22 KiB
[RST] [HF] [C] Sapkowski's Witcher series
-
Author: u/None *
-
URL:
-
Score: 13
-
Created: 2017-09-10T19:51:17
Post:
[deleted]
Comments:
u/ajuc [+15] (14 hours later)
I'm not sure it fits the definition (I agree about The Destiny being a convenient plot device too often), but it certainly has some rational elements that are done very well. I'd say better than anything than I've read.
The characters and politics is done very well, even better than in HPMoR I'd say. Characters aren't as rational in general, but they act accordingly to their intelligence, consistently, and have sensible (if wrong) beliefs and use what they can to get their way. Their emotions are portrayed very realistically and the connection between emotions, rationality, and actions are where I think a lot of rational fiction fails flat.
I don't know if Geralt's relationship with Yennefer is "mature", but it certainly is both interesting and believable. And yeah, female characters in Witcher world rulez. There's a big cast of interesting women, so they can have flaws and quirks, and be different from each other. They don't feel like the typical token female protagonist, in fact they feel like just another character. And still the world in which they have to live is sexist and it makes sense.
Politics is dirty, and is done by almost everyone, at various levels. Some of the agents are competent and some very incompetent, and still the results doesn't only depend on the rationality of the given side (but it increases the probability the plan will work). The dirty political tricks used in the story are very realistic (minority scapegoating, exploiting rebellions of opressed, economical warfare, using prejudice and stereotypes), and feel very modern (muslim refuges in EU / Isis -> nonhumans in Northern Kingdoms / Scoiatael), despite being written in 80s-90s.
In general Sapkowski portrays the probabilistic nature of the universe very well. There is no "conservation of importance", and no "100% rules". Grand strategy of a brilliant general can fail because one scout was too afraid to check for enemy presence and lied in his report. Whole country can fall because a messenger with important information died in unrelated incident. Character that is amazing at swordplay can be killed by a peasant with a fork if he gets too cocky and fights in a crowd.
It's like Sauron wins because Frodo died of food poisoning while in Mordor.
I think many rational fiction too often end up as competence porn, where the character always wins using science and superiority in one aspect or another. It stretches the pretense of rationality, and Sapkowski avoids that, he goes out of his way to present the general rule and an occasional exception.
Also I think the rational core in the worldbuilding is not only the existence of Witchers, the whole universe is build a little like sci-fi story, with a few assumptions (magic exists, many worlds exist and sometimes temporarily join). The world builds on that, and is quite consistent (for the mess of mythologies glued together that it is :) ).
u/Xtraordinaire [+8] Team Glimglam (an hour later)
As much as I love the Witcher series, I'd have to say no.
The core plot of the 1t arc revolves around at least 2 instances of incredible improbability (Geralt stumbling upon Ciri in Brokilon and then stumbling upon her in the aftermath of the slaughter of Cintra). Which should be of no surprise, since Fate/Destiny is the motif of the entire series. If I were to name a more rational and even rationalist take on a similar theme I'd say "Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn" is a must read.
You do have a point that there are no Big Evil characters, only a bunch of selfish psychopaths with too much power.
There are gods, one of them even interacts directly with then-atheist Yennefer.
The worldbuilding started quite inconsistent with Yennefer and other mages being able of more or less traditional fairy tale magics, i.e. turning people into frogs. There was an apparent rework and systematization effort once Ciri's apprenticeship arc starts, so you'd have a point, but only if you discard first two books.
Not much to comment on the writing style, it is good, but style is irrelevant for RT/RST. It just makes the read pleasant.
In no way Geralt is a rationalist. He doesn't use any semblance of the scientific method (because there is none invented) and relies on chance again and again i.e. the conclusion of Toussaint arc, again is pure luck, or fate if you will. The most rational character is probably Vysogota (a scientist, duh) and perhaps Dijkstra.
There was a rational core to the world building, where Sapkowski does subvert a very common trope of a simpleton defeating a monster. Instead he says that if there are widespread monsters, killing them would be totally commercialized (and this is the rational seed). The trope is mocked directly in the story about the golden dragon (forgot the name though, the one that poisoned the 1st dragon)
Yes, the theme of mythologization of the actual events is explored in detail, but that doesn't mean the actual events deserve RT tag. It is used masterfully as a way to have an outside PoV to recap global events without focusing on the boring stuff.
u/None [+4] (3 hours later)
[deleted]
u/Xtraordinaire [+2] Team Glimglam (5 hours later)
Well, the terms rational and rationalist fiction are defined in the sidebar of the sub, and I think there isn't much ambiguity there. So yes, this is science porn in a way. Internal consistency porn would be probably a better term.
The story being rational does not guarantee its quality. But it's not as easy as you think, otherwise rational fiction wouldn't be so scarce. It's definitely not easy writing a good story that is rational at the same time.
I'm not frustrated with inconsistent power levels, I'm just noting that it makes it harder to call the novel rational as defined in this subreddit. The biggest issue though is that a lot happens solely because 'the plot requires it' and for no other reason.
You severely underestimate the probability of incredible imporbability.
My survivorship bias sense is tingling. If I were to make a guess, your grandparents and perhaps the colleague were not Asian, and your grangran was crying in a crowded place (a trasportation hub perhaps?). This alone would bump the probability of the event considerably. Yes, finding a person in a populated area is easier than in the wilderness, because you can ask, provided your target doesn't hide intentionally.
By the way, my parents met by pure chance too, so what? Had they not, they'd find someone else, which is okay because neither of us are prophesied heir of the elven bloodline yadda yadda. Our conversation, while being improbable is also unimportant. Ciri was inherently important in the story.
Another crucial piece you're missing here is the notorious repetition of the improbable events in the Witcher. Yes, Geralt finds Ciri once, which is improbable, but acceptable. What is less acceptable (in rational fiction, not in fiction in general, mind you) is that he finds her again and then again by pure chance. That is another key difference between your story and Geralt's.
Heck the writing is on the wall, the book is called Sword of Destiny, there is no other way around it.
That is a slightly outdated approach. At least, since Levy Strauss's la Pensee sauvage.
I was using that rather broadly. To put it another way, Geralt isn't really good at rationalist techniques or having any system whatsoever. As I recall, there is actually a direct opposition between his approach and that of Yennefer and the Lodge, who try to solve their problem methodically. And fail, by the way. If memory serves, Geralt is even called out at some point for basically having a death wish (by Regis, I think?) instead of actually having a working plan, any plan, to find Ciri.
Yennefer got a jewel for her comm device after a divine revelation.
tl;dr. Great fantasy series, but not fully rational, definitely not rationalist, therefore not mentioned here.
Also, yes, HPMOR is the gateway drug to fanfics.
u/None [+0] (11 hours later)
[deleted]
u/ajuc [+2] (15 hours later)
One interpretation of the first 3 books is:
That's kinda big deal, fate causing whole countries to fall to fulfill a promise given by one guy to another. But it could be argued if magic can be in a rational fictioin, then Destiny can, too. See Practical Guide to Evil for example.
ask local policemen on their opinion on this strategy.
We live in urbanized world. Witcher world has biggest cities of around 20 000 - 50 000, and vast majority of people living in countryside (because they are farmers). They have magic (including divination). I don't think modern policeman's answer will be relevant.
u/None [+1] (23 hours later)
[deleted]
u/ajuc [+1] (a day later)
Towns of 25 000 would be bigger than any city in Witcher universe except Novigrad and maybe capital of Nilfgaard. And don't forget that nowadays <5% of people live from farming, and then it was >90%. They had to live near their fields. That makes for a very different population distribution.
Also USA is the odd one, when it comes to density, I wouldn't use it as representation of a typical modern country.
u/None [+1] (a day later)
[deleted]
u/ajuc [+1] (a day later)
Yeah, that was based on the size of biggest Polish cities in medieval and reneisance times (biggest - Gdańsk - was about 30 000 people, other important cities including the capitals Kraków and Warszawa - around 20 000), and on some character in the books saying Novigrad is 50 000.
u/Xtraordinaire [+2] Team Glimglam (16 hours later)
if I switch now my lawyer's mode and rewrite the OP in a casuistic way to match every single keyword on the side bar, will that be satisfactory?
Since you opened your OP with discussing why the Witcher series is not mentioned in this subreddit, I'm going to ignore sarcasm and answer: yes. This is a simple basis for the existence of the subreddit. We recommend and discuss fiction that fulfills certain criteria. r/EarthPorn doesn't allow images with any man made objects. Does this mean that that man-made landscape can't be beautiful? No, it just means that r/EarthPorn wants your submission somewhere else. Likewise, r/rational is a place to discuss fiction that is such and such. There is no secret knowledge here and you can discuss whatever you want outside of the sub, no one cares.
because modern science hadn't existed before that time, therefore, people could hardly rational and
What? No. The reverse is closer to the truth, all the scientific advances have done very little to make people behave more rationally.
of course, couldn't be rationalist in that time.
If we are talking about delving into cognitive sciences in detail like HPMOR does, then perhaps. But that doesn't mean you can't use logic to demystify a phenomena, or that you can't construct your story with enough foreshadowings and clues so that the reader can figure stuff out.
Besides, in fantasy genre you can stretch the boundaries of the age of reason quite a bit. It's fantasy for a reason.
therefore, the writer has to add Mary Sue there in order to match criteria of rationalism. and Mary Sue is what makes bad prose.
What? This is nonsense. Rationalism is just one aspect of the character, balance it out and you're fine. Your protagonist may be rationalist but that doesn't mean they can't make mistakes or can't face insurmountable difficulties.
Case in point: HPJEV. Yes, if you are writing a RST fanfic, merely upgrading your protagonist would make them a Sue indeedy, because rationalism/munchkinism is a powerful tool. But that's exactly why Yudkowsky upgraded not only HJPEV, but Quirrelmort as well. EY even said something along the lines if you give Frodo a light saber, then you have to give Sauron a death star.
and this method, about finding a missing person in China by sitting in a random public place in random time in random town - well, did you try that by yourself to recommend that as having a chance of great probability?
You're missing my point here. It obviously has a greater probability than wandering in the wilderness, since you meet more people that way and each meeting increases the chances of success. I specifically said provided your target doesn't HIDE intentionally so your police example is irrelevant. A normal person is easier to find in a city because he freely gives away information about his identity to anyone he meets. These people then can spread this information further. A person in the wilderness gives information to no one, and it doesn't spread.
And it obviously has a better probability because it happened just once to your grangran as opposed happening at least thrice.
we are talking about fantasy world full of jinnies, intelligent monsters and ancient spirits. that would be a bit naive to call anyone in that world a believer on the ground that they interact with an element of their normal environement.
You said that there are no gods and if something happens it's never a deus ex machina. I'm just showing the apparent contradiction. Whether or not Yennefer became a believer doesn't matter. The jewel moved the plot, that is all.
u/None [+2] (a day later)
[deleted]
u/Xtraordinaire [+2] Team Glimglam (a day later)
Yeah, you did. If you call a meditation, trance, and a divine revelation which made the sorceress relive Odin's discovery of the runes (an adapted version) a "negotiation", yeah, I call that quite a misinterpretation. It's literally a negation of "if something good happens, it's never a deus ex machina or triumph of justice", full stop. It's an instance of a higher, supernatural, and previously largely unknown to the reader force gracing the protagonist only because she passed a moral purity test. Comparing this to human negotiations is either stupid or dishonest because no human counter-agent would be able to conduct such a test.
may you kindly recommend me more irrational fiction with this kind of deus ex machina solutions?
Yes, the public library in Imaverysmartown has a sizable collection. Plus, it's a nice town, good community, you'd fit right in. They do have a problem with their plumbing and sewage systems, though. They just keep leaking all the time. Tut-tut.
I'm going to say no.
Then don't ask a question if you're not ready to accept the answer.
Why don't you guys recommend the excellent Witcher books? -- Because they don't fulfill our requirements, even if they're great. -- Bu.. bu.. but muh excellence!
u/None [-2] (a day later)
[deleted]
u/Xtraordinaire [+2] Team Glimglam (a day later)
It looks like you certainly don't pay any attention at all and can't actually address the argument. Which would be that it's an act of grace from supernatural and previously unknown to the reader and therefore unexpected force. That makes it a deus ex machina both literally and figuratively.
u/None [+1] (3 days later)
[deleted]
u/Xtraordinaire [+2] Team Glimglam (3 days later)
Get off your high horse and address the substance of the argument. How hard can it be? Heck, forget the horse. Focus on the argument already.
u/AugSphere [+3] Dark Lord of Corruption (13 hours later)
The core plot of the 1t arc revolves around at least 2 instances of incredible improbability (Geralt stumbling upon Ciri in Brokilon and then stumbling upon her in the aftermath of the slaughter of Cintra). Which should be of no surprise, since Fate/Destiny is the motif of the entire series.
Not sure what I think about witcher overall (it's been too long and my memories of the books are hazy), but fate being involved doesn't automatically disqualify it. Sure it does provide some leeway for the otherwise improbable events, but it's not like they happen solely "because plot requires them". Things are happening because destiny is influencing events, with effects observable to and exploited by the people inside the fictional universe.
u/696e6372656469626c65 [+3] I think, therefore I am pretentious. (20 hours later)
However, fate, like the Simurgh, is an explanation with nearly infinite explanatory power, which means that fate, like the Simurgh, is an explanation best used infrequently.
u/AugSphere [+3] Dark Lord of Corruption (a day later)
Yup. I fully agree. I really dislike these types of all-powerful plot devices myself. Just thought I'd point out that in this case it's at least a bit forgivable, since it's not invisible or completely unpredictable to the people affected by it.
u/Xtraordinaire [+2] Team Glimglam (a day later)
Yup. Also, Simurgh is working against the protagonist so it also makes it more acceptable. Another example: the Cthaeh.
u/ajuc [+3] (13 hours later)
The trope is mocked directly in the story about the golden dragon (forgot the name though, the one that poisoned the 1st dragon)
It's playing with old Polish fable about the Dratewka cobbler, almost all of his short stories are "what could be the real history behind fables in fantasy world". Also I don't think amateur having a good (and rational) solution once in a while makes the story irrational. It actually makes it more believable. Among all of the books Geralt killed dozens of monsters, and the amateurs have solved a problem once? That's Sapkowski's trademark - showing the general rules and exceptions. I think it's more believable than rules that work 100% of the time.
u/Xtraordinaire [+1] Team Glimglam (15 hours later)
Also I don't think amateur having a good (and rational) solution once in a while makes the story irrational.
I did not mean that, actually I'm talking about the opposite in that paragraph, the rational bits of witcherverse worldbuilding. I'm just talking about Sapkowski's intention to deconstruct this trope from multiple angles. And yes, this casting of fables in a gritty universe is a good, entertaining element of rational fiction.
u/ajuc [+1] (15 hours later)
Oh, sorry, I misunderstood you.
u/Anderkent [+2] (16 hours later)
The worldbuilding started quite inconsistent with Yennefer and other mages being able of more or less traditional fairy tale magics, i.e. turning people into frogs. There was an apparent rework and systematization effort once Ciri's apprenticeship arc starts, so you'd have a point, but only if you discard first two books
I don't think that's inconsistent. Yennifer is an archmage with tens/hundreds of years of experience; Ciri is a novice. It makes sense that Ciri is only capable of more restricted, more structured forms of expression, whereas Yennifer can do whatever she well pleases.
u/Xtraordinaire [+2] Team Glimglam (16 hours later)
It's inconsistent because later in the series she and other archmages have lost these powers, not because there is a skill disparity between an apprentice and a good mage.
u/AnimalFactsBot [-2] (16 hours later)
A frog is an amphibian. They lay their eggs in water. The eggs hatch into a tadpole which lives in water until it metamorphoses into an adult frog.
u/hoja_nasredin [+1] Dai-Gurren Brigade (a day later)
Am I the only one that enjoyed the Witcher 3 more then the first book (I have read only the first one)?
u/IgonnaBe3 [+1] (55 minutes later)
hmmm I havent read the whole saga. In fact i only have read the short stories which were fantastic in their own right but I would neither call them rationalist nor even rational. They maybe somehow fit into the sidebar rational but they lack certain rational qualities like for example munchkinry amongst other things.
u/None [+2] (an hour later)
[deleted]
u/IgonnaBe3 [+1] (an hour later)
Truthfully i would need to reread them. I first read them in middle school 1st class and that was 6 years ago so my memmory is a little bit fuzzy.
So take my opinion with a bit (whole truck) of salt.
u/Anderkent [+1] (an hour later)
Same; read them in the original years ago and while they're a good read, the more powerful characters are idiot-balling quite often.
u/None [+1] (an hour later)
[deleted]
u/Flamesmcgee [+3] (5 hours later)
I'd personally argue that for something to be a real idiot ball, the character has to act more stupid than he's normally been shown to be.
I don't think that's the case with Harry in that scene - by the point he got to releasing Bellatrix, he had a long and well documented history of repeatedly trusting Quirrel blindly even though doing so was obviously quite retarded.