Greetings. Before I, in the spirit of Festivus, get to my grievances, I am going to first say that I really wanted to like the Witcher books. I absolutely loved the games and, so, I wanted to love the books, as well. And I did enjoy the first two books – the compilations of short stories. But then I started the five-book saga, and, man, did the series ever go downhill. I'm unsure whether I would have recommended the saga to others after reading the first four books. However, any doubt evaporated after I read book five. ‘Lady of the Lake' ruined the entire saga for me.
I. Pacing
One major problem with the book is that it has very poor pacing. The plot is a meandering mess. I would argue that of this 531-page novel, at least 200 pages don’t involve – even indirectly - the three main characters or their story in any way whatsoever. Ultimately, these extra chapters are nothing but world building. Now, I fully agree that world building is necessary in a story, but there is a proper time and place to do it. I don’t believe that adding so much world building in the last book of a five-book saga is the correct time and place. These chapters were a boring distraction. While I was reading them, I just wanted to get back to Geralt, Ciri, and Yennefer. In my opinion, the author should've excluded these chapters, and then, after the saga was complete, he could've written a stand-alone novel dealing with the war between Nilfgaard and the Northern kingdoms. (Similar to how CDPR created ‘Thronebreaker,’ a stand-alone videogame that was separate from the Geralt-focused Witcher games.) If Sapkowski had done that, then that would've given us two separate books that both contained tight plots and interesting, compelling characters that we actually cared about. Instead, we got one, huge muddled book filled with a bunch of superfluous characters and plot-threads that bored me and acted as distractions to the main plot.
II. Contrivances
When I discuss contrivances, I’m specifically referring to 'Deus ex machina' - events that ‘miraculously’ resolve some problem for the characters that they seemingly couldn’t resolve on their own. I, like most people, find this narrative ploy to be unsatisfying. It’s typically a sign of lazy, unimaginative writing. It’s a sign that the writer could not come up with a logical and creative way for the protagonist to overcome the obstacle that the writer forced onto the protagonist in the first place.
Here are just a few of the many contrivances:
A. Ciri is trying to get back to her own world and time in order to save Yennefer, but she just can’t figure out how to do it. But, then, she just so happens to arrive – in the future - at the lake with Nimue (who just so happens to be an expert in the ‘legend’ of Ciri) so that Nimue can then magically open up a portal to Stygga castle so that Ciri can then pass through in order to rescue Yennefer. So, Ciri only found Yennefer through pure blind luck – not through anything she did on her own, but simply because the author needed her to. I’ll be honest – it seems as if the entire plot-thread with Condwiramurs and Nimue was only brought into this story simply for this one contrivance. It left me just shaking my head when I read it. I doesn’t help that I loathe the use of time-travel as a ploy to solve problems.
B. For some reason, Sapkowski wanted all of Geralt’s ‘fellowship’ to die at Stygga castle. And I’m fine with that. I have no issues with characters dying. The problem was that he had earlier in the saga included into the fellowship an incredibly overpowered, almost-immortal vampire in Regis. Regis is a character that can wipe out scores of enemies by himself. We even see him do it within the chapter. So, what does Sapkowski do to deal with this? Easy, he conveniently has Regis leave the rest of the fellowship on multiple occasions so that they can then be killed off. First, Geralt sends Regis to find Ciri (which, I will admit - that actually makes sense within the context of the story, and I’ll discuss that more below). While Regis is gone, searching for Ciri, Milva gets killed by a group of bad guys that Regis could have easily dispatched by himself. But then Regis comes back, telling Geralt that he had found and saved Ciri. So, then what does Geralt do? Tells everyone to split up again – even though it makes no sense to do so. So, Regis goes somewhere else by himself leaving everyone else alone so that Cahir and Angouleme can be killed. It’s a total contrivance which makes no logical sense. It just happens for plot reasons.
Secondly, let’s discuss Regis and Ciri: as I said in the previous paragraph, I think it makes sense that Geralt would tell Regis to find and save Ciri because that was the entire purpose of them being there. Heck, that was the entire purpose of the five-book saga – finding and saving Ciri. However, once Regis had found and saved Ciri, it is totally unbelievable that he would then let her go off by herself. In fact, Geralt even tells Regis this, and Regis replies, “She demanded it. Using a tone and attitude that ruled out any discussion.” Yeah, right. As if a 400-year-old vampire would be intimidated by a bratty teenager. I don’t believe that for one second. It’s been shown multiple times in the books that Regis isn’t intimidated by anyone, not even Geralt. But, now, he just meekly acquiesces to Ciri’s demands? It’s nonsense.
C. Perhaps the most ridiculous contrivance is how Geralt discovers the location of Stygga castle. In all of the castles in all of the provinces in all the Continent, it just so happens that Skellen and his co-conspirators are meeting in the exact one (and at the exact right time) where Geralt happens to be on a monster contract so that he can overhear them discussing Vilgefortz’s location. I just sighed and rolled my eyes after reading that scene. So, he’s just hanging out in Beauclair for a couple of months, chilling with his friends, having sex with Fringilla, and completing some monster contracts. In fact, at that point in the story, it actually seems that he’s completely forgotten about his search for Ciri, and then, suddenly, this information just miraculously falls into his lap. It’s ridiculous. Instead of using a contrivance, how about letting Geralt overcome the obstacle by using his intelligence, skills, and hard work - you know, like a protagonist with some actual agency would do?
III. Inconsistencies
Even within a fantasy world – in a world of magic or superpowers – things still have to behave in a consistent manner. Otherwise, it just causes confusion and breaks immersion. For example, if I establish that Superman can fly, but later in the story, he inexplicably uses the elevator to get to the top of a building instead of simply flying to the top, then that would cause confusion in the readers. So, whatever ‘rules’ of the universe that the author creates, they need to be consistent in order to have a satisfying story.
Here are just a few of the many inconsistencies:
A. Let’s look at Ciri’s ability to use her power at Stygga castle. First, it is revealed to the reader that the magic at the castle is so powerful that it prevents her from being able to teleport to other times and places. Okay, I’m fine with that. Since Sapkowski never explained exactly how magic works or how Ciri's powers work, then I’m willing to believe that. Except that a few pages later, she miraculously and inexplicably can use her power in order to escape from Bonhart. How did that happen? We don’t know. We're never told. But it is now clearly established that she can use her power again. So, then, at the end of the battle, Emhyr’s men show up, and now Geralt, Ciri, and Yennefer are about to be surrounded. Does Ciri then grab ahold of her two parental figures and teleport away? No, she doesn’t. Heck, she doesn’t even attempt to do it. She just sits down and gives up. She has this incredible power and she doesn’t even try to use it in order to save herself and her loved ones. That’s total nonsense.
B. Let’s look at Yennefer’s use of magic at Stygga castle. Earlier in the fight, we see Yennefer using large amounts of magic. So, whatever magic that the castle possessed, it was clearly not affecting her. We also know that Yennefer has the ability to use teleportation magic. We’ve seen her do it before in the saga. So, even if one wants to argue that, at the end of the battle, the castle’s magic was keeping Ciri from using her power in order to teleport away, there is absolutely no good explanation as to why Yennefer wouldn’t just quickly open up a portal to allow the three of them to escape. But she doesn’t do that. Just like with Ciri, she doesn’t even try.
C. Let’s look at Geralt’s use of his Signs – or, more specifically, his lack thereof. This is actually a flaw within the entire saga. After Sapkowski introduces witcher Signs in the two first books (the short story compilations), Geralt pretty much never uses them again. In fact, I could be wrong, but I think he only uses his Signs twice in the entire five book saga. It makes no sense to give this character these great abilities but then never have him use them. At the end of the battle, he and Emhyr speak in a room by themselves with no one else around. At that point, he could have used Axii on the emperor and forced Emhyr to let the three of them go. He should have at least attempted it, but he didn’t. He didn’t even try.
IV. Character Betrayals
In my opinion, Sapkowski, simply for plot purposes, betrayed his own characters by making them act in ways that are fundamentally opposed to who they are at their core. In the previous section, I already mentioned Regis acting in an inconsistent manner, but now, I’ll give three more examples.
A. Ciri
First, I think it's very strange that she just surrendered herself over to Vilgefortz with no real plan - thinking that he would then just let Yennefer go. That seems very naïve, which, at that point in the story, Ciri should not be. But, even worse is that, at the end of the battle at Stygga castle, Sapkowski has Ciri just give up. She doesn’t even try to save herself, Geralt, and Yennefer once Emhyr’s men show up. She doesn’t even attempt to use her power in order to have the three of them escape. Once Emhyr’s men show up, she just sits down on the steps, lays her sword down, and quits. Sapkowski writes that it was because she – along with Yen - were just “…terribly tired. And resigned.” So, she just gives up because she’s tired? That seems so off to me. But, to be honest, now that I’m really thinking about her, I’ve come to realize that her personality is all over the place in this book. She seems to constantly flip-flop back and forth from being a hard-nosed girl who will never allow herself to be taken advantage of to being a spineless character who just gives up in the face of hardship. It’s really strange. I’m not sure that she has an actual character arc in this story. It’s more of a circle. I would go into detail here, but I'm about to run out of space. But the bottom line is that it makes no sense that she wouldn’t at least try to use her power to save Geralt, Yennefer, and herself.
B. Emperor Emhyr
For five books, we’ve seen him act in many ruthless ways. He’s also incredibly driven. For the entire saga, we’ve seen him pursuing Ciri at all costs. He started an intracontinental war just so that he could get his hands on her. He had no problems with hundreds of thousands of people dying in a war so that he could impregnate his own daughter and have a prophecy fulfilled. So, again, he’s not a good guy. But, then, there at Stygga castle, he sees Ciri crying and just suddenly has a complete change of heart and decides to let her go. Really? So, because he sees some tears, he decides to scrap his entire plan of fulfilling the prophecy and strengthening the empire? I don’t believe that for one second. It was completely out of character.
C. Geralt and Yennefer
For five books, these two showed that they love Ciri, view her as their child, and will do whatever it takes in order to keep her from harm. They were willing to kill in order to keep her safe. They were willing to die and be tortured in order to keep her safe. That is who they are at their core. And it’s not just me who thinks so. At the end of the book, Fringilla Vigo says this about Geralt, “…more than anything, I’m doing it for Geralt of Rivia, the Witcher, without whom that girl [Ciri] wouldn’t be here today. Who, in order to rescue Ciri, went to the end of the world, fighting everything that stood in his way, even himself.” So, it is a complete betrayal to their characters that Sapkowski would just have them give up, resign themselves to a suicide pact, and allow Emhyr to take Ciri away and impregnate her against her will. That goes against who they fundamentally are. That would be like Sam killing Frodo for the ring or Luke killing Vader and joining Palpatine. It just wouldn't happen. They would have forced Emhyr to kill them before they ever would have agreed to do any of that. They would have done everything in their power – including using their magic and Signs – in order to keep her out of his hands. Given the high rating for this book, then I'm clearly in the minority here, but I will just never consider suicide to be a romantic, honorable, or satisfying choice for a protagonist to make when having to face down the epic conflict in a story. I think it's cowardly, not honorable, and it made me completely lose respect for the characters, which is never a good thing for a reader to feel about the main protagonists of a story. I honestly can’t believe that Sapkowski did that to his own characters. It’s very weird that I seem to respect and care more about his characters than he does.
I know that videogames and books are their own unique forms of media. But one area where they are similar is that they both tell stories. Imagine this scenario in The Witcher 3: it's the epic climax of the story. The Wild Hunt are overwhelming the good guys, when Geralt suddenly yells out, "Hey, Eredin! I'm really tired right now so I'm just going to lay down my sword and go commit suicide. Go ahead and take Ciri and do whatever you want to with her. Peace out." I'm pretty sure that would go down as one of the worst endings in videogame history. And, yet, that exact scenario occurred in the book, and everyone just seems to be fine with it. It's truly confusing.
Sapkowski betraying Geralt and Yennefer is what ruined the book for me. It’s what ruined the entire saga for me. I’m just very grateful that I was first introduced to Geralt and his universe through the Witcher 3 videogame instead of through the books. Because if I had read the books first, I probably would have never even bothered to play the games.
Of course, all of this is just my opinion. I could be wrong. Regardless, I truly hope that you enjoyed the saga more than I did.