Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

The Witcher author Andrzej Sapkowski's disdain of games

Severian Silk

Guest
Apparently my local public library ordered a whole bunch of Witcher books. Should I read them?

Also, last week I started Elric of Mebliniboinomore, and it is pretty tiring pretentious shit so far. Does it get better?
 

Beastro

Arcane
Joined
May 11, 2015
Messages
8,081
(his LOTR review is hilarious).

That's what really irks me. He makes Tolkien out to be something he was actually the complete opposite of. Like thinking he was a Little Englander when the entire point of the Hobbits themselves is to criticism such an insular mentality.

I don't mind ignoring the darker sides of someone like Lovecraft and let his work shine on his own, but every time Moorcock pops up to me he's injecting his politics into what he's talking about, so I feel no need to give him the same leeway.

TW1 suffers from being so obviously fan fiction, with lots of parts lifted more or less directly from the books, and there are some elements that are a bit off in terms of tone, like the whole mutant army thing. TW2 has the best story of the series, but the storytelling is all over the place, and it's missing a lot of the Slavic stuff of the other two games. TW3 really shines in dialogue and character interaction, but the main story is poor, partly because they were trying to incorporate some of the worst elements from Sapkowski's books, and partly because they failed to improve on those elements in any meaningful way.

The thing that worked with TW1 was the overarching theme that, from what I've seen of the novels, is a new and not stupid twist o Witchers. That instead of being a neutral actor, Geralt is in fact an agent of chaos sowing it where ever he went. It left me thinking that that was going to be what was festering in the background of future games where knowledge of what the King of the Wild Hunt thinks sits in his mind and keeps coming back to piss him off whenever he finds himself causing more chaos.
 
Last edited:

Beastro

Arcane
Joined
May 11, 2015
Messages
8,081
TW1 suffers from being so obviously fan fiction, with lots of parts lifted more or less directly from the books, and there are some elements that are a bit off in terms of tone, like the whole mutant army thing. TW2 has the best story of the series, but the storytelling is all over the place, and it's missing a lot of the Slavic stuff of the other two games. TW3 really shines in dialogue and character interaction, but the main story is poor, partly because they were trying to incorporate some of the worst elements from Sapkowski's books, and partly because they failed to improve on those elements in any meaningful way.
the darker sides of someone like Lovecraft
hehehehe

Yes, yes, Excidium. I knew what your reaction would be as I was writing that.
 

Severian Silk

Guest
Read a little discussion about "Epic Pooh". He claims LotR has a happy ending. But doesn't Frodo get shipped off with the Elves at the end because he's mentally damaged? Doesn't Frodo basically fail at Mt Doom, and the World get saved by Gullom instead? Isn't the point of LotR that good intentions don't really work? That doesn't sound very happy to me.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Beastro

Arcane
Joined
May 11, 2015
Messages
8,081
Read a little discussion about "Epic Pooh". He claims LotR has a happy ending. But doesn't Frodo get shipped off with the Elves at the end because he's mentally damaged? Doesn't Frodo basically fail at Mt Doom, and the World get saved by Gullom instead? Isn't the point of LotR that good intentions don't really work? That doesn't sound very happy to me.

Yes, even the best people are still Fallen and despite them doing good it doesn't mean they come out of bad times fully intact.

Frodo going to Valinor, Bilbo too, is a bittersweet thing. The Valar can only heal some of what the Ring took from each of them. They're broken people and only death will release them from suffering they endure, given that Hobbits share in Man's Gift to pass beyond Ea when they die. That is also why the Elves are so morose. Death is not death for them, they just go to a different place in Ea and their pity for Men's short lives has a touch of resentment and envy in that Men can find liberation from the world, something that flies completely over your typical Elf lover like Peter Jackson, who took it as a simple superiority complex and hating foolish Men for the same reasons people are misanthropic in real life.

Even Sam struggles at the end having gone through all he did, all the evil he witnessed and now has to work on simply being a husband and father. A peaceful, domestic life becomes it's own sort of torment for people who go through something like a war. In that respect LOTR touched on shit before the Forever War did, and before the war that inspired that novels creation. Often for people in Sam's position, it's easier to simply reject a normal life and keep looking a hellscape of war to keep living in because it's all they know now.

Almost as if it wasn't simply written by a late Victorian, but also by one that was himself damaged and haunted by the evils of war....

The other thing was, despite all Tolkien suffered, he still had faith and believed in something like Western civilization, that there was good in it and that that stated good wasn't just a lie created by people hiding their terrible acts from themselves. That's a message all the more important today with Progressive types that see nothing good in our civilization, of which, Moorcock is one of them given his vile, sneering, post-modern leanings.
 

ShadowSpectre

Arbiter
Joined
Mar 11, 2017
Messages
333
Location
Limbo
My greatest annoyance with both how The Witcher book series ended and The Witcher 3 video-game was that both left a lot to be desired in the end. I read in a German interview that Sapkowski originally intended Lady of the lake to be 2 books but the publisher didn't want that so it got shortened into one. It makes sense because it is the only book that is written the way it is and is left somewhat incomplete at the end. CDProjekt had a chance to rectify some things with TW3, but for some reason they portrayed Avalach as helpful and Eredin a big bad the entire game. It's unfortunate because Avalach could have made more of an impact (he's really just a different kind of terrible compared to Eredin) and Ciri having a strange obsession for Eredin in the books would have been an amusing yet potentially awkward issue in TW3. Just missed opportunities all the way around. I get CDProjekt was harping the White Frost line throughout the 3 games, but still. Meh.
 

Raghar

Arcane
Vatnik
Joined
Jul 16, 2009
Messages
22,665
Given the usual fate of sci fi and fantasy writers, I can't blame him. Not everyone gets to be Neil Gaiman.

If you really want and old butthurt fucker, go read Michael Moorcock's opinions on many things. He believes GRRM and Sapkowski ripped his shtick off, and to be honest, he's kinda right when it comes to GRRM. But (coming from his own words) the thing that makes him rage like an idiot is that Sapkowksi had the gall to nickname his character "white wolf". He might be right but it's not like it's a super weird nickname for a fantasy character.
He has wolf amulet, and white hair. What would be his nick name?
 

Mark Richard

Arcane
Joined
Mar 14, 2016
Messages
1,192
Apparently my local public library ordered a whole bunch of Witcher books. Should I read them?
I've gone through three so far in chronological order - Sword of Destiny, The Last Wish, and Blood of Elves. Sword of Destiny and The Last Wish are a collection of short stories. Would recommend giving them a read if you're a fan of The Witcher because they absolutely nail the feel of the series.

Blood of Elves is the first book in the Ciri Saga. It's dismally slow and much of it follows the thoughts of a teenager, which is my idea of hell. Brings up bad memories of reading Daenerys chapters in A Song of Ice and Fire.
 

pippin

Guest
Yeah, everything is telling me that if I want to read Witcher book I should stick to the short stories. I don't have it in me to commit to the endless drivel that usually plagues fantasy literature.
 
Joined
Aug 10, 2012
Messages
5,894
Moorcock's criticism of Lord of the Rings is a ridiculous, tryhard attempt at shoehorning Tolkien's writing (which served mainly philological and historical worldbuilding purposes, his 'alternative mythology of England) to Moorcock's own narrow libtard political views. I mean, he compares Sauron and the Orcs to footbal hooligans who happen to question the ruling burgeoisie, and his argument is that we don't REALLY know that they're evil because Tolkien never defines evil. Sauron & co. hate the Halflings (and everyone knows Halflings are ridiculous so everyone should hate them, nudge nudge), therfore they can't be all bad (wink wink)! It all reads like a bad forum post.

I mean, the guy thinks fucking JK Rowling is a brilliant master of wit for making fun of school headmasters. In his mind, Gandalf is a stuffed old Tory schoolmaster who wants to tell the rebellious youth what to do, when instead they should all FIGHT THE POWA or something. It's preposterous. He's a self-hating middle class Englishman - a banner-bearer for shit outlets like The Guardian.

His criticisms of CS Lewis are quite funny, though.
 
Last edited:

Zed Duke of Banville

Dungeon Master
Patron
Joined
Oct 3, 2015
Messages
11,884
Also, last week I started Elric of Mebliniboinomore, and it is pretty tiring pretentious shit so far. Does it get better?
Which book/story did you start with? If you're reading them in chronological order from Elric's perspective, you might instead try chronological order by publication date.
 

Beastro

Arcane
Joined
May 11, 2015
Messages
8,081
because Tolkien never defines evil

Power for powers sake, using people as tools in pursuit of that, the naked desire to rule over, dominate possess others and the nihilistic desire to destroy and twist others creations out of jealousy, for starters

Melkor saw Ea, wanted it for himself and kept destroying the creations of the Valar within it each they they were made because he hated their desire to simply add to a greater whole rather than control it all themselves like him.

Aule created the Dwarves without Eru's consent, but Eru saw Aule simply wanted to create living beings of his own and take joy in seeing them live their own lives, there was no malice or greed in his actions, just kind, innocent artistry befitting the smith.

Sauron later went on to imitate the spirit Melkor.

As did Saruman.

As did Gollum with his possessiveness around the Ring.

Moorcock was playing ignorant and refusing to see what was self-evident in the actions of not only those who are evil, but the contrast given in the actions of those who were good and what they often didn't do, like Faramir letting Frodo go without asking him anything about his mission.

He's a self-hating middle class Englishman

I know these people exist, and that a lot of them exist, but they're always a shock to see, how much they hate themselves and their culture. Got my latest does of that when I came by as family was watching a BBC doc about the British Empire. Dunno the dudes name who did it, but he was sneering at everything about it and stunned when meeting people like Kenyan East Indians and others through the Commonwealth who still love it, what did and what it represented despite the evil it did.
 

ShadowSpectre

Arbiter
Joined
Mar 11, 2017
Messages
333
Location
Limbo
Apparently my local public library ordered a whole bunch of Witcher books. Should I read them?
I've gone through three so far in chronological order - Sword of Destiny, The Last Wish, and Blood of Elves. Sword of Destiny and The Last Wish are a collection of short stories. Would recommend giving them a read if you're a fan of The Witcher because they absolutely nail the feel of the series.

Blood of Elves is the first book in the Ciri Saga. It's dismally slow and much of it follows the thoughts of a teenager, which is my idea of hell. Brings up bad memories of reading Daenerys chapters in A Song of Ice and Fire.

I read them all. The books start spreading out the viewpoints again after Time of Contempt. Although I would say that The Witcher series is a dark coming of age tale for Ciri overall. I liked the books because Sapkowski writes with a clever sense of irony and his characters are humanly interesting. I would say his best of the series are select short stories from the first two compilations, Time of Contempt and Tower of the Swallow.
 

Jools

Eater of Apples
Patron
Joined
Feb 1, 2009
Messages
10,652
Location
Mêlée Island
Codex 2014 Make the Codex Great Again! Insert Title Here Codex Year of the Donut Codex+ Now Streaming! Codex USB, 2014 Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2
Mr. Sapkowski said:
I know a couple of people who played [The Twitcher games] . Actually, only a few of them, for I prefer to surround myself with intelligent folks.
Yeah, I don't like popamole either, but you're not exactly Umberto Eco m8,

Gah Eco... 90% of his production is overly pretentious shit, the remaining 10% is actually very good (surely better than butthurtpotato can ever hope to pull off). Eco's so high on himself he should be considered a class A drug and outlawed or at least forbidden to jerk off to himself.


and Fantasy Fiction is the Special Olympics of literature.

Spon fucking on. :salute:
 
Joined
Aug 10, 2012
Messages
5,894
Moorcock was playing ignorant

Yes, it's very transparent too. Mind, I wasn't saying Tolkien never defined evil (I think it's self-evident in the narrative), I was just paraphrasing Moorcock himself.

Re: the self-hating middle class, it's not a strictly English phenomenon either.
 

Beastro

Arcane
Joined
May 11, 2015
Messages
8,081
Re: the self-hating middle class, it's not a strictly English phenomenon either.

No, but the English lean heavily on self-deprecation as a means of showing strength, that leaves them more open to the temptation of simply hating themselves.
 

Iznaliu

Arbiter
Joined
Apr 28, 2016
Messages
3,686
Moorcock's criticism of Lord of the Rings is a ridiculous, tryhard attempt at shoehorning Tolkien's writing (which served mainly philological and historical worldbuilding purposes, his 'alternative mythology of England) to Moorcock's own narrow libtard political views.

Tolkien was idiotic in his own way with his proto-hippy vision of an ideal rural society. He had Ron Paul syndrome: BIG GUV does bad things, so we must strip down government totally rather than actually fixing it. Everyone has their blind spots and fetishistic obsessions with ideas. Tolkien had an agenda throughout his writing; it is not apparent as his views never gained much traction.

I mean, he compares Sauron and the Orcs to footbal hooligans who happen to question the ruling burgeoisie, and his argument is that we don't REALLY know that they're evil because Tolkien never defines evil. Sauron & co. hate the Halflings (and everyone knows Halflings are ridiculous so everyone should hate them, nudge nudge), therfore they can't be all bad (wink wink)! It all reads like a bad forum post.

Tolkien's and Lewis's excuses for faith also looked embarrassing and contorted. Ideology is the antidote to reason.

I know these people exist, and that a lot of them exist, but they're always a shock to see, how much they hate themselves and their culture. Got my latest does of that when I came by as family was watching a BBC doc about the British Empire. Dunno the dudes name who did it, but he was sneering at everything about it and stunned when meeting people like Kenyan East Indians and others through the Commonwealth who still love it, what did and what it represented despite the evil it did.

The modern scholarly consensus is that the British Empire was, in the long run, bad for everyone. Just because you would like to think it is good, doesn't make it good; there is still plenty to be proud of in English history, as England has produced many heroes of the arts and sciences, from Chaucer right up until the latest top-sellers and scientists.

No, but the English lean heavily on self-deprecation as a means of showing strength, that leaves them more open to the temptation of simply hating themselves

Say you are a living, talking , walking piece of shit.
Would you rather:

1. Acknowledge what you are
2. Say you're great.

Honesty is the ultimate virtue.
 

Beastro

Arcane
Joined
May 11, 2015
Messages
8,081
Tolkien was idiotic in his own way with his proto-hippy vision of an ideal rural society.

A society protected by giants its members were ignorant of. His work makes clear the Shire would never have existed without Gordor or Arnor.

Tied into the Shire is the sentiment that despite it being a bubble that fact didn't exclude it from having good qualities which were represented in its people.

Tolkien had an agenda throughout his writing;

Of course he did, and every bit of his works focused on them: That Western Civilization and Christianity had intrinsic qualities that bettered the world and were constantly under attack throughout their history by forces that sought to bring them down and tear them asunder, the latter day history of his world in LOTR, just as in ours, was simply yet another age when they were under siege when it looked like there was no hope.

The modern scholarly consensus is that the British Empire was, in the long run, bad for everyone. Just because you would like to think it is good, doesn't make it good; there is still plenty to be proud of in English history, as England has produced many heroes of the arts and sciences, from Chaucer right up until the latest top-sellers and scientists.

There is more to culture than art and science. The Empire was national endeavor that took centuries and looked ludicrous from the get go. It all began with the revival and repurposing of the old Anglo-Saxon title of their king as the Lord of the Seas in Elizabethan times, originally meant to convey their rule over the English Channel.

That claim replaced the old Norman claims to France as the national endeavour of the people and compelled them to expand out into the world instead of sitting around producing wool to sell to the Flemish.

Societies needs purpose just as individual people do and its no surprise the British ran into trouble once they fulfilled their claim and struggled to find a new one to replace it. Countering German hegemony in Europe took over, but it was largely re-purposing their decline in a form of self-sacrifice.

No Britain, like much of the rest of the West, have nothing to strive for and are consumed with self-doubt, the only thing they seem to busy themselves with is making themselves as happy as they can, contentment is never condition that produces real grow in people or society.

Say you are a living, talking , walking piece of shit.
Would you rather:

1. Acknowledge what you are
2. Say you're great.

Honesty is the ultimate virtue.

Except no person is ever something like that, we are shades of many things and it is up to us what we chose to make ourselves represent. If you think of yourself as nothing but trash you will never be anything more than trash.

The British set a high standard for themselves to meet and strove to reach as closely to it as they can without whitewashing their mistakes, but those same high standards leave them open to attack by ignorant idiots who only see them claiming to be something more than they presently are.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom