#friendship with other witchers!

[spielzeugkaiser]

Been feeling the 'Jaskier upset with Geralt' angst train lately if this prompt interests you

I read the word 'angst' and instantly went on board- honestly Jaskier deserves to be angry with Geralt. What always makes me go *chef's kiss* in those scenarios is that Jaskier is upset, but he doesn't want Geralt to be hurt! He always looks out for him 🥺🥺 I made Jaskier and angry-crier, because I haven't tormented my man enough. Also Jaskier being able to actually show how upset he is and Geralts self worth issues of 'distancing himself when he thinks he isn't wanted' FIGHT-

[hanzajesthanza]

geralt "i will NEVER deadname my best friend" of rivia

"he will ALWAYS be dandelion to ME"

[waterflowing-under-ground]

I've seen some posts from people in the Witcher fandom (usually who are into both the Netflix show and the books) being confused as to why book fans think Geralt being mean to Dandelion (Jaskier) is a canon divergence in the TV show, when in the books, there are times when Geralt can be very cutting and even a bit mean to Dandelion.

My takeaway from their relationship in the books is that this conflict has the purpose of developing both of their characters (and serving as allegory because we KNOW Mr. Sapkowski loves allegory, and we love him for it! Or at least I do), and there's context around why they can be this way with each other. There's a rich history in this friendship, a comfort and casualness with one another that one wouldn't have with someone they weren't that close with, which in a lot of relationships comes with a safety to BE cutting and blunt with each other at times and know that having these conflicts is not going to mean an end to their relationship. They tend to move on from their arguments and all is forgiven (sometimes after a period of distance, but that's also normal after a hard conversation I feel - both parties sometimes need to process and lick their wounds, or wounded egos), and it's implied (at least to me) that their friendship is an "always" thing, even when they do blow up at each other, and even when the things they say are harsh.

Furthermore, there's so much "off screen" (off-page?) time between them that we don't get to see. But their closeness is implied by others and themselves throughout the entire saga and the short stories. And the things they say to other people indicate how important they are to one another as well.

I do want to point out that my personal take on their relationship is tempered by me being in my 40's and having more than one long term relationship (namely my closest and longest-running friendship which is going on 25 years now, and my marriage which is almost 15 years old this year) where there IS that familiarity and "safety" to sometimes have cutting conversations, or at least "brutally honest" conversations, telling each other things we might not want to hear, but perhaps need to.

My best friend, for example, saw me through a 6-year relationship that was actually abusive. She felt that she had to tell me some truths that I needed to hear, and while some things she told me were hard to hear during that period, I'm so glad she felt safe and comfortable enough with me to be honest about what she saw happening.

She is not a fuzzy-wuzzy cuddly person. But she is MY person. She has been my rock for nearly a quarter century. I would actually trust this woman with my life. I would donate a kidney to this woman if I were a match and she needed one. We are not cutesy fuzzy with each other (although most of the time we're warm, generous, and supportive like a certain witcher and minstrel duo). She's not the type to say "I love you" out loud, so we don't do that because I know that would make her uncomfortable (she's even like this with her partner of several years - some people just aren't as demonstrative with saying the WORDS, but it doesn't mean they don't FEEL it). But we LOVE each other dearly. We don't have to actually say "I love you" to say I love you to one another.

Because we're all human, we can even at times slip up and not be as tactful and sensitive with each other as we should be, or even in a moment of vulnerability get angry and snap (which is completely Geralt in Baptism of Fire). Some of the conflicts I've had with my best friend and my spouse can look a lot like what we encounter in the books between Geralt and Dandelion when they do get into a heated discussion or argument. But these relationships are, to me, "safe" and "always" in my mind and heart. I know we'd have to do something truly *despicable* and abusive to one another for those relationships to end entirely.

What I think people are saying, when they say, "Book Geralt would never *be mean* to Dandelion," isn't that Geralt could never *literally* be mean. It's that the portrayal of their friendship and the conflicts they could have were lacking any kind of context whatsoever. Furthermore, the Netflix show didn't make us believe they were ever MUTUAL friends who loved each other (mutually) in the first place, didn't do enough to build up their relationship and show its history and why they're so bonded to each other, why they're proud of each other, show us HOW the "opposites attract" thing actually works in their relationship, how they add value to each other's lives by having different but complementary personalities, why they had such a strong connection in the first place, why they loved each other, why they enjoyed and valued each other's company and place in their lives.

Instead they made it seem like Geralt was simply tolerating this silly little guy who gets him into trouble all the time, and then out of nowhere you get a tirade of verbal abuse that goes on about how this silly little guy ruined his entire life, and basically a "get out of my life" tirade which is extremely hurtful and broke the show character's heart (understandably enough). Geralt also punches Dandelion in the show, and while they have their share of verbal arguments in the books, Geralt never lays a hand on Dandelion, and even goes out of his way to protect him and save him from violence and physical danger multiple times throughout the entire saga.

Geralt's attempts to push the Hanza away in Baptism of Fire are often cited as the example of Geralt being mean, by Netflix viewers who are confused by book fans saying Geralt being mean isn't canon.

But I think book fans pretty universally agree that Geralt's "meanness" in Baptism of Fire actually stems partially from him wanting to protect the other members of the Hanza from danger, and partially from feeling like he's messed everything up so badly he doesn't *deserve* help or support, or that he can't *truly atone* for Ciri's separation and unhappiness unless he completes the mission entirely alone.

He tries to emotionally push everyone away by being, well, a jerk (which if one is looking to push people away, that can definitely be an effective way of doing so). But his friends see right through this defense mechanism, seem to intuitively know where it's coming from, and seem to understand what he's going through, and are not afraid to call him out on it!

They rightfully roast him for it, but in a way that to me comes across as loving, albeit tough love. To me it's in the vein of, "We see right through your nonsense, we know why you're being like this, because you think you're leading us right into harm's way and you don't want to do that, plus you're losing your mind because you're in a lot of pain and you've lost your daughter and de facto wife who you were JUST beginning to mend fences with before she and your daughter were ripped away from you, so you're freaking out and not being rational. This isn't going to work on us, we're not going to leave you, so just sit down, chop these veggies, and eat this fish soup with us, and shut up you silly man." My favorite moment is when Milva makes the remark about how wolves don't actually hunt alone. Wolves are, after all, pack animals who work as a team to survive.

Modern toxic masculinity harkens a lot to his idea of "alpha males" and "lone wolves" which is total fallacy and nonsense and runs completely counter to what real life is actually like. People, like wolves, are communal animals. We literally need one another to survive. Interdependence, not independence, is the optimal way of being human. Having love, comeraderie, and support are not just frivolities, they're necessities!

To close this, I think the heart of why book fans take issue with this portrayal of their friendship is that Dandelion and Geralt are the longest running thread through the series, each other's "always" person (which in a long lifetime often IS someone's closest platonic relationship, whether that be a chosen best friend or a close sibling for example), and they're so instrumental to each other's character development, that to bludgeon that in the show just runs so counter to what I feel as a fan of this series is one of its central themes, which is that nobody actually CAN do everything alone and without support, that being isolated and alone really leads down a dark path for us as human beings. By stripping away this piece of the story (Dandelion and Geralt's friendship in its true nature, not a contrived one) it fails to adapt the story on that level.

Keep in mind that these are just my opinions. If you made it this far, thanks for reading!

[cerealbishh]

"Triss! It's good to see you." "And you."// "It's good to see you." "You too."

[autistic-echo]

the thing i have the biggest beef with in the witcher netflix is the fact that the writers seem to. like. not like jaskier. like they make geralt be a dick to him “i’m not your friend” and then have geralt turn around and be friendly and affectionate with loads of other characters. moussack “old friend”, that flashback with eskel, “you’re important to me, triss” why can’t we get this same energy with jaskier. begging for a proper apology in season 3 that jaskier doesn’t have to basically fish out of geralt my dude deserves better

[headcanonthings]

Jaskier: He is not the love of your life.

Aiden: He is literally just a guy!

Jaskier & Aiden: Hit him with your car!

[yakowo]

Witcher OC collab with @simo0n 🐍🐱

Our idiots with their love-hate relationship 😌✨

[twistedappletree]

[teatitty]

Dandelion does have autism sensory issues but specifically around slimy textures and one time in a swamp, Geralt's pack gets dropped and Consumed By The Sludge and Dandelion bravely digs through the slimy disgusted slop to fish it back out again and he's absolutely miserable when he trudges back to camp to give it to Geralt and then Geralt breaks into sobs about it the next time he sees one of his brothers [it's Lambert who is very tempted to push him far away with his own sword so he doesn't have to Deal With All That]

[tantumuna]

I see people asking how you could NOT ship Cahir and Ciri after Season 3, Episode 6. Let me offer you:

[volfoss]

I HATE the trend in modern tv and movies that is just taking characters that care about each other and turning them into people who bicker nonstop and hate each other

[storyweaverofgondor]

Decided to check out the Witcher today and am already into season 2. It’s cool. Far more boobies then i normally like and far more gorey as well, but still good.

I am disappointed by the lack of Jaskier tho.There is a sad lack of Jaskier. He’s not around nearly enough. Ciri and Yennifer and the whole war story is pretty good. Really good fantasy. But i wish there were more episodes of Jaskier following Geralt around while he’s hunting monsters. Seriously tho, i understand why that’s not the focus of the story. But i would have loved to see more Jaskier.

[hanzajesthanza]

i agree 110% that dandelion is the storyteller, memory-recorder, history-writer, balladeer, etc. that he is the keeper of geralt’s legend, the representative of the immortalizing quality of a narrative. of course. this is especially true in lady of the lake and in nimue’s time when half a century of poetry has become an academic text.

but to be honest. i care more about dandelion in the fact that. that he’s kind of just geralt’s best friend and they like hanging out

[waterflowing-under-ground]

“Dolt. I’ll find some amber, perhaps a seahorse, or maybe a pretty conch. The point is it’s a symbol, a sign of concern and affection. I like Little Eye and I want to please her. Don’t you understand? I thought not. Let’s go. You first, because there might be a monster down there."

“Right.” The Witcher slid down from the cliff onto the slippery rocks, covered with algae. “I’ll go first, in order to protect you if needs be. As a sign of my concern and affection..."

A Little Sacrifice, Part VI, Sword of Destiny by Andrzej Sapkowski

[endiness]

Debunking misinformation about Netflix's The Witcher (Part 1)

"Henry Cavill is a massive fan of the books and the games and he quit the show because the writers wouldn't stick to the books and he just cares about the source material so much."

Henry Cavill not only did not know that the books existed when he started pursuing the role of Geralt, but he actually thought that the books were based off of the video games (and he still didn't bother to read them) and he didn't learn that the games were actually based off the books until Lauren told him (even though the first thing in the game credits is that they're based off the books); as of 2021, he as only read the full series once — right before he was cast in 2018; while he has played TW3, he has only played a little of TW2 (and I've never found any evidence that he's played the first game); and he also has not played the DLC for TW3.

Henry Cavill also started heavily pushing the narrative that he's just such a massive fan of the books and how important adhering to the source material is to him during the press for S2 to deflect from how it was due to his acting choices of cutting Geralt's lines and either saying nothing or just grunting instead that Geralt's characterization — who is much more verbose in the books — was book inaccurate in S1:

He also lied about the situation and tried to act like Geralt was never originally written as being verbose and blamed the lack of dialogue on Yennefer and Ciri's prominence, which cannot be true as confirmed by Lauren:

And tried to act like the lines he was cutting weren't that important anyway so it wasn't really a big deal, which also cannot be true as confirmed by Joey:

He also started pushing the narrative that adhering to the source material is so important to him and it's 'tricky' to do that with Lauren's vision, but his definition of "Lauren's vision" is the show being an ensemble piece with Yennefer and Ciri at the forefront (like the books) and the show in general heavily centering around women (like the books):

So the idea of him caring so much about "book accuracy" is, in fact, not accurate to the books at all as his problems were the prominence of women in the show when Ciri is the main character of the main book series, which the show started adapting from S2 onwards (which is when Henry Cavill started to complain about wanting "book accuracy" in the first place), and when women are very prominent, central, key figures in the books and they often drive the plot forwards.

Lastly, S3 was the closest adaption of the books out of all the seasons so far, so the idea that he quit after S3 because the writers just weren't respecting the source material and the show wasn't following the books doesn't make any sense anyway.

"Henry Cavill is the only reason why the show was even close to the source material at all."

I've not only never seen any evidence of this, but if anything, I've seen the exact opposite: Henry Cavill was either directly responsible for or at least contributed in some way to a lot of things that went against the books or didn't happen in them.

As I already pointed out, he cut Geralt's lines in S1 and either said nothing or just grunted instead which is inaccurate to Geralt's characterization in the books. Here's another quote from Joey affirming that:

(Just to note: During the press for S1, he frequently talked about how the games inspired his performance as Geralt — sometimes talking about them even more than the books despite how the show is based off of the books, not the games — and it wasn't until S2 press that he suddenly changed his tune and started talking about how important adhering to the source material ie the books is to him. He also only started advocating for a more book accurate Geralt because he got dunked on by reddit for his book inaccurate performance in S1.)

He didn't want to play Geralt and Jaskier's friendship as directly as in the books and buddy-buddy with each other:

He didn't want to have any kind of conflict in Geralt and Ciri's relationship in S2 — at least on Geralt's side of things:

Nor play Geralt struggling with fatherhood at all — all of which led to the domino effect of Yennefer's betrayal:

Eskel's death (which in itself also led to things like Vesemir trying to create new witchers and Lambert's attitude toward Ciri):

And Voleth Meir being the big bad of the season:

He didn't want Geralt and Triss to even just platonically find comfort in each other in S2 — which is what happens in the books:

He nixed a sex scene between Geralt and Yennefer in S2 because he didn't think it'd be in character of them to have sex after reuniting which, uh, is absolutely in character of them:

While this is an incredibly inconsequential change, given the prevalence of this idea that Henry Cavill is such an ardent defender of the source material ie the books and how much he wanted the show to adhere to them, I do think it's important to note that he pushed for — and got — more signs into the show even though by his own admission that is more of a game thing than a book thing and he got it into the show for the explicit purpose of catering to game stans:

This is also another incredibly inconsequential change, but again, given how prevalent the idea of Henry Cavill pushing for perfect source accuracy is, I do just want to point out that he would wear his armor 24/7 to make it look worn down:

Even though it is canon in the books that Geralt will buy himself brand new clothes, so the idea that Geralt's clothing has to look worn down and can't be brand new is not actually book accurate.

"Lauren wanted to make Roach's death a joke."

Just to address this point specifically, Lauren wanted to make a meta reference about how all of Geralt's horses are named Roach. That in no way, shape, or form means that she wanted to make Roach's death into a joke or even that the scene had to be played comedically. This is what Lauren had to say about the subject and the 'joke' in question (which, js, actually fits the tone of the books more):

And as far as the "Henry Cavill is the only one who cared about the source material and he's the only reason why the show even stuck to the books at all" front goes... Henry Cavill did change the dialogue in this scene to a book quote/reference; however, the quote in question ("Enjoy your last walk across the meadow and through the mist. Be not afraid of her for she is your friend.") is not something that Geralt himself says and the line/scene from the books foreshadows Geralt's ending in them.

So, at least imo — especially taking into account the incredibly high standard the fandom has set for Henry Cavill as the #1 defender of the books — I don't think this change was actually book accurate especially given the narrative significance of that exchange in the books.

[solarmidnight]

I need a Witcher adaptation that finally gets Geralt's friendship with Dandelion correct. When together, those two live in each other's pockets, and share everything from beds to clothes to money, and will happily debate philosophy together. Geralt protects Dandelion physically, whilst Dandelion's going to verbally fight anyone who badmouths Geralt. Dandelion has no martial prowess whatsoever, yet that won't stop him from going into Brokilon forest, or into all-out war by Geralt's side. And Geralt can be pissy and have an attitude around Dandelion and not have to worry that Dandelion's gonna take off; in fact, a few times Dandelion tells him he's being dumb, then they go back to being friends again. They never doubt that the other has their back.

I just one adaptation to do them justice.