#book geralt

[bluedillylee]

🐺🗡️ stinky man

[ID Portraits of Geralt from different witcher adaptations. In order Netflix tv show, Game, Hexer 2002, musical and book. end ID]

[grimmgoetia]

im doing some crazy evil wizard shit to geralt in blender rn

[miistermee]

He’s actually here! :]

[alugerr]

birch trees...

(Hey, thanks for the likes and reposts on the previous picture with Geralt! :3)

[beryloflyria]

While cleaning my room, I had found an old sketch book that dates from around 2023, reminding me I had tried to do my first depiction of a book accurate Geralt of Rivia

[finleycannotdraw]

interdimensional geraskier convention?????

from left to right: hexer geraskier, book gerlion, netflix geraskier, and game gerlion

colored about half of it on a discord call and the other half trying to ignore my family who had just arrived

closeups under the cut!

[artemregis]

Is that the Haute-Bellegarde guy?

[waterflowing-under-ground]

I've seen some posts from people in the Witcher fandom (usually who are into both the Netflix show and the books) being confused as to why book fans think Geralt being mean to Dandelion (Jaskier) is a canon divergence in the TV show, when in the books, there are times when Geralt can be very cutting and even a bit mean to Dandelion.

My takeaway from their relationship in the books is that this conflict has the purpose of developing both of their characters (and serving as allegory because we KNOW Mr. Sapkowski loves allegory, and we love him for it! Or at least I do), and there's context around why they can be this way with each other. There's a rich history in this friendship, a comfort and casualness with one another that one wouldn't have with someone they weren't that close with, which in a lot of relationships comes with a safety to BE cutting and blunt with each other at times and know that having these conflicts is not going to mean an end to their relationship. They tend to move on from their arguments and all is forgiven (sometimes after a period of distance, but that's also normal after a hard conversation I feel - both parties sometimes need to process and lick their wounds, or wounded egos), and it's implied (at least to me) that their friendship is an "always" thing, even when they do blow up at each other, and even when the things they say are harsh.

Furthermore, there's so much "off screen" (off-page?) time between them that we don't get to see. But their closeness is implied by others and themselves throughout the entire saga and the short stories. And the things they say to other people indicate how important they are to one another as well.

I do want to point out that my personal take on their relationship is tempered by me being in my 40's and having more than one long term relationship (namely my closest and longest-running friendship which is going on 25 years now, and my marriage which is almost 15 years old this year) where there IS that familiarity and "safety" to sometimes have cutting conversations, or at least "brutally honest" conversations, telling each other things we might not want to hear, but perhaps need to.

My best friend, for example, saw me through a 6-year relationship that was actually abusive. She felt that she had to tell me some truths that I needed to hear, and while some things she told me were hard to hear during that period, I'm so glad she felt safe and comfortable enough with me to be honest about what she saw happening.

She is not a fuzzy-wuzzy cuddly person. But she is MY person. She has been my rock for nearly a quarter century. I would actually trust this woman with my life. I would donate a kidney to this woman if I were a match and she needed one. We are not cutesy fuzzy with each other (although most of the time we're warm, generous, and supportive like a certain witcher and minstrel duo). She's not the type to say "I love you" out loud, so we don't do that because I know that would make her uncomfortable (she's even like this with her partner of several years - some people just aren't as demonstrative with saying the WORDS, but it doesn't mean they don't FEEL it). But we LOVE each other dearly. We don't have to actually say "I love you" to say I love you to one another.

Because we're all human, we can even at times slip up and not be as tactful and sensitive with each other as we should be, or even in a moment of vulnerability get angry and snap (which is completely Geralt in Baptism of Fire). Some of the conflicts I've had with my best friend and my spouse can look a lot like what we encounter in the books between Geralt and Dandelion when they do get into a heated discussion or argument. But these relationships are, to me, "safe" and "always" in my mind and heart. I know we'd have to do something truly *despicable* and abusive to one another for those relationships to end entirely.

What I think people are saying, when they say, "Book Geralt would never *be mean* to Dandelion," isn't that Geralt could never *literally* be mean. It's that the portrayal of their friendship and the conflicts they could have were lacking any kind of context whatsoever. Furthermore, the Netflix show didn't make us believe they were ever MUTUAL friends who loved each other (mutually) in the first place, didn't do enough to build up their relationship and show its history and why they're so bonded to each other, why they're proud of each other, show us HOW the "opposites attract" thing actually works in their relationship, how they add value to each other's lives by having different but complementary personalities, why they had such a strong connection in the first place, why they loved each other, why they enjoyed and valued each other's company and place in their lives.

Instead they made it seem like Geralt was simply tolerating this silly little guy who gets him into trouble all the time, and then out of nowhere you get a tirade of verbal abuse that goes on about how this silly little guy ruined his entire life, and basically a "get out of my life" tirade which is extremely hurtful and broke the show character's heart (understandably enough). Geralt also punches Dandelion in the show, and while they have their share of verbal arguments in the books, Geralt never lays a hand on Dandelion, and even goes out of his way to protect him and save him from violence and physical danger multiple times throughout the entire saga.

Geralt's attempts to push the Hanza away in Baptism of Fire are often cited as the example of Geralt being mean, by Netflix viewers who are confused by book fans saying Geralt being mean isn't canon.

But I think book fans pretty universally agree that Geralt's "meanness" in Baptism of Fire actually stems partially from him wanting to protect the other members of the Hanza from danger, and partially from feeling like he's messed everything up so badly he doesn't *deserve* help or support, or that he can't *truly atone* for Ciri's separation and unhappiness unless he completes the mission entirely alone.

He tries to emotionally push everyone away by being, well, a jerk (which if one is looking to push people away, that can definitely be an effective way of doing so). But his friends see right through this defense mechanism, seem to intuitively know where it's coming from, and seem to understand what he's going through, and are not afraid to call him out on it!

They rightfully roast him for it, but in a way that to me comes across as loving, albeit tough love. To me it's in the vein of, "We see right through your nonsense, we know why you're being like this, because you think you're leading us right into harm's way and you don't want to do that, plus you're losing your mind because you're in a lot of pain and you've lost your daughter and de facto wife who you were JUST beginning to mend fences with before she and your daughter were ripped away from you, so you're freaking out and not being rational. This isn't going to work on us, we're not going to leave you, so just sit down, chop these veggies, and eat this fish soup with us, and shut up you silly man." My favorite moment is when Milva makes the remark about how wolves don't actually hunt alone. Wolves are, after all, pack animals who work as a team to survive.

Modern toxic masculinity harkens a lot to his idea of "alpha males" and "lone wolves" which is total fallacy and nonsense and runs completely counter to what real life is actually like. People, like wolves, are communal animals. We literally need one another to survive. Interdependence, not independence, is the optimal way of being human. Having love, comeraderie, and support are not just frivolities, they're necessities!

To close this, I think the heart of why book fans take issue with this portrayal of their friendship is that Dandelion and Geralt are the longest running thread through the series, each other's "always" person (which in a long lifetime often IS someone's closest platonic relationship, whether that be a chosen best friend or a close sibling for example), and they're so instrumental to each other's character development, that to bludgeon that in the show just runs so counter to what I feel as a fan of this series is one of its central themes, which is that nobody actually CAN do everything alone and without support, that being isolated and alone really leads down a dark path for us as human beings. By stripping away this piece of the story (Dandelion and Geralt's friendship in its true nature, not a contrived one) it fails to adapt the story on that level.

Keep in mind that these are just my opinions. If you made it this far, thanks for reading!