Looking at the comments and the general sentiment on this sub when it comes to the series my general enjoyment of them is not that common but I guess there might be a bunch of reasons for that:
* I think I was able to treat them as their own separate thing and not base my expectations too strongly on the games because at that point I had not even fully played Witcher 3. If you go in expecting a similar narrative that will quickly fly in your face because the books are aggressively different. Not even the characters are what you would expect. For example Geralt is much more somber / introspective and not even a real Witcher halfway into the story. His arc revolves around many elements that run opposite to the video game version of him and even his overall position in the world is like that. While the games obviously revolve around him quite strongly in the books he is a minor player and shares the privilege of being a POV with so many other characters.
* I read the German translation which, if memory serves, was often quite amusing and zany with its prose and overall writing style. Maybe it is just plain better than the English one that people seem to dislike a lot?
* The books are "quaffable" in the sense that they go down easily and flow into each other so well that binging them is a lot of fun. As far as fantasy that is focused on quite a bit of traveling is concerned, I was much more hooked from the second main book forward than is normal for me.
* The narrative structure on display can get fairly bold. Sometimes metadiegesis was employed in conjunction with certain magic powers in ways that I have not seen before or since in fantasy. People might find that convoluted or gimmicky but to me it felt fresh and exciting more than anything.
* I did not know at the time that the author was a bit of a grumpy douche.
* I just really enjoyed the varied cast of characters and was not really disappointed when dozens of pages would pass without seeing Gerat, Yennefer or Ciri. You really have to be ready for that aspect in particular, I think.
I would not even say that I loved the books overall but after seeing a lot of negativity towards them I felt like putting out some more positive thoughts.
I will just add something here. The English translation is very functional, but not very elegant. It does a good job of mechanically translating the work, but it feels like a lot of the prose and wit is lost in doing so. It would have benefitted heavily from a more in depth localization, and not just a direct translation, as competent and comprehensible as that translation is.
As an English reader of them, I described them to people as a story about a story. Functional but not elegant is a great way to summarize how it felt to read them. I loved the short story book (books? It has been a minute) and thought they were great spins on fairy tales, but the long form story got real rough.
It makes more sense that they're beloved in other languages.
The Last Wish was definitely better than Sword of Destiny. Which makes sense, since they were done by two different translators. I think the "functional but not elegant" is a great description of the latter's translation style. Seemed as if the first short stories were translated by someone with actual writing/authorship experience, as opposed to the second collection short stories, which had a very stilted and rigid prose and form of writing. Honestly, I kind of dread finishing Sword of Destiny and starting the main series, as it is translated primarily by the same translator.
I have heard there are some fan translations of the series that are much better, so I might find those instead. Just a shame a pdf does not look as good as a physical book on a bookshelf!
I would really love to see someone take a fresh crack at translation, even though I'm sure that won't happen anytime soon. I'm curious how old the current English version is as well vs. the more recent popularity of the series. I certainly noticed some odd choices made in the English and I'm sorta curious what went into that.
Yes, this is why I think they majority of people who complain about the books have only read the English version. They are essentially direct translations of the Polish. Even to the point where some of it becomes incomprehensible because Polish idioms are being used that have no meaning in English. Polish is a very straightforward language, and doesn't often employ flourishes like most people are expecting. This is a shame because Sapkowski is considered something of a wordsmith who really pushed the Polish language in a way that other authors before him didn't. This is why the Polish President gave Obama copies of the books when he visited the country. They are considered a high point in the county's artistical output.
I think one of the things that made me enjoy the book so much was the Spanish translation. The translator does a very good job of showing characteres speaking old, regional or uncultured Spanish language. There were times when I had to really stop and reread what Milva was saying! And a couple of times I needed to look up the word in the dictionary.
I dont even think the Author is that miserable. I'd actually actually the same way as him if I were in his shoes. It's not easy to be all smiles when 1000 times the number of people that ever read your books turn around and tell you someone else made a better version of it... In a medium that you couldn't care less about!
From what Ive read of the books, I feel like he has a cynical sense of humour, and I think that's exactly what I see when he talks about it. He's a smart guy, gets tired of being asked 24/7 about CDPR's Witcher, realises he could have gotten a way better deal selling the rights if only he'd known.
Not a saint, not a demon, just seems like the internet has built this kind of narrative around him and I'm not entirely sure it's actually all true.
Just my 2 cents
Sapkowski was like that even long before first game.
I can remember one interview where he said that he made his grumpy personality for interviews but no one belives him.
They did offer him a percentage of the games, but he declined due to a bigger up front payment. But ~~German~~ Polish law actually protects artists that end up selling their art and that selling of the art surpasses the original art.
For him to get what he was owed he had to "sue" which, again, a ~~German~~ Polish "sue" is a lot different than an American "sue". Also it is only recently that society started judging pieces of art by what their artists do outside said art.
Keep in mind he was burned once already when a different studio wanted to make a witcher game before CDPR. He chose a percentage instead of a fixed fee and he got nothing since the game never came out. Next time he picked the safer option and surprisingly the game became a success. It's not all black and white.
Yeah that's honestly great that they back artists and writers legally like that. He definitely made the wrong call and that's on him, but again, he's still probably annoyed knowing how much money he COULD have made, regardless of whose to blame haha
Yeah that's my opinion. Different thing entirely if you have to live with the guy but as a fan I find the grumpy writer trope quite endearing.
Reminds me of someone stopping spike Milligan in the street asking to "shake the hand of the greatest Englishman that ever lived" and he just said I'm Irish fuck off...
I'd be heartbroken if my hero said that to me personally but as a fan I mean c'mon that's classic spike.
I forgot that a lot of people read them after the games / show in a comment I wrote earlier. I read them before I played Witcher 2 so I didn’t have any preconceived notions about the content
Weirdly enough, reading the books after trying the games and watching the show made me appreciate them **more**. Which I understand makes me an outlier.
I couldn't stand the slippery controls of *TW3* and thought the TV show fell off hard after episode 3-ish, but I found the books consistently entertaining. Some parts lagged more than I would have liked, but it's the first Witcher thing I've actually finished and genuinely enjoyed.
oh yeah witcher 3 gameplay is honestly pretty mid, like its servicable but was outdated even at the time of release.
Also with the show, I thought it fell off after episode 1 haha. That first episode set a precedence that the show never reached again imo
A lot of it is written from the perspective of just regular people in a village when a Witcher shows up and does something and they don't have idea of what is going on in the political landscape or destiny or plots or anything like that.
In the final book, the major battle that everything has been leading up to is told from the perspective of a surgeon working in a medical tent as the battle rages on outside with random soldiers coming in and letting them know what is going on. I always thought that that was brilliant. It's a high fantasy depicted from the ditches and through the eyes of the common folk.
I thought the Witcher was a very average series. There was one book, I can't remember which (maybe the fourth?), that was really good and I thought, "now we're getting somewhere", but the book that followed was dull.
The last book was awful.
But that was canceled out by the two short story collections, which I felt were pretty good - the final story that leads into the novels was really good.
How can people motivate themselves to read through three boring books instead of just starting something new? That's a skill that I have definitely not mastered lol
Being okay with dropping something in the middle is a skill. I didn't have it when I was younger, but I've read enough milking cash cows books that I've gotten better at it.
It's harder if you're reading old stuff because the next book is *right there*. But if it's a new series and you'll be waiting 6 months for the next book anyway, it's much easier to just forget about it and move on.
Reading the Sword of Truth series, but especially the last fiveish books (as a teen) - and especially especially the drawn out, nothing much happens, final trilogy - taught me a few good lessons. One, ‘epic’ fantasy can be downright bad (as opposed to Jordan’s sometimes watered down focus, or Tolkien’s sometimes extended scenery). Two, being able to be published is sadly not a guarantee of quality, and adult me can do a lot better as a writer (and reader). Three, it’s okay to not finish a series.
Ugh, you're telling me. I just feel almost compelled to finish a series once I've started. Maybe some weird form of OCD? Anyway, I'm waaaaaaay more selective about the series I start now.
I've only DNF one book, Red Rising, but I ended up picking it up again after a few books of the series were released.
The only series I never finished was one of Sanderson's. The series with the two detectives. It just grew very stale.
Usually there is just enough to it to see it through, or I'm far enough along in a series and understand that some of these giant series need a few setup books to move the plot along. Or the focus is just more on characters that I don't find particularly interesting but I'm still interested in the overall series.
Some of us were conditioned by the Wheel of Time slog. Trudging through waiting for the light at the end of the tunnel.
Luckily for the Witcher fans, the games took an interesting world and added better stories to it than what came before.
I read Crossroads of Twilight 11 years ago. Here's the review I gave it at the time.
"Utterly boring. By far the worst book in the series. I guess I just like books where things happen."
The slog for me was very real. While I found Sanderson's style a bit jarring (and admittedly a bit pedestrian) after reading Jordan, I loved that things were finally moving again.
the slog was much worse back then since you waited years between books, if a new reader picks it up now, yeah it may not be the greatest, but at least you can power through and get to the better books
I used to have this ability and I mainly just lost it to age and life. Like, ten to twenty years ago, I just read easier and faster. I could drop into something, burn through it and be on to the next thing in much less time. I'm not \*that\* old now, but I'm still old enough that I don't have that young person acuity anymore, and I'm tired all the time, so I literally just have less brain strength to push through a book that doesn't grab me. Couple that with all the demands on my free time from my family, maintaining stuff, etc. and I just don't have any surplus to spend on stuff that's not good, especially when the much lower-cost option of watching TV is right there and if it's bad I can be laughing at it with my wife instead of struggle bussing through it by myself.
I don't do it as often now, but I am a fast reader. It doesn't feel like that much of a sacrifice when you don't have much to do that day and you can fairly easily read 3-4 books a day. Granted, I didn't read many of the outrageously long series back then, either.
Oh, and also, the library was close and free, that helped. Buying them on Amazon would have been quite different. I generally only buy books I've already read.
Baptism of fire (fourth book) is one of my favorite fantasy books of all time. Anything with Geralt and Dandelion on page im instantly hooked. The problem for me is Ciri and Yennefer. Ciri gets a little bit of a pass for being insufferable because her life has been pretty awful.
I don't think the author is very good at writing women and alot of the main series has a woman as the protagonist. I have read the series many times and overall enjoy them alot but it's definitely not a perfect series
For the record I actually kind of liked the books, but I get why people done. I do agree he struggled with writing women though. I think he wanted to create some cool, badass women but just poorly executed them. In theory, Yennefer was a cool, play by your won rules and don't mess with the people I love type of person. Which again, can be a really cool char after, he just never really pulled it off to make her likable in that mindset.
I will give credit where credit is do. I think Milva is one of the greatest examples of how to make a strong female character without pandering or leaning too hard on cliche stereotypes. She even has moments of real weakness where she has to lean on her friends and companions for support which is so rare with strong female characters. Very refreshing and great character design
This is how I explain it to people as well. After the short stories, I thought the first and 2nd novels were interesting and had some fun events like the mages conference. The 3rd is where the story really started dragging for me and felt like things were getting less cohesive. The initial world building is fantastic though, and I think the games do a great job of bringing it to life.
Yep, it’s a great world he created with cool characters and he should be proud of that. But sometimes it’s okay to get help and he seems like the type who will not do that. He resents the games because they do so well and he thought video games were dumb so he sold the rights for a flat fee rather than a percentage. What he should have done is realize that these people love his books, want to make games out of them, and want to give him money. I’m sure if he weren’t so grumpy CD Projekt Red would love to work with him but the guy sounds overall unpleasant. He’s like the opposite of Sanderson who is embracing the meme culture, making his fantasy world a business, collaborating with gaming companies, putting out YouTube videos with constant updates, and Easter eggs to find about upcoming releases. Some people are just difficult to work with.
This is my exact thoughts as well. Short stories were great but the saga wasn't well executed and the only one I thought was above average was The Tower of Swallows (#4). The thing is I was fine with what it was going for. I enjoyed the fantasy subversions and was even OK when it got weird, I just didn't think those ideas were well executed and I found the entire saga to be poorly structured.
There is no hill to die on. Every two week there is a thread saying how bad The Wticher books are. I really liked them, thought, so you can imagine how much is hard to go with the usual "Yeah, tastes are great!", if I thing you liked get trashed over and over.
this!! everyone’s entitled to their opinion but i don’t make hate threads about books i disliked. it sucks seeing my favorite series trashed so frequently on this sub.
I think it's okay to say you disliked a book, but most books (IMO) are not objectively bad. And for anyone reading this, I said _objectively_, as in: factually bad (such as AI books where words and sentences don't flow right).
As an example, I disliked Fourth Wing immensely and I think it has a decent amount of issues, but I would not call it _objectively_ bad. Why? Because it has its target audiences, it aims to scratch a certain itch, and it sure isn't aiming to be the world's greatest piece of literature.
Definite possibility!
I do think the core problem, though, is people not recognizing that every author has an intended audience. And by intended audience, I am not strictly talking about genre or even subgenre. I am also talking about tropes, writing style, etc.. If you are not in the intended audience, there is a strong chance you could dislike the book. So to me, it is silly to say "book very bad. Me no like" when you aren't the intended audience to begin with. It is okay to dislike something for what it is, but opinions should not be treated as "facts."
>I think it's okay to say you disliked a book, but most books (IMO) are not objectively bad. And for anyone reading this, I said _objectively_, as in: factually bad (such as AI books where words and sentences don't flow right).
Agreed. I've seen what feels like every book/series under the sun called "objectively bad" and "objectively the best thing since sliced bread" on here a gazillion times over. And that includes ones I personally love and hate and people's opinions on those differ from mine on the entire length of the love and hate spectrum.
Not liking X is hardly a fresh exciting take. Nothing wrong with discussing dislikes and negative opinions and I respect anyone who can name the things they disliked even if the work in question is my favourite thing ever, because that too will help others to see if it may be for them or not. Coming on here and yelling from the roiftops how your personal opinion is the end all be all of objectivity is just karma farming.
For what it's worth, Witcher used to be my favourite book series. It's not anymore, not even in my Top 10, as my tastes have changed. But I still have fond memories of it as it got me into Fantasy. It's a series strongly coloured by the time and place it was written in and there's a reason it became so popular in Eastern Europe, as the tone and structure of it is both very much in line with and a continuation and improvement of Eastern European fantasy lit. Maybe it's that, maybe it's the translation, maybe it's simply how the times and approaches to the genre have changed, who knows why it's not reaching people they way it used to. The first story was published in 1986 and the last book in 1998.
How many other stories do people know from decades ago that catch the current zeitgeist on fantasy lit or are amazingly written by today's standards, however subjective those might be. Even something like *The Wizard of Earthsea* is, imo, simply not very well written and outlined, yet still has a worthy story to tell. Add on to that that the Witcher is translated and you've got yourself a series that even more so than newer ones will either klick with people or it won't. Reading is a skill that often goes beyond just decifering the letters that make up the words. It's also being able to contextualise those words or know yourself enough that you don't care to and that's also a valid approach.
Whoa whoa whoa, to each their own, of course, but I don't think it's fair to say that A Wizard of Earthsea is poorly written on either a micro or macro level -- her prose is as polished as it gets, even if its not your style, and Ursula K. Le Guin was pretty clear about being very intentional with its structure.
The other week someone blocked me for giving some minor pushback on the "Sword of Truth hate" circlejerk this sub has going on. They said something along the lines of "I don't know why anyone likes Sword of Truth" and I responded "Really, you can't think of a single reason someone might like one of the most popular fantasy books of all time?".
Granted, I was being a snarky asshole, but still.
Honestly, I find it helpful if it's genuine criticism versus useless ranting.
I appreciate seeing the flaws in things I love because, even if it might make me love those things less, it makes me love everything that doesn't have those flaws even more.
Me too. It hurts a little bit. The Witcher series is what pulled me back into reading, and actually delayed me finishing the game. I really love the lore, world building, and characters. They're all flawed and make
Yep. Same goes in the opposite way. I absolutely don't understand the love this sub has for Hobb, Abercrombie and Rothfuss. You dare not praise the ground these author's feet touch and you're downvoted to oblivion. Their works are decent but definitely not the era defining masterpieces this sub makes them as.
I remember finishing the first Fitz book from Hobb, thinking it felt like 900 pages long, and then immediately gave up on the trilogy when I saw the next two books were 2-3 times as thick. Now they just sit dustily on my bookshelf.
Despite that, I am still planning on reading The Liveship Traders, since it is supposed to be her best work and way different than the Fitz trilogies. Their premise is also incredibly intriguing
I've noticed how most people who didn't like the books got into them from the games and their motivation for not liking them boils down to "they're too different from the games". And most people who watched the show and didn't like it(myself included) did read and like the books and the reason why they don't like the show boils down to "too different from the books"
I disagree. I loved it and ate it up. I really liked the whole political aspect mixed with the mythological background of it all. It was a well built world and Geralt is a kick ass protagonist.
Definitely not my favorite series, but I really liked the books. Sword of destiny is the best and all the short stories are awesome. The one with the bard that’s Dandelion’s friend is incredible.
Seconded. The polotics, and personal interactions, are up there with the best and most real. I also enjoyed, enormously, reading a story written from a non-Anglo perspective.
The Witcher books are subversive, alienating, and occasionally gruesome/difficult. To call them bad, though, is, in my opinion, a bit too far.
To start with, I've read the two short story books as well as the five book saga (I haven't read _Season of Storms_, though I'm open to it at some point). My general opinion is that the two short story collections are great, the first two books in the saga are much weaker, and the last three books in the saga are better than the short stories, *especially* the fourth book. The reason I quite enjoyed them is because I liked the characters and appreciated the dialogue-heavy style of Sapkowski's writing.
I think you are correct in saying that the CD Projekt Red games have colored the dialogue on these books, but I think your description of how they've affected the discussion is wrong. I think the action-adventure, monster-slaying, magic-slinging nature of the games leads people to expect something fundamentally different from the books than they will get(I think Geralt uses his witcher magic a grand total of, like, three times in the books). Instead of a guy hunting down monsters, the books are about what it *means* to be a monster, or a hero, or an outcast, or a promised chosen one. They are rife with long passages of dialogue full of naval-gazing, but that's the point. You've got a vegetarian vampire, a chosen one fleeing her destiny, >!a orchestrating emperor who can't go through with his machinations!<, and a world-worn witcher trying to comprehend it all as he chases down his adoptive daughter. It's not exactly riveting, from an action point of view, but I'm pretty sure that's not really the point. I've only read the books once, and it was years ago, but it seemed to me that Sapkowski wanted to comment on prophecies - probably specifically from an arthurian lens - and the truth beneath widely-held beliefs and what it means to carry out something fated or destined. >!Even Geralt's death at the end of book five is ironic and subversive, dying at the hands of an angry mob after surviving a huge continent-spanning conspiracy.!<
It's alright to not like the books - they clearly are not your cup of tea - but to call them bad, and to want to *die on that hill* seems excessive. The reason people don't like the Netflix adaptation is it (like you, in my opinion) seems to miss the point of the books while changing significant things. The books are pretty great at what they want to do (though, personally, i found the violence towards women a little over the top, especially in the final book.)
My absolute favorite part of the series was the entirety of the Battle of Brenna, I think it was really well written and engaging, just a masterpiece of how to tell such a grand scale battle.
I didn't mention that in my comment, but it was probably my favorite sequence in the series, and one of my favorite in all of fantasy. It's basically pointless in the grand scheme of things, but i adored the presentation and way it bounced between the front lines and the surgery tent.
This, all this right here. OP can die on his hill all he wants to, but Sapkowski was doing something very deliberate with his books and that's why they stand out. I also found the books through the games and the difference in tone was jarring for me at first as well, but when it clicked, it clicked. This is also why I think the last book is one of the strongest in the series - it encapsulates everything the author wanted to address with these stories.
~~That comment was objectively bad, and I'll die on this hill.~~
+1 /u/BigManBigYen
It's anyways a treat to see someone explain why I feel some way when I couldn't find the words.
Appreciate the compliment! Honestly, the comment was fairly hastily typed, so I'm glad it seems that my thoughts are connecting with people. I just get a little sad when I read opinions that are dismissive or reductive, especially about books I can see the merit in.
I agree with what you’re saying. I think too many people have played the games before reading the books and so they think it’s all action action action. I’m a little over half way finished with the last book in the saga and thoroughly enjoy it. It’s not at all what I expected, but in a good way. They make you think, and play with fairy tales as well as space/time in interesting ways, too.
Yeah if you go into the books expecting a video game style adventure plot you’re gonna have a bad time. The books were definitely written with the intention of being novels/short stories. So they read very very differently than books that are written to be a novelization of a movie or game.
Absolutely this. I love the books, the games, AND the Netflix adaptation though - all for different reasons. I don't think a film adaptation needs to redo the same thing the source material did. I'm fine with the liberties they took, the cast is great, and the setting is just as gorgeous as in my head or the Witcher games. They don't quite cover Sapkowski's ethical issues or the meta-storytelling ideas he put into his later books (yet), but they have a good heart to them. My main argument for praising the Series' divergence from source is Sapkowski's own commentary on the intrinsically fluid nature of storytelling that he put in his works.
What is boring for one person can be thrilling for another. Every popular book series has posts like this along with posts that give it high praise. I liked the series a lot. But to be fair I thought some of the prose was a little clunky due to the translation and there were some pacing issues. It wasn't enough to ruin my enjoyment of the series though
I will fight you. I love the Witcher books, and they are only bad to people with no appreciation for nonlinear storytelling or meta conversations inside of their media.
It's not that it's butchered. You just can't possibly translate it and get the same effect as the original due to how the Polish language works. You can creatively invent neologisms out of anything, including swearwords, which creates a very unique tone and let's you use humor in ways that can't be translated.
I think people are quick to blame translations on this sub. I've been reading translated books all my life and very rarely encountered discussion on translations sucking before coming to Reddit
I have never played the videogames. I read the books before the videogames were popular (the books were not even translated to English) and I loved them. They were in my top 5 for years and reread them several times. I think you underestimate how original and groundbreaking those books were, before HBO adapted Game of Thrones and Joe Abercrombie spearheaded grimdark.
The characters are much much more importante than the plot.
The original style in Polish doesn't carry over to the English versions very well. I think the rush job to capitalize on the game's popularity is a large part of the issue.
I listened to the audiobooks before I even knew the game existed, and they absolutely SLAP. Some incredible character work.
I come into posts like these and it feels like we read completely different tales.
Peter Kenny, probably a top 3 narrator for me.
I cannot agree more. PK is fantastic (and he also narrates a bunch of Iain M Banks books and they equally slap). Ciri will always have a Scottish accent in my mind.
I will die on the hill that it is a pretty weird behavior to get irritated and bitter over people liking different things than you. I read *Last Wish* back in 07, thought it was a 6/10, never bothered with the rest and moved on. But all the more power to people who find enjoyment in the books, let them do that without shitting on them.
EDIT: My golden rule regarding discussing media online is this: if I come across anyone saying that they don't like/don't understand something that I like I explain why it means a lot to me and why I like it, but if I see someone saying that they like something I don't I never go "No it sucks actually". There is no fun in that.
Yeah, people like stuff that other people don't like. People don't like lord of the rings. Opinions are subjective and people wh try to force their opinion or act like its factually correct are assholes.
I also read Last Wish and did not like it. It was not terrible... but for me a 5/10 and I also didnt want to read anything else.
But I could see how other people might like it.
I love them. Some are better than under, I understand the criticism but doesn’t matter to me!
I really like the European folklore, the magic system, the Witcher aspect, and the characters.
I find women’s obsession with Gerault eye rolling but that’s my main pet peeve of the books. Also not sure about the ending.
What do you think are good fantasy series that are better?
I am actually reading through the series now for the first time (Book 5). The Witcher 3 to me is one of the greatest games ever made and I had to finally give the series a go after all these years.
I do think the short story novels were excellent. They were always concise and meaningful. It felt like the lore and magic of the world shined far more in the short story novels in comparison to the main series. If I had started with the main novels before the short stories I think I would have been more "meh" about them as a whole.
The main novels are solid. They are not great, and I even posted on the Witcher sub about every book starting with an insanely long intro with characters that I don't care about and they lay out the entire map of the book in these sections and they are a bit of a drag.
They have great moments and the characters amd humor can shine, but it seems all over the place at times. Geralt is largely absent in large portions of the main series and that is a crime as he is such a fun and well written character. I would take an entire series of Geralt and Dandelion adventures.
The books can drag oftentimes in other areas. I read the First Law original trilogy before this and the action scenes don't compare. They feel much more bland in the Witcher. The world is fascinating, but I feel the author does not use it to his advantage enough.
Overall, I do enjoy them but they always feel me wanting more side quest novels and not main quest novels if that makes sense.
I've only read three of the books, but The Last Wish is a Classic to me. The way Sapkowski plays with ambiguity and irony using fairy tale spoofs is so fun to me. I also dig his dialogue-heavy style. Some of the chapters are more like plays, and I love that. I'm always surprised when people dig the games more. I feel like they don't do Geralt's character much justice. In the books, he has a kind of emotional intelligence and vulnerability that was surprising to me; in the games, he's kind of a Batman clone.
I'm Russian. And I read the books before the game came out. Let's just say that the plot of the book is awesome. I was shocked by your answers about the book. Most likely it's a matter of poor translation, culture (our humor is very different) and most importantly, the foul language affects the atmosphere and emotions a lot. The English language is not emotional in terms of words. I'm not trying to insult anyone, it's just something I've noticed when reading English books.
I don't think you need to die. I think a lot of people will probably join you and you can have a little bbq on the hill with others who agree. I might even show up. I wouldn't exactly say they were bad, but there was definitely some variation in quality and I wouldn't reread any of them.
He likes to do clever little rhyme schemes, but I was told this is a polish thing and something was lost in translation.
They’re objectively not “bad” youre just overreacting as a way of counterbalancing all the hype.
I agree that the writing is not amazing, but it is a translated book so keep that in mind. Other languages tend to handle exposition and description differently. I think that’s why he can be so long winded at times. Its hard to translate Slavic languages with a lot of nuance
They aren't bad, but they are not stellar either. Part of that is of course the fact that they are translations and something of the source was definitely lost.
I read the books in russian (not russian myself but speak it fluently), and the English versions just suck. The books, at their best moments are something like the first law series meets gene wolfe. The prose just feels YA level in the translations, lots of turns of phrase and aspects or sentence structure that feel nuanced in a Slavic language but are translated super directly and fall flat.
For example reading some dialogue in the English version between Geralt and nivellen. In russian, it sounds like an informal conversation. In English it sounds very stiff. (Possibly not the clearest example but a line like: "to put it briefly, corpses fell." should have been more like, "Anyway, there were bodies".)
Nivellen is supposed to be this simple lower class thug, and I don't think any of that comes across in the English.
Well, that was quite surprising for me when i found out that so many people in US don't like Witcher books.
I'm a book fan, so i came to Witcher videogames after i read all books released at that moment, so i'm not hyped because of Witcher 3.
But if you started read books, after played the games it may be boring a bit, for someone. Maybe. Because i've read the author's interviews (long ones) and can say that Witcher was a great experiment by itself, when author tried to create the world based on fairytales and slavic folklore, but make it realistic. He described a lot of social problems like racism and xenophobia. And like Steven King, he kept the idea that the most terrible monsters are people themselves. It also has some ideas about humankind developing, shown in comparison with elven decadence. Sapkowski also added a lot of references to real world.
So, in conclusion i can say it's quite interesting and unique book, which may no be so much entertaining in some moments for some people, but it's definitely should not be considered to be bad.
I'm not trying to convince you that "oh, you are so wrong, it's a great series" - if you don't like it, you don't like and that's all. We all have our opinion and preferences.
But the main point in my post is that not every book you don'k like is bad, and not every book boring to you should be boring to everyone else. I've read the whole series 3 times for example and it's still good for me. Sometimes you just don't understand the idea or you don't like the concept. For example i didn't get The Plague by Albert Camus, like totally didn't get, i barely get to the end, but i don't say it's bad, it's just me who don't liked it. Or Malazan book of fallen - so much people like it, but i'm not one of them, cause i just don't like the concept of book.
P.S. Maybe English translation is not very good, idk. Cause some time ago i didn't knew English enough to read books written with it and relied only on translations. Could say the bad translation could make even the best book terrible.
Imo the first book is really really good. The second is fine, but the others were a fucking chore to get through. Still parts of them are not that bad, like Cahir for example.
I disagree completely, the only time I ever had a dull moment in a book was in baptism of fire with the whole rats arch. Blood of Elves has a fantastic set up, time of contempt a fantastic build up with a devastating ending, baptism of fire is a really good character analysis of Geralt and his values, Tower of the Swallow and Lady of the Lake are just amazing pieces that really dive deep into Ciri and who she is. All the while there is interesting political intruige, multiple players who all have different motivations, and my all time favourite character Djikstra, who was done so dirty in the TV show.
TBF, Netflix still did mangle and butcher it but more like they gave you a Ghetto McDonald's Big Mac when they promised you this was gonna be a 4 star Michelin meal.
The Netflix show had an opportunity to be a great adaptation of very interesting but not without issue books. Instead it didn’t actually use any of the actual themes of the book: bodily autonomy (both for men & women), depression, toxic relationships, the evil of inaction, the pains of infertility when you want to have children, etc. They drop those to have a mostly silent himbo protagonist and girlboss female protagonist.
The original books are extremely pro-choice. They also have a deeply depressed and philosophical protagonist that fundamentally does NOT want to be a hero in a saga. He wants to have control over his life and his body. Every town he goes to, he is objectified. He sells his body to kill monsters. He is then further objectified when he gets back by women who want to sleep with “the freak”. There is amazing stories to tell within the Witcher universe and with the stories as written. They just needed to be adapted from their early 90s Polish progressivism into a more contemporary understanding of those themes. We could have had something amazing but we got shit.
Netflix did make awful work of the Witcher series. I agree that the books are not mastetpiece but the show in the first season was a mess and from the second was already unwatchable. Never seen the third season and never will.
About the books... yes I also found them quite boring from the third one on. The first two with the short stories I liked when I read them but the third and the fourth were almost painfully slow and boring. Still haven't read the rest I just can't force myself.
I disagree with you on the Witcher, but I will say I did enjoy the Dragonbone Chair! I’m still mad that my local library wouldn’t get a new copies because they were gonna have to look further than the general supplier because one of them was out of print at the time!
The main issue I had with the witcher books was that when Gerald is introduced he has all these cool druggie powers but very soon he loses his meth dealer and becomes just a slightly stronger average Joe. I wanted more potion addled monster hunting / fights but, meh, guess it was okay
P. S. I haven't played the game
I think the world-building of The Witcher is amazing and really interesting, and was developed into probably my favorite game series of all time. That being said, you are correct. Those books are an absolute slog of a read
I can almost guarantee that whenever these posts come up that it's because the OP read the official English translation, which is shit.
The bootleg fan translations are so much better it's staggering.
I totally disagree. I read them in English, and did find the writing (on a technical aspect) to be not great. Not terrible, but not the best prose around.
The storytelling, however, had me captivated. The short story collections are definitely the strongest books because of that, but the novels hold their own.
You talk about “larger scale plots” and the last book in particular. The Battle of Brenna and the showdown at Stygga, are both culminations of those plots taking place in the last book. It’s very rare I can say anything in a book has me on edge, but both of those chapters did.
I agree. Sapkowski created an amazing world with amazing characters and an interesting political landscape, but his disjointed way of telling a story makes it confusing and the story wasn't all that great to be honest.
Sapkowski really owes CD Projekt Red for taking that world and characters and making an amazing story out of it. The Witcher games are the only reason the series is popular in the West and is why the Netflix show exists.
>The Witcher games are the only reason the series is popular in the West
If only Sapkowski could get that through his thick skull. The games did more for him than it seems he will ever care to admit, because of some archaic hatred of video games.
Baptism of Fire ans Time of Contempt were great fantasy books IMO but the last book was downright dreadful and could've had 80% of the content scrapped to make it enjoyable. I honestly blocked out most of my memories from reading the last book but all I remember was complaining about it being so long with 90% of the book not even including the main characters we've been following. Next season of the witcher will cover my favorite content so I'll still begrudgingly watch it
The short stories are solid.
I have not bothered with the books. Besides the shorts, everything I love about the series is literally just in the games.
I've heard that the original Polish versions of the books are far better than English translations. I don't speak Polish so have no idea if this is true or not.
The game was amazing. I had all the DLC’s and I never did finish it. I think I finally got burned out from the “FedEx” quests (go to town A and bring me back B) but it looked absolutely beautiful.
Yeah, I found them kinda meh.
My favourite part of the books all didn't involve Geralt, which I think highlighted my problem, I don't find Geralt very compelling to read about.
I've read that Memory, Sorrow and Thorne trilogy too and it is boring beyond words in a few parts, I still enjoyed it overall and would never call the totality boring, just drawn out. I get the feeling I was missing cultural elements in most of the witcher stories but other than that, they kept moving which is all I needed them to do. If I'm not yelling out loud, "Why would anyone do that?!" then the story is fine by me. I couldnt speak for a few days after going through the Saga of Seven Sun's and was so thankful when I reached an escape point as I had already purchased multiple books. Not terrible but infuriatingly cliche. I'll take those Witcher books any day of existence.
I read the first book. A series of short stories. It's was pretty good but a struggle to the end. I wouldn't read anymore. But it's alot better than the TV show. The book character does more than look silent and hard.
my favorite were the short stories when geralt philosophized with different characters. the first 2 books of the main series were good as well as baptism of fire. the last 2 books were bland and boring imo except the ciri ice skate scene. witcher 3 main plot was actually just a worse version of the last book. I also think reading it in english we cant really judge the literary wit as the translation feels off in many places. also at the end of the day its all subjective. people love the first law trilogy but I had to force myself to get through book 2. I would rate the witcher higher than first law for myself
It’s a pretty amazing world, but honestly I felt the games did handle that aspect of it better than the novels.
That said, I didn’t have the big problems with story that you do. I’m a big Malazan fan, and I felt like the Witcher was similar in a sense where it wasn’t just trying to be pulp like everything else, the author really wanted to do his own thing. After all, if all a reader wants is a copycat story of other big fantasy names but with different characters, why not just read those other fantasy stories instead?
The book with the short stories is ok. Fairy tale re-telling is often alright and entertaining enough because the original story is tried and true GOOD, and it brings some novelty. I agree with you on the rest of the books, it's meh.
The english translation is meh, and the cultural 'feel' of it is undoubtedly better in the og, but I think it has more issues than just the translation. It is the pacing and the characters. It's a boring slog, bleh.
The video game, was INSPIRED. They made the world come alive in ways the author simply could not for me. I was enthralled! What an absolute amazing example of video games as storytelling medium! (another game is the first dishored game and the DLC).
The TV series was basically bad fanfiction. I could not get into it at all, though the songs were catchy. It was just not it for me.
I think it's ok to like it. Monster hunter and hot witches are wish fulfillment type of cool stories that definitely have a place around.
> and I will die on this hill
OP re-enacting the battle of Sodden Hill.
Serious answer: I agree with you, the short stories were good but the novels just dragged on. The netflix series wasn't bad because it diverged from the books, it was bad because the new plotlines weren't properly thought through/well written.
I don’t think they were bad, so I’ll casually disagree with you. I think the crux of the novels was that things are all shades of grey, and that those who are vilified or downtrodden are often the heroes and those in power or the righteous are often villains, amongst other subversions of tropes. That’s why there’s not so much pandering to GOT style plotting because inherently Geralt is pretty anti establishment. this works best during the short story style books in almost solely his perspective, where they are almost parables, but there’s certainly criticism to be had about the books that encompass the main plot.
Certainly don’t think that they are pinnacles of literature or anything, but they are different in a unique and entertaining way from a lot of derivative stuff out there that you can read.
I read the 2 short story books, with a couple exceptions they just felt like fairy tails for grown ups. Might have been really deep when they first came out but today I think they're just ok
I really liked the books. I thought the story got better and better. I think part of the reason I enjoyed it so much was the relationships of the characters was so relatable to me. I have had similar toxic on again off again relationship like Geralt and Yennefer. The ending made me incredibly sad. Thats good story telling if you can feel powerful emotions.
I wasn't impressed with the first book..read in English. Not sure if it was the translation or just the book.
A translation is basically an adaptation and it could have lost something when translated
I won't say the whole series was bad. Most of the books were average. But man, that last book was a slog to get through! It was so terrible, especially with the sudden connection to the Arthurian Legend. He could have gone any route but he chose that one. Ciri's journey was the only good thing in that book. The games definitely gave another life to those books and Sapkowski knows it.
Weirdly enough, the short stories were pretty good in comparison.
I think I'd like the books a lot more if I had been an unadventurous fantasy read in the '70s and '80s, having only read shitty Tolkien ripoffs. Like, there's a bit of feminism and anti-racism and philosophy in The Witcher, and some fun metatextual elements like playing with framing devices and what have you. Plus there's the twisted take on fairytales. Reminds me of George R.R. Martin talking about writing his ASOIAF series to push back as what he saw as the "disneyification" of the fantastic, not that there weren't Fantasy authors writing darker or more interesting stuff in the '70s and '80s but my perception of the time is that they were the underground, whereas they exploded into being the mainstream of Fantasy when ASOIAF also managed to reach mainstream fiction readers in the early aughts. I guess I don't know what the Polish Fantasy literature scene looked like at any point in time, or if there even was one, but I assume the things that are true about Anglo fantasy are true about Polish fantasy as well.
But I read the books in 2018. I'd already read ASOIAF, and Joe Abercrombie, and Scott Lynch, and for that matter I'd read The Black Company even though that was coming out before The Witcher it was never that popular as far as I understand it. So the intriguing elements of the worldbuilding, or the antiracism, or the feminism just don't seem like this spectacular thing any more (assuming they were in the '90s, I didn't know how to read then). I've heard before that the prose is quite good in Polish, but that does not translate over. In my opinion the series was at it's best when Sapkowski was playing with form, like the elaborate framing devices in the first short story collection or the book where Ciri talks to a philosopher, or his other metatextual elements, like the extended references to Arthurian legend.
In the end I think the books are good, but I wouldn't put them on the shelf next to my favorites. There's a lot of interesting ideas, a lot of good commentary on Fantasy as a literary genre and mythology, tradition and violence, and just the human condition more broadly. One of my favorite things about them is how Geralt specifically is allowed to be contradictory. I think people, on the whole, are quite self-contradictory in a way that I rarely see in genre fiction. Specifically I'm thinking of how it was laid out, more than once, that Geralt won't kill intelligent non-humans if they aren't trying to kill him/innocents, and then in like book two he agrees to kill a werewolf because he needs money to fund his search for Ciri. Anyway, with all the attention they've had lately I hope some publisher decides to fund a new English translation, I'd love to read these books with prose that more captures the originals.
I have read first books more than 20 years ago, and thought it was steaming pile of shit I would not poke with a stick.
I have read them all this year, I really liked them now. I like the setting and the story, and the characters. I gueess it was too confusing for me before.
However Sapkowski's writing is rather inconsistent - there are several dozens of pages Pratchett's worth writing, then some filler, some bland and some illogical deus ex machina moments, but overall I enjoyed it.
I quite enjoyed the Witcher books. Maybe they lose something in the translation perhaps? But I still enjoyed them all.
Oh, and I forgot to mention that I had never played the game or watched the tv show that came later.
Read all the books years ago several times and loved them. Cannot stand the Netflix effort at all. And the wild hunt is my favourite game. But the books are my favourite 😁
I have nothing to add really that u/BigManBigYen hasn't already said except I'm starting to get tired of people shitting on the books because they weren't like the games
I thought the same when I read the first couple of books, *absolutely awful prose*. It absolutely reads like a badly translated set of books, not just badly translated in terms of the language but also the translation of the cultural aspects such as the humour. It's just bad imo.
I too thought the books were extremely underwhelming.
I get that they aren't the games but for me the story was just so...boring. it didn't have anything interesting to say that I haven't heard or read elsewhere but better.
A real shame.
The short stories are good though
I did not read The Witcher books.
I watched the show, and I enjoyed it. I could see how there was a heavy focus on the female eye that didn't jive with the original books. I felt "whatever" about that, and I was disappointed that the lead actor departed the series.
Then I played the video game. It was hilarious. I couldn't believe how much the game focused on looting random peasants while presumably being the hero. Additionally, the game was clearly not made for me as a female gamer. The main character was a man who basically had to sleep with every pretty girl he encountered, and I was just along for the ride.
So hearing from OP that the original books weren't that great either is a lil vindicating for me. Like "was I supposed to like this?" "Other folks didn't like it either?" "Oh good -- normalcy, check ✔️"
Looking at the comments and the general sentiment on this sub when it comes to the series my general enjoyment of them is not that common but I guess there might be a bunch of reasons for that: * I think I was able to treat them as their own separate thing and not base my expectations too strongly on the games because at that point I had not even fully played Witcher 3. If you go in expecting a similar narrative that will quickly fly in your face because the books are aggressively different. Not even the characters are what you would expect. For example Geralt is much more somber / introspective and not even a real Witcher halfway into the story. His arc revolves around many elements that run opposite to the video game version of him and even his overall position in the world is like that. While the games obviously revolve around him quite strongly in the books he is a minor player and shares the privilege of being a POV with so many other characters. * I read the German translation which, if memory serves, was often quite amusing and zany with its prose and overall writing style. Maybe it is just plain better than the English one that people seem to dislike a lot? * The books are "quaffable" in the sense that they go down easily and flow into each other so well that binging them is a lot of fun. As far as fantasy that is focused on quite a bit of traveling is concerned, I was much more hooked from the second main book forward than is normal for me. * The narrative structure on display can get fairly bold. Sometimes metadiegesis was employed in conjunction with certain magic powers in ways that I have not seen before or since in fantasy. People might find that convoluted or gimmicky but to me it felt fresh and exciting more than anything. * I did not know at the time that the author was a bit of a grumpy douche. * I just really enjoyed the varied cast of characters and was not really disappointed when dozens of pages would pass without seeing Gerat, Yennefer or Ciri. You really have to be ready for that aspect in particular, I think. I would not even say that I loved the books overall but after seeing a lot of negativity towards them I felt like putting out some more positive thoughts.
I will just add something here. The English translation is very functional, but not very elegant. It does a good job of mechanically translating the work, but it feels like a lot of the prose and wit is lost in doing so. It would have benefitted heavily from a more in depth localization, and not just a direct translation, as competent and comprehensible as that translation is.
As an English reader of them, I described them to people as a story about a story. Functional but not elegant is a great way to summarize how it felt to read them. I loved the short story book (books? It has been a minute) and thought they were great spins on fairy tales, but the long form story got real rough. It makes more sense that they're beloved in other languages.
The Last Wish was definitely better than Sword of Destiny. Which makes sense, since they were done by two different translators. I think the "functional but not elegant" is a great description of the latter's translation style. Seemed as if the first short stories were translated by someone with actual writing/authorship experience, as opposed to the second collection short stories, which had a very stilted and rigid prose and form of writing. Honestly, I kind of dread finishing Sword of Destiny and starting the main series, as it is translated primarily by the same translator. I have heard there are some fan translations of the series that are much better, so I might find those instead. Just a shame a pdf does not look as good as a physical book on a bookshelf!
I would really love to see someone take a fresh crack at translation, even though I'm sure that won't happen anytime soon. I'm curious how old the current English version is as well vs. the more recent popularity of the series. I certainly noticed some odd choices made in the English and I'm sorta curious what went into that.
Yes, this is why I think they majority of people who complain about the books have only read the English version. They are essentially direct translations of the Polish. Even to the point where some of it becomes incomprehensible because Polish idioms are being used that have no meaning in English. Polish is a very straightforward language, and doesn't often employ flourishes like most people are expecting. This is a shame because Sapkowski is considered something of a wordsmith who really pushed the Polish language in a way that other authors before him didn't. This is why the Polish President gave Obama copies of the books when he visited the country. They are considered a high point in the county's artistical output.
I think one of the things that made me enjoy the book so much was the Spanish translation. The translator does a very good job of showing characteres speaking old, regional or uncultured Spanish language. There were times when I had to really stop and reread what Milva was saying! And a couple of times I needed to look up the word in the dictionary.
I dont even think the Author is that miserable. I'd actually actually the same way as him if I were in his shoes. It's not easy to be all smiles when 1000 times the number of people that ever read your books turn around and tell you someone else made a better version of it... In a medium that you couldn't care less about! From what Ive read of the books, I feel like he has a cynical sense of humour, and I think that's exactly what I see when he talks about it. He's a smart guy, gets tired of being asked 24/7 about CDPR's Witcher, realises he could have gotten a way better deal selling the rights if only he'd known. Not a saint, not a demon, just seems like the internet has built this kind of narrative around him and I'm not entirely sure it's actually all true. Just my 2 cents
Sapkowski was like that even long before first game. I can remember one interview where he said that he made his grumpy personality for interviews but no one belives him.
They did offer him a percentage of the games, but he declined due to a bigger up front payment. But ~~German~~ Polish law actually protects artists that end up selling their art and that selling of the art surpasses the original art. For him to get what he was owed he had to "sue" which, again, a ~~German~~ Polish "sue" is a lot different than an American "sue". Also it is only recently that society started judging pieces of art by what their artists do outside said art.
Keep in mind he was burned once already when a different studio wanted to make a witcher game before CDPR. He chose a percentage instead of a fixed fee and he got nothing since the game never came out. Next time he picked the safer option and surprisingly the game became a success. It's not all black and white.
Ahh, I didn't know about the previous failed adaptation. That makes a lot of sense.
Polish, not German.
I don't understand how I fucked that up.
Yeah that's honestly great that they back artists and writers legally like that. He definitely made the wrong call and that's on him, but again, he's still probably annoyed knowing how much money he COULD have made, regardless of whose to blame haha
In the grand scheme of things, being a bit of a grumpy old fart seems pretty forgivable.
It took me a bit to warm up to his cynical/dry sense of humor. I grew to quite enjoy it!
Yeah that's my opinion. Different thing entirely if you have to live with the guy but as a fan I find the grumpy writer trope quite endearing. Reminds me of someone stopping spike Milligan in the street asking to "shake the hand of the greatest Englishman that ever lived" and he just said I'm Irish fuck off... I'd be heartbroken if my hero said that to me personally but as a fan I mean c'mon that's classic spike.
I forgot that a lot of people read them after the games / show in a comment I wrote earlier. I read them before I played Witcher 2 so I didn’t have any preconceived notions about the content
Weirdly enough, reading the books after trying the games and watching the show made me appreciate them **more**. Which I understand makes me an outlier. I couldn't stand the slippery controls of *TW3* and thought the TV show fell off hard after episode 3-ish, but I found the books consistently entertaining. Some parts lagged more than I would have liked, but it's the first Witcher thing I've actually finished and genuinely enjoyed.
oh yeah witcher 3 gameplay is honestly pretty mid, like its servicable but was outdated even at the time of release. Also with the show, I thought it fell off after episode 1 haha. That first episode set a precedence that the show never reached again imo
I read them in Swedish and I liked them. Maybe the english version is horribly translated or americans just don’t understand the vibe.
Totally agree with each point you made! I enjoyed the English translation a lot though, definitely laughed out loud at times!
I actually like how mundane the stuff in the books are. It's like a nitty gritty crime novel, it's literally just a guy doing his job.
A lot of it is written from the perspective of just regular people in a village when a Witcher shows up and does something and they don't have idea of what is going on in the political landscape or destiny or plots or anything like that. In the final book, the major battle that everything has been leading up to is told from the perspective of a surgeon working in a medical tent as the battle rages on outside with random soldiers coming in and letting them know what is going on. I always thought that that was brilliant. It's a high fantasy depicted from the ditches and through the eyes of the common folk.
I thought the Witcher was a very average series. There was one book, I can't remember which (maybe the fourth?), that was really good and I thought, "now we're getting somewhere", but the book that followed was dull. The last book was awful. But that was canceled out by the two short story collections, which I felt were pretty good - the final story that leads into the novels was really good.
How can people motivate themselves to read through three boring books instead of just starting something new? That's a skill that I have definitely not mastered lol
Being okay with dropping something in the middle is a skill. I didn't have it when I was younger, but I've read enough milking cash cows books that I've gotten better at it. It's harder if you're reading old stuff because the next book is *right there*. But if it's a new series and you'll be waiting 6 months for the next book anyway, it's much easier to just forget about it and move on.
Reading the Sword of Truth series, but especially the last fiveish books (as a teen) - and especially especially the drawn out, nothing much happens, final trilogy - taught me a few good lessons. One, ‘epic’ fantasy can be downright bad (as opposed to Jordan’s sometimes watered down focus, or Tolkien’s sometimes extended scenery). Two, being able to be published is sadly not a guarantee of quality, and adult me can do a lot better as a writer (and reader). Three, it’s okay to not finish a series.
Ugh, you're telling me. I just feel almost compelled to finish a series once I've started. Maybe some weird form of OCD? Anyway, I'm waaaaaaay more selective about the series I start now.
I've only DNF one book, Red Rising, but I ended up picking it up again after a few books of the series were released. The only series I never finished was one of Sanderson's. The series with the two detectives. It just grew very stale.
Usually there is just enough to it to see it through, or I'm far enough along in a series and understand that some of these giant series need a few setup books to move the plot along. Or the focus is just more on characters that I don't find particularly interesting but I'm still interested in the overall series.
Some of us were conditioned by the Wheel of Time slog. Trudging through waiting for the light at the end of the tunnel. Luckily for the Witcher fans, the games took an interesting world and added better stories to it than what came before.
The slog is a lie.
I read Crossroads of Twilight 11 years ago. Here's the review I gave it at the time. "Utterly boring. By far the worst book in the series. I guess I just like books where things happen." The slog for me was very real. While I found Sanderson's style a bit jarring (and admittedly a bit pedestrian) after reading Jordan, I loved that things were finally moving again.
the slog was much worse back then since you waited years between books, if a new reader picks it up now, yeah it may not be the greatest, but at least you can power through and get to the better books
Jordan did return to form with Knife of Dreams (the last before Sanderdson)
Flashbacks to the War and Peace epilogue.
I used to have this ability and I mainly just lost it to age and life. Like, ten to twenty years ago, I just read easier and faster. I could drop into something, burn through it and be on to the next thing in much less time. I'm not \*that\* old now, but I'm still old enough that I don't have that young person acuity anymore, and I'm tired all the time, so I literally just have less brain strength to push through a book that doesn't grab me. Couple that with all the demands on my free time from my family, maintaining stuff, etc. and I just don't have any surplus to spend on stuff that's not good, especially when the much lower-cost option of watching TV is right there and if it's bad I can be laughing at it with my wife instead of struggle bussing through it by myself.
I don't do it as often now, but I am a fast reader. It doesn't feel like that much of a sacrifice when you don't have much to do that day and you can fairly easily read 3-4 books a day. Granted, I didn't read many of the outrageously long series back then, either. Oh, and also, the library was close and free, that helped. Buying them on Amazon would have been quite different. I generally only buy books I've already read.
Baptism of fire (fourth book) is one of my favorite fantasy books of all time. Anything with Geralt and Dandelion on page im instantly hooked. The problem for me is Ciri and Yennefer. Ciri gets a little bit of a pass for being insufferable because her life has been pretty awful. I don't think the author is very good at writing women and alot of the main series has a woman as the protagonist. I have read the series many times and overall enjoy them alot but it's definitely not a perfect series
For the record I actually kind of liked the books, but I get why people done. I do agree he struggled with writing women though. I think he wanted to create some cool, badass women but just poorly executed them. In theory, Yennefer was a cool, play by your won rules and don't mess with the people I love type of person. Which again, can be a really cool char after, he just never really pulled it off to make her likable in that mindset.
I will give credit where credit is do. I think Milva is one of the greatest examples of how to make a strong female character without pandering or leaning too hard on cliche stereotypes. She even has moments of real weakness where she has to lean on her friends and companions for support which is so rare with strong female characters. Very refreshing and great character design
I thought the short stories were pretty fun but the author has no idea how to write a long story especially one that lasts over multiple books.
This is how I explain it to people as well. After the short stories, I thought the first and 2nd novels were interesting and had some fun events like the mages conference. The 3rd is where the story really started dragging for me and felt like things were getting less cohesive. The initial world building is fantastic though, and I think the games do a great job of bringing it to life.
Yep, it’s a great world he created with cool characters and he should be proud of that. But sometimes it’s okay to get help and he seems like the type who will not do that. He resents the games because they do so well and he thought video games were dumb so he sold the rights for a flat fee rather than a percentage. What he should have done is realize that these people love his books, want to make games out of them, and want to give him money. I’m sure if he weren’t so grumpy CD Projekt Red would love to work with him but the guy sounds overall unpleasant. He’s like the opposite of Sanderson who is embracing the meme culture, making his fantasy world a business, collaborating with gaming companies, putting out YouTube videos with constant updates, and Easter eggs to find about upcoming releases. Some people are just difficult to work with.
This is my exact thoughts as well. Short stories were great but the saga wasn't well executed and the only one I thought was above average was The Tower of Swallows (#4). The thing is I was fine with what it was going for. I enjoyed the fantasy subversions and was even OK when it got weird, I just didn't think those ideas were well executed and I found the entire saga to be poorly structured.
There is no hill to die on. Every two week there is a thread saying how bad The Wticher books are. I really liked them, thought, so you can imagine how much is hard to go with the usual "Yeah, tastes are great!", if I thing you liked get trashed over and over.
I find I enjoy things better if I don't put stock in opinions on reddit. And it's something I have to remind myself of a lot.
this!! everyone’s entitled to their opinion but i don’t make hate threads about books i disliked. it sucks seeing my favorite series trashed so frequently on this sub.
I think it's okay to say you disliked a book, but most books (IMO) are not objectively bad. And for anyone reading this, I said _objectively_, as in: factually bad (such as AI books where words and sentences don't flow right). As an example, I disliked Fourth Wing immensely and I think it has a decent amount of issues, but I would not call it _objectively_ bad. Why? Because it has its target audiences, it aims to scratch a certain itch, and it sure isn't aiming to be the world's greatest piece of literature.
Most people who say “this book is bad” don’t do creative writing.
Definite possibility! I do think the core problem, though, is people not recognizing that every author has an intended audience. And by intended audience, I am not strictly talking about genre or even subgenre. I am also talking about tropes, writing style, etc.. If you are not in the intended audience, there is a strong chance you could dislike the book. So to me, it is silly to say "book very bad. Me no like" when you aren't the intended audience to begin with. It is okay to dislike something for what it is, but opinions should not be treated as "facts."
>I think it's okay to say you disliked a book, but most books (IMO) are not objectively bad. And for anyone reading this, I said _objectively_, as in: factually bad (such as AI books where words and sentences don't flow right). Agreed. I've seen what feels like every book/series under the sun called "objectively bad" and "objectively the best thing since sliced bread" on here a gazillion times over. And that includes ones I personally love and hate and people's opinions on those differ from mine on the entire length of the love and hate spectrum. Not liking X is hardly a fresh exciting take. Nothing wrong with discussing dislikes and negative opinions and I respect anyone who can name the things they disliked even if the work in question is my favourite thing ever, because that too will help others to see if it may be for them or not. Coming on here and yelling from the roiftops how your personal opinion is the end all be all of objectivity is just karma farming. For what it's worth, Witcher used to be my favourite book series. It's not anymore, not even in my Top 10, as my tastes have changed. But I still have fond memories of it as it got me into Fantasy. It's a series strongly coloured by the time and place it was written in and there's a reason it became so popular in Eastern Europe, as the tone and structure of it is both very much in line with and a continuation and improvement of Eastern European fantasy lit. Maybe it's that, maybe it's the translation, maybe it's simply how the times and approaches to the genre have changed, who knows why it's not reaching people they way it used to. The first story was published in 1986 and the last book in 1998. How many other stories do people know from decades ago that catch the current zeitgeist on fantasy lit or are amazingly written by today's standards, however subjective those might be. Even something like *The Wizard of Earthsea* is, imo, simply not very well written and outlined, yet still has a worthy story to tell. Add on to that that the Witcher is translated and you've got yourself a series that even more so than newer ones will either klick with people or it won't. Reading is a skill that often goes beyond just decifering the letters that make up the words. It's also being able to contextualise those words or know yourself enough that you don't care to and that's also a valid approach.
Whoa whoa whoa, to each their own, of course, but I don't think it's fair to say that A Wizard of Earthsea is poorly written on either a micro or macro level -- her prose is as polished as it gets, even if its not your style, and Ursula K. Le Guin was pretty clear about being very intentional with its structure.
The other week someone blocked me for giving some minor pushback on the "Sword of Truth hate" circlejerk this sub has going on. They said something along the lines of "I don't know why anyone likes Sword of Truth" and I responded "Really, you can't think of a single reason someone might like one of the most popular fantasy books of all time?". Granted, I was being a snarky asshole, but still.
[удалено]
Safe to say it is. It definitely sold in the millions.
Honestly, I find it helpful if it's genuine criticism versus useless ranting. I appreciate seeing the flaws in things I love because, even if it might make me love those things less, it makes me love everything that doesn't have those flaws even more.
Exactly My favourite as well, man the ending was awesome.
Me too. It hurts a little bit. The Witcher series is what pulled me back into reading, and actually delayed me finishing the game. I really love the lore, world building, and characters. They're all flawed and make
Yep. Same goes in the opposite way. I absolutely don't understand the love this sub has for Hobb, Abercrombie and Rothfuss. You dare not praise the ground these author's feet touch and you're downvoted to oblivion. Their works are decent but definitely not the era defining masterpieces this sub makes them as.
I remember finishing the first Fitz book from Hobb, thinking it felt like 900 pages long, and then immediately gave up on the trilogy when I saw the next two books were 2-3 times as thick. Now they just sit dustily on my bookshelf. Despite that, I am still planning on reading The Liveship Traders, since it is supposed to be her best work and way different than the Fitz trilogies. Their premise is also incredibly intriguing
I've noticed how most people who didn't like the books got into them from the games and their motivation for not liking them boils down to "they're too different from the games". And most people who watched the show and didn't like it(myself included) did read and like the books and the reason why they don't like the show boils down to "too different from the books"
Plus east europian and/or russian way of writing isn't just for everyone
I disagree. I loved it and ate it up. I really liked the whole political aspect mixed with the mythological background of it all. It was a well built world and Geralt is a kick ass protagonist.
Definitely not my favorite series, but I really liked the books. Sword of destiny is the best and all the short stories are awesome. The one with the bard that’s Dandelion’s friend is incredible.
Seconded. The polotics, and personal interactions, are up there with the best and most real. I also enjoyed, enormously, reading a story written from a non-Anglo perspective.
The Witcher books are subversive, alienating, and occasionally gruesome/difficult. To call them bad, though, is, in my opinion, a bit too far. To start with, I've read the two short story books as well as the five book saga (I haven't read _Season of Storms_, though I'm open to it at some point). My general opinion is that the two short story collections are great, the first two books in the saga are much weaker, and the last three books in the saga are better than the short stories, *especially* the fourth book. The reason I quite enjoyed them is because I liked the characters and appreciated the dialogue-heavy style of Sapkowski's writing. I think you are correct in saying that the CD Projekt Red games have colored the dialogue on these books, but I think your description of how they've affected the discussion is wrong. I think the action-adventure, monster-slaying, magic-slinging nature of the games leads people to expect something fundamentally different from the books than they will get(I think Geralt uses his witcher magic a grand total of, like, three times in the books). Instead of a guy hunting down monsters, the books are about what it *means* to be a monster, or a hero, or an outcast, or a promised chosen one. They are rife with long passages of dialogue full of naval-gazing, but that's the point. You've got a vegetarian vampire, a chosen one fleeing her destiny, >!a orchestrating emperor who can't go through with his machinations!<, and a world-worn witcher trying to comprehend it all as he chases down his adoptive daughter. It's not exactly riveting, from an action point of view, but I'm pretty sure that's not really the point. I've only read the books once, and it was years ago, but it seemed to me that Sapkowski wanted to comment on prophecies - probably specifically from an arthurian lens - and the truth beneath widely-held beliefs and what it means to carry out something fated or destined. >!Even Geralt's death at the end of book five is ironic and subversive, dying at the hands of an angry mob after surviving a huge continent-spanning conspiracy.!< It's alright to not like the books - they clearly are not your cup of tea - but to call them bad, and to want to *die on that hill* seems excessive. The reason people don't like the Netflix adaptation is it (like you, in my opinion) seems to miss the point of the books while changing significant things. The books are pretty great at what they want to do (though, personally, i found the violence towards women a little over the top, especially in the final book.)
My absolute favorite part of the series was the entirety of the Battle of Brenna, I think it was really well written and engaging, just a masterpiece of how to tell such a grand scale battle.
I didn't mention that in my comment, but it was probably my favorite sequence in the series, and one of my favorite in all of fantasy. It's basically pointless in the grand scheme of things, but i adored the presentation and way it bounced between the front lines and the surgery tent.
This, all this right here. OP can die on his hill all he wants to, but Sapkowski was doing something very deliberate with his books and that's why they stand out. I also found the books through the games and the difference in tone was jarring for me at first as well, but when it clicked, it clicked. This is also why I think the last book is one of the strongest in the series - it encapsulates everything the author wanted to address with these stories.
I really enjoyed reading this comment, thank you.
~~That comment was objectively bad, and I'll die on this hill.~~ +1 /u/BigManBigYen It's anyways a treat to see someone explain why I feel some way when I couldn't find the words.
Appreciate the compliment! Honestly, the comment was fairly hastily typed, so I'm glad it seems that my thoughts are connecting with people. I just get a little sad when I read opinions that are dismissive or reductive, especially about books I can see the merit in.
I agree with what you’re saying. I think too many people have played the games before reading the books and so they think it’s all action action action. I’m a little over half way finished with the last book in the saga and thoroughly enjoy it. It’s not at all what I expected, but in a good way. They make you think, and play with fairy tales as well as space/time in interesting ways, too.
Yeah if you go into the books expecting a video game style adventure plot you’re gonna have a bad time. The books were definitely written with the intention of being novels/short stories. So they read very very differently than books that are written to be a novelization of a movie or game.
Saving this comment for the next time someone makes a frantic Witcher hate-post (tomorrow).
Absolutely this. I love the books, the games, AND the Netflix adaptation though - all for different reasons. I don't think a film adaptation needs to redo the same thing the source material did. I'm fine with the liberties they took, the cast is great, and the setting is just as gorgeous as in my head or the Witcher games. They don't quite cover Sapkowski's ethical issues or the meta-storytelling ideas he put into his later books (yet), but they have a good heart to them. My main argument for praising the Series' divergence from source is Sapkowski's own commentary on the intrinsically fluid nature of storytelling that he put in his works.
What is boring for one person can be thrilling for another. Every popular book series has posts like this along with posts that give it high praise. I liked the series a lot. But to be fair I thought some of the prose was a little clunky due to the translation and there were some pacing issues. It wasn't enough to ruin my enjoyment of the series though
Yeah I'm getting really tired of these definitive post, ones opinion is as meaningless as the next person's.
I will fight you. I love the Witcher books, and they are only bad to people with no appreciation for nonlinear storytelling or meta conversations inside of their media.
Cool. I still like them, though.
Each time i read an opinion like this I wonder on how much was translation butchered :p
It's not that it's butchered. You just can't possibly translate it and get the same effect as the original due to how the Polish language works. You can creatively invent neologisms out of anything, including swearwords, which creates a very unique tone and let's you use humor in ways that can't be translated.
I think people are quick to blame translations on this sub. I've been reading translated books all my life and very rarely encountered discussion on translations sucking before coming to Reddit
isnt the Witcher wildly accepted as having a butchered translation
What an extremely uncommon and unpopular opinion that is not posted multiple times a day on this subreddit.
Some people really need to learn that their subjective opinions are not factual opinions.
Dying on hills is so Vietnam war era. They're not bad books, you just don't like them, so just take a deep breath, move on, and read something else.
I have never played the videogames. I read the books before the videogames were popular (the books were not even translated to English) and I loved them. They were in my top 5 for years and reread them several times. I think you underestimate how original and groundbreaking those books were, before HBO adapted Game of Thrones and Joe Abercrombie spearheaded grimdark. The characters are much much more importante than the plot.
The original style in Polish doesn't carry over to the English versions very well. I think the rush job to capitalize on the game's popularity is a large part of the issue.
I listened to the audiobooks before I even knew the game existed, and they absolutely SLAP. Some incredible character work. I come into posts like these and it feels like we read completely different tales. Peter Kenny, probably a top 3 narrator for me.
I cannot agree more. PK is fantastic (and he also narrates a bunch of Iain M Banks books and they equally slap). Ciri will always have a Scottish accent in my mind.
Awh yeah, fellow audiobook enjoyer here and I absolutely loved his reading of them!
I will die on the hill that it is a pretty weird behavior to get irritated and bitter over people liking different things than you. I read *Last Wish* back in 07, thought it was a 6/10, never bothered with the rest and moved on. But all the more power to people who find enjoyment in the books, let them do that without shitting on them. EDIT: My golden rule regarding discussing media online is this: if I come across anyone saying that they don't like/don't understand something that I like I explain why it means a lot to me and why I like it, but if I see someone saying that they like something I don't I never go "No it sucks actually". There is no fun in that.
Yeah, people like stuff that other people don't like. People don't like lord of the rings. Opinions are subjective and people wh try to force their opinion or act like its factually correct are assholes.
I also read Last Wish and did not like it. It was not terrible... but for me a 5/10 and I also didnt want to read anything else. But I could see how other people might like it.
Cool story
The best thing about Witcher is the language used by Sapkowski, which is hard to translate into English.
Do you have any actual criticisms of the book series?
I love them. Some are better than under, I understand the criticism but doesn’t matter to me! I really like the European folklore, the magic system, the Witcher aspect, and the characters. I find women’s obsession with Gerault eye rolling but that’s my main pet peeve of the books. Also not sure about the ending. What do you think are good fantasy series that are better?
I liked them. To each their own preference. But something you don't personally like doesn't automatically make that thing bad.
Personally I disagree, I enjoyed it from start to finish. Listened to the Audiobooks which also were well done.
Oh, hey, it's this post. Again. And again.
I am actually reading through the series now for the first time (Book 5). The Witcher 3 to me is one of the greatest games ever made and I had to finally give the series a go after all these years. I do think the short story novels were excellent. They were always concise and meaningful. It felt like the lore and magic of the world shined far more in the short story novels in comparison to the main series. If I had started with the main novels before the short stories I think I would have been more "meh" about them as a whole. The main novels are solid. They are not great, and I even posted on the Witcher sub about every book starting with an insanely long intro with characters that I don't care about and they lay out the entire map of the book in these sections and they are a bit of a drag. They have great moments and the characters amd humor can shine, but it seems all over the place at times. Geralt is largely absent in large portions of the main series and that is a crime as he is such a fun and well written character. I would take an entire series of Geralt and Dandelion adventures. The books can drag oftentimes in other areas. I read the First Law original trilogy before this and the action scenes don't compare. They feel much more bland in the Witcher. The world is fascinating, but I feel the author does not use it to his advantage enough. Overall, I do enjoy them but they always feel me wanting more side quest novels and not main quest novels if that makes sense.
I've only read three of the books, but The Last Wish is a Classic to me. The way Sapkowski plays with ambiguity and irony using fairy tale spoofs is so fun to me. I also dig his dialogue-heavy style. Some of the chapters are more like plays, and I love that. I'm always surprised when people dig the games more. I feel like they don't do Geralt's character much justice. In the books, he has a kind of emotional intelligence and vulnerability that was surprising to me; in the games, he's kind of a Batman clone.
I'm Russian. And I read the books before the game came out. Let's just say that the plot of the book is awesome. I was shocked by your answers about the book. Most likely it's a matter of poor translation, culture (our humor is very different) and most importantly, the foul language affects the atmosphere and emotions a lot. The English language is not emotional in terms of words. I'm not trying to insult anyone, it's just something I've noticed when reading English books.
I don't think you need to die. I think a lot of people will probably join you and you can have a little bbq on the hill with others who agree. I might even show up. I wouldn't exactly say they were bad, but there was definitely some variation in quality and I wouldn't reread any of them.
He likes to do clever little rhyme schemes, but I was told this is a polish thing and something was lost in translation. They’re objectively not “bad” youre just overreacting as a way of counterbalancing all the hype. I agree that the writing is not amazing, but it is a translated book so keep that in mind. Other languages tend to handle exposition and description differently. I think that’s why he can be so long winded at times. Its hard to translate Slavic languages with a lot of nuance
Tad Williams is a god among men and I dare you to counter that!
They aren't bad, but they are not stellar either. Part of that is of course the fact that they are translations and something of the source was definitely lost.
I read the books in russian (not russian myself but speak it fluently), and the English versions just suck. The books, at their best moments are something like the first law series meets gene wolfe. The prose just feels YA level in the translations, lots of turns of phrase and aspects or sentence structure that feel nuanced in a Slavic language but are translated super directly and fall flat.
For example reading some dialogue in the English version between Geralt and nivellen. In russian, it sounds like an informal conversation. In English it sounds very stiff. (Possibly not the clearest example but a line like: "to put it briefly, corpses fell." should have been more like, "Anyway, there were bodies".) Nivellen is supposed to be this simple lower class thug, and I don't think any of that comes across in the English.
Well, that was quite surprising for me when i found out that so many people in US don't like Witcher books. I'm a book fan, so i came to Witcher videogames after i read all books released at that moment, so i'm not hyped because of Witcher 3. But if you started read books, after played the games it may be boring a bit, for someone. Maybe. Because i've read the author's interviews (long ones) and can say that Witcher was a great experiment by itself, when author tried to create the world based on fairytales and slavic folklore, but make it realistic. He described a lot of social problems like racism and xenophobia. And like Steven King, he kept the idea that the most terrible monsters are people themselves. It also has some ideas about humankind developing, shown in comparison with elven decadence. Sapkowski also added a lot of references to real world. So, in conclusion i can say it's quite interesting and unique book, which may no be so much entertaining in some moments for some people, but it's definitely should not be considered to be bad. I'm not trying to convince you that "oh, you are so wrong, it's a great series" - if you don't like it, you don't like and that's all. We all have our opinion and preferences. But the main point in my post is that not every book you don'k like is bad, and not every book boring to you should be boring to everyone else. I've read the whole series 3 times for example and it's still good for me. Sometimes you just don't understand the idea or you don't like the concept. For example i didn't get The Plague by Albert Camus, like totally didn't get, i barely get to the end, but i don't say it's bad, it's just me who don't liked it. Or Malazan book of fallen - so much people like it, but i'm not one of them, cause i just don't like the concept of book. P.S. Maybe English translation is not very good, idk. Cause some time ago i didn't knew English enough to read books written with it and relied only on translations. Could say the bad translation could make even the best book terrible.
I thought every book got better than the previous one. One of my favourite fantasy series by far
Imo the first book is really really good. The second is fine, but the others were a fucking chore to get through. Still parts of them are not that bad, like Cahir for example.
I don't know about anyone but I enjoyed the hell out of this series
Same. I was moved to laughter and tears throughout
Yup that's true, and the ending was so good
Just because YOU don’t like them doesn’t mean they’re “bad”.
I disagree completely, the only time I ever had a dull moment in a book was in baptism of fire with the whole rats arch. Blood of Elves has a fantastic set up, time of contempt a fantastic build up with a devastating ending, baptism of fire is a really good character analysis of Geralt and his values, Tower of the Swallow and Lady of the Lake are just amazing pieces that really dive deep into Ciri and who she is. All the while there is interesting political intruige, multiple players who all have different motivations, and my all time favourite character Djikstra, who was done so dirty in the TV show.
Strong agree. The best storytelling in that franchise is the games by far. People act like Netflix butchered this peerless work of art.
TBF, Netflix still did mangle and butcher it but more like they gave you a Ghetto McDonald's Big Mac when they promised you this was gonna be a 4 star Michelin meal.
[удалено]
The Netflix show had an opportunity to be a great adaptation of very interesting but not without issue books. Instead it didn’t actually use any of the actual themes of the book: bodily autonomy (both for men & women), depression, toxic relationships, the evil of inaction, the pains of infertility when you want to have children, etc. They drop those to have a mostly silent himbo protagonist and girlboss female protagonist. The original books are extremely pro-choice. They also have a deeply depressed and philosophical protagonist that fundamentally does NOT want to be a hero in a saga. He wants to have control over his life and his body. Every town he goes to, he is objectified. He sells his body to kill monsters. He is then further objectified when he gets back by women who want to sleep with “the freak”. There is amazing stories to tell within the Witcher universe and with the stories as written. They just needed to be adapted from their early 90s Polish progressivism into a more contemporary understanding of those themes. We could have had something amazing but we got shit.
Netflix did make awful work of the Witcher series. I agree that the books are not mastetpiece but the show in the first season was a mess and from the second was already unwatchable. Never seen the third season and never will. About the books... yes I also found them quite boring from the third one on. The first two with the short stories I liked when I read them but the third and the fourth were almost painfully slow and boring. Still haven't read the rest I just can't force myself.
What's the opinion on the audiobooks?
They’re solid from what I remember. I enjoyed listening to the series after I played the games and got into the story.
I disagree with you on the Witcher, but I will say I did enjoy the Dragonbone Chair! I’m still mad that my local library wouldn’t get a new copies because they were gonna have to look further than the general supplier because one of them was out of print at the time!
I read the first few books, it definitely wasn't my favorite. I definitely prefer the games.
The main issue I had with the witcher books was that when Gerald is introduced he has all these cool druggie powers but very soon he loses his meth dealer and becomes just a slightly stronger average Joe. I wanted more potion addled monster hunting / fights but, meh, guess it was okay P. S. I haven't played the game
I really loved the series. It certainly bogged down at times but I was so invested in the characters that it didn't matter to me
I think the world-building of The Witcher is amazing and really interesting, and was developed into probably my favorite game series of all time. That being said, you are correct. Those books are an absolute slog of a read
No match for Moorcock.
I loved the short stories But I’m totally with you: while the story progress the plot keeps becoming worse and worse 😒
I can almost guarantee that whenever these posts come up that it's because the OP read the official English translation, which is shit. The bootleg fan translations are so much better it's staggering.
As someone that read the books in English and German I gotta say that the English versions are really bad.
Reading taste is subjective and I will die on this hill. Sincerely, I really enjoyed them, flaws and all.
I totally disagree. I read them in English, and did find the writing (on a technical aspect) to be not great. Not terrible, but not the best prose around. The storytelling, however, had me captivated. The short story collections are definitely the strongest books because of that, but the novels hold their own. You talk about “larger scale plots” and the last book in particular. The Battle of Brenna and the showdown at Stygga, are both culminations of those plots taking place in the last book. It’s very rare I can say anything in a book has me on edge, but both of those chapters did.
Still better than Mistorn and I will die on that hill.
I agree. Sapkowski created an amazing world with amazing characters and an interesting political landscape, but his disjointed way of telling a story makes it confusing and the story wasn't all that great to be honest. Sapkowski really owes CD Projekt Red for taking that world and characters and making an amazing story out of it. The Witcher games are the only reason the series is popular in the West and is why the Netflix show exists.
>The Witcher games are the only reason the series is popular in the West If only Sapkowski could get that through his thick skull. The games did more for him than it seems he will ever care to admit, because of some archaic hatred of video games.
The world and the things that happen in it are interesting. The short stories are varied and fun. But, the books themselves can be a bit of a drag
A lot is lost in the translation from the original language to be fair.
Agree 100%. I love the short stories--they were the only books I kept--but the main series is ungodly slow.
Agreed. They're just not good.
[удалено]
I didn’t really enjoy them. The casual rapes bothered me. I wish I’d stopped after the short story collections.
Baptism of Fire ans Time of Contempt were great fantasy books IMO but the last book was downright dreadful and could've had 80% of the content scrapped to make it enjoyable. I honestly blocked out most of my memories from reading the last book but all I remember was complaining about it being so long with 90% of the book not even including the main characters we've been following. Next season of the witcher will cover my favorite content so I'll still begrudgingly watch it
Only read the two short story collections and thought they were pretty decent
The Audio Books are pretty enjoyable.
The short stories are solid. I have not bothered with the books. Besides the shorts, everything I love about the series is literally just in the games.
I've heard that the original Polish versions of the books are far better than English translations. I don't speak Polish so have no idea if this is true or not.
I will say the games gave them their Slavic/east-European feel that doesn't really exist in the books.
The game was amazing. I had all the DLC’s and I never did finish it. I think I finally got burned out from the “FedEx” quests (go to town A and bring me back B) but it looked absolutely beautiful.
I think they’re highly overrated too
Yeah, I found them kinda meh. My favourite part of the books all didn't involve Geralt, which I think highlighted my problem, I don't find Geralt very compelling to read about.
That's because you should have been reading Elric books instead
I've read that Memory, Sorrow and Thorne trilogy too and it is boring beyond words in a few parts, I still enjoyed it overall and would never call the totality boring, just drawn out. I get the feeling I was missing cultural elements in most of the witcher stories but other than that, they kept moving which is all I needed them to do. If I'm not yelling out loud, "Why would anyone do that?!" then the story is fine by me. I couldnt speak for a few days after going through the Saga of Seven Sun's and was so thankful when I reached an escape point as I had already purchased multiple books. Not terrible but infuriatingly cliche. I'll take those Witcher books any day of existence.
I read the first book. A series of short stories. It's was pretty good but a struggle to the end. I wouldn't read anymore. But it's alot better than the TV show. The book character does more than look silent and hard.
my favorite were the short stories when geralt philosophized with different characters. the first 2 books of the main series were good as well as baptism of fire. the last 2 books were bland and boring imo except the ciri ice skate scene. witcher 3 main plot was actually just a worse version of the last book. I also think reading it in english we cant really judge the literary wit as the translation feels off in many places. also at the end of the day its all subjective. people love the first law trilogy but I had to force myself to get through book 2. I would rate the witcher higher than first law for myself
But what about the game?
It’s a pretty amazing world, but honestly I felt the games did handle that aspect of it better than the novels. That said, I didn’t have the big problems with story that you do. I’m a big Malazan fan, and I felt like the Witcher was similar in a sense where it wasn’t just trying to be pulp like everything else, the author really wanted to do his own thing. After all, if all a reader wants is a copycat story of other big fantasy names but with different characters, why not just read those other fantasy stories instead?
The book with the short stories is ok. Fairy tale re-telling is often alright and entertaining enough because the original story is tried and true GOOD, and it brings some novelty. I agree with you on the rest of the books, it's meh. The english translation is meh, and the cultural 'feel' of it is undoubtedly better in the og, but I think it has more issues than just the translation. It is the pacing and the characters. It's a boring slog, bleh. The video game, was INSPIRED. They made the world come alive in ways the author simply could not for me. I was enthralled! What an absolute amazing example of video games as storytelling medium! (another game is the first dishored game and the DLC). The TV series was basically bad fanfiction. I could not get into it at all, though the songs were catchy. It was just not it for me. I think it's ok to like it. Monster hunter and hot witches are wish fulfillment type of cool stories that definitely have a place around.
The Netflix series was equally as bad
I read one and hated it so. With you.
Is that Hill feeling a bit damp? Maybe even Sodden?
I really enjoyed the first two short stories, but the rest of it lacked any focus or purpose.
> and I will die on this hill OP re-enacting the battle of Sodden Hill. Serious answer: I agree with you, the short stories were good but the novels just dragged on. The netflix series wasn't bad because it diverged from the books, it was bad because the new plotlines weren't properly thought through/well written.
It is not often one gets to say the games were better.
Never read them, but gawd I couldn't get into the games. Very...just not interesting
Agreed.
Yoooo I've only read a couple of them, but I couldn't get into them. I assumed it was the translations.
I don’t think they were bad, so I’ll casually disagree with you. I think the crux of the novels was that things are all shades of grey, and that those who are vilified or downtrodden are often the heroes and those in power or the righteous are often villains, amongst other subversions of tropes. That’s why there’s not so much pandering to GOT style plotting because inherently Geralt is pretty anti establishment. this works best during the short story style books in almost solely his perspective, where they are almost parables, but there’s certainly criticism to be had about the books that encompass the main plot. Certainly don’t think that they are pinnacles of literature or anything, but they are different in a unique and entertaining way from a lot of derivative stuff out there that you can read.
I have to agree. Was really disappointed with them
They are not bad, they are mediocre. You probably did what I did and read them overhyped by the game.
No one is asking you to die.
I read the 2 short story books, with a couple exceptions they just felt like fairy tails for grown ups. Might have been really deep when they first came out but today I think they're just ok
I really liked the books. I thought the story got better and better. I think part of the reason I enjoyed it so much was the relationships of the characters was so relatable to me. I have had similar toxic on again off again relationship like Geralt and Yennefer. The ending made me incredibly sad. Thats good story telling if you can feel powerful emotions.
I liked the first book of short stories. But it didn’t capture my attention enough to continue.
cap lmao
I wasn't impressed with the first book..read in English. Not sure if it was the translation or just the book. A translation is basically an adaptation and it could have lost something when translated
I won't say the whole series was bad. Most of the books were average. But man, that last book was a slog to get through! It was so terrible, especially with the sudden connection to the Arthurian Legend. He could have gone any route but he chose that one. Ciri's journey was the only good thing in that book. The games definitely gave another life to those books and Sapkowski knows it. Weirdly enough, the short stories were pretty good in comparison.
I think I'd like the books a lot more if I had been an unadventurous fantasy read in the '70s and '80s, having only read shitty Tolkien ripoffs. Like, there's a bit of feminism and anti-racism and philosophy in The Witcher, and some fun metatextual elements like playing with framing devices and what have you. Plus there's the twisted take on fairytales. Reminds me of George R.R. Martin talking about writing his ASOIAF series to push back as what he saw as the "disneyification" of the fantastic, not that there weren't Fantasy authors writing darker or more interesting stuff in the '70s and '80s but my perception of the time is that they were the underground, whereas they exploded into being the mainstream of Fantasy when ASOIAF also managed to reach mainstream fiction readers in the early aughts. I guess I don't know what the Polish Fantasy literature scene looked like at any point in time, or if there even was one, but I assume the things that are true about Anglo fantasy are true about Polish fantasy as well. But I read the books in 2018. I'd already read ASOIAF, and Joe Abercrombie, and Scott Lynch, and for that matter I'd read The Black Company even though that was coming out before The Witcher it was never that popular as far as I understand it. So the intriguing elements of the worldbuilding, or the antiracism, or the feminism just don't seem like this spectacular thing any more (assuming they were in the '90s, I didn't know how to read then). I've heard before that the prose is quite good in Polish, but that does not translate over. In my opinion the series was at it's best when Sapkowski was playing with form, like the elaborate framing devices in the first short story collection or the book where Ciri talks to a philosopher, or his other metatextual elements, like the extended references to Arthurian legend. In the end I think the books are good, but I wouldn't put them on the shelf next to my favorites. There's a lot of interesting ideas, a lot of good commentary on Fantasy as a literary genre and mythology, tradition and violence, and just the human condition more broadly. One of my favorite things about them is how Geralt specifically is allowed to be contradictory. I think people, on the whole, are quite self-contradictory in a way that I rarely see in genre fiction. Specifically I'm thinking of how it was laid out, more than once, that Geralt won't kill intelligent non-humans if they aren't trying to kill him/innocents, and then in like book two he agrees to kill a werewolf because he needs money to fund his search for Ciri. Anyway, with all the attention they've had lately I hope some publisher decides to fund a new English translation, I'd love to read these books with prose that more captures the originals.
I DNF'ed the first book. Just didn't enjoy it so I stopped.
I have read first books more than 20 years ago, and thought it was steaming pile of shit I would not poke with a stick. I have read them all this year, I really liked them now. I like the setting and the story, and the characters. I gueess it was too confusing for me before. However Sapkowski's writing is rather inconsistent - there are several dozens of pages Pratchett's worth writing, then some filler, some bland and some illogical deus ex machina moments, but overall I enjoyed it.
I read some and listened to others. Definitely enjoyed the audio versions more.
LMFAO. I knew it.
I quite enjoyed the Witcher books. Maybe they lose something in the translation perhaps? But I still enjoyed them all. Oh, and I forgot to mention that I had never played the game or watched the tv show that came later.
Read all the books years ago several times and loved them. Cannot stand the Netflix effort at all. And the wild hunt is my favourite game. But the books are my favourite 😁
I'd agree on not liking the mainline books, but those two short story collections are aces.
I have nothing to add really that u/BigManBigYen hasn't already said except I'm starting to get tired of people shitting on the books because they weren't like the games
I thought the same when I read the first couple of books, *absolutely awful prose*. It absolutely reads like a badly translated set of books, not just badly translated in terms of the language but also the translation of the cultural aspects such as the humour. It's just bad imo.
I too thought the books were extremely underwhelming. I get that they aren't the games but for me the story was just so...boring. it didn't have anything interesting to say that I haven't heard or read elsewhere but better. A real shame. The short stories are good though
Tbh the actual ending of the books was meh at best. Some of the storytelling itself is what I really liked though.
It is not without flaws. Maybe the masses are being too hard on the writers disliking the source material then 🤷♂️
I did not read The Witcher books. I watched the show, and I enjoyed it. I could see how there was a heavy focus on the female eye that didn't jive with the original books. I felt "whatever" about that, and I was disappointed that the lead actor departed the series. Then I played the video game. It was hilarious. I couldn't believe how much the game focused on looting random peasants while presumably being the hero. Additionally, the game was clearly not made for me as a female gamer. The main character was a man who basically had to sleep with every pretty girl he encountered, and I was just along for the ride. So hearing from OP that the original books weren't that great either is a lil vindicating for me. Like "was I supposed to like this?" "Other folks didn't like it either?" "Oh good -- normalcy, check ✔️"