#arinasassymessi

[mejev]

commission for ArinaSassyMessi

#emiel regis #wiedźmin #the witcher #commissions #open commissions #comissions #art commisions #the witcher 3 #witcher

[granada-brett-crumbs]

@arinasassymessi replied to your photo “You were quite the heroine of...”

which episode?

This is from The Empty House ep :)

#replies

[luchorgasm]

Happy New Year everyone! 🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉

2017 was quite a year for me and I cannot wait to see what 2018 will be like!

Just feeling EXTRA emotional tonight so I decided to give these shout outs because my heart is SO full!

Extra is extra so ignore is if y’all want ahahaha. Or maybe cause I am so damn corny and sentimental lol.

To the core people, TO THE IT PEOPLE, to the more than ride-or-die people, to MY PEOPLE, to those who made a big impact in my life like no lie super big whether by a word or by more than a word, to @ceibos , @thinkingoverloves , @funesmori, @locelso , @puliszic , @messifangirl , @4fabregastasticxavi6 , @kaligaga , @neyvenger , @mascheranoi , and yes to you (I know you aren’t on anymore) @lionelimessi , THE WORDS AREN’T and WON’T be ENOUGH. I really want 2018 to be great for you. And wow this is so extra. I blame it being 2ish a.m. and I’m tired and need to sleep but 💗💗💗💗💗💗💗

To the pals, to the chat, to the Gals I adore thee so, to @kingpique , @princesa-dybala , @pquessi , @blaugr4na , @barcelonarei , @jordiabla , @eatingcroutons , @bernardeschifederico , and oh shit I don’t have everyone memorized who’s a part of the shit but you know I love seeing the convos and fuck 💕💕💕💕

^^^^ I’d love to meet you all one day but if we don’t meet that’s okay too. Know that I got your back and I’m always sending you good vibes. ^^^^^^

Happy New Year to those above ^ and to my other lovely mutuals v (if I forgot to add you omg I am so sorry) : @ivanrakitic , @xaviniestah , @prince-dybala , @jordialba , @lionelsmessi , @lionelandresmessii , @neymarspassion , @bharatanatyamandballet , @neymar , @neymrjr , @silvaneymarjr , @livingtheculelife-e , @marcoreyus , @beyoncay , @jmenfoot , @atrophiedcompassion , @stickmarionette , @footieridiculosity , @neyfinhaaa , @senioritaaaa , @goatpopovich , @marcbartra , @rbuerki1 , @cantbeatus , @brazilaf , @billericaytobarcelona , @terstegenspeakingspanish , @mrs-messi , @iniestas , @heartsoftruth , @thebluesideofmyworld , @arinasassymessi , @rexosaurusrex , @messithehumble , @historiograph , @bat-boywonder , @mauriciopinilla , @the-fuckboy-dynasty , @thiagomaia , @enrichsergi , @sergirobaeto , @lukaszpizczk , @siempremessi , @galabartra , @sampers , @gerardpiqashian , @sashapique , @xavi-the-mushroom-hunter , @futbolaf , and many more!!!!

LMAO this ended up turning into a follow Forever.

Anyways, I feel so much joy right now. Hope I can spread some over to you all.💙💙💙💙💙💙

#follow forever 2017 #ish 2017 #new year’s day 2018 follow forever #mutual #friends #buddies #levels of things but I still feel love #alexa personal stuff #alexa personal things #alexa things #okay I should sleep now

[gayregis]

hi! why do u think Regis doesn’t not exist as a character without hansa?

i am so glad you asked this question!! it's something important to me when it comes to regis's character that was made apparent to me after i read the hansa parts of baptism of fire, tower of the swallow, and lady of the lake. this argument came to me from flipping back and forth between games!regis as he appears in blood & wine, and books!regis as he appears originally. 

this train of thought stems from the differences between book and game regis, which i think i have already described at length somewhere else (edit, i found some thoughts (still couldnt find the og post i had in mind though, idk where it is, it was very long and i wrote it on a train): (x) (x) (x) (x) (x) (x))

but to summarize, games!regis isn't as personal with geralt, he doesn't seem committed to humanity at all, and his scenes involve more depressing and violent overtones (forced relapse? unable to control self with tempting of blood, having to be locked in a cage? what in the spiral...). in this analysis of the differences between games and book regis, i attributed some of games!regis's OOC-ness to the lack of the rest of geralt's hansa.

i think that regis cannot really be an accurate representation of his character without the presence or at the very least, the acknowledgement of, the other members of the hansa in a sincere and involved manner.

the conditions that i mean by this: when i refer to the "rest of the hansa," i mean at the very least geralt, dandelion, milva, and cahir (since angouleme was introduced later), but especially milva, for reasons i will desciribe later. when i refer to a "sincere and involved manner," i mean to say that the characters can't just sit there as pretty background or interact once and never again - they actually have to interact multiple times if not constantly, have meaningful conversations which demonstrate things about their characters, play off of each other in humorous exchanges, etc.

okay now onto my two main points

i. positive relationships with other members of the hansa demonstrate commitment to humanity

regis’s primary character goal and purpose in-universe is to be the “epitome of humanity.” i ask, how is this goal ever going to get represented or achieved if he never speaks to or interacts with any humans on a meaningful level other than geralt?

regis’s first and foremost role, that we learn as an audience as he introduces himself in his character debut in fen carn, is that he’s a barber-surgeon. this means that he is a healer, his whole job (which is quite significant in a medieval-esque setting such as this, one’s job pretty much defines their entire life, which you can see with geralt, yennefer, dandelion, milva, cahir, etc) is that he heals people and tries to help as many human lives as possible. 

how is he supposed to be a surgeon if he never actually is shown healing anyone? if he doesn’t have close relationships with the hansa, who else is he supposed to heal? one of the large parts that regis provides the company in baptism of fire is that he actually functions as a healer. he assists the peasant milva gave a concussion to, he sews the head wound dandelion garnered from his and geralt’s escape from the partisan camp, and he helps milva with her options relating to her pregnancy and later immediately goes to provide medical attention when she begins to miscarry. these actions demonstrate not only his role in society and demonstrate how he fits into the world of the witcher, but demonstrate his committment to humanity and to the wellbeing of others.

but of course, he could heal random other humans. why does he need to be around the hansa, specifically?

regis has many valuable interactions with the hansa, part of which i’ll expand on in my second point, but his developed friendships with each of the members and as a group begin to define him as committed to humanity not only in a general ethical sense, but in a personal manner. 

i have mentioned this “arrogant immortal vampire” archetype (think of like, a vampire that thinks they’re so much better, powerful, and knowledgable than humans just because they are a vampire) that regis is completely the opposite of, and we get to see that he is the opposite of this archetype only through his interactions with the rest of the hansa. 

it’s parts like when dandelion notices, “i see you know your fish!” and regis replies modestly, “i know lots of things :)!” or when regis criticizes geralt for not having a goal and that the cardinal directions of the compass mean nothing to him, and milva disagrees and says, “but ciri’s his goal? how can you say she’s nothing?” and regis apologizes and explains he was joking, without much tact... when regis treats angouleme with distance in their first meeting and tries to accuse her of lying, but then gives her his horse and in the next book defends her against fringilla/distracts fringilla’s sharp tongue from her and onto him. regis demonstrates humility and respect for others, as well as genuine friendship to others and propensity for humor during his interactions in the hansa.

without the hansa, specifically in blood and wine, what is regis? he doesn’t interact with anyone else, only geralt, maybe another vampire. how is he supposed to demonstrate and develop such meaningful interaction, good nature, and weighty values towards humanity without ever having the opportunity to be amongst friends? he simply will be a shell of the character he is supposed to be if he is separated from the hansa which defines him. 

ii. contrasts with other characters develop character

regis without the rest of the hansa will be expotentially weaker as a character because his qualities are not effectively made apparent without contrasting him against other characters.

i think milva and regis in baptism of fire have a very good character dynamic in that they are kind of opposites of one another. milva is action, force, to kill. regis is talk, placation, to heal. they address situations in extremely different manners, and have extremely different senses. this is good because they are both members of geralt’s company, and are liable to sway geralt either way, sort of representing a fork in the crossroads, or an angel and devil on his shoulders.

this is apparent in many scenes, but the ones that first come to mind are in baptism of fire, when regis describes the refugee camp in a very elaborate manner and then milva tells him “why use three dozen words, when three will suffice?” and is very blunt about the situation, and later when they are sitting by the fire as regis dispells myths about vampires, milva criticizes his philosophy and points out how generally useless it is. neither character is wrong in this situation, but their exchanges provide an opposite to compare the other to.

if regis spoke about philosophy on his own, and geralt nodded and muttered “hm...” (as you might see in tw3), or argued a little with him about what he was proposing, but ultimately conceded (as you see in baptism of fire), then what you as a reader get from this exchange is that regis philosophizes. that gives you information about his character, but it’s essentially useless - what does that say about him? he philosophizes. great, that’s good for him. but it doesn’t make him stand out as a character, because there’s no dissenting voice or someone to argue with him and point out the faults in his approach. 

by milva addressing regis’s approach as not the only way to approach a situation and to give another perspective, you learn something valuable about both of their characters: regis doesn’t just philosophize, he philosophizes unnecessarily, to the point of annoying and excessiveness. milva doesn’t just come at things from a simple point of view, she is headstrong and unwilling to entertain ideas she deems stupid. this is so much more interesting than just regis talking on his own, and no one responding to it with a genuinely different viewpoint or approach. geralt may argue with him, but in tw3 geralt is more of a vessel for the player to adopt rather than a character so his responses are limited, and also in baptism of fire, geralt is more wanton to argue with regis about the actual topic regis brings up: for example, discussing vampires and the symbolism of blood. geralt disagrees with regis’s analysis of the symbolism of blood and engages with him on this, milva disagrees with addressing the whole subject in a philosophical manner entirely.

and it’s not just contrasts... it’s also the general exchanges they have as a company, like regis getting excited about what dandelion is writing in the tower of the swallow, like angouleme calling him uncle and him trying to address her formally but she gives him more sass, like when they are walking in angren and regis points out the pines, “take a closer look at those trees,” and begins to lecture them, like when regis reappears and gives advice to geralt despite geralt trying to get rid of him. it’s this kind of human interaction which demonstrates to the reader his character traits, what kind of behavior he is prone to, how he is liable to respond in a given situation.

idk how to end this but basically yeah like regis needs his friends :( i also believe that more broadly, as it relates to real life, that we are defined by the people we share our lives with and how we treat them, not by our own conception of ourselves. it is our actions towards others and care which make an impact on this world and show what our inner characters are like

#regis #the witcher #bw #arinasassymessi #ask #long post /

[gayregis]

boppinrobin replied to your post: “Question. Part 1. Hi. I like your blog and your analytical analysis of books,”

aauuuughhh tysm for ur analysis as always

thank you for reading and liking it!!

arinasassymessi replied to your post: “Question. Part 1. Hi. I like your blog and your analytical analysis of books,”

Thank you again for your response! I wrote anonymously because I was a little embarrassed by my English, but to be honest, I've been reading your blog for a very long time, and I've always wanted to discuss some topics with you. Thank you, I feel more confident now. First of all, I apologize for the fact that I considered this scene pro-life.

The thing is, I've reread the witcher books countless times (mostly because of Regis, lol). And if in the first times I was so fascinated by the plot and characters that I did not notice any obvious sexist/homophobic moments, then after rereading the books more consciously, I caught very unpleasantly, conservative motives, which Sapkowski is not shy about.

I remember that the first time this scene, even though it caused a bit of misunderstanding, still touched me with its warmth and how Geralt emotionally supported Milva, helping her make a rather difficult decision. And the way Regis was pleased with his actions, smiling at him, awww.

But after studying the books in more detail and the messages that Sapkowski puts in them, it seems to me that I began to see a catch everywhere. At first, I was also delighted to learn about Ciri's relationship with Mistle, wow, progressive author, LGBTQ+ representation! But after seeing this relationship "live," I felt cheated, and since then, I have returned to this scene with Milva.

I thought, oh no, isn't everything here the same as I believed? Most of all, I was afraid of Regis because he is my comfort character, the voice of reason, and a progressive medic. Does Sapkowski put pro-life ideas in his mouth?.. After a couple of discussions with friends, this fear only took root.

However, after reading your in-depth analytical analysis, I agreed with it, looking at the facts in a new way, and was glad that my first guesses and feelings from this scene were close to the truth. Now I can rest in peace, lol.

About "medicament/medicine" and "agent." I have read books in Russian, and now I am rereading "Baptism of Fire" in English to practice. I think the difference between the words "medicament" and "agent" in English is somewhat unclear, and it is impossible to say precisely which of them has a negative connotation.

Both of them sound entirely neutral and normal to me, but again, I'm not a native speaker, correct me if I'm wrong. In Russian, instead of the word "agent," we have the word "snadobye" (the closest translation is 'potion,’ and in Polish, it is 'ziola’). And while "medicament" means only medicine, a remedy, the word "snadobye" can also mean medicine, but has more folk properties (?).

It is brewed from herbs and a synonym to a potion/drug — a poisonous, magical, and forbidden drink, usually attributed to witches and wizards. For me, Geralt's refusal to use the word "medicament" — neutral and scientific-medical — in favor of a word that has a more magical/negative connotation seemed rather strange. But again, this is just my guess.

I consider the Russian translation closer to the Polish one because it belongs to the same language group, but I don't have access to the original to check what words were used there. In any case, I think that since Geralt decided to use one instead of the other, they should differ in some way, but it is not known in favor of which word this works. I also like your version.

I also had a lot of questions about Milva and her actions. She's probably my second favorite character after Regis, and I didn't understand her actions until a certain point. She was not satisfied with a woman's position in her society, so instead of the usual role, she decided to participate in Geralt's journey?

I was also not very clear about their conversation and Geralt's conclusion: "someone else's child for your own, life for life." Why? After all, she could stay in Brokilon and give birth, but if she didn't want a child, she could have an abortion (for example, she rather cruelly compared her child to young wasps that eat caterpillar alive).

Recently, the Russian Witcher community posted a short theory that Milva was in love with Geralt and therefore went after him. Milva's thoughts in Brokilon speak in favor of this — she finds Geralt attractive (although she felt something similar for Cahir when they were waiting for Geralt and Buttercup to be released from prison at night).

*not Buttercup (have no idea what is it), JASKIER

Also, their conversation outside Regis' hut at night, when Milva bitterly remarked that Geralt needed another woman — a scholar, a wise one, a beloved one (Yennefer), desire to get emotional support exactly from Geralt and and insisting on his presence during the miscarriage, her further refusal to marry the baron, and perhaps Sapkowski's sometimes ANNOYING idea that any woman should go crazy in Geralt's company. But again, these are just guesses, and I would be interested to hear your opinion.

I also didn't know that tumblr has a word limit in comments, so my replays look pretty stupid now, lol.

yes!! i also read the books first just for the plot and then went back and later, when my mind was clearer, noticed a lot more of political views in the writing. it’s the fact that a lot of sapkowski’s other takes are shitty (re: feminity, lgbt individuals and relationships), or at least come off as shitty because they are not explicit enough to actually be a progressive opinion, compounded with the fact that the scene with milva is not very clear on exactly what regis is asking geralt, why he is polling them, why geralt is upset, or what they even intend to do. i think also, because the subject is so important and people have very intense opinions about it, it makes you nervous to see it come up in a fictional story, even if the author is promoting a good message - it’s the feeling you described of, “oh no, isn't everything here the same as i believed?” 

and yeah, you’re right, in english i’d say medicament and agent both have neutral connotations, “agent” to me sounds more scientific, somehow? like it would be used in an experiment? i think i have usually heard it more in descriptions of products, like “cleansing agent” in relation to something dealing with chemistry... but then again, i am not a scientist, doctor, beautician, etc...

and about milva - agree, i love her too :D!! these are my personal opinions and takes on her character motivations but:

i think her ‘not being satisfied with a [traditional] woman’s role in society’ extends beyond not being satisfied, it’s being disgusted with it - in tower of the swallow, she describes how she as a teenager experienced sexual assault at the hands of her stepfather, and her mother didn’t do anything (assumedly because of the societal roles involved, and you can (unfortunately) see this occur in real life as well, mothers don’t protect their daughters from the men they stay with). milva beats him to death and runs away, and never goes back to that life. additionally, in baptism of fire, she talks about her name - milva, and why she changed it, and she says that her original name, maria, along with a lot of other “feminine-sounding” names beginning with M (this is at least what i got out of it, they sound like sweet names given to peasant girls), get your ass pinched in taverns (this is my best recollection of the quote). 

it’s clear that she has not only experienced discomfort, but really just blatant violence at the hands of “traditional feminity/women’s societal roles,” and so she goes to rely on only herself at first, hunting in lower sodden, and then finally being ‘adopted’ (kind of) by brokilon and eithne, becoming affiliated with them and working for them and the scoia’tael. this makes sense to me, because of course brokilon is a matriarchy, and the elves are mentioned to raise (and thus, treat) male and female elves the same way.

i won’t rule out that sapkowski intended for milva to have romantic interest in geralt, but i think that even if he did, it wasn’t interesting and i disagree with that direction for her character. my takes continued are that:

re:  "someone else's child for your own, a life for life." in this conversation, she talks to geralt about the differences between “milva” and “maria,” her two identities that seem to be at ends with each other. she didn’t want to stay in brokilon to have the child, because by societal means, she is no longer a “woman” in the traditional sense - she’s milva, not maria - she kills, she laughs as she pulls out the arrowheads from corpses, etc., like her chosen name, ‘milva,’ she is a red kite, a bird of prey. 

she doesn’t fit the societal expectations of a woman, and was never trained in being a mother (she ran away from home as a teenager, she hasn’t done ‘traditional woman things’ like keep house and cook, raise and deal with children, weave (?) and work in a house since she was 16, and she is older than that now (i’d say she’s at least past her early 20s, because she is described as a “young woman” compared to angouleme’s “very young woman” in lady of the lake, and angouleme is approx. 18-19). but since she doesn’t fit these expectations, how can she expect herself to raise this child? thus, she likely wanted to drop the baby, but since she was raised in a conservative rural society in which women are expected to bear children and not have abortions, she may have felt guilt and shame for wanting to do so. thus, she wanted to follow geralt - although she would have intentionally lost her child, she would have intentionally saved another, absolving her of her guilt. it’s like as regis described to geralt in the middle of the book, about penance and running up debts, this is a large theme of the book - a baptism of fire, fire which not only purifies, but burns (a challenge which absolves one of guilt, but it is painful). 

these are just my takes, i think sapkowski’s intentions were more along the theory that milva had a crush on geralt, but as i said i think that’s just boring and the “easy way out.” he also did that with cahir and ciri, making heterosexual love the motivation for a noble deed, and it’s just like... these characters have so much other depth and serious individual issues, and you want to reduce their motivations to just simply “they were in love”? okay... so yeah i don’t think sapkowski really may have intended any of the above, or if he did, it was to a lesser degree, but this is my interpretation of it.

#arinasassymessi #replies