#like twn wants to say geralt and jaskier are close friends! | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

abeautifulblog · 10 months

Text

okie, time to talk about The Witcher season 3 part 1

To be honest, I've been having trouble figuring out what to even say about S3, because it takes longer to unpack what they're doing wrong than it takes them to do it.

How do you formulate a coherent critique of something that's not? How do you isolate the mistakes so you can discuss them when everything is a mistake? "This plot point was executedly badly, but it was also a misbegotten idea that they shouldn’t have done in the first place"?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

So I tend to conceptualize writing as operating on two levels -- the macro/story/structural level, and the line/dialogue level.

On a macro level, are events linked by cause and effect instead of just Happening? Is there a point to the things that happen? Do characters behave in alignment with their personality and motivations? Is it clear what the stakes are?

(In fairness, S2 was far worse on that front than S3 -- the crowning example being the time they moved Yennefer from one setpiece to the next by having her literally fall down a manhole. Cue some pasted-on drama where an extra gets eaten by a sewer monster and then never mentioned again, and what the helllllll was the point of that detour? o_O)

On a line level, does the dialogue flow naturally, one person's line following from what was said before? Does the dialogue successfully evoke the audience-reaction that it's supposed to, is it funny when it's supposed to be funny, profound when it's supposed to be profound? Does it sound like something that would actually come out of a human being's mouth?

Shadowhunters was probably the worst show I ever watched in terms of writing that failed on both fronts, but TWN is a close second.

If this were a fic I was beta-reading, I would ask the writer, What's the story you're trying to tell?

Because this happens to all of us sometimes -- we get too bogged down in the nuts-n-bolts of the story action, what’s happening from scene to scene, and lose sight of the forest for the trees. A good editor (or beta reader) can help you keep an eye on the big picture, and make sure that all the story elements are working in service to your goal, that you're not wandering off track into something irrelevant, or worse, accidentally undermining your own message.

I don't think the writers at TWN know what their story is. Sure, they know the events that happen, but there's no sense of why, neither within the story world, nor why this is a story worth telling in the first place. It feels like an adaptation in the worst sense of the word, hitting predetermined story beats simply because they’re obliged to, because that’s what’s in the source material, not out of any natural plot progression.

With S3, they clearly wanted it to be a high political drama, a web of intrigue!! full of shifting alliances and backstabbing and clever people playing four-dimentional chess, etc, but it was done without any understanding of what politics actually is -- ie, people with conflicting goals attempting to gain and leverage power to achieve those goals. So there's spies and ~scheming~ and assassinations, but no sense of what these people hope to get from it all. You can't create conflicts of interest if you don't know what anyone's interests are.

(And to be blunt, these writers aren't clever enough to write clever characters.)

The one instance of motivation & conflict done well in S3 -- and hands-down the most compelling part to me -- was Jaskier promising Phillippa et al that he would deliver Ciri to them, if they could kill Rience.

Yessssssss.

Was he lying? No idea, doesn't matter. It's a delicious conflict of interest for him either way.

Because Jaskier's friends are, quite frankly, failing him at that point -- Geralt and Yennefer are preoccupied with the threat that Rience poses to Ciri, which is understandable, but they show a breathtaking lack of concern for the threat Rience poses to Jaskier. Y'know. The guy that actually got tortured by him last season.

(Jesus wept, they make him be bait for Rience, and brush off his anxieties like they're not even listening. They treat Jaskier like he's acceptable collateral damage for Ciri's sake; like her safety matters, but his doesn't.)

(I'm not sure whether the writers meant to make Geralt and Yennefer come off as bad friends? o_O But if they didn't, then playing bait needed to have been Jaskier's idea. Not something they forced him into -- his idea, even though he's terrified out of his mind by Rience, but he's brave enough to stand up and offer it anyway, because it's the only way to protect the people he cares about, and he's the only one who can do it.)

So yeah -- I don't fucking blame him for taking the initiative to look out for his own interests, since it's clear that no one else is going to.

And why shouldn't Ciri go to Redania? If Dijkstra & company can kill Rience, does that not demonstrate both their ability and willingness to protect her? Sure, Geralt's not going to like the idea, and he'll be mad at Jaskier, but what else is new, right? And wouldn't Ciri be so much safer in a fortified castle with an army between her and Nilfgaard, instead of constantly on the run, with mercenaries never more than a step behind them? There's enough logic to the idea that Jaskier could talk himself around to it, while still believing that he's doing what's best for everyone.

It's a potential betrayal, or something that Geralt might view as one, but there are very good reasons for Jaskier to feel and act as he does, even as it puts them at cross-purposes. And that is what well-rooted conflict looks like -- it emerges organically from characters wanting something specific, and wanting it strongly.

But what does Dijkstra want? What does Phillippa want? "Power"? What does that mean, in this context? What do they want to accomplish with said power? When the Brotherhood comes into conflict with the Lodge of Sorceresses, what are they actually fighting over?

Writing a political drama requires understanding both the personal and the political stakes for everyone involved, and the writers just didn't -- didn't appear to even know that that was something missing from their story.

In trying to mimic the political intrigues they'd seen in other fantasies, they transplanted the stems and leaves, all the visible trappings of cloak-and-dagger, but didn't realize that they were leaving the roots behind, and that the roots are what makes the whole thing HAPPEN.

(Awkward metaphor, but you get what I mean.)

So yeah.

Like I said, it's hard to figure out where to even begin an analysis of this show, because it's such an incompetent mess on every level. (How do you say where it went wrong, when it’s never gone right?) I'd be fine with judging the show on its own terms, not on a rubric of fidelity to the source material, but I swear to god, half the time I can't assess how it's doing because I can't tell what it's trying to do.

Are Yen and Geralt supposed to be bad friends to Jaskier, and frankly embarrassing role models to Ciri with their juvenile silent treatment of each other even when they're living in the same house?

Is Dijkstra supposed to be a brilliant Machiavellian chessmaster, or is he supposed to be unhinged and delusional?

Is Radovid supposed to be a weirdo who perpetually looks like he's about to burst into tears? (Why are his eyes so MOIST???) Is it supposed to be a red flag when Jaskier says he’s not in the mood to perform for Radovid’s salon and Radovid makes him do it anyway? Or is that what the writers think cutesy romcom behavior is?

idk, man! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Anyway, I'm going to wrap it up there, even though I've got a lot still kicking around in my head. But y’all should like, send me asks n stuff, because it’s a lot easier to write a response to specific questions/prompts than to try to cover everything in one post.

#witcher shit #twn critical #twn season 3

26 notes · View notes

jaskefer · 2 years

Text

ok so not to be back on the apology meta train like 3 months after the season dropped, but i have been thinkin about it a lot lately, and honestly just falling back on the idea that it feels hollow because it feels like Geralt is only apologizing for half of what happened.

like! S1E6 was left with a pretty open ending in general, but with the way Jaskier walked away from Geralt saying he’d “see him around,” there’s at least some implication in this that it was Jaskier who left first. But then S2 drives home the point that oh no, actually, it was Geralt who left Jaskier.

“After everything we did, we saw, you turned your back on me.”

“I haven’t seen Geralt in months. Not since he abandoned me in Caingorn...”

“You left me on a mountain.”

and when Geralt does actually apologize, it comes on the back of Jaskier’s statement about friends coming back. This focus on the act of leaving winds up making it feel like that’s the only thing Geralt’s apologizing for, and not also the fact that he blamed Jaskier for everything that complicated his life and wished that he could be rid of him. Additionally, we never actually get to see the act of Geralt abandoning Jaskier. We only learn about that after the fact; meanwhile, we got to actually see Geralt turning around and lashing out at him. Between the two, which one holds the most relevancy and emotional impact to the audience?

It’s not that S2 never touches on Geralt’s words at all; Jaskier brings it up during the initial reunion (“The last time we met, you basically told me to fuck off”) and also in a roundabout way on the journey to find Ciri (“People do stupid things when they think they’re trapped in a corner, Geralt. And they say stupid things). It’s just that it wraps up the entirety of the event—both the harsh words and the leaving—into one blanket statement, and as a result, winds up giving the impression that Geralt is expressing remorse for only one of those two things, because all of the emphasis is placed on Jaskier being abandoned.

and mmm I’d end it there but tbh I was typing this all up the other day and had a few thoughts about Geralt as a man of action over words, and started wondering if the reason Jaskier was willing to go with him when Geralt asked for his help is because Geralt coming back to him was in and of itself an act of apology. That it was Geralt admitting that he was wrong to have blamed Jaskier for what his own words and actions had gotten him into. A means of saying, without words, “I was wrong to treat you like you were at fault for this. It’s my mess, but I trust you, and would like you to be by my side again as I try to fix it.”

but idk. there’s still a lot of emptiness that could be filled where all of this stands, and room for the weight of Geralt’s words to still land heavy on their shoulders.

#angel.txt #the witcher #geralt of rivia #jaskier #meta & theories #once again taking 3 am twitter thoughts and going ‘ooh wait this would make a good mini essay’#might write a drabble or smth with the idea of reunion as an act of apology cause i Like it. if i can mold canon like dough lmao #idk. i just think that it's very clear that the only thing the season gave weight was the reunion itself #the act of coming back and seeing each other again. so then of course the actual words fall to the wayside #which sucks bc like! it was jaskier's involvement that brought and yen and ciri into geralt's life #but it was *geralt's words* that tied them to him the way they are now.#so you would think that if jaskier also holds an important place in geralt's heart... his most vitriolic words would be regarded with weight #like twn wants to say geralt and jaskier are close friends!#but also geralt can apparently blame jaskier for his own mistakes and wish that life would rid him of jaskier‚ and jaskier's just like #''people say stupid things and lash out when they're backed into a corner but hey. friends come back.''#like mmm i can buy this sort of understanding characterization of jaskier but twn can't have it both ways #and also should stop treating him and his feelings like a doormat sfdsfds #anyways! rant over lmao #sorry hsjshs any time i think about ‘if life could give me one blessing it would be to take you off my hands’ i go feral #in both good and bad ways #i am very much obsessed with s1 geralt and the consequences of words as well as actions #even more so after s2 and the ''all i ever think about are consequences'' scene with ciri 🥺

32 notes · View notes

gayregis · 4 years

Note

hello I love your blog and witcher posts so, so much, I'm not too far into The Last Wish cuz of college but man am I invested. And I'm so happy you talked abt netflix witcher, especially the relationship btwn Dandelion and Geralt because LET ME TELL YOU how much I'm tired of the "we can't let characters show love honestly, it has to be ironic or followed up by a joke" trope that plagues a lot of modern friendships in media sm. Anyway, back to reading your analyses, have a good day

thank you!! and yeah i think one thing that i like about geralt and dandelion are that they’re just very genuine with each other. i think sometimes when i say that geralt and dandelion are very good to one another in the books, some people doubt it because they see them making fun of each other and see that as equivalent to twn geralt and jaskier.

but geralt and dandelion’s friendship isn’t characterized by being incredibly lovey-dovey, instead it’s about being honest, upfront, able to show your true self, and equal. something i think twn geralt and jaskier’s relationship is characterized by is inequality and imbalance. twn geralt and jaskier have a large difference in age (since apparently they are supposed to meet when jaskier is younger), difference in professional experience as jaskier isn’t a master bard, and a difference in commitment as geralt doesn’t give him the time of day yet jaskier speaks a lot to him.

geralt and dandelion in the books are just equals and they treat each other as such. they’re able to joke with each other and make fun of each other because they’re friends. they know each other extremely well because they have been very close and neither has pushed the other away. geralt only begins to sincerely push everyone away during baptism of fire when he feels a sense of impending doom that if he accepts the help of others they will suffer for him and he doesn’t want to expose them to danger (same reason which caused him to leave ciri in the sword of destiny, and that turned out well /s). i feel like when people use baptism of fire as an example of geralt pushing others away it’s totally out of place because it’s entirely in context with ciri being kidnapped. i think something like edge of the world or eternal flame demonstrate geralt and dandelion’s dynamic a lot more - they enjoy each other’s company, maybe have some mild philosophical discussions, actually work together as a team if they choose to, and roast each other in the way that only really close friends can

#sorry thinking about dandelion making jokes to dudu in dainty's form and geralt being like 'dont mind my idiot friend <3' bc thats what frie #ask #anon #geralt #dandelion #gerlion

18 notes · View notes