. If circumstances hadn't forced him to abruptly leave Toussaint, for example. He ultimately didn't change his mind about Yennefer and their connection over the course of the books, but that isn't the same thing as saying that it was impossible for him to do so.

 

[Sephira]

Then take your own advice. You're the one agreeing that I can play my game and read the characters my way, which makes perfect sense and is completely realistic and plausible within the lore, only by conceding to calling it a "what-if" scenario, and complaining that I'm stepping on the author's toes and throwing his work away just because I don't view a particular relationship that neither of us see enough of to say anything for certain about with the shiny optimism you do.

Have I said anything to the effect of "If you play Geralt as completely lovestruck with Yen then you're playing without actually thinking about your characters or their actual emotional states or happiness whatsoever, with no imagination or empathy of your own. Sure, you can play that way, but the author would be disgusted at how mindlessly and tastelessly you're abusing his work while pretending you're somehow taking part in it because you try not to evolve anything"?

No, because saying something like that would be completely irrelevant to our in-lore discussion of Geralt and Yennefer as emotional creatures, in addition to making me a huge ass for trying to bully you and stick my nose in your business and pretend that I have some magical understanding of a 68-yearold Polish guy's writing that you don't, making it somehow wrong for you to engage me in a debate about his characters. So please do me the same courtesy and stop pretending that.

And again, in the context of Geralt's possible behaviors in the games, at the very least taking the premise of the games for granted seems kind of a no-brainer, don't you think? Not to mention that your own premise is flawed, you have no actual idea how close Geralt might or might not have been to making this determination before the series epilogue. If circumstances hadn't forced him to leave Toussaint so abruptly, for example. He ultimately didn't change his mind about Yennefer and their connection over the course of the books, but that isn't the same thing as saying that it was impossible for him to do so.

I cannot even count the posts where I precisely said that. Not to mention the others. Didn't condemn anyone and what for anyway? Didn't foresee some kind of catastrophic event. Umpteenth times, really, I said what this rpg stands for and also spread this advice. If you didn't understand that and that my point of not considering the author's work is solely based on taking only a part of the story... Well I'm sorry, not my bad though, it's nothing personal as I didn't meant to push the outcome you explained now.

However, do the courtesy to not deliver some replies aiming to point out some kind of non-existent fanboysm flavoured posts, thanks. Since your last post came out of the blue as if you forgot our previous conversation.

Tl;dr no games included

It can work based on the whole books? Yes.
It cannot work based on the whole books and then imagining why? Yes.

I think that pushing it over these two points can only lead to misconception and also totally unrelated posts.

Spoiler

You know that I choose Shani in HoS?

Terrible, terrible indeed.

/joking

 

[Thomas999]

I cannot even count the posts where I precisely said that. Not to mention the others. Didn't condemn anyone and what for anyway? Didn't foresee some kind of catastrophic event. Umpteenth times, really, I said what this rpg stands for and also spread this advice. If you didn't understand that and that my point of not considering the author's work is solely based on taking only a part of the story... Well I'm sorry, not my bad though, it's nothing personal as I didn't meant to push the outcome you explained now.

However, do the courtesy to not deliver some replies aiming to point out some kind of non-existent fanboysm flavoured posts, thanks. Since your last post came out of the blue as if you forgot our previous conversation.

Tl;dr no games included

It can work based on the whole books? Yes.
It cannot work based on the whole books and then imagining why? Yes.

I think that pushing it over these two points can only lead to misconception and also totally unrelated posts.

Spoiler

You know that I choose Shani in HoS?

Terrible, terrible indeed.

/joking

Do you mind explaining some of the points in your previous post a little more clearly, then? I pointed out the judgemental fanboyism because, frankly, it was the only thing there was any obvious way to address to further the conversation meaningfully. The rest was vague and convoluted and read more as partial rehashings of earlier discussions, some of which I didn't recognize, than arguments that invited response. Try again?

And I think that restricting the discussion to just what's possible in the books for some arbitrary reason seems entirely unnecessary. Barring the occasional "How dare you mention Triss in this thread! Take it elsewhere! It was just a mention? Fine, carry on." and just plain incomprehensible post, I don't see misconception and unrelated posts as huge dangers considering that we've all apparently obsessed over this stuff and have a full understanding of what everyone else is talking about, books or games.

 

[mecha_fish]

I have some magical understanding of a 68-yearold Polish guy's writing

And in this story we also meet for the first time the witch that will change his life forever: Yennefer of Vengerberg, who knows exactly how dangerous she can be. They fall in love with each other, but don’t you think that it’s too dangerous for Geralt wanting a woman that we know he can’t really trust?

Ha, ha, and that’s what makes the story interesting, don’t you think? Being an avid fantasy reader I was sometimes really bored and disgusted with the stories in which the hero could easily have sex with any woman he wished because every woman was willing and eager to have sex with him.

In such stories the woman was the prize of the hero, a spoil of a warrior – and as such had nothing to say, could only moan and faint in the hero’s powerful embrace. I am aware of the fact that only in contact with the opposite sex – be it attraction, affectuation, confrontation or opposition – can a literary hero be fully grown.

Creating the character of Yennefer I wanted Geralt to be fully grown – but I decided to complicate things a little. I created a woman character who simply refuses to be a fantasy cliché. And all that to please the reader.

SOURCE: http://sugarpulp.it/en/26893/

using a method that is unpopular with you, we can then extrapolate that Triss was intended to have a character arc in which she develops wholly as a human being gets over her obsession with Geralt and that Yennefer and Geralt's dysfunctional relationship was never intended to meet a modern criteria of healthy and only to fulfill some idea he had of interesting. on this basis, you can really interpret the rest however you wish, though as Sephira has said, there is definitely evidence in the novels that there is a stronger basis for their relationship that just lust, infatuation or some spell and there's enough implications in the games for this to be further built on.

I think that restricting the discussion to just what's possible in the books for some arbitrary reason seems entirely unnecessary

then i have just the quote 4 u

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fmCiasdEDY

it's all a farce, thomas. we're some really excited nerds that choose to ignore what the old fart said. forgive us : (

 

[Gilthoniel]

Guys did you know this? from Reddit:
Has anyone else gotten this hilarious response from Yennefer?

At the beginning of the quest, "The Last Wish", as I was following Yennefer down to the harbor, an NPC said the common line, "Something I've always wondered — what'll you Witchers do once there're no basilisks, leshens, or giants around, eh?"

This time Yennefer heard him, and she responded something like, "He'll do me."

I had to LOL!

Except, the only thing is that I can't remember exactly what she said. I should have recorded it! Did anyone else experience this? Since it's a "random" dialog occurrence, I couldn't find mention of it in the Witcher 3 script that comes up in Google (it doesn't have random dialog at all).

Anyone got a link to all random dialog possibilities? I'd like to remember exactly what she said

 

[Adonai-]

Guys did you know this? from Reddit:
Has anyone else gotten this hilarious response from Yennefer?

Hah, I came here to see if it'd cropped up as well! Anyone have a save around there they can check it with? You know....for science.

 

[ImLittleSpoons]

Hah, I came here to see if it'd cropped up as well! Anyone have a save around there they can check it with? You know....for science.

Science is as good a reason as any Adonai! That's amazing, bless our Yen! I remember the part about Basilisks etc. but can't recall that naughty extra bit, but I wouldn't expect anything less from Yen in the slightest, especially after reading some of the books!

 

[Adonai-]

Unfortunately, it's not quite as good as it appeared (although still reasonably funny given the circumstance). The OP came back with:

Figured out what it was. The line she says is, "It depends on the situation." She actually says it in response to Geralt. But when I did my playthrough, an NPC said the above line right on top of the dialog, so it sounded like she was responding to the NPC and not Geralt. Still pretty funny

.

 

[Gilthoniel]

From yesterday’s Gwent updates stream (https://www.twitch.tv/videos/144594318):

There will be new Yen avatar and you will be able to chose her voice for various short sentences for the opponent but what is also nice touch is this info under the avatar.

 

[HijinxM]

Yennefer definitely is my favorite romance. I really liked Triss and thought I'd put off her romance and do Yen's first expecting I wouldn't like Yen. But I really do love her character in the game. And now I'm having to play another playthrough because I prefer Yen.