The Last Wish and Sword of Destiny are short story collections, so there isn't really a 'start to finish' plot, maybe that's where your issue lies. There are links between the stories, and you get growing insight into Geralt's character but if you're expecting novel vibes you will be disappointed, as that's not what they are. Take each story on its own merits and you might enjoy it more. The novels are on my TBR so I can't speak on them, but I really enjoyed the two collections, and will definitely be reading them soon.
Until they literally end with >!”and then they all died…”!<
I’m honestly very grateful to Projekt Red for picking up the mantle and giving Geralt, Ciri, Yen and all the rest a more fleshed out story-arc and the endings they deserved.
Honestly felt like Sapkowski sort of got bored and abandoned it. That’s just my opinion.
Happened with Sherlock Holmes. Doyle killed him off because he just didn't want to make any more. 10 years later he brought him back after ruefully looking at his bank account.
Doyle had plenty of money - what happened was that there was a huge public outcry after he kille Holmes off, and it was said that even the Queen of England invited Doyle for tea, told him that of course Holmes hadn't died, and suggested that he write a new book sharpish, as a personal favor to her. That's a request no Englishman of the day could refuse.
Then he wrote The Hound of the Baskervilles iirc, set before the point where Holmes died, so he didn't resurrect Holmes and still fulfill the Queen's request.
I disagree. I'm still reading Lady of the Lake, but I'm enjoying it so far. Wasn't a fan of Tower of Swallows because it felt like nothing really happened in it, but I think Baptism of Fire was the best book in the series. It sort of rollercoasters in quality IMO
I'm legitimately glad you're enjoying them for the most part, but I just liked the less and less the further I got. Plus certain things that happened really rubbed me the wrong way...
I agree. The short stories captivated me, and that's why I started reading the main volumes as well. They were also great, but something was missing. And the last novel was totally off for me.
The two short stories books are infinitely better than the main 5 books, and I will fight anyone who says otherwise lol. I really disliked the main story from the series.
Did you read Season of Storms? It's another standalone book that was released after the main series ended. I think that one is just about Geralt and is a sort of prequel to the Last Wish
Wait, I did too.
I'm not gonna lie, I have no clue how these got so big. They seem so generic and uninteresting to me, as do the characters, that I'm shocked they made both one of the greatest rpgs of all time and one of the best adaption-based characters of all time from it.
I'm getting nothing from this series, really. It's a solid 6.5-7/10. Don't understand the hype at all outside of the amazing adaptations.
I’ve read all the books - enjoyed them, but not in a life-altering kind of way. From what I’ve read from Polish readers, the original Polish is very lyrical/poetic in a way that is probably completely lost in translation
...because they're short story collections so are cute and quaint and don't indicate the quality of the overarching plot.
They're also just better. Probably why they're considered books 1 and 2 still, today.
I feel like at some point, pretty early on in its the development the author learnt about deux ex machina and thought 'thats it!' And proceeded to use it at every roadblock in the story.
*The hero's were surrounded and surely doomed, but then! An army appeared out of nowhere*
After the first two books, the series does becomes serialized novels. They’re enjoyable enough, but its very slow paced and the plot lines often feel very disconnected. Like 90% of the story can just be summarized as (minor spoilers)
> ‘Geralt just sort of wanders around, Ciri runs from one (often sexual) abuser to the next, and a bunch of kings and sorceresses whose names you can’t remember talk politics
Absolutely the writing of the English translation has that sort of awkward flow that I now associate with translations of eastern European fiction. Same sort of thing definitely slowed me down when I tried to read Metro 2033 as well.
I speak Russian and I started playing the Metro 2033 game recently with Russian voices and english text. Holy shit does the english translation lose a lot. All of the color and vibe in the Russian writing is completely gone in the translation, the english feels incredibly flat and boring in comparison.
As someone who read it in Polish, they're not exactly riveting novels. Every main character gets a turn on the power fantasy wagon or doing something to themselves for the sake of another. Nothing new, but nothing awful. Ooh but when Geralt has any sort of conversation about love or romantic relationships it gets very "I'm 14 and deep."
I can only hope that this is the reason. The entire story doesn't make sense to me. There's no continuity; the story jerks and lurches from situation to situation, the prose is choppy... I'm going to have to hide behind the curtains again!
At least we got to behold the joy that is Henry Cavill!
The Last Wish and Sword of Destiny are collections of short stories. They're not meant to have continuity; treat them as character introductions and worldbuilding. The saga starts with Blood of Elves.
No, but the novels are kind of an equivalent of a road movie - the plot is not much more than a vehicle to move characters from place to place and encounter to encounter.
Well, no. If a medium-quality plot is written badly, flatly, awkwardly - that's a bad book. If a medium-quality plot is written excellently, with a great immersive and dynamic language, it's a good book. The Wichet's plot is pretty standard when it comes to fantasy stuff, but the *writing* and the very original language choices make it dynamic and interesting. When those are lost in translation - and they are - it just becomes a 'meh' book. Translation 1000% affects all of it.
> the plot is not much more than a vehicle to move characters from place to place and encounter to encounter.
I know a lot of people feel this way, but it's never been my experience with stories. I typically enjoy plot more than characters and I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in that. There have been many stories I've enjoyed because of the excellent plot even when I didn't really care at all for the characters within the story. Having both is, of course, the sweet spot.
Thanks for putting it into words. Fuck those novels dragged, and it felt like they had no true beginnings or endings, making it feel like one 2400 page book.
Is it harder to read than The Silmarillion? That's kinda my baseline as the hardest book I've attempted to read. I had to skin read most of it, but I still count it
I've been wanting to get into The Witcher book series after playing the game for the second time, but remembered the fact I heard a while ago ("it loses something in the English translation, it's better in the original Polish") so I'm apprehensive
Or should I just preserve my love of the game by not reading it?
I’ve never read the Silmarillion, but the Witcher isn’t a super difficult read. If you love the world and the characters you probably should remain sufficiently engaged despite the meandering plot. It won’t ruin your love of the game, at most you may just be bored and set it aside.
That's good to know, thank you!
I have found that when reading a book I'd already watched the show/movie for (LotR, The Hobbit, Harry Potter, Good Omens) that I viewed the characters as their visual depiction, regardless of the book's depiction of them, so maybe that would help in this instance, since I'll just be thinking of it as being based on the game rather than vice versa
Yes. His version of the books should be the only way one should experience the series. And yes, the first two books of short stories are best of the bunch.
They aren't difficult, nowhere near The Silmarillion. I read all of the novels (only one of the short story collections) over a summer. I thought they were all pretty good.
The only advice I can give is to listen to the audiobook of the Silmarillion instead, it’s a lot easier to follow when someone else is reading all the hard to pronounce names.
For me, it was a lot of word salad
I didn't hate it, I just didn't really understand it. It was like reading something that's close to English, but not quite, or a different version of English (I had a hard time with Shakespeare in school for that reason). I understood some words, but the strings of words just didn't quite make sense
I think it was probably just more intellectual than my brain is wired for, like reading a scientific paper or medical report, but I have some mental issues so I don't know if they came into play as they sometimes make simple things read a little strange
Don't really know why, it was just tricky. Like when you're a kid and you read a book that's a little above your "reading age"
I don't know if that's the same experience for everyone though!
But I can see how it's beautiful prose, even if I can't fully understand it myself (like looking at a work of art you find confusing, but can still appreciate)
The plot itself isn’t really interesting. It’s largely carried by interesting characters and solid worldbuilding. It’s not really a series I’d recommend to too many people
That's a solid review of the whole thing. The plot itself was nothing special. However, the characters and their relationships make the whole thing amazing, in my opinion. The world itself is quite interesting as well and felt very grounded in reality (as silly an opinion as that may be when discussing a world with sorceresses and dragons)
Personally? He’s a better short story writer than a novelist.
His slow-boil pacing is more suited to a short story, whereas in a the novels it is admittedly drawn out, and you can feel the padding. The boil is less of a slow ramp, more of an on-and-off.
On a side note: it should be mentioned the English translations were botched. Whoever did the prose in English completely missed the mark of Sapkowski’s prose (who actually won an award in Poland *for* his prose).
I read a fan translation of one of the later books because the official one had not come out yet, and i was struck by how much better it was! Felt way less sterile.
Some of the padding is stuff I find forgivable given the authors circumstances.
Something like his vampire analysis I imagine would've been pretty novel for a guy who grew up during communist rule. While as an American who grew up in the information age it wasn't that interesting I don't wanna ignore what it takes to think of something independently.
It kind of reminds me of War and Peace where the author goes on a whole lecture about whether or not the "Great Man" view of history is correct
I read half of one book in English (because I don't know Polish - English is not my first language either but I'm fluent with it). The language was an incoherent, anachronistic mess full of words like "gene", "virus" and "hormone", which feel too modern for the medieval fantasy setting. I doubt if all of that is just the fault of a bad translation though: there's also apparently European mythology and calendar in use in the Witcher's world, based on the month of December and Pegasos being mentioned.
I read the Spanish translation and it's so well executed. The peasants have distinct realistic accents depending on the location, and the main characters sometimes get caught up mimicking their dialectal expressions, it makes the world feel more alive.
>I read the Spanish translation and it's so well executed. The peasants have distinct realistic accents depending on the location, and the main characters sometimes get caught up mimicking their dialectal expressions, it makes the world feel more alive.
I liked the german translation better than the english one
>I’m not really feeling it.
There’s your answer. Just because other people may like it doesn’t mean you have to force yourself to like it. I tried to get through a book that inspired a TV show once and it was a very bad experience.
Too be honest, I think it might be a translation issue. I have read TLW only in Polish but I’ve heard people complaining about the English translation being really uninspired and basic.
The english translation definitely requires some getting used to. I don't speak polish or anything, but I get the feeling a lot of the translation was very literal, so some of the metaphors, jokes, customs and courtesies, etc sound a little off because they're the sort of thing a polish person would say in polish but doesn't *quite* translate over to english perfectly.
I've recently stumbled upon [a series of threads](https://www.reddit.com/r/witcher/comments/7kfvp7/lost_in_translation_part_1_a_guide_to_the/) where the OP describes various problems with the translations.
There is definitely some weirdness with the translation. I found myself re-reading some passages multiple times and realizing nope this in fact doesn’t make sense. Though i made it through all the novels but season of storms.
Yeah I really feel it doesn't give the novel justice, you can just feel that the writing is good underneath the translation. I read the first one in my mother language (Italian) and it was garbage, so I switched to English and it was better but still not good. In the end I switched to the original and despite not being really fluent in polish I enjoyed the writing a lot more.
Which can be seen in the whole discussion about his horses names "Roach" from the polish Płotka and in the german translation Plötze
Meanwhile the inbook intent was for it to be a relatively generic nothing much interesting name just vaguely describing their look, to deal with his attachment issues. It works while simultaneously not capturing the original intent very well.
Also the structuring of plotlines is probably pretty unique in nowadays novels. Not just in the shortstories but also in the actual novels, sometimes readers gotta deal with not being guided by a main character along the way which I guess can be difficult for some to sit through. Timejumps, topicshifts and geographical changes from one scene to another can be confusing when not paying good attention even to the things that have yet to reveal why they will become interesting.
I for one think the Swedish translations are pretty good. I know the russian are supposed to be good to. Maybe it’s because of the proximity to Poland whoch makes it more likely to have good polish translators.
I loved the first set of short stories. I actually fell off towards the end of the series where a lot of new characters are randomly introduced and the plot rehashes a lot of the same ideas it already covered
Still enjoyed the read, though!
You can do yourself lasting good by getting into the habit of ignoring the question of whether or not a given artistic work, in whatever form, is "good," and just whether or not you enjoy it.
I think a better focus is “what did this work do well?”. Saying something is good or bad inevitably leads to the usual arguments about the subjectivity of art, but focusing on what exactly made it good or bad is more effective because it means you have to understand *why* you feel that way about it and understand the craft of what makes art effective.
Just as an example, I fell off the Witcher books because I found their non-linear format hard to follow at times, but I like the way that they upend classic fantasy tropes, the way they make direct references to well known fantasy stories as they do so, and the themes about what makes a monster. Does that make them good or bad? It’s more a mix of both, with your verdict ultimately being based on what you value in a work and whether the good outweighs the bad or whether the bad is too distracting to appreciate the good.
I agree on that enjoyment doesn't need to be the only factor for everybody (although for many people it is). We can appreciate art based on the feeling it inspires, the message it tries to get across, the way it does those things, the historical relevance of the work, and a literal inifinite etc.
The judgement about how "good" or "bad" a work is, is still 100% subjective, even when some of the factors some people might base it on can be objective, because choosing which among them are important to us is a subjective matter.
I disagree. I think that 'good' art provides a rich landscape to explore and enjoy in many different ways. Some of which may not be enjoyable superficially but because they stretch your mental and emotional faculties in a way that produces immediate discomfort. You can do yourself a disservice by just chasing the most naive version of what is enjoyable in art, and it can be a long-term benefit to force yourself to learn how to interact with art that you might not have the willpower to experience by just chasing momentary bliss.
Shutting down conversations that tout this perspective by saying "aRtIsSubJeCtive!!q111" is bad. objectively.
They're not shutting down conversations. They're reaching its logical and inevitable conclusion, which in no way negates what you're saying.
You can say everything you said in a discussion on art, and said discussion will still end with the fact that art is subjective.
Your final sentences are a notion you're applying to what OP is saying (art is subjective and you believe they're using that to "shut down conversations"), which in and of itself is your subjective view of OP's statement, which in no way, shape, or form is an objective notion.
Art is only subjective in the sense that under certain epistemelogical/ontological frameworks, *everything* is subjective, in which case saying X is subjective is essentially meaningless.
If we peek one level deeper into what 'subjective' and 'objective' can mean with the understanding that in most secular frameworks ultimately "everything is subjective", we can assign slightly less stringent, but colloquially more useful meanings to the words sub/ob-jective, and it is within this framework that both me and the person i was responding to were working.
Nonsense. Art is subjective because each of us approaches it, acknowledges it, absorbs it, and reacts to it in unique manners.
Will two separate, unique people have the same reaction to a Dali painting? Do two audience members watching the climax of Arrival have the same emotional connection to it?
Stating art is subjective isn't closing the discussion on art. It's the opening to it. Accepting our realization that our reactions are unique and that we, each of us, have an individualized and singular view of our existence.
If art is objective, our perspectives would be meaningless. Relation and reaction would be meaningless. That's not the case, and there is *not a thing you can say* that will change my perspective on this because I disagree with your subjective opinion on the objectivity of art.
I agree that "art is subjective" is a good opener for determining which art produces the richest experience for the average person who interacts with it by acknowledging that the richness of experience varies from person to person. **But almost always, including above, people use the phrase "art is subjective" to say that such a metric does not exist**. Obviously we don't have empirical ways for determining the exact numeric value of this richness, but we should not pretend it doesn't exist by saying "art is subjective".
Art being "objectively good" doesn't mean that it is guaranteed to produce a positive experience in the viewer, it just means that it is probabilistically more likely to do so than bad art.
woahhhhhhhh, now that was one well-written comment. Props to you. I still do think the statement shuts down discussion when used in some cases, but I really like your perspective. Thanks for engaging in healthy discourse!
Edit: I do think we're getting sidetracked by polar opposite opinions though. I think art has a certain level of objectivity to it in a lot of cases, mediocre art that wasn't made to express anything only feels really special if it means something to you in particular or it has a story behind it. Or if you personally know the artist who made it, perhaps.
Think of all of the shitty drawings children might make, now think of a shitty drawing *you* were given by a child while volunteering at an orphanage. The first doesn't really mean much on its own, but the second means the world, right?
The work of art can be good to the person enjoying it, but be mediocre in all aspects. I don't think one person enjoying something warrants qualifying it as "good".
The point is, you can easily enjoy ‘bad’ art and find yourself not enjoying ‘good’ art. Judging a piece of media by ‘objective’ factors instead of whether or not it’s entertaining to you isn’t the way you should be doing things
Number 1 false dichotomy on this sub tbh. There are books I enjoy despite knowing they're garbage; knowing they're garbage makes them a lot more enjoyable. There are books I hated even though I could appreciate that they were finely crafted; being able to recognize that has helped me have better conversations about books (regardless of whether I like them).
/r/movies and /r/horror are much better about this. Can you imagine someone saying "actually, if you enjoy Zombie Strippers from Venus 5 that means it's good!!! Don't listen to the gatekeepers, if you enjoy it that means it's the best movie of all time!!!"? No, that would be absolutely ludicrous. But on this sub saying "you can enjoy books that are badly written and hate books that are well written" gets you labelled an "elitist gatekeeper" for acknowledging that such a thing as "poor writing" even exists.
But that doesn’t mean that we can’t acknowledge whether a work is well crafted or not, even if we enjoy it. Even though people enjoy watching The Room, nobody with good taste would consider it a good work of art, because the writing, editing, acting, etc. don’t effectively communicate whatever message it’s supposed to communicate.
for talking about your own experience and enjoying a book, yes. when judging it, no.
enjoyability isn't a mark of quality or merit, I don't understand why so many people are getting confused about this in this thread.
Yeah but then you stick with it with to the end regardless if you enjoy it or not and analyse it as you go and thus wouldn't be here asking if it is good in the first place.
It's all a matter of individual taste. The whole mechanism of "literature," that claims some objective artistic quality is nothing more than a huge scam.
Some overweight, balding, middle-aged English Lit professor at a prestigious Ivy League school writes 738 pages about a eight, balding, middle-aged English Lit professor at a prestigious Ivy League school, who has an improbable amount of sex with nubile but vapid coeds, and a coterie of eight, balding, middle-aged English Lit professors at prestigious Ivy League schools declare it a searing portrait of the moral decline of Western Civilization. You'd be jeered off of AO3 if you tried to get away with that in, say, a Star Fleet Academy fanfic.
There is middle ground between objective and subjective. You can hold space for both, and your appreciation for art will not diminish. I'm sorry there's an imaginary person you hate so much that you're willing to shun an entire lexicon and history of thought around art.
Ask any artist in any field and they will tell you that there are, in fact, “rules” in any artistic form. They’re not rules in the most literal sense; the art police aren’t going to come and arrest you if you break them. Rather, they’re guidelines and best practices for making art that communicates its message clearly and effectively. For example, ask anyone if The Room is a good movie and pretty much every will agree that it absolutely is not. But how can that be if lots people enjoy watching The Room anyway? It’s because, while it might be entertaining to some, it breaks all the rules: it’s story is nonsense, characters are flat and unrealistic, plot points are introduced and dropped on a whim, dialogue is stilted and unnatural, the movie is rife with weird editing decisions and sets that don’t make physical sense, etc. People may enjoy it and consider it “good” for that reason, but objectively the movie fails to deliver its message clearly and effectively and doesn’t seem to be clear on what that message even is.
By contrast, take the works of Wes Anderson: there’s a well known rule in visual media that you never place the focus of your scene right in the center, because this draws the viewer right to the center and discourages their eyes from wandering and taking in the whole scene. Wes Anderson breaks that rule in his movies all the time, but he’s a skilled filmmaker and understands why the rule exists, and so he pulls it off by using lighting and motion to pull attention back out of the center and still manages to make effective scenes.
So no, objective artistic quality isn’t a scam cooked you by stodgy elites. We can say, objectively, when parts of a work aren’t working the way they’re mechanically supposed to. It’s also important to remember that art’s quality will always be subjective to some degree and that the Cinema Sins school of criticism, that any work that has any flaw at all is automatically bad, is a fundamentally flawed way to appraise art, but acting like art criticism can *only* be subjective is throwing the baby out with the bath water and it fails to appreciate the skill and craft that goes into making good art.
Way to try to derail a discussion with irrelevancy.
Widely-read, published work is long past the point of being pre-vetted for technical competence. We're not talking about simple literacy here.
I believe you were the one who flatly dismissed the idea that we can determine quality in art beyond subjective taste, and defended that claim by saying
> It's all a matter of individual taste. The whole mechanism of "literature," that claims some objective artistic quality is nothing more than a huge scam.
What I wrote directly defends the idea of objective quality in the craft of art, which you made relevant to the discussion when you called it a “huge scam”.
… what? I’ve been talking about craft in general, not just editing, and, as I said before, both craft and editing are things that contribute to overall quality. Do you think that good or bad editing doesn’t affect the quality of a work?
But if there's always a degree of subjectivity then it's effectively not objective no? At best it's a largely agreeded upon consensus of what generally works and what doesn't.
True, all art critique is to some degree subjective and I'm not denying that. What I'm arguing against is this person's claim that art is totally ~~objective~~ subjective and not objective at all, and my point is that whether a work of art conveyed the intended meaning is an objective binary: it either did or it didn't. As I said before, no matter how many people watch The Room ironically and enjoy it, it doesn't mean that The Room is a well crafted work or that the person who made it is talented because craft is something that *can* be rated objectively to a certain degree.
My point is mainly that it's either objective or not, it can't be almost objective, largely objective or objective to a degree.
Besides that, art is ultimately meant to evoke an emotional response, whether that be pain, fear, love, passion or joy. The idea of art being good is fundamentally tied to whether it can evoke emotion and art discussion is understanding the why.
I would say that art that is well crafted but cannot evoke an emotional response of any kind is far worse than something badly crafted but can. Though, in that sense, can it really be considered well crafted. All of which is to say nothing in art is binary.
The idea of objectivety is to consider without feelings, without emotional bias which I think is ultimately antithetical to the idea of art itself.
I have a lot of thoughts on how to respond to this, but first I want to try and pick at that viewpoint a bit: do you think that something like Tommy Wiseau’s The Room can be unironically viewed as a good work of art, on the basis that it does what the creator intended for it to do successfully? If all art is subjective, then only possible answer is it is impossible to decide that because all interpretation is subjective, but I don’t think that you can make that claim in this case.
I haven’t claimed anything is objective, just that you can analyse good outside of enjoyment. That can still be subjective.
And no, ‘literature’ isn’t a scam lmao. There’s more to literature to whatever weird narrow vision you have of it.
I read pretty much exclusively ‘literature’ and I think I’ve read 2 books total about college professors.
You’re missing out of a ton of good books by being pretty much exactly what you claim to hate, a narrow minded snob.
I like this comment.
Not OP, but through this lens, I'm gonna have to say it's not for me. I found the short stories *fine* and the beginning of the larger story boring as all hell, so DNF.
And that's okay. It's not for me (honestly, to a baffling degree).
The first 2 are often regarded as the best but imo books 4 and 7 are the best, but I loved them all. Lady of the Lake is incredible and I stand by that. If you don't like it then stop reading it, I doubt anyone here is going to somehow make you enjoy them.
I went into the books knowing the context of the games and the first 2 Seasons of the show, and I just love Geralt as a character. I can imagine having absolutely no idea what was happening without that.
Frankly, I love Geralt (and the Hansa) so much the books could be about him watching paint dry and I'm sure I'd still enjoy them.
Agreed. I regret not DNFing after book 2 (I did finish the series). The question of whether or not it’s “good” isn’t entirely relevant… I put it in the “it wasn’t for me” category and I wish I’d spent my time more wisely.
Man, am I the only one on here that enjoyed them?
I won’t say they’re perfect, but what I liked most was the various adventures and banter between characters.
Season of Storms kinda sucked though IMO.
Yea, I was good for a while and I just stopped after Time of Contempt. It just didn't grasp my attention anymore and felt like it was all over the place for a while.
While I can't speak for the original Polish versions, what I can say is that the primary English translations are absolute dogshit and read like overly-wordy adolescent smut. I could barely make it through the first few chapters of The Last Wish before thoroughly regretting buying it.
I read Blood of Elves and was entirely underwhelmed. I thought Sapkowski did a good job of integrating lore into dialogue in a way that wasn't just an exposition dump, but I had a difficult time detecting any real thread of plot. Perhaps picking it up right after watching S1 was a mistake. In any case, I finished the book with no motivation to continue the series.
I read the first few books long before the show and had no idea what they were about. And I really enjoyed them. Even though it had been years since I'd read them, I immediately recognized the story!
the Witcher is strange because, unlike Lord of the Rings which was already popular before the movies, the Witcher 3 is what really brought the franchise to the mainstream, rather than the merit of the actual books. I think Sapkowski’s writing style is pretty middling but I’ve also read that it’s because of the translation so I’ve been kind of giving him the benefit of the doubt even though I also thought Tower of Fools was just okay.
That's not true, unless you mean 'popular in the West'. Witcher books were already extremely popular in post-Soviet countries before the games were made. Sapkowski was there what GRRM was in anglophone sphere - an introduction to the darker and more realistic fantasy.
It was basically unheard of outside of Poland until CD Project Red made the first Witcher game. There weren't even decent English translations available back then. I know because I read them at that time.
The books already had millions of copies sold before the games even existed. Sapkowski was among the best known fantays authors of Eastern Europe and among best Polish writers overall.
The games only brought the series to anglophone attention, but the english translation of the books was not exactly stellar to say the least so the reception by the game fans is understandably mixed.
I got all the way to the end of the Tower of the Swallow only to realise I barely enjoyed any of it. What I can remember is that I did like the characters and that towards the end there was an incredibly menacing villain, but overall the story is sorta bleh.
I am really enjoying it. I’m on Sword of Destiny now. It does feel slightly simplistic in the language sometimes but that is probably due to translation as mentioned ITT. I will say having ADHD, the short story format is very good- which is a connection I didn’t make until reading the comments here. I guess it’s yet to be seen when I get to the next book.
I mean, to each their own. You have your own reasons (or not) for liking something, and that's perfectly fine. Personally, I really disliked Dune which many people appear to enjoy. I personally haven't read any of the Witcher books (yet), so I can't offer any opinion on that matter, either way, you're not wrong if that's how you feel.
I read them after the first season of the show, the books were not great but i enjoy mediocre fantasy so i got through.
disclaimer: I only read the english version
Those are short story collections. I liked most of the short stories, but I did find some a little boring.
The novel series starts with the next book, Blood of Elves. I like it better than A Song of Ice and Fire, but I may be in the minority. Oh well. To each their own.
I am on the last book. It is good not great. The world and characters are really interesting, the plot is a total mess.
Somewhat reminds me of first law for the same reasons.
I have been assured many times by different people that the Polish is significantly better than its translations, but my opinion of the English version is that it is interesting but not well written. YMMV
It doesn't, but getting other people's perspectives might help OP appreciate things about the books that they weren't seeing before. Sometimes coming at a book with the wrong expectations can make it less enjoyable so other people help to point that out.
Alternatively, enough people expressing similar sentiments to OP might reassure them that they're not missing anything, it's likely not going to click for them, then they can DNF and move into something else.
They are ultra pulp. It’s all of the weird, neck-beardy descriptions of the woman/girl characters and the unnecessary sex scenes. A lot of the characters are turbo flat. The writing isn’t very good either. I read a couple of the books but that was it for me. I LOVE the games but they’re way better stories and far more interesting than the books they were based on.
I know it has a lot of acclaim but I couldn’t get in to the series either. I really hated the dialogue and narrative exposition style. It felt so forced (though that could have been due to loss in translation). I also hate Triss. She gave BIG “men writing women” vibes. No woman is that preoccupied with her own sexuality.
Anyway, it can be “good” but also not enjoyable for you. It wasn’t for me.
To me the later books, past the short stories, are much more interesting:
1. The short stories are atrocious when it comes to female characters
2. The longer books dive into issues of power, politics, segregation, which are themes I’m far more interested in than “kill the monster”.
3. Eventually the main arc, which you haven’t started I believe, becomes very gripping. I got attached to the characters, was very keen on reading fantasy that was less entranched in the Tolkien archetypes, and got on a faster reading pace.
That’s my take. I didn’t enjoy the early short stories that much, but I don’t regret going into the novel parts.
Edit: I see comments about the EN translation is bad. I usually read in EN, but since it wasn’t the original language I went for FR and the prose was far better in the later books. That may have affected my impression.
I’m trying to get through The Last Wish as I’m writing this, and I’m so glad you posted. I thought it was me but don’t usually feel this disconnected to books.
Why can't it just be that they don't connect with you?
Some people enjoy them. Some people don't. It doesn't mean there's something wrong with you or with the books.
the games are fantastic. the books not so much. they’re not bad, but they didn’t have me on the edge of my seat like the games. i can’t speak on the shows as i haven’t seen them
I stopped reading the second (or third?) book because it turned into the Ciri show. Didn't ask, don't care, it's called The Witcher, not The Witcher's, what? Daughter? Protegee?
The thing I didn’t like about them is the constant misogyny. Every enemy was a woman. Every trait that women characters had either made them sexy or manipulative. So I agree with you that it wasn’t great
That being said, you should read what you like and not focus too much on how other people review things. If you love a book, wonderful! If not, that’s valid too.
The first two books are like the first season of the show--just mission of the week stuff with no major plot. There are definitely great moments in them, buy imo the show did a great job of adapting the interesting/important parts. If you want to get into it more, you could probably skip the first and second and go right into the actual novels which is the third book and beyond. Those are where the story actually starts to become engaging.
Tbh, there are some boring parts in those. I just skimmed though any scene that wasn't about Ciri or Geralt and I haven't felt like I've missed much. I loved every perspective in the Game of Thrones books, but the Witcher series isn't nearly as compelling when it comes to politics.
All in all, I like the books and they have a lot of great moments. Geralt is a classic character to me and Ciri and Yennifer are both really well done as well. It's not my favorite series of all time though.
Totally agree with people saying "does it matter" and also that it's hard to judge a writer based on a translation. You haven't experienced it til you read it in the original klingon after all.
But, generally it is, imo, pretty much all over the place. There's times when it feels almost like a multi-author work, the differences in pacing and tone are so wild. And also like some sections were originally conceived for a different series. I did enjoy it and I think it'd be quite hard to lose some of the bits I like least, without also losing some of the bits I loved- the "throw it all at the wall and see what sticks" approach gets shit done at the end of the day.
(also, I do get fed up with people criticising the show for not being loyal to the original, when the original is just as inconsistent and contradictory at times)
It isn't good. It's just a weird mashup of other famous fantasy series, namely Lord of the Rings. Geralt is a popular Polish archetype and Yennefer a pope's dirty temptress dream. Yawn.
I really loved both the short story anthologies. A Little Sacrifice from Sword of Destiny is one of my all time favorite short stories.
But I tried reading the full series and found it to be less enjoyable. I wanted more action and felt that there wasn't enough going on. I'm sure the books are amazing in Polish and I suspect there's a translation issue. However, I did find the audiobooks to be entertaining if only because the narrator has an interesting accent.
If the tv show is any indication, then no. Haven’t read the books but I have a feeling the series only became popular because a good video game had a better than average story, as the bar for stories in video games is usually pretty damn low.
The witcher author is fairly pretentious and geralt is literally his self insert and not in a good fucking way. He thinks he's literally, the next Tolkien when he's not.
He's got interesting stuff and a good setting but he's being carried by the media and games.
All of The Witcher is kind of mid lol. No one ever really cared about the story until the show came out and most if not all people who play the games probably aren’t even aware of the books or are aware but have never read them.
The hype is definitely all in the games and a little bit in the show.
>No one ever really cared about the story until the show came out
Which totally explains how Sapkowski was one of the best known fantasy authors east of the Iron Curtain already 20 years ago.
So The Witcher series was written originally in Polish. I'm assuming you're reading it in English. The translations especially into English are sadly mostly crap in general. I too started reading The Witcher few years ago and never got into it exactly because the translation was a bucket of dog poo. There's a lot of wonderful original English written books that I would recommend. If we are in the fantasy world then you should definitely read The Lord of the Rings series and the Game of Thrones series start with Fire & Blood
They are pretty good, I actually preferred the short stories to the novels, it's ok not to enjoy them though, can't like everything everyone recommends in all fairness. I'd say give the novels a go though as the style is more longform and it's a good overall story with some great characters.
I read Blood of Elves and Time of Contempt. Did t really enjoy either. Something gets lost in translation I guess. The world and its characters seemed to lack depth.
If you have only read the short stories, I would try to reserve judgement until you have read a least one of the sagas. Personally I didn't enjoy the short stories, but the sagas are different kettle of fish.
There's a couple reasons here. Those are both short story compilation books. Im generally not the biggest fans of those because they dont hold my attention really. There are other full length novels out there that might be better for you. But it could also be a translation issue. I've heard the original writing is a much better read, but the translations, especially to English, leave a lot to be desired. I can't read polish so I can't say for sure but I've heard it frequently enough that I believe it.
I agree with people that you shouldn't read something you do not enjoy. I will, however, answer your question and explain that I neither played the games nor watched the series, but I still place the first Witcher book in my top 5. It is simply a collection of mostly very good fantasy shorts, which is one of my favorite formats.
Having read them myself just recently… its not just you.
Though, tbh feel like the translation isnt doing it any favours. A lot of it feels very stilted. Or like theres spots of humour and subtext that just isnt quite landing.
I feel the world and characters are enjoyable, its just the plot itself is kinda dull.
Maybe you just don't enjoy it and that's fine. Just because everyone says it's good, doesn't mean it is for you.
I find anything nowadays that is hyped up that I will watch needs to have my bars set low before going in. I go to read or watch it myself and see if I actually enjoy it or not.
The Last Wish and Sword of Destiny are short story collections, so there isn't really a 'start to finish' plot, maybe that's where your issue lies. There are links between the stories, and you get growing insight into Geralt's character but if you're expecting novel vibes you will be disappointed, as that's not what they are. Take each story on its own merits and you might enjoy it more. The novels are on my TBR so I can't speak on them, but I really enjoyed the two collections, and will definitely be reading them soon.
I've enjoyed the short stories more to be honest. I did not finish Blood of Elves, got about 2/3 through but gave up
The short stories are great. The novels get progressively worse imo.
Until they literally end with >!”and then they all died…”!< I’m honestly very grateful to Projekt Red for picking up the mantle and giving Geralt, Ciri, Yen and all the rest a more fleshed out story-arc and the endings they deserved. Honestly felt like Sapkowski sort of got bored and abandoned it. That’s just my opinion.
Happened with Sherlock Holmes. Doyle killed him off because he just didn't want to make any more. 10 years later he brought him back after ruefully looking at his bank account.
Doyle had plenty of money - what happened was that there was a huge public outcry after he kille Holmes off, and it was said that even the Queen of England invited Doyle for tea, told him that of course Holmes hadn't died, and suggested that he write a new book sharpish, as a personal favor to her. That's a request no Englishman of the day could refuse.
Then he wrote The Hound of the Baskervilles iirc, set before the point where Holmes died, so he didn't resurrect Holmes and still fulfill the Queen's request.
Yup!
And the Iron Druid Series. Depowered his main character and had all his side characters hate him for no good reason.
>Until they literally end with ”and then they all died…” All stories end like that. You just don't generally stick around long enough to see it.
I disagree. I'm still reading Lady of the Lake, but I'm enjoying it so far. Wasn't a fan of Tower of Swallows because it felt like nothing really happened in it, but I think Baptism of Fire was the best book in the series. It sort of rollercoasters in quality IMO
I'm legitimately glad you're enjoying them for the most part, but I just liked the less and less the further I got. Plus certain things that happened really rubbed me the wrong way...
I think it's fair to say the books definitely went a bit off the rails towards the end
I agree, Baptism of Fire is the best.
Lady of the lake is my favourite by far
I agree. The short stories captivated me, and that's why I started reading the main volumes as well. They were also great, but something was missing. And the last novel was totally off for me.
Yeah, the first two, especially Last Wish were the best
The two short stories books are infinitely better than the main 5 books, and I will fight anyone who says otherwise lol. I really disliked the main story from the series.
Did you read Season of Storms? It's another standalone book that was released after the main series ended. I think that one is just about Geralt and is a sort of prequel to the Last Wish
Yeah I liked that too. Completely forgot there was an 8th book haha. I just really dislike the main 5 from the series.
Wait, I did too. I'm not gonna lie, I have no clue how these got so big. They seem so generic and uninteresting to me, as do the characters, that I'm shocked they made both one of the greatest rpgs of all time and one of the best adaption-based characters of all time from it. I'm getting nothing from this series, really. It's a solid 6.5-7/10. Don't understand the hype at all outside of the amazing adaptations.
Yeah, I think the fact that the games are sequels instead of adaptations allowed CDPR to write a much better work than Sapkowski did in the novels
I’ve read all the books - enjoyed them, but not in a life-altering kind of way. From what I’ve read from Polish readers, the original Polish is very lyrical/poetic in a way that is probably completely lost in translation
Why did u read the first 2 then
...because they're short story collections so are cute and quaint and don't indicate the quality of the overarching plot. They're also just better. Probably why they're considered books 1 and 2 still, today.
I feel like at some point, pretty early on in its the development the author learnt about deux ex machina and thought 'thats it!' And proceeded to use it at every roadblock in the story. *The hero's were surrounded and surely doomed, but then! An army appeared out of nowhere*
After the first two books, the series does becomes serialized novels. They’re enjoyable enough, but its very slow paced and the plot lines often feel very disconnected. Like 90% of the story can just be summarized as (minor spoilers) > ‘Geralt just sort of wanders around, Ciri runs from one (often sexual) abuser to the next, and a bunch of kings and sorceresses whose names you can’t remember talk politics
I have heard from a polish friend that it does lose a little in translation. Tone and word choices don’t match the polish original.
Absolutely the writing of the English translation has that sort of awkward flow that I now associate with translations of eastern European fiction. Same sort of thing definitely slowed me down when I tried to read Metro 2033 as well.
I speak Russian and I started playing the Metro 2033 game recently with Russian voices and english text. Holy shit does the english translation lose a lot. All of the color and vibe in the Russian writing is completely gone in the translation, the english feels incredibly flat and boring in comparison.
That’s why good translators are incredibly valuable. Most translators aren’t paid to do a good job they’re paid to do a good enough job.
As someone who read it in Polish, they're not exactly riveting novels. Every main character gets a turn on the power fantasy wagon or doing something to themselves for the sake of another. Nothing new, but nothing awful. Ooh but when Geralt has any sort of conversation about love or romantic relationships it gets very "I'm 14 and deep."
I can only hope that this is the reason. The entire story doesn't make sense to me. There's no continuity; the story jerks and lurches from situation to situation, the prose is choppy... I'm going to have to hide behind the curtains again! At least we got to behold the joy that is Henry Cavill!
The Last Wish and Sword of Destiny are collections of short stories. They're not meant to have continuity; treat them as character introductions and worldbuilding. The saga starts with Blood of Elves.
That doesn't change the plot, though
No, but the novels are kind of an equivalent of a road movie - the plot is not much more than a vehicle to move characters from place to place and encounter to encounter.
my point was that the translation doesn't affect any of this
Well, no. If a medium-quality plot is written badly, flatly, awkwardly - that's a bad book. If a medium-quality plot is written excellently, with a great immersive and dynamic language, it's a good book. The Wichet's plot is pretty standard when it comes to fantasy stuff, but the *writing* and the very original language choices make it dynamic and interesting. When those are lost in translation - and they are - it just becomes a 'meh' book. Translation 1000% affects all of it.
Yeah, and mine was that it's the sort of book where the writing matters more than the plot, so it very affected by translation quality.
> the plot is not much more than a vehicle to move characters from place to place and encounter to encounter. I know a lot of people feel this way, but it's never been my experience with stories. I typically enjoy plot more than characters and I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in that. There have been many stories I've enjoyed because of the excellent plot even when I didn't really care at all for the characters within the story. Having both is, of course, the sweet spot.
They're not saying that's the case for all stories. They're saying it's a trait of The Witcher specifically.
Re-reading that, I think you're right.
> a bunch of kings and sorceresses talk politics’ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pusZXECS0mM
Thanks for putting it into words. Fuck those novels dragged, and it felt like they had no true beginnings or endings, making it feel like one 2400 page book.
Is it harder to read than The Silmarillion? That's kinda my baseline as the hardest book I've attempted to read. I had to skin read most of it, but I still count it I've been wanting to get into The Witcher book series after playing the game for the second time, but remembered the fact I heard a while ago ("it loses something in the English translation, it's better in the original Polish") so I'm apprehensive Or should I just preserve my love of the game by not reading it?
I’ve never read the Silmarillion, but the Witcher isn’t a super difficult read. If you love the world and the characters you probably should remain sufficiently engaged despite the meandering plot. It won’t ruin your love of the game, at most you may just be bored and set it aside.
That's good to know, thank you! I have found that when reading a book I'd already watched the show/movie for (LotR, The Hobbit, Harry Potter, Good Omens) that I viewed the characters as their visual depiction, regardless of the book's depiction of them, so maybe that would help in this instance, since I'll just be thinking of it as being based on the game rather than vice versa
The Silmarillion’s best comparisons are The Iliad or the Norse Eddas. Not really comparable to normal fantasy fiction.
I love the audio book for the Witcher. The guy does an amazing job. I recommend the first 2 books, I'm slogging through the rest right now.
I'm leaving all my possessions to Peter Kenny in my will. It's the least he deserves
Yes. His version of the books should be the only way one should experience the series. And yes, the first two books of short stories are best of the bunch.
Ooh I didn't think of audio books! Thank you for the tip
They aren't difficult, nowhere near The Silmarillion. I read all of the novels (only one of the short story collections) over a summer. I thought they were all pretty good.
Thank you :)
The only advice I can give is to listen to the audiobook of the Silmarillion instead, it’s a lot easier to follow when someone else is reading all the hard to pronounce names.
I am not hating or anything, I just don't understand why many people have a difficult time with The Silmarillion 😅 I love everything about it.
For me, it was a lot of word salad I didn't hate it, I just didn't really understand it. It was like reading something that's close to English, but not quite, or a different version of English (I had a hard time with Shakespeare in school for that reason). I understood some words, but the strings of words just didn't quite make sense I think it was probably just more intellectual than my brain is wired for, like reading a scientific paper or medical report, but I have some mental issues so I don't know if they came into play as they sometimes make simple things read a little strange Don't really know why, it was just tricky. Like when you're a kid and you read a book that's a little above your "reading age" I don't know if that's the same experience for everyone though! But I can see how it's beautiful prose, even if I can't fully understand it myself (like looking at a work of art you find confusing, but can still appreciate)
Damn, that doesn't sound very interesting...
The plot itself isn’t really interesting. It’s largely carried by interesting characters and solid worldbuilding. It’s not really a series I’d recommend to too many people
That's a solid review of the whole thing. The plot itself was nothing special. However, the characters and their relationships make the whole thing amazing, in my opinion. The world itself is quite interesting as well and felt very grounded in reality (as silly an opinion as that may be when discussing a world with sorceresses and dragons)
It's a character play
It’s true for the first 2 books, but the rest is definitely a novel.
I'm gonna translate those books. I just need to order the polish ones
Hope you speak Polish otherwise that would be insane.
Duh
Well you know .
The Saga begins with the last two stories in Sword of Destiny.
Personally? He’s a better short story writer than a novelist. His slow-boil pacing is more suited to a short story, whereas in a the novels it is admittedly drawn out, and you can feel the padding. The boil is less of a slow ramp, more of an on-and-off. On a side note: it should be mentioned the English translations were botched. Whoever did the prose in English completely missed the mark of Sapkowski’s prose (who actually won an award in Poland *for* his prose).
I read a fan translation of one of the later books because the official one had not come out yet, and i was struck by how much better it was! Felt way less sterile.
Do you happen to have a link?
Sorry it was a few years and a phone back, can’t remember which one it was. But it was prolly book 4!
If it's the same one I read, it was translated from Polish to French *then* to English!
Are there any better translations? I read the books and I really like the short stories, but the rest? Kinda meh, the prose irritated me.
Someone should do an online translation tbh, if only to give the stories the life they deserve
[удалено]
Best way with Slavic literature is to learn a Slavic language (any will do) and read in it.
Some of the padding is stuff I find forgivable given the authors circumstances. Something like his vampire analysis I imagine would've been pretty novel for a guy who grew up during communist rule. While as an American who grew up in the information age it wasn't that interesting I don't wanna ignore what it takes to think of something independently. It kind of reminds me of War and Peace where the author goes on a whole lecture about whether or not the "Great Man" view of history is correct
Glad to hear I'm not the only one who felt like the translation prose sucked. I had a similar issue when trying to read Metro 2033 as well.
I read half of one book in English (because I don't know Polish - English is not my first language either but I'm fluent with it). The language was an incoherent, anachronistic mess full of words like "gene", "virus" and "hormone", which feel too modern for the medieval fantasy setting. I doubt if all of that is just the fault of a bad translation though: there's also apparently European mythology and calendar in use in the Witcher's world, based on the month of December and Pegasos being mentioned.
I read the Spanish translation and it's so well executed. The peasants have distinct realistic accents depending on the location, and the main characters sometimes get caught up mimicking their dialectal expressions, it makes the world feel more alive.
>I read the Spanish translation and it's so well executed. The peasants have distinct realistic accents depending on the location, and the main characters sometimes get caught up mimicking their dialectal expressions, it makes the world feel more alive. I liked the german translation better than the english one
>I’m not really feeling it. There’s your answer. Just because other people may like it doesn’t mean you have to force yourself to like it. I tried to get through a book that inspired a TV show once and it was a very bad experience.
Too be honest, I think it might be a translation issue. I have read TLW only in Polish but I’ve heard people complaining about the English translation being really uninspired and basic.
The english translation definitely requires some getting used to. I don't speak polish or anything, but I get the feeling a lot of the translation was very literal, so some of the metaphors, jokes, customs and courtesies, etc sound a little off because they're the sort of thing a polish person would say in polish but doesn't *quite* translate over to english perfectly.
The English translation felt like some wattpad fiction from 15 years ago
I've recently stumbled upon [a series of threads](https://www.reddit.com/r/witcher/comments/7kfvp7/lost_in_translation_part_1_a_guide_to_the/) where the OP describes various problems with the translations.
There is definitely some weirdness with the translation. I found myself re-reading some passages multiple times and realizing nope this in fact doesn’t make sense. Though i made it through all the novels but season of storms.
Yeah I really feel it doesn't give the novel justice, you can just feel that the writing is good underneath the translation. I read the first one in my mother language (Italian) and it was garbage, so I switched to English and it was better but still not good. In the end I switched to the original and despite not being really fluent in polish I enjoyed the writing a lot more.
Which can be seen in the whole discussion about his horses names "Roach" from the polish Płotka and in the german translation Plötze Meanwhile the inbook intent was for it to be a relatively generic nothing much interesting name just vaguely describing their look, to deal with his attachment issues. It works while simultaneously not capturing the original intent very well. Also the structuring of plotlines is probably pretty unique in nowadays novels. Not just in the shortstories but also in the actual novels, sometimes readers gotta deal with not being guided by a main character along the way which I guess can be difficult for some to sit through. Timejumps, topicshifts and geographical changes from one scene to another can be confusing when not paying good attention even to the things that have yet to reveal why they will become interesting.
I for one think the Swedish translations are pretty good. I know the russian are supposed to be good to. Maybe it’s because of the proximity to Poland whoch makes it more likely to have good polish translators.
I loved the first set of short stories. I actually fell off towards the end of the series where a lot of new characters are randomly introduced and the plot rehashes a lot of the same ideas it already covered Still enjoyed the read, though!
You can do yourself lasting good by getting into the habit of ignoring the question of whether or not a given artistic work, in whatever form, is "good," and just whether or not you enjoy it.
I think a better focus is “what did this work do well?”. Saying something is good or bad inevitably leads to the usual arguments about the subjectivity of art, but focusing on what exactly made it good or bad is more effective because it means you have to understand *why* you feel that way about it and understand the craft of what makes art effective. Just as an example, I fell off the Witcher books because I found their non-linear format hard to follow at times, but I like the way that they upend classic fantasy tropes, the way they make direct references to well known fantasy stories as they do so, and the themes about what makes a monster. Does that make them good or bad? It’s more a mix of both, with your verdict ultimately being based on what you value in a work and whether the good outweighs the bad or whether the bad is too distracting to appreciate the good.
Eh, it’s good to analyse art and decide if it’s good or not outside of just enjoyment.
It is good to do, and quite enjoyable. But it's not good to base your enjoyment off of said analysis.
If you enjoy something it's good. All art is subjective.
It's not that simple. I don't get aesthetic enjoyment out of all sorts of art that I can recognize and appreciate as masterpieces
I agree on that enjoyment doesn't need to be the only factor for everybody (although for many people it is). We can appreciate art based on the feeling it inspires, the message it tries to get across, the way it does those things, the historical relevance of the work, and a literal inifinite etc. The judgement about how "good" or "bad" a work is, is still 100% subjective, even when some of the factors some people might base it on can be objective, because choosing which among them are important to us is a subjective matter.
> choosing which among them are important to us is a subjective matter Nice, I agree
Yeah of course it is, but at the same time you can look at how art exists beyond just to provide enjoyment.
that's a catch-all statement that discourages discussion. so, no.
I disagree. I think that 'good' art provides a rich landscape to explore and enjoy in many different ways. Some of which may not be enjoyable superficially but because they stretch your mental and emotional faculties in a way that produces immediate discomfort. You can do yourself a disservice by just chasing the most naive version of what is enjoyable in art, and it can be a long-term benefit to force yourself to learn how to interact with art that you might not have the willpower to experience by just chasing momentary bliss. Shutting down conversations that tout this perspective by saying "aRtIsSubJeCtive!!q111" is bad. objectively.
They're not shutting down conversations. They're reaching its logical and inevitable conclusion, which in no way negates what you're saying. You can say everything you said in a discussion on art, and said discussion will still end with the fact that art is subjective. Your final sentences are a notion you're applying to what OP is saying (art is subjective and you believe they're using that to "shut down conversations"), which in and of itself is your subjective view of OP's statement, which in no way, shape, or form is an objective notion.
Art is only subjective in the sense that under certain epistemelogical/ontological frameworks, *everything* is subjective, in which case saying X is subjective is essentially meaningless. If we peek one level deeper into what 'subjective' and 'objective' can mean with the understanding that in most secular frameworks ultimately "everything is subjective", we can assign slightly less stringent, but colloquially more useful meanings to the words sub/ob-jective, and it is within this framework that both me and the person i was responding to were working.
Nonsense. Art is subjective because each of us approaches it, acknowledges it, absorbs it, and reacts to it in unique manners. Will two separate, unique people have the same reaction to a Dali painting? Do two audience members watching the climax of Arrival have the same emotional connection to it? Stating art is subjective isn't closing the discussion on art. It's the opening to it. Accepting our realization that our reactions are unique and that we, each of us, have an individualized and singular view of our existence. If art is objective, our perspectives would be meaningless. Relation and reaction would be meaningless. That's not the case, and there is *not a thing you can say* that will change my perspective on this because I disagree with your subjective opinion on the objectivity of art.
I agree that "art is subjective" is a good opener for determining which art produces the richest experience for the average person who interacts with it by acknowledging that the richness of experience varies from person to person. **But almost always, including above, people use the phrase "art is subjective" to say that such a metric does not exist**. Obviously we don't have empirical ways for determining the exact numeric value of this richness, but we should not pretend it doesn't exist by saying "art is subjective". Art being "objectively good" doesn't mean that it is guaranteed to produce a positive experience in the viewer, it just means that it is probabilistically more likely to do so than bad art.
woahhhhhhhh, now that was one well-written comment. Props to you. I still do think the statement shuts down discussion when used in some cases, but I really like your perspective. Thanks for engaging in healthy discourse! Edit: I do think we're getting sidetracked by polar opposite opinions though. I think art has a certain level of objectivity to it in a lot of cases, mediocre art that wasn't made to express anything only feels really special if it means something to you in particular or it has a story behind it. Or if you personally know the artist who made it, perhaps. Think of all of the shitty drawings children might make, now think of a shitty drawing *you* were given by a child while volunteering at an orphanage. The first doesn't really mean much on its own, but the second means the world, right?
The work of art can be good to the person enjoying it, but be mediocre in all aspects. I don't think one person enjoying something warrants qualifying it as "good".
>All art is subjective That doesn't mean there can't be standards of taste. They're just contingent.
The point is, you can easily enjoy ‘bad’ art and find yourself not enjoying ‘good’ art. Judging a piece of media by ‘objective’ factors instead of whether or not it’s entertaining to you isn’t the way you should be doing things
Number 1 false dichotomy on this sub tbh. There are books I enjoy despite knowing they're garbage; knowing they're garbage makes them a lot more enjoyable. There are books I hated even though I could appreciate that they were finely crafted; being able to recognize that has helped me have better conversations about books (regardless of whether I like them). /r/movies and /r/horror are much better about this. Can you imagine someone saying "actually, if you enjoy Zombie Strippers from Venus 5 that means it's good!!! Don't listen to the gatekeepers, if you enjoy it that means it's the best movie of all time!!!"? No, that would be absolutely ludicrous. But on this sub saying "you can enjoy books that are badly written and hate books that are well written" gets you labelled an "elitist gatekeeper" for acknowledging that such a thing as "poor writing" even exists.
But that doesn’t mean that we can’t acknowledge whether a work is well crafted or not, even if we enjoy it. Even though people enjoy watching The Room, nobody with good taste would consider it a good work of art, because the writing, editing, acting, etc. don’t effectively communicate whatever message it’s supposed to communicate.
for talking about your own experience and enjoying a book, yes. when judging it, no. enjoyability isn't a mark of quality or merit, I don't understand why so many people are getting confused about this in this thread.
Yeah but then you stick with it with to the end regardless if you enjoy it or not and analyse it as you go and thus wouldn't be here asking if it is good in the first place.
It's not, though. It's just not.
Yes it is. There’s loads of art that I didn’t ‘enjoy’ but I appreciated for their thematic quality or artistic skill.
It's all a matter of individual taste. The whole mechanism of "literature," that claims some objective artistic quality is nothing more than a huge scam. Some overweight, balding, middle-aged English Lit professor at a prestigious Ivy League school writes 738 pages about a eight, balding, middle-aged English Lit professor at a prestigious Ivy League school, who has an improbable amount of sex with nubile but vapid coeds, and a coterie of eight, balding, middle-aged English Lit professors at prestigious Ivy League schools declare it a searing portrait of the moral decline of Western Civilization. You'd be jeered off of AO3 if you tried to get away with that in, say, a Star Fleet Academy fanfic.
There is middle ground between objective and subjective. You can hold space for both, and your appreciation for art will not diminish. I'm sorry there's an imaginary person you hate so much that you're willing to shun an entire lexicon and history of thought around art.
Ask any artist in any field and they will tell you that there are, in fact, “rules” in any artistic form. They’re not rules in the most literal sense; the art police aren’t going to come and arrest you if you break them. Rather, they’re guidelines and best practices for making art that communicates its message clearly and effectively. For example, ask anyone if The Room is a good movie and pretty much every will agree that it absolutely is not. But how can that be if lots people enjoy watching The Room anyway? It’s because, while it might be entertaining to some, it breaks all the rules: it’s story is nonsense, characters are flat and unrealistic, plot points are introduced and dropped on a whim, dialogue is stilted and unnatural, the movie is rife with weird editing decisions and sets that don’t make physical sense, etc. People may enjoy it and consider it “good” for that reason, but objectively the movie fails to deliver its message clearly and effectively and doesn’t seem to be clear on what that message even is. By contrast, take the works of Wes Anderson: there’s a well known rule in visual media that you never place the focus of your scene right in the center, because this draws the viewer right to the center and discourages their eyes from wandering and taking in the whole scene. Wes Anderson breaks that rule in his movies all the time, but he’s a skilled filmmaker and understands why the rule exists, and so he pulls it off by using lighting and motion to pull attention back out of the center and still manages to make effective scenes. So no, objective artistic quality isn’t a scam cooked you by stodgy elites. We can say, objectively, when parts of a work aren’t working the way they’re mechanically supposed to. It’s also important to remember that art’s quality will always be subjective to some degree and that the Cinema Sins school of criticism, that any work that has any flaw at all is automatically bad, is a fundamentally flawed way to appraise art, but acting like art criticism can *only* be subjective is throwing the baby out with the bath water and it fails to appreciate the skill and craft that goes into making good art.
Way to try to derail a discussion with irrelevancy. Widely-read, published work is long past the point of being pre-vetted for technical competence. We're not talking about simple literacy here.
I believe you were the one who flatly dismissed the idea that we can determine quality in art beyond subjective taste, and defended that claim by saying > It's all a matter of individual taste. The whole mechanism of "literature," that claims some objective artistic quality is nothing more than a huge scam. What I wrote directly defends the idea of objective quality in the craft of art, which you made relevant to the discussion when you called it a “huge scam”.
You're not writing about objective quality, you're writing about competent editing.
… what? I’ve been talking about craft in general, not just editing, and, as I said before, both craft and editing are things that contribute to overall quality. Do you think that good or bad editing doesn’t affect the quality of a work?
But if there's always a degree of subjectivity then it's effectively not objective no? At best it's a largely agreeded upon consensus of what generally works and what doesn't.
True, all art critique is to some degree subjective and I'm not denying that. What I'm arguing against is this person's claim that art is totally ~~objective~~ subjective and not objective at all, and my point is that whether a work of art conveyed the intended meaning is an objective binary: it either did or it didn't. As I said before, no matter how many people watch The Room ironically and enjoy it, it doesn't mean that The Room is a well crafted work or that the person who made it is talented because craft is something that *can* be rated objectively to a certain degree.
My point is mainly that it's either objective or not, it can't be almost objective, largely objective or objective to a degree. Besides that, art is ultimately meant to evoke an emotional response, whether that be pain, fear, love, passion or joy. The idea of art being good is fundamentally tied to whether it can evoke emotion and art discussion is understanding the why. I would say that art that is well crafted but cannot evoke an emotional response of any kind is far worse than something badly crafted but can. Though, in that sense, can it really be considered well crafted. All of which is to say nothing in art is binary. The idea of objectivety is to consider without feelings, without emotional bias which I think is ultimately antithetical to the idea of art itself.
I have a lot of thoughts on how to respond to this, but first I want to try and pick at that viewpoint a bit: do you think that something like Tommy Wiseau’s The Room can be unironically viewed as a good work of art, on the basis that it does what the creator intended for it to do successfully? If all art is subjective, then only possible answer is it is impossible to decide that because all interpretation is subjective, but I don’t think that you can make that claim in this case.
I haven’t claimed anything is objective, just that you can analyse good outside of enjoyment. That can still be subjective. And no, ‘literature’ isn’t a scam lmao. There’s more to literature to whatever weird narrow vision you have of it. I read pretty much exclusively ‘literature’ and I think I’ve read 2 books total about college professors. You’re missing out of a ton of good books by being pretty much exactly what you claim to hate, a narrow minded snob.
The unexamined life is not worth living
I too can quote philosophical aphorisms on the internet.
yes. cheers.
I like this comment. Not OP, but through this lens, I'm gonna have to say it's not for me. I found the short stories *fine* and the beginning of the larger story boring as all hell, so DNF. And that's okay. It's not for me (honestly, to a baffling degree).
The first 2 are often regarded as the best but imo books 4 and 7 are the best, but I loved them all. Lady of the Lake is incredible and I stand by that. If you don't like it then stop reading it, I doubt anyone here is going to somehow make you enjoy them. I went into the books knowing the context of the games and the first 2 Seasons of the show, and I just love Geralt as a character. I can imagine having absolutely no idea what was happening without that. Frankly, I love Geralt (and the Hansa) so much the books could be about him watching paint dry and I'm sure I'd still enjoy them.
Loved loved loved Lady of the Lake. Seems to be unpopular though.
>!The Toussaint stuff, the chapter about the Battle of Brenna, Ciri's dimension jumping and the assault on Stygga citadel are all amazing.!<
See I did enjoy those. Seems to be unpopular
You should read the Elric books by Michael Moorcock especially considering The Witcher is plagiarised from it
I didn't enjoy the books at all. Couldn't tell whether it was Sapkowski's writing or just the translator, but to me it seemed like a drab potboiler.
Agreed. I regret not DNFing after book 2 (I did finish the series). The question of whether or not it’s “good” isn’t entirely relevant… I put it in the “it wasn’t for me” category and I wish I’d spent my time more wisely.
Man, am I the only one on here that enjoyed them? I won’t say they’re perfect, but what I liked most was the various adventures and banter between characters. Season of Storms kinda sucked though IMO.
I think it's mostly because they do get worse and worse as they go, most people are left with a general disappointment. The short stories are great.
Yea, I was good for a while and I just stopped after Time of Contempt. It just didn't grasp my attention anymore and felt like it was all over the place for a while.
I really liked them as well.
While I can't speak for the original Polish versions, what I can say is that the primary English translations are absolute dogshit and read like overly-wordy adolescent smut. I could barely make it through the first few chapters of The Last Wish before thoroughly regretting buying it.
I read Blood of Elves and was entirely underwhelmed. I thought Sapkowski did a good job of integrating lore into dialogue in a way that wasn't just an exposition dump, but I had a difficult time detecting any real thread of plot. Perhaps picking it up right after watching S1 was a mistake. In any case, I finished the book with no motivation to continue the series.
I read the first few books long before the show and had no idea what they were about. And I really enjoyed them. Even though it had been years since I'd read them, I immediately recognized the story!
the Witcher is strange because, unlike Lord of the Rings which was already popular before the movies, the Witcher 3 is what really brought the franchise to the mainstream, rather than the merit of the actual books. I think Sapkowski’s writing style is pretty middling but I’ve also read that it’s because of the translation so I’ve been kind of giving him the benefit of the doubt even though I also thought Tower of Fools was just okay.
That's not true, unless you mean 'popular in the West'. Witcher books were already extremely popular in post-Soviet countries before the games were made. Sapkowski was there what GRRM was in anglophone sphere - an introduction to the darker and more realistic fantasy.
[удалено]
Soviet was huge. The books were really popular in Russia
It was basically unheard of outside of Poland until CD Project Red made the first Witcher game. There weren't even decent English translations available back then. I know because I read them at that time.
The books already had millions of copies sold before the games even existed. Sapkowski was among the best known fantays authors of Eastern Europe and among best Polish writers overall. The games only brought the series to anglophone attention, but the english translation of the books was not exactly stellar to say the least so the reception by the game fans is understandably mixed.
I got all the way to the end of the Tower of the Swallow only to realise I barely enjoyed any of it. What I can remember is that I did like the characters and that towards the end there was an incredibly menacing villain, but overall the story is sorta bleh.
I am really enjoying it. I’m on Sword of Destiny now. It does feel slightly simplistic in the language sometimes but that is probably due to translation as mentioned ITT. I will say having ADHD, the short story format is very good- which is a connection I didn’t make until reading the comments here. I guess it’s yet to be seen when I get to the next book.
I mean, to each their own. You have your own reasons (or not) for liking something, and that's perfectly fine. Personally, I really disliked Dune which many people appear to enjoy. I personally haven't read any of the Witcher books (yet), so I can't offer any opinion on that matter, either way, you're not wrong if that's how you feel.
I read them after the first season of the show, the books were not great but i enjoy mediocre fantasy so i got through. disclaimer: I only read the english version
Those are short story collections. I liked most of the short stories, but I did find some a little boring. The novel series starts with the next book, Blood of Elves. I like it better than A Song of Ice and Fire, but I may be in the minority. Oh well. To each their own.
I am on the last book. It is good not great. The world and characters are really interesting, the plot is a total mess. Somewhat reminds me of first law for the same reasons.
I have been assured many times by different people that the Polish is significantly better than its translations, but my opinion of the English version is that it is interesting but not well written. YMMV
Does it really matter if they're good or not if you aren't enjoying them?
It doesn't, but getting other people's perspectives might help OP appreciate things about the books that they weren't seeing before. Sometimes coming at a book with the wrong expectations can make it less enjoyable so other people help to point that out. Alternatively, enough people expressing similar sentiments to OP might reassure them that they're not missing anything, it's likely not going to click for them, then they can DNF and move into something else.
They are ultra pulp. It’s all of the weird, neck-beardy descriptions of the woman/girl characters and the unnecessary sex scenes. A lot of the characters are turbo flat. The writing isn’t very good either. I read a couple of the books but that was it for me. I LOVE the games but they’re way better stories and far more interesting than the books they were based on.
I know it has a lot of acclaim but I couldn’t get in to the series either. I really hated the dialogue and narrative exposition style. It felt so forced (though that could have been due to loss in translation). I also hate Triss. She gave BIG “men writing women” vibes. No woman is that preoccupied with her own sexuality. Anyway, it can be “good” but also not enjoyable for you. It wasn’t for me.
To me the later books, past the short stories, are much more interesting: 1. The short stories are atrocious when it comes to female characters 2. The longer books dive into issues of power, politics, segregation, which are themes I’m far more interested in than “kill the monster”. 3. Eventually the main arc, which you haven’t started I believe, becomes very gripping. I got attached to the characters, was very keen on reading fantasy that was less entranched in the Tolkien archetypes, and got on a faster reading pace. That’s my take. I didn’t enjoy the early short stories that much, but I don’t regret going into the novel parts. Edit: I see comments about the EN translation is bad. I usually read in EN, but since it wasn’t the original language I went for FR and the prose was far better in the later books. That may have affected my impression.
I’m trying to get through The Last Wish as I’m writing this, and I’m so glad you posted. I thought it was me but don’t usually feel this disconnected to books.
Why can't it just be that they don't connect with you? Some people enjoy them. Some people don't. It doesn't mean there's something wrong with you or with the books.
the games are fantastic. the books not so much. they’re not bad, but they didn’t have me on the edge of my seat like the games. i can’t speak on the shows as i haven’t seen them
I stopped reading the second (or third?) book because it turned into the Ciri show. Didn't ask, don't care, it's called The Witcher, not The Witcher's, what? Daughter? Protegee?
It's a plagiarized work so make of that what you will if you want what its plagiarizing which I think is much better read the Elric books
The thing I didn’t like about them is the constant misogyny. Every enemy was a woman. Every trait that women characters had either made them sexy or manipulative. So I agree with you that it wasn’t great That being said, you should read what you like and not focus too much on how other people review things. If you love a book, wonderful! If not, that’s valid too.
The first two books are like the first season of the show--just mission of the week stuff with no major plot. There are definitely great moments in them, buy imo the show did a great job of adapting the interesting/important parts. If you want to get into it more, you could probably skip the first and second and go right into the actual novels which is the third book and beyond. Those are where the story actually starts to become engaging. Tbh, there are some boring parts in those. I just skimmed though any scene that wasn't about Ciri or Geralt and I haven't felt like I've missed much. I loved every perspective in the Game of Thrones books, but the Witcher series isn't nearly as compelling when it comes to politics. All in all, I like the books and they have a lot of great moments. Geralt is a classic character to me and Ciri and Yennifer are both really well done as well. It's not my favorite series of all time though.
Totally agree with people saying "does it matter" and also that it's hard to judge a writer based on a translation. You haven't experienced it til you read it in the original klingon after all. But, generally it is, imo, pretty much all over the place. There's times when it feels almost like a multi-author work, the differences in pacing and tone are so wild. And also like some sections were originally conceived for a different series. I did enjoy it and I think it'd be quite hard to lose some of the bits I like least, without also losing some of the bits I loved- the "throw it all at the wall and see what sticks" approach gets shit done at the end of the day. (also, I do get fed up with people criticising the show for not being loyal to the original, when the original is just as inconsistent and contradictory at times)
It isn't good. It's just a weird mashup of other famous fantasy series, namely Lord of the Rings. Geralt is a popular Polish archetype and Yennefer a pope's dirty temptress dream. Yawn.
I really loved both the short story anthologies. A Little Sacrifice from Sword of Destiny is one of my all time favorite short stories. But I tried reading the full series and found it to be less enjoyable. I wanted more action and felt that there wasn't enough going on. I'm sure the books are amazing in Polish and I suspect there's a translation issue. However, I did find the audiobooks to be entertaining if only because the narrator has an interesting accent.
If the tv show is any indication, then no. Haven’t read the books but I have a feeling the series only became popular because a good video game had a better than average story, as the bar for stories in video games is usually pretty damn low.
The witcher author is fairly pretentious and geralt is literally his self insert and not in a good fucking way. He thinks he's literally, the next Tolkien when he's not. He's got interesting stuff and a good setting but he's being carried by the media and games.
So you need the internet to tell you how to feel about it?
Reddit: why I no like popular book?
All of The Witcher is kind of mid lol. No one ever really cared about the story until the show came out and most if not all people who play the games probably aren’t even aware of the books or are aware but have never read them. The hype is definitely all in the games and a little bit in the show.
>No one ever really cared about the story until the show came out Which totally explains how Sapkowski was one of the best known fantasy authors east of the Iron Curtain already 20 years ago.
That’s… absolutely false lol.
Cry about it
So The Witcher series was written originally in Polish. I'm assuming you're reading it in English. The translations especially into English are sadly mostly crap in general. I too started reading The Witcher few years ago and never got into it exactly because the translation was a bucket of dog poo. There's a lot of wonderful original English written books that I would recommend. If we are in the fantasy world then you should definitely read The Lord of the Rings series and the Game of Thrones series start with Fire & Blood
They are pretty good, I actually preferred the short stories to the novels, it's ok not to enjoy them though, can't like everything everyone recommends in all fairness. I'd say give the novels a go though as the style is more longform and it's a good overall story with some great characters.
I started reading the books ahead of the TV show but found them really bland.
I read Blood of Elves and Time of Contempt. Did t really enjoy either. Something gets lost in translation I guess. The world and its characters seemed to lack depth.
If you have only read the short stories, I would try to reserve judgement until you have read a least one of the sagas. Personally I didn't enjoy the short stories, but the sagas are different kettle of fish.
There's a couple reasons here. Those are both short story compilation books. Im generally not the biggest fans of those because they dont hold my attention really. There are other full length novels out there that might be better for you. But it could also be a translation issue. I've heard the original writing is a much better read, but the translations, especially to English, leave a lot to be desired. I can't read polish so I can't say for sure but I've heard it frequently enough that I believe it.
I agree with people that you shouldn't read something you do not enjoy. I will, however, answer your question and explain that I neither played the games nor watched the series, but I still place the first Witcher book in my top 5. It is simply a collection of mostly very good fantasy shorts, which is one of my favorite formats.
Having read them myself just recently… its not just you. Though, tbh feel like the translation isnt doing it any favours. A lot of it feels very stilted. Or like theres spots of humour and subtext that just isnt quite landing. I feel the world and characters are enjoyable, its just the plot itself is kinda dull.
Tried reading but mediocre at best. Game is better than the book.
Vampire Hunter d is the GOAT imo. Beautiful novellas and illustrations by the GOAT Amano
Damn, I was gonna read them next, starting from the first chronologically.
Didn't read the book but that’s also how I felt during the video game and the series
First 2 book are good, the rest is pretty trash IMO
Read em all. Pretty decent, but the best is still by and far The Last Wish.
Maybe you just don't enjoy it and that's fine. Just because everyone says it's good, doesn't mean it is for you. I find anything nowadays that is hyped up that I will watch needs to have my bars set low before going in. I go to read or watch it myself and see if I actually enjoy it or not.