#meaning that it’s not like sapkowski is a conservative | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

gayregis · 3 years

Note

Question. Part 1. Hi. I like your blog and your analytical analysis of books, which is always very accurate and insightful, so I couldn't find anyone better to ask a question to. I am haunted by the scene where Regis announced to the male part of Hansa that Milva is pregnant. Then there is a dialogue, at the end of which Regis asks Geralt to do something... I felt connected to Jaskier as a character for the first time because I also don't understand what it is about. ->

P2. I asked my friends who had read the books, and their opinions were divided. Some believe that Regis asks Geralt to dissuade Milva from having an abortion, while others, on the contrary, believe that Geralt should persuade her to do it. Or maybe that's not the point at all? Further, my reflections, which may not be relevant to the question... Maybe I'm the only one who noticed a lot of "c*nservative" ideas in books.

P3. We cannot ignore the fact that they were written quite a long time ago and many ideological and cultural aspects of Poland (see the law banning abortion in 2020) that could influence them. It was the 'poll' at the beginning of this scene that made me think of this. Why do men decide whether to give Milva medicament or not? Secondly, Geralt insistently refuses to call it "medicament" but prefers the word "agent."

P4. Secondly, Geralt insistently refuses to call it "medicament" but prefers the word "agent." He also demands that Jaskier shut up when he supports Cahir that "only a woman decides." Pro-life vibes, or is it just me? We also can't ignore the fact that Geralt is very concerned about his infertility.

P5. In general, continuing the theme: very many sorceresses also lament the lack of ability to have children, and all of them, even if they had relationships with women, were always looking for the ONE AND ONLY man. Moreover, the same-sex relationships in the book are only female/female shown, but never male/male (a quick and disdainful mention in "Season of Storms"). But even f / f relationships are presented as some not-serious-play; remember how Ciri called it all "fun," talking with Mistle.

P6. Here again, I see a toxic-masculine culture that sexualizes lesbians and completely denies gays. (This also reminds me of Poland's situation, where the majority of the population is very religious and homophobic.) I was too disappointed by the stereotypical representation of women: hatred because of the same outfits/jewelry, thin waists and small portions (remember how Yen and Fringilla eat), eternal gossip, and so on. I mean, women aren't like that, man.

P7. The toxicity of the presented heterosexual relationships has been said a thousand times before me. In general, I am always a little upset when I see that someone calls Sapkowski such a tolerant writer. According to my observations, toxic masculinity, "conservative" ideas, and strengthening stereotypes about LGBT people, women, etc., often slip into his books. I may be wrong, so I apologize in advance. I would like to hear your opinion. Thanks.

Finally. The scene I was talking about, maybe you need it. ‘What’s this all about then? Unanimity? Total agreement? Is that what you’re expecting?’‘You know very well what it’s about. But since you ask, I shall tell you. Yes, Geralt, that’s precisely what it’s about. And no, it’s no me that's expecting it.’ ‘Could you be clearer?’ ‘No, Dandelion,’ the vampire snapped. ‘I can’t be any clearer. Particularly since there is no need. Right, Geralt?’ ‘Right,’ the Witcher said...

p. s. From the same Anon with a 7-part question. English is not my first language, so I apologize for any mistakes. I tried to ask questions as respectfully as possible, but I often confuse English pronouns/times/etc. Please note that it was completely unintentional if I made an offensive mistake, and I deeply apologize. I will correct myself if you point this out to me in your answer. Thanks again.

omg i love this and i’m gonna divide it into different segments to be easier to read. also don’t worry your english is great thank you!!

1) “I asked my friends who had read the books, and their opinions were divided. Some believe that Regis asks Geralt to dissuade Milva from having an abortion, while others, on the contrary, believe that Geralt should persuade her to do it.”

yes, this is a confusing scene. when i first read it i was TOTALLY relating to dandelion, completely confused on what the message was and what the in-universe conversation was about. i had just felt proud of myself for understanding everything regis said in the previous scenes, and now here he was saying something and i didn’t know how the fuck to decipher it.

but after re-reading and also reading others’ analysis on r/wiedzmin, i found what i think to be the answer. in my opinion, the scene is not about actually either dissuading or persuading milva to have an abortion. rather, it’s about supporting her emotionally so that she can make the right choice for herself.

regis, as a doctor, wants his patient to make choices with a level head and for her own self, not under pressure to make the strategic choice that would benefit the company the most. this is my interpretation but since regis mentions milva has been a little feisty in consultation (she wouldn’t give him the date of her last period... lol), i feel like he could sense that she was really stressed out about this and although she initially made the choice to have an abortion, she may not have been thinking for her own self, rather letting the priorities of the company come first before her own wants.

in this moment, geralt realizes exactly why she has come on the journey, he mentions how she was willing to sacrifice her own child for his, etc. so, geralt needs to talk to her in that moment to tell her that he doesn’t expect her to do anything just so she can be more of an “asset” to the company, to tell her that she is his friend first and comrade-in-arms second, because milva is very loyal and also headstrong and would have done anything for geralt and the company. milva in general also wants to be “useful” because she has internalized misogyny from how she was raised, she doesn’t want to be “useless” like she was taught women are ‘supposed’ to be, as is shown in their conversation.

so geralt talks to her and she makes the choice not to have an abortion after all, because after talking to geralt, she doesn’t feel like she has to prioritize geralt’s needs and the company’s needs over what she wants.

2) “Maybe I'm the only one who noticed a lot of "c*nservative" ideas in books. We cannot ignore the fact that they were written quite a long time ago and many ideological and cultural aspects of Poland (see the law banning abortion in 2020) that could influence them.

It was the 'poll' at the beginning of this scene that made me think of this. Why do men decide whether to give Milva medicament or not?

Secondly, Geralt insistently refuses to call it "medicament" but prefers the word "agent."”

He also demands that Jaskier shut up when he supports Cahir that "only a woman decides." Pro-life vibes, or is it just me?

We also can't ignore the fact that Geralt is very concerned about his infertility.

in my opinion i think the author-intention was to set up a conversation in which a rhetorical question is asked, which will 100% be answered with a resounding positive, a “yes” all around. regis asks the company, because he’s a character so he can be poised as the author wants to propose a question like, “what are your thoughts on abortion,” which allows the rest of the characters to respond “it’s a woman’s right to choose for herself!” in this way, i think that it is very pro-choice... i will agree later on about what you say in other parts of your message, about the conservatism and also centrism in the books, but when it comes to abortion sapkowski imo in the witcher series espoused some pretty pro-choice views. this scene, compounded with the fact that yennefer, the leading female character, performs abortions as part of her job, and also the scene in season of storms with coral and the king of kerack in which he makes a fool of himself in front of her because she assists women with abortions... it’s a topic that’s come up a few times, and all of the times it has been a pro-choice perspective. (again, this is not to say everything in the witcher series is progressive, haha)

in-universe, i suppose you could think of it as that regis was just being coy and asking a rhetorical question also in-universe... such that he was going to give milva the decoction no matter what the men of the company chose, but he just wanted to “ask their opinions” (i.e., tell them what is happening with milva, because it’s a serious subject that needs to be addressed by the company) before, so he could introduce the subject to them (sparing milva of the difficulty of telling them all) and gain their assistance in supporting milva during this time. (random sidenote, but i like how regis acts as a middleground between milva and the rest of the company in this. there are three genders: woman, man, and medical professional. lol).

so yes, i don’t think that the men of the company actually “get to decide” if milva would have an abortion or not - their opinion’s don’t matter. out-of-universem sapkowski probably just wanted to set up a conversation between his characters where they could espouse explicitly pro-choice opinions (dandelion and cahir practically start arguing over if the northern kingdoms or nilfgaardian empire are more pro-choice). in-universe, this was probably more of a way to bring the subject up rather than actually asking for opinions.

i think it may look like there are some pro-life opinions shown by geralt in this conversation at first glance, but there might be something deeper. when he tells dandelion to be quiet when he begins to hound him that “only a woman decides,” i think it’s not because he disagrees with that - rather, that he agrees, but that that isn’t the issue here that he needs to deal with. it IS milva’s decision, everyone is in agreement about that - and that’s precisely the problem, because milva is in a vulnerable emotional state and also a precarious physical environment, and these factors could influence her to go through with the abortion, while in “regular circumstance,” if everything were fine and everyone was safe and they weren’t on a quest to save ciri, she might go through with the pregnancy. so, geralt gets annoyed that dandelion tells him this, because he agrees, he already knows! it’s useless to tell him that, because he already agrees with him, what he really needs to do now is move forward with having an emotional talk with milva, which is difficult for him.

i think the “medicament” / “agent” thing is still a little confusing to me, because i don’t know which one has a negative connotation. to me, it’s a medicament, or a medicine, whic is something that cures an ailment, that has a negative connotation, because it kind of refers to the state of being pregnant as a sickness or illness that needs to be cured? an agent is more like a substance that causes a reaction, i think of that of enzymes that speed up chemical reactions in cells, it causes a certain result to happen - which seems more appropriate in my opinion. but yeah i’m not sure which is the “worse word” to use, or if either are “bad words” to use when it comes to this

3) In general, continuing the theme:

Very many sorceresses also lament the lack of ability to have children, and all of them, even if they had relationships with women, were always looking for the ONE AND ONLY man.

I was too disappointed by the stereotypical representation of women: hatred because of the same outfits/jewelry, thin waists and small portions (remember how Yen and Fringilla eat), eternal gossip, and so on. I mean, women aren't like that, man.

The toxicity of the presented heterosexual relationships has been said a thousand times before me.

Moreover, the same-sex relationships in the book are only female/female shown, but never male/male (a quick and disdainful mention in "Season of Storms"). But even f / f relationships are presented as some not-serious-play; remember how Ciri called it all "fun," talking with Mistle. I see a toxic-masculine culture that sexualizes lesbians and completely denies gays. (This also reminds me of Poland's situation, where the majority of the population is very religious and homophobic.)

In general, I am always a little upset when I see that someone calls Sapkowski such a tolerant writer. According to my observations, toxic masculinity, "conservative" ideas, and strengthening stereotypes about LGBT people, women, etc., often slip into his books. I may be wrong, so I apologize in advance. I would like to hear your opinion. Thanks.

very much agree with all of this. in some circumstances, i think the author-intention was to break stereotypes and tropes - such as fringilla and yennefer speaking about oysters in relation to their ‘diets’ ... but then, they are actually talking about oysters in the context of having to teleport from the castle, they are actually speaking about high-intrigue political alliances, not something as silly as diets... but the effect, to me, is lost, because they led into it acting vapid and speaking about diets anyways, and if they used sarcasm in their voices, it wasn’t strong enough coming through the text in my opinion.

similarly, i think he tried to do some of this trope-breaking with the sorceresses overall, how they are all vapid and obsessed with appearance, but actually are the political masterminds behind everything. although he achieved the latter, he did not manage to have the latter negate the former... the intelligent political talks did nothing to “cancel out” the previously-demonstrated vapidness and obsession with femininity, and the way he describes women overall is something to roll the eyes (and the stomach) at. (“triss’ waist measured ‘22′,” oh give me a break lmfao...)

i also agree that although there are technically gay and lesbian characters in the books, none of them are “good representation” - the only ones i can think of are philippa, mistle, and degerlund (season of storms, which you are right in describing as “disdainful”) - all of these characters are violent, none of them ever are shown having a healthy relationship, and their “love” either ‘corrupts others’ (i use that term semi-lightly) or is part of some political manuever. ciri’s time with mistle is that of a ‘youthful violence,’ it is part of her time with the rats, her time reaching into her worst most hateful depths as a person, and it’s presented as something to “heal from.” and we haven’t even mentioned how mistle assaults her in the beginning of it all. this is largely a post for another time, but it’s not a good situation by any means.

i also get super annoyed for this reason when i see people applauding sapkowski for being a “progressive writer.” in my mind, he is not progressive at all, although he has his character espouse some pro-choice views here and there, that is not nearly enough to make up for the fantasy racism/antisemitism, use of antisemitic caricatures to do trope-reversal on, misogyny to do trope-reversal on, and blatantly just Not Good gay and lesbian characters.

in my mind, it’s inappropriate to label him as “progressive,” because he was not writing with diversity and representation in mind. i think a lot of people get confused, because they assume, “oh he included women, so he must have been wanting more representation for women!” ... when he was pretty much just writing for writing’s sake... of his own worldview and biases, nothing special when it comes to representation. and i agree that a lot of conservative ideas slip their way into the books, from my perspective he tries to make some centrist milquetoast statements at times (”don’t be neutral in the face of evil” for example) but wraps it up in literally a fantasy pogrom - which is not something imo for a goyische author to put into their stories. his inspirations at times are clear, and he uses them in manners which can come off as blunt and disrespectful.

#anon #ask #long post /#also apologies its 6:30 am and i didnt sleep so if theres any spelling errors or weird syntax or trains of thought...

34 notes · View notes

yokelish · 4 years

Note

Galaxy, Film, Parchment.

Greedy~ I like it.

galaxy; what fascinates you?

how fucking small we are. No, Zai I don’t mean height.

I mean how small and pitiful we are as a species. We are terrified of our own mortality, for the most part. Or how we cling to shit ideas or ideals. That’s what conservative vs. liberal politics is all about or I am wrong? “My ideals are better because we believed in them longer!!!!!!!”

And how vegans refuse to eat honey. Really fascinating.

film; favorite movie/tv show?

I wonder what makes a thing to be my favourite thing as much as you do. I think I am too dead inside for that. For now, I’ll say, Magicians SYFY is my favourite TV show. I have a couple of favourite movies but I can only make one list at a time.

favorite book?

The order doesn’t matter. And I still think I forgot some. The thing about liking things, it has to come at the right moment in my life and strike the right cord in my head, resonate loudly enough for me to remember. And even then I can forget.

A dog’s heart and Master and Margarita by Bulgakov.

Crackling Mountain and Other Stories, No Longer Human by Dazai.

Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close by Foer.

The Plague, The Outsider by Camus.

The Witcher series by Sapkowski.

No exit by Sartr.

Woe from Wit by Griboyedov.

Ward No. 6 by Chekhov.

The Kingkiller Chronicle by Rothfuss.

Eragon series by Paolini (I liked it better than Harry Potter when it was still a relevant discussion, succ it.)

#yo's character is questionable

2 notes · View notes

t-lane-writes · 4 years

Note

1, 11, 15, and 24 for "I'm not from US" ask, if you please :)

Hey dear. :) Here it goes...

1. favourite place in your country?

You ask tough questions. I like mountains, but having seen the Alps, I can’t exactly say that our Tatra Mountains are very impressive. I used to like the city Cracow – I studied there and it’s an old and beautiful city – but it’s sort of associated with conservative people and ideas in my mind now. There are places I haven’t been to, that I think I might like, like Białowieża Forest or other National Parks.

Oh! I like Bieszczady. It’s a region in the southeast corner of Poland – mountains, but not the very high rocky ones. Instead they are topped by polonyns – a type of mountain meadows. Really beautiful, and still one of the places in Poland, where there’s not too many tourists and people in general. Although, too many of us like the solitude Bieszczady offer, so it’s not so solitary and wild anymore. ;)

11. favourite native writer/poet?

I should say Wiesława Szymborska, but only because I don’t read a lot of poetry or Polish literature and she is very famous (Nobel Prize). And if I’m recommending great Polish writers, I’ll also mention Olga Tokarczuk (also Nobel Prize, last year).

It’s more to rec reading to you ;), because both those ladies are truly excellent, amazing humans and great writers, unfortunately I’m not very versed in reading “worthy” literature.

Oh. And of course Andrzej Sapkowski, how could I forget, lol. I consumed the Wiedźmin Saga twenty-or-so years ago. :)

15. a saying, joke, or hermetic meme that only people from your country will get?

This, I honestly don’t know.

Oh. Maybe… “Traditional family – a man and his cat”, or “Holy mother of cat” (It’s about our imperious leader (not the prime minister, or president, just a guy who leads the party that’s been ruling here for the past five-or-so years), who is all about traditional values and the meaning of the Real Polish Family(tm) (very anti LGBT+, I mean), but he’s an old hag and is known for spoiling his cat. I have nothing against cats or people loving their cats otherwise. It’s just him.)

24. what other nation is joked about most often in your country?

I’m not sure about now, but in my youth there was a score of jokes styled as “A German, Russian and Pole walk into a bar…” The German was always the most stupid, or serious in a funny situation, or whatever, the Ruse wasn’t so bad, and of course the Pole was the smartest. ;)

We also joke a lot about Czech language, because it has words that sound like funny diminutives in Polish. Without translation. Just, two very similar, but different languages.

Thank you for asking. :)

1 note · View note

gayregis · 3 years

Text

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

8 notes · View notes

gayregis · 4 years

Text

sleipnirlo replied to your post “bro if im this petty about how they treat dandelion think about how...”

I feel you friend - from what we've got already, whatever they're doing to Dandelion/Jaskier seems... not ideal, to put it gracefully, and it pains me quite a bit, but if/when they get to Regis... considering the pain in my heart during some parts of b&w, having in mind that I generally believe cdpr's interpretation to be proper (aside from some jarring mistakes) it's going to be a completely another level of ridiculousness on my part; like,, I know it's most probably not possible for the show to meet my standards, but pls... just... get SOMETHING right...

I came to feel so protective of this particular vampire, and people not familiar with the books knowing him as a caricature of himself fills me with dread

tbh my main hope for regis if/when they get to him is that they don’t shy away from making him complicated. he’s kind, also ominous, also funnie … to summarize: shitty old bitch.

b&w did this thing where they just made regis a very solemn character and also made him closer to the typical arrogant immortal which was just ooc imho... and then they created a new plotline that revolved around him being Uncontrollably Violent for a few seconds which.......... like i just found it SO disrespectful to how regis’s backstory is an analogy for alcoholism/addiction in general........ they literally did the opposite of humanizing him, they uh... monsterfied him?

regis’s entire character (like geralt’s, and also the rest of the hansa’s) is about paradox and logistical impossibilities. if you’re this, you can’t be that -- but he’s both, for some fucking reason, he defies logic.

regis is supposed to thread this weird line of what is man and what is monster, and if you’re kind for a century does that make up for three centuries of absolute cruelty? what does it mean to act honorably? at what point can you feel safe and trust someone?

one thing i appreciate about regis’s character is that he’s always just seemed to go BEYOND his context in the fictional world he exists in. at the end of the day, these characters are not the people we love them to be, but rather messages about what ARE good and evil, what IS humanity, and other deep questions the witcher loves to tackle. within the books, i got a VERY clear sense of how regis as a character was answering these questions and the kind of messages sapkowski was trying to communicate with him. same with the rest of the hansa, in fact. that’s... why... the hansa and ciri and yennefer are my favorites...

to contrast, in blood & wine, i didn’t get this sense of existing beyond the context of the media at all. cdpr just wanted cool vampires which is fine, but the elements of the books are lost because they just gave them up

(wow this got long sorry! i just wanted to explain my thought process behind this list im about to give)

as for netflix.............. i don’t necessarily think that regis is easy or difficult to cover. but IN MY OPINION nailing these things would help out regis’s character the best:

we should feel safe. one of the things that struck me so hard when reading baptism of fire was how much i initially trusted regis when they found him in that stupid graveyard, despite being well-familiar with the adage of “stranger danger.” he just seemed safe to me.

this is probably because of how eloquent he is and how omniscient he has the ability to come off as..... so good writing for his dialogue that captures his superfluous nature, that isn’t just what cdpr did where “funny smart guy use big words unnecessarily” ... no, you need to put effort into it by having him use words of an intermediate vocabulary, but using them in such a way as to philosophize about everything and anything that comes up.

this also relies heavily on how regis delivers his lines when they first meet him. all of his dialogue cues are like, “said softly,” “said gently.” there’s NO aggression, no harm in this man. no reason to fear him.

the atmosphere of his cottage should really communicate this wonderful sense of bucolic bliss, as it were.... the intoxicating heavy scent of herbs... the only lighting in the cottage being fro a pot-bellied stove........ remember, geralt describes this as having could have come directly from a fairytale. in contrast, fen carn should feel ominous, until his appearance.

costume design! don’t forget the apron wrapped around his black coat, please! who can fear a man in an apron?

we should feel suspicious. we SHOULD still feel like he’s harboring some kind of dark secret, though.

there are so many little clues and points in baptism of fire that hint at his identity, that just should NOT be cut out or overlooked: him being able to detect the healing brokilon medicines in geralt’s sweat, when he refuses the drink politely and says softly, “it’s a matter of principle. i never violate the principles i set for myself,” the dipping into a conversation to name every type of vampire that exists......... the sense that he knows just a little too much to be only who he says he is.

cahir and dandelion making guesses as to who he ‘really’ is shouldn’t be cut out, either. i think their guesses are conduits for the audience to attach onto as we make our own guesses and theories within this short amount of time.

we should feel fear. oh so cdpr wanted crazy ass vampires? well don’t worry, because regis is a crazy ass vampire. but how to get this through to the audience, when he’s not off his shits anymore because it’s the 13th century and not the 9th? it’s going to need to come mostly from geralt.

they should emphasize the tension in the scene by the yaruga where geralt has his blade to regis’s throat by having geralt’s lines be delivered in a very precise, careful manner. he shouldn’t be furious and dripping with adrenaline, ready to fight regis. he needs to be wary, conserved. we need to sense apprehension to engage in conflict, because he knows that he would likely lose the fight... which will freak the audience out, because asides from that bit with djikstra, geralt up until this point has been pretty powerful and undefeated, i mean we just saw him cleave his way through a fuckton of scoiatel at thanedd (that bit with torque in edge of the world was more for comedic relief imho)

on a related note, the scene where milva and dandelion have doubts about regis and ask geralt for advice, and geralt answers with a laundry list of all the things regis can do and says for himself that he doesn’t know if he could kill him....... that shouldn’t be cut and should strike some fear into our hearts.

regis shouldn’t be devoid of humor. he has his own sense of weird humor...

please keep the fucking pun in: “the immortal soul (...) abandons the stinking carcass and spirits away, forgive the pun.” i think this demonstrates how he has this kind of skewed sense of humor, that serious philosophical topics aren’t dull to him... rather they are exciting and full of riveting debate and also, jokes

that really long conversation with geralt where he concludes with “but i’ll give you some advice anyways: life differs from banking somewhat,” and in the fish soup scene where he really makes fun of geralt as well... but really the whole company should do this

don’t make him an asshole

he should be self-sacrificing for humanity. he should protect the girl in the refugee camp with the utmost conviction... i think this part is kind of easier because regis’s pure actions in the books are enough to demonstrate how committed to humanity he is, unlike cdpr which just made shit up and it went sour because their shit was all like “oh haha humans are so weak and i dont get why they dislike death :/”

tldr: don’t cut shit because even the smallest details add to the larger picture, make a cool atmosphere, paradox of safety and fear. you’re welcome

#sleipnirlo #replies #regis #the witcher netflix #this post basicaly answers the 'what are your hopes and fears for twn regis :3' wonderful question that ive gotten a bit #long post /

2 notes · View notes