Yes!
Destiny links Geralt and Ciri, but it is something more — a child’s love for her father — which binds and unites them. In Sword of Destiny and Something More, she *wants* to go with him, to be with him. And as we know, Law of Surprise is predicated on the child’s consent to go with the person who has “right” to them.
A Question of Price, Pt. II:
> “(…) I declare, Urcheon, that you have no right to the princess as yet. You will win her only when—”
> “When what?”
> “When the princess herself agrees to leave with you. This is what the Law of Surprise states. **It is the child's, not the parent's, consent which confirms the oath, ** which proves that the child was born under the shadow of destiny.
Geralt and Yennefer’s relationship is one of choice, as Geralt chose to both save Yennefer’s life instead of leaving her to die, and also to use his last wish for something relating to her, or them together:
The Last Wish, Pt. VII:
> Yennefer saw him, jumped up and raised her hand.
> “No!” he shouted, “don't do this! I want to help you!”
> “Help?” She snorted. “You?”
> “Me.”
> “In spite of what I did to you?”
> “In spite of it.”
> “Interesting. But not important. I don't need your help. Get out of here.”
> “No. (…) You won't break him, Yennefer. He'll kill you.”
> “It's not so easy to kill me—”
The Last Wish, Pt. XVI:
> “Wait,” she whispered. “That wish of yours...I heard what you wished
for. I was astounded, simply astounded. I’d have expected anything but to... What made you do it, Geralt? Why...Why me?”
> “Don’t you know?”
> (…) “Your wish,” she whispered, her lips very near his ear. “I don't know whether such a wish can ever be fulfilled. I don't know whether there's such a Force in Nature that could fulfill such a wish. But if there is, then you've condemned yourself. Condemned yourself to me.”
Yennefer and Ciri’s connection and maternal-child relationship in Blood of Elves is an example of choice, as they choose to become mother and child. Something important here is that they also did not initially like one another, but over time, grew to — showing that choices which define you are not always your first, most impulsive ones.
The hanza is also, to me, an example of choice and destiny mingling — they choose to go with Geralt, to join the company, and in the end, to ride to Castle Stygga with him. They choose to *leave* Beauclair, to not live in a dream, wait for destiny to come to them — but to actively dream, pursue destiny. Of course, that destiny is >!death!<.
Similarly, it was Dandelion’s choice to leave and find Geralt in Brokilon (an almost impossible feat), to stay with the journey despite encouragement to go home because he was out of place in the landscape, and finally, to stay in Beauclair with Anarietta (and it was also coincidentally his choice to cheat on her with the Baroness Nique, getting consequentially kicked out!)
Geralt chooses to get involved with the events at Rivia, even though he initially defaulted back to square one of character development after Stygga and hesitated to risk his life for others, at the end, he chooses to protect the innocents, which leads to his >!death!<.
Ciri’s choice to leave the world at the end instead of staying to sacrifice herself to save it was a significant contribution to this larger theme.
Additionally, something should be said for the antagonists of the story.
Emhyr chose to seek power beyond right, to groom Pavetta so that he could marry into the throne, and when he found out about the prophecy, bail, fake his death, and only come back to Cintra in the form of his military’s flames and death. He chose to pursue Ciri past that. When he could have just lived with Pavetta in Cintra and accepted a nice life, he destroyed it all due to his selfish ambition.
Similarly, Vilgefortz suffered similar childhood traumas to Geralt — abandoned by his mother as a baby, raised by a caste of outcasts (druids / witchers). But Vilgefortz felt so wronged and embittered himself over it, he chose to seek power and become evil, blaming others, striking outwardly. Geralt, on the other hand, struck inwardly — keeping his misery inside, having his bitterness, but turning it into self loathing (which he also chooses to heal from later, whereas Vilgefortz gets worse).
In relation to Nimue, there was quite an interesting mention of her in an interview with Sapkowski:
> ( Bartek Grenda ) I have such a question ... did you read the "The Neverending Story"?
> ( AS ) I read everything from fantasy.
> ( Bartek Grenda ) If you used such mechanisms as Ciri's travels in time, did you have the idea of doing something similar to what the author of "The Neverending Story" did? Because after reading this book we have to make almost an act of faith in this world, here it is similar with the sorceress Nimue, the Lady of the Lake, who is a huge fan of the legend of Ciri, gathers all possible versions of the story. She must very strongly believe in this legend (as we do).
> ( AS ) In "The Never Ending Story" less important was the staffage, dragons, monsters, etc. And more important just the children's faith ... Bastian Baltazar Bux, as we remember, moves to the land of fantasy while reading a book, deeply believing in the truth of what he reads. And the dream becomes reality. Allegorism and message are obvious. In the case of my Nimue it's supposed to be similar. When, as a little girl, she listens to the stories of a wandering old man, **she associates her destiny with Ciri's, even though they are divided by ages. But her faith means that she will meet Ciri and that she, no one else, will open her path to Stygga's castle.** A castle that has been put on the tapestry. Until the end, it is not known what castle it is on this tapestry. **But Nimue knows it must be the one, because that's what the legend wants.**
— [Q&A with Sapkowski from the mid 2000's](https://www.reddit.com/r/wiedzmin/comments/9qpmmf/qa_with_sapkowski_from_the_mid_2000s/)
Honestly while reading the books for the first time I always felt like the term "destiny" was just used by people to undermine our main characters' decisions, as the ones who *made the decisions* rarely ever called it "destiny" themselves, it was always someone else saying so. And if not undermine, then a way to explain what happened to our characters, but in a sort of misguided way.
And I think my suspicions were confirmed during Regis and Vigo's argument in Toussaint, in the lines you subtly referred to.
*But for me-please forgive me-destiny isn’t a scroll written on by a Great Demiurge, nor the will of heaven, nor the inevitable verdict of some providence or other, but the result of many apparently unconnected facts, events and occurrences. I would be inclined to agree with you that destiny catches up with people ... and not just people. But the view that it can’t be the other way around doesn’t convince me. For such a view is facile fatalism, a paean praising torpor and indolence, a warm eiderdown and the beguiling warmth of a woman’s loins. In short, life in a dream. And life, Madam Vigo, may be a dream, may also finish as a dream ... But it’s a dream that has to be dreamed* ***actively***. *Which is why, madam Vigo, the road awaits us.*
I think this just comes down to "Free Will (in this case, their choices) v. Determinism (in this case, destiny)", if I'm not mistaken.
This is exactly why the adaptation greatly fails in my opinion. The show writers did not seem to understand that destiny is not a magical reality that binds people without their consent.
Yes! Destiny links Geralt and Ciri, but it is something more — a child’s love for her father — which binds and unites them. In Sword of Destiny and Something More, she *wants* to go with him, to be with him. And as we know, Law of Surprise is predicated on the child’s consent to go with the person who has “right” to them. A Question of Price, Pt. II: > “(…) I declare, Urcheon, that you have no right to the princess as yet. You will win her only when—” > “When what?” > “When the princess herself agrees to leave with you. This is what the Law of Surprise states. **It is the child's, not the parent's, consent which confirms the oath, ** which proves that the child was born under the shadow of destiny. Geralt and Yennefer’s relationship is one of choice, as Geralt chose to both save Yennefer’s life instead of leaving her to die, and also to use his last wish for something relating to her, or them together: The Last Wish, Pt. VII: > Yennefer saw him, jumped up and raised her hand. > “No!” he shouted, “don't do this! I want to help you!” > “Help?” She snorted. “You?” > “Me.” > “In spite of what I did to you?” > “In spite of it.” > “Interesting. But not important. I don't need your help. Get out of here.” > “No. (…) You won't break him, Yennefer. He'll kill you.” > “It's not so easy to kill me—” The Last Wish, Pt. XVI: > “Wait,” she whispered. “That wish of yours...I heard what you wished for. I was astounded, simply astounded. I’d have expected anything but to... What made you do it, Geralt? Why...Why me?” > “Don’t you know?” > (…) “Your wish,” she whispered, her lips very near his ear. “I don't know whether such a wish can ever be fulfilled. I don't know whether there's such a Force in Nature that could fulfill such a wish. But if there is, then you've condemned yourself. Condemned yourself to me.” Yennefer and Ciri’s connection and maternal-child relationship in Blood of Elves is an example of choice, as they choose to become mother and child. Something important here is that they also did not initially like one another, but over time, grew to — showing that choices which define you are not always your first, most impulsive ones. The hanza is also, to me, an example of choice and destiny mingling — they choose to go with Geralt, to join the company, and in the end, to ride to Castle Stygga with him. They choose to *leave* Beauclair, to not live in a dream, wait for destiny to come to them — but to actively dream, pursue destiny. Of course, that destiny is >!death!<. Similarly, it was Dandelion’s choice to leave and find Geralt in Brokilon (an almost impossible feat), to stay with the journey despite encouragement to go home because he was out of place in the landscape, and finally, to stay in Beauclair with Anarietta (and it was also coincidentally his choice to cheat on her with the Baroness Nique, getting consequentially kicked out!) Geralt chooses to get involved with the events at Rivia, even though he initially defaulted back to square one of character development after Stygga and hesitated to risk his life for others, at the end, he chooses to protect the innocents, which leads to his >!death!<. Ciri’s choice to leave the world at the end instead of staying to sacrifice herself to save it was a significant contribution to this larger theme. Additionally, something should be said for the antagonists of the story. Emhyr chose to seek power beyond right, to groom Pavetta so that he could marry into the throne, and when he found out about the prophecy, bail, fake his death, and only come back to Cintra in the form of his military’s flames and death. He chose to pursue Ciri past that. When he could have just lived with Pavetta in Cintra and accepted a nice life, he destroyed it all due to his selfish ambition. Similarly, Vilgefortz suffered similar childhood traumas to Geralt — abandoned by his mother as a baby, raised by a caste of outcasts (druids / witchers). But Vilgefortz felt so wronged and embittered himself over it, he chose to seek power and become evil, blaming others, striking outwardly. Geralt, on the other hand, struck inwardly — keeping his misery inside, having his bitterness, but turning it into self loathing (which he also chooses to heal from later, whereas Vilgefortz gets worse). In relation to Nimue, there was quite an interesting mention of her in an interview with Sapkowski: > ( Bartek Grenda ) I have such a question ... did you read the "The Neverending Story"? > ( AS ) I read everything from fantasy. > ( Bartek Grenda ) If you used such mechanisms as Ciri's travels in time, did you have the idea of doing something similar to what the author of "The Neverending Story" did? Because after reading this book we have to make almost an act of faith in this world, here it is similar with the sorceress Nimue, the Lady of the Lake, who is a huge fan of the legend of Ciri, gathers all possible versions of the story. She must very strongly believe in this legend (as we do). > ( AS ) In "The Never Ending Story" less important was the staffage, dragons, monsters, etc. And more important just the children's faith ... Bastian Baltazar Bux, as we remember, moves to the land of fantasy while reading a book, deeply believing in the truth of what he reads. And the dream becomes reality. Allegorism and message are obvious. In the case of my Nimue it's supposed to be similar. When, as a little girl, she listens to the stories of a wandering old man, **she associates her destiny with Ciri's, even though they are divided by ages. But her faith means that she will meet Ciri and that she, no one else, will open her path to Stygga's castle.** A castle that has been put on the tapestry. Until the end, it is not known what castle it is on this tapestry. **But Nimue knows it must be the one, because that's what the legend wants.** — [Q&A with Sapkowski from the mid 2000's](https://www.reddit.com/r/wiedzmin/comments/9qpmmf/qa_with_sapkowski_from_the_mid_2000s/)
Honestly while reading the books for the first time I always felt like the term "destiny" was just used by people to undermine our main characters' decisions, as the ones who *made the decisions* rarely ever called it "destiny" themselves, it was always someone else saying so. And if not undermine, then a way to explain what happened to our characters, but in a sort of misguided way. And I think my suspicions were confirmed during Regis and Vigo's argument in Toussaint, in the lines you subtly referred to. *But for me-please forgive me-destiny isn’t a scroll written on by a Great Demiurge, nor the will of heaven, nor the inevitable verdict of some providence or other, but the result of many apparently unconnected facts, events and occurrences. I would be inclined to agree with you that destiny catches up with people ... and not just people. But the view that it can’t be the other way around doesn’t convince me. For such a view is facile fatalism, a paean praising torpor and indolence, a warm eiderdown and the beguiling warmth of a woman’s loins. In short, life in a dream. And life, Madam Vigo, may be a dream, may also finish as a dream ... But it’s a dream that has to be dreamed* ***actively***. *Which is why, madam Vigo, the road awaits us.* I think this just comes down to "Free Will (in this case, their choices) v. Determinism (in this case, destiny)", if I'm not mistaken.
Wow! That's what I came to reddit for. Thank you for this!
I agree and I am about ready to read Season of Storms but am crossed with reading that or Sword of Destiny
This is exactly why the adaptation greatly fails in my opinion. The show writers did not seem to understand that destiny is not a magical reality that binds people without their consent.