#quiaposts

In general, my main criticism of TWN, bar the abysmal production and the lack of chemistry between the characters with some exceptions, is that every character is for the most part reduced to a trope. Yennefer, Cahir, Fringilla, and Jaskier were the only ones that managed to show me interesting growth and development, and that was only in a few scenes – the minute they walk back into the role that TWN has decided for them, they fall flat and I lose all interest.

With Lambert and Coën, this comes across in their bullying of Ciri. Its such an awful and tired trope in Western media – one person cares for another person but we only get to see that through them bullying and being nasty to each other. And then something huge happens and WOW suddenly we realise, or are told, that actually these characters, they actually care about each other. Its so toxic – God forbid a male character actually shows genuine affection and care, God forbid a male character shows any emotion other than horny or angry.  

One of the most interesting aspects of The Witcher as a book series is that the characters inside subvert the stereotype. Witchers are supposed to be the ones killing monsters, but instead Geralt is shown as the one who has morals, who has ethics, who tries his hardest to do good and to protect, even when he doesn’t need to, even if a lot of times it blows up in his face. He’s constantly called out on it. Vesemir, Eskel, Lambert, and Coën don’t get that much time in the books but even in the few paragraphs they appear, you can see that these men, grizzled and hardened with their having to deal with monsters, both human and non-human, are understanding of the political climate they face, are understanding of the desperate times that the people around them are in. They see an orphan girl, and they do not bully her. They do not hide their care for her. Sure, there is teasing. Sure there is a moment where Lambert insinuates that Ciri is good “for a girl”. But it comes off as just light banter because its built on a foundation where the Witchers have been shown to care deeply for Ciri. 

In TWN, there is none of this bonding, there is none of this care provided to Ciri. Eskel doesn’t quickly swipe White Gull off the table. Lambert and Coën introduce her to the Comb or the Pendulum or whatever that contraption was supposed to be and just stand there and watch her get hit in the face and fall time and time again. There is no education. There is no Coën picking her off the ground, rubbing her legs and putting her straight back on it. There is no one-to-one sparring with Coën instructing Ciri how she should stand to predict her enemy’s movements. There is no Lambert praising her for her flips, teaching her about how she is to aim for the carotid artery. Lambert doesn’t act protective over her against Triss, and insists that Ciri isn’t there to serve others. There’s just two big men who see a child with a flower in her hair, who make fun of it in a mean way, who don’t apologise to her, who hurt her, who blame her for something for which she is not to blame, who seriously consider hurting her when she is possessed.

 And from all of this we are meant to gather that ACTUALLY they do love each other, Ciri lets Lambert lean on her at the end so its fine they actually love each other. But also, Lambert is a macho alpha male so he HAS to make fun of the little girl, because God forbid a man would show an iota of emotion, and in the same second cruelly brushes away another man who is reaching out for assurance after being defenseless in a traumatic battle.

Instead, we just got a presentation of Geralt having to actively defend Ciri in Kaer Morhen, where she is supposed to be “safe”. And don’t even get me started on the complete lack of actual development between Geralt and Ciri. I’ve seen a lot of criticism about how TWN tells not shows, and its one of the most accurate critiques I’ve seen. Everything that Geralt says about Ciri falls completely flat because instead of actually having a conversation with the girl, its Geralt constantly grunting out that she’s good enough, that it’s okay. It gets boring after a while, I was left there thinking, okay Geralt, perhaps you should actually talk to Ciri? Understand better how she feels, what’s going on with her? Geralt does talk a lot more in this season but it amounts to almost 0. And then in the background we get some weird affirmation of, by the way, the only bond that matters is the familial blood bond so apparently Ciri’s bond with the witchers of Kaer Morhen doesn’t actually count because that’s not blood.

 So many times, in Western media we miss out on depictions of love that is non-sexual, love between friends, love between family, love between colleagues, love between companions. We get plenty of romantic partners but how many times do we see depictions of friends who actually, genuinely aren’t afraid to show their affection? 

One of the most refreshing things in the Witcher book series is that the characters are not afraid to show this love. Dandelion and Geralt are a prime example – they joke with each other but its never nasty. They save each other several times, they kiss platonically, they huddle together for warmth, they drag each other out of trouble, they don’t leave each other behind. Dandelion braves the dryads of Brokilon convinced that he is going to be murdered, just to get to Geralt. When caught in the middle of a battle, Dandelion flat out refuses to leave Geralt behind. Geralt is ready to kill Regis when he perceives him as a threat to Dandelion. Geralt talks clearly, without metaphor, about how important Dandelion is to him and no one makes fun of him. He’s not considered less of a man because of it. There’s no concept of this level of friendship in TWN. In fact, the only way they could conceive of explaining Dandelion’s companionship with Geralt is to queer-bait hard with Jaskier which pisses me off greatly. I would LOVE to have LGBTQ+ characters on the show. For the love of God, they already exist please use them. But to present Jaskier and Geralt’s friendship into a one-sided pining moment and then not actually showing how important Jaskier is, not having the two talk about what happened between them, is just horrible. Its just shoe-horning in some romantic feelings on Jaskier’s part, just because TWN can’t understand that they can represent two men having a bond and a friendship together and showing affection for each other without it being romantic. So we have Geralt saying he needs Jaskier and he is important to him, but then are left with no actual depiction of that. Jaskier just walks around as the comedic side relief with some added shirtless scenes. Geralt doesn’t even have the decency to introduce him properly to his Child Surprise, and once again Jaskier is completely ignored by everyone except for, surprisingly, Yennefer. Its Western media once again only being able to show affection between characters on a sexual/romantic level.

Eskel has always seemed to me like the odd one out in CDPR’s verse, which is the Eskel I want to talk about here. Out of all the witchers we meet he seems to have the least unique characterization. Even though I love Eskel and would like as much content about him as possible, I’m not particularly mad about it - the majority of what we get seems to be reflective of the books and witchers in general, and ultimately he is one of dozens of individual characters that the games work with. It’s clear that CDPR made the decision to have Lambert be Geralt’s ‘second-in-command’ and another of Vesemir’s child-surprises, which is not entirely book-accurate, but is a lot more believable than whatever manic-pixie-dream-girl-wet-dream fantasy we have going on with Triss Merigold.  

This specific line is thrown into even sharper relief considering that a few seconds before, Lambert yells at Yennefer for suggesting that Uma undergoes the Trial of the Grasses, and states that the secrets of the Trials should remain forgotten:

Lambert: Wary? That’s not the problem. Those secrets have been forgotten. And that’s how they should stay.

Out of all the School of Wolf witchers that we meet, Eskel is the one who expresses least opinions about the process of becoming a witcher. In the first game, Berengar is extremely bitter about what happened to him and actively turns his back on Kaer Morhen for that reason. Lambert seems to take up his mantle in TW3. There’s an interesting point in the game where Lambert indicates that he isn’t angry about being a witcher but rather he is angry about the lack of choice he had in the matter:

Lambert: Guess I could've been someone worse... Just a shame I had no choice.

The cruelty of the trials:

Geralt: That still gnawing at you? 

Lambert: Gnawing? No. Straight old pisses me off. What the fuck was that Trial for? Most who returned from the Circle of Elements died within a year in some swamp, hunting drowners for a crown thirty a head. So exactly what was the point?

The futility of the trials:

Lambert: That's just it -- not everyone made it. Lots of boys died here. Boys taken against their will.

And the fact that he was put through all of that in return for his father’s life:

Lambert: My life... For the life of that prick?

Lambert also expresses concern about putting Uma through the Trial of the Grasses on the simple premise that it will make Uma suffer (which, as a side note, is the moment I realised how much I love Lambert):

Yennefer: Of course not. As I was about to say, I'll only apply the first half of the Trial, because - 

Lambert: Because you want to watch him suffer?

Lambert is also the one to call Vesemir out for keeping Sad Albert around and   refers to the instruments used during the Trials as “torture devices”:  

Lambert: Sure. Every grandpa out there's got an attic full of torture devices.

He also places himself physically away from the group during the Trial, he questions Vesemir’s seeming regret at the process by asking why he kept Sad Albert around, and ultimately walks out in the middle of the Trial:

Vesemir: I had hoped... I'd hoped I would never have to watch this again.

 Lambert: Why'd you keep the table, then?

In his own way, Vesemir too expresses reluctance over putting Uma through the Trial of the Grasses:

Yennefer: Have the boys told you what we plan to do? 

Vesemir. Yes. Don't like it one bit. But I suppose I have to trust you.

He goes through the trouble of trying his own way to lift the curse from Uma because he recognises that what Yennefer intends to do is not safe (at that point she has not revealed that she wants to subject him to the first part of the Trial of the Grasses). He also keeps calling back to the fact that he had to see the Trial being carried out many times with horrific results and he is not comfortable with putting Uma through it (although, as Lambert points out, he did keep Sad Albert around and justifies it through the sentimental nostalgia felt by old people which has to be considered when putting his statements into perspective).

Geralt’s reactions depend somewhat on the player’s choices, but at a minimum he is wary of putting Uma through the Trial. He questions the chances of Uma’s survival, is concerned about whether the hookweed that Vesemir administers has actually helped dull Uma’s pain, and the player is given the option to question whether the Trial of the Grasses should continue:

Geralt: Listen... We should stop this. 

Yennefer: Then Uma dies. Very painfully.

Eskel doesn’t really get an opinion. Later in the process, he does express doubt about putting Uma through the Trial but he does it within the context of Uma potentially being Ciri and what it might to do her, not in relation to what it is doing to Uma as a separate entity:

Eskel: If that's Ciri in there...she could come out of this crippled, wrong in the head, just emotionless. Thought about that?

And, above and beyond all this, is the simple fact that Eskel is the first witcher around that table to talk about how they may need to discuss taking on new boys if the Trial of the Grasses is viable again. But there is no way that I will accept that the reason why he does that is because CDPR Eskel is somehow callous or unfeeling.

So what’s my point exactly?

One of the most distinct perceptions I have of Eskel is that he shows a dislike of expressing opinion and a preference to avoiding confrontation. In TW3, we are told that Vesemir has asked Eskel to see to some beams that need fixing and has also asked Lambert to patch up Savolla’s breach. Eskel doesn’t see to the beams because he is too busy getting drunk with Lambert and Geralt in ‘No Place Like Home’, but he feels the need to explain himself to Vesemir the day after:

Vesemir: So I guess you didn't get a chance to see to the beams in the tower? 

Eskel: Uh... No... But we'll, uh, get to that, I promise. Right, Lambert?

Lambert on the other hand makes a conscious decision to not patch up Savolla’s breach, not because he wants to be argumentative with Vesemir but simply because he is of the opinion that it doesn’t need to be done:

Geralt: Savolla's breach. Still haven't patched it up? 

Lambert: Vesemir'd like to. Doesn't bother me, though. Not expecting anyone to lay siege and...this way I got a shortcut to the pond.

So Lambert has agency over some of what happens in Kaer Morhen, but Eskel just does what Vesemir tells him to do.

Eskel also makes it clear to Geralt several times that he does not trust Yennefer or approve of the way she treats people. For example:

Geralt: Yen tell you why she wants this? 

Eskel: Mean you don't know? And that, uh...doesn't bug you?

[...]

Geralt: No, it doesn't. I trust her. 

Eskel: And they say people learn from their mistakes...

[...]

Geralt: Something about Yen bothering you? C'mon, grow a pair, give it to me straight. 

Eskel: You grow a pair and admit she tricked you. More than a few times.

This is pretty much in line with how Lambert feels, but instead of directly confronting Yennefer, Eskel just buries it. He goes out of his way to be polite and to reign Lambert in when the latter tries to prod. He only confronts Yennefer once Lambert has started the ball rolling:

Lambert: Fine. Conversation turned serious? Let's talk. Yen, what do you plan to do with Uma? 

Yennefer: I said I'll tell you tomorrow. 

Eskel: So tell us now. It's after midnight.

I think its also telling that Eskel only reveals his true feelings about Kaer Morhen once Vesemir dies. We’re told that the previous winter, Lambert suggested that the witchers abandon Kaer Morhen and that Vesemir took it badly. Lambert retains his opinion, but Eskel doesn’t give his own:

Geralt: Vesemir's gotten a bit grumpy in his old age. 

Eskel: That was nothing. Shoulda been here last winter when Lambert tried to convince him we oughta abandon Kaer Morhen for good. 

Lambert: What good's this old ruin anyway? Moldy walls, leaky roof, and it's one big fucking ice cube in the winter. 

Eskel: Vesemir didn't say a word. Stood, grabbed his sword, and slammed the door on his way out. Didn't come back for a month.

However, during Vesemir’s funeral, we see that Eskel actually does have an opinion on Kaer Morhen, but he expresses it only once Vesemir has passed:

Eskel: No, Geralt. Place has been dying a while now. Last nail in the coffin today. Time we accepted that.

If Letho is present at Kaer Morhen, there’s a scene which makes me feel like Eskel becomes defensive with Geralt - the one and only time he does. This is opposed to Lambert who is quite quick to argue. The topic at hand? Eskel’s right to an opinion. Lambert in this scene directly confronts the situation, but Eskel’s reaction isn’t to directly argue his case - it makes me think more of him trying to convince himself that his opinion matters.

Letho: None of your business. 

Lambert: Wrong -- it is his and mine. Rather not have you behind our backs during the battle. 

Geralt: What is it now? 

Lambert: Why did you even bring him?

Geralt: I need Letho. 

Eskel: Our opinions count, too.

We see Eskel’s reluctance to confront in the first game too. In ‘The Price of Neutrality’ we learn that Eskel actively avoided claiming Deidre Ademeyn and then had a hard time making a decision about what to do with her once she arrives at Kaer Morhen:

Vesemir: He cited the Law of Surprise, and, as they say, destiny proved fortunate - unbeknownst to the prince, his wife was with child [...] As far as I know  Eskel never returned to claim the child promised him by the prince. For some reason, ever since then he’s always taken the long way around Caingorn.

Whatever decision is taken, Eskel’s face is ripped apart, but we know that he continues to claim the Law of Surprise when he explains how he got his horse Scorpion:

Eskel: Saved this lost knight once... You know, woods, dark, wolves. The standard. Told him "Give me what you find at home" and all that... No kid this time, but his mare had just foaled.

Overall, this progression makes me feel like Eskel is ignoring his own personal experience with the Law of Surprise, and continues to use it simply because that is what a witcher is ‘supposed’ to do.  

Now, back to why I originally started this.  

Eskel does what he’s supposed to do. He claims the Law of Surprise even though it hasn’t worked out well for him, he doesn’t instigate arguments with Vesemir or Geralt, he doesn’t really make his own decisions regarding Kaer Morhen. In ‘The Price of Neutrality’ he says that he invoked the Law of Surprise because that’s what Vesemir told them witchers do:

Eskel: I must’ve heard too many of Vesemir’s stories about the eternal Law of Surprise ...

This ‘supposed to’ language comes out in one of his lines to Ciri:

Eskel: Should've stayed in the keep, sat your ass down like you were supposed to.

In a way, Eskel is the most “standard” witcher that we meet in the games. Even in preparing for trying to lift the curse from Uma, Yennefer gives him the task that is most standard for a witcher, i.e. killing a forktail and obtaining ingredients from it. After the battle of Kaer Morhen, his next step is calculated as continuing his witcher work:

Eskel: Try my luck in Lormark. There's always work where there's war. After that, we'll see.

We never hear Eskel’s opinions about witchering, about how he personally feels about it. Even Gaetan, an optional character, gets to say his little piece down in Velen, but Eskel doesn’t.

Does this mean that Eskel is somehow boring or has less personality? I certainly don’t believe so. The simple fact that this man tracked and hunted a katakan then dragged its corpse all the way back to Kaer Morhen because he identified interesting characteristics and wanted to see if he could develop a new way to track these creatures should be enough proof against that (seriously, how did Eskel get that thing up the mountain?). From the little we gather of his life outside of Kaer Morhen, we can also see that Eskel has his own adventures, but he never offers up much details, preferring to sit and listen to what Geralt and Lambert have to say instead.

No, rather, I think that Eskel makes a conscious effort to avoid confrontation. Now, the fact that he immediately wants to discuss making new witchers may be interpreted as him wanting to directly confront the issue, but I disagree. Keep in mind that making more witchers is what witchers are supposed to do. I don’t believe that Eskel wants to make more witchers, but I believe that he feels that since that is what witchers are supposed to do, it is the opinion that he is supposed to express. Its less confrontational to continue a tradition set for hundreds of years than it is to actively argue and speak out against it, which is what Lambert does.

I want to make it clear that I don’t mean this as a negative attack on Eskel or his moral choices. In a way I very much feel that Eskel is the person who is sacrificing his own opinions and feelings because he feels that he has to be the responsible person and consider what may be appropriate for a situation, whether its easier for him or not. I think its telling that at one point Geralt tells Lambert:

Geralt: Whine about it to Eskel later.

Almost as if its completely normal for either of them to go to Eskel with their issues. If you’re not romancing Yennefer, Eskel is also the one who immediately expresses concern for Geralt and asks him if he wants to talk about it, whatever his feelings about Yennefer are:

Eskel: Lambert, drop it ... Sorry, Geralt, that was, uh, insensitive. We didn’t know. You wanna ... wanna talk about it?

The thing is that there is usually a reason why a person would not consider their opinion important. To dip into personal experience for a moment, I’ve generally always been a very opinionated and blunt person, however, the periods of my life where I considered my opinions to be worthless or useless coincided with my feelings of self-hate and/or lack of self-confidence. I don’t think that all people who struggle with those feelings will manifest them in the same way. In some cases you can have people who are dealing with those feelings and instead become loud and cultivate transgressive opinions simply because its the only way they feel they can get attention (I’m narrowing my eyes slightly at Lambert here).

So, in essence I think that Eskel is someone who doesn’t feel like he has the right to an opinion, a right to do things the way he thinks would be good for him, especially if they are not in line with what he is expected to do.

I think that there’s a lot to be said about how Lambert has to live with the fact that Geralt, the famous White Wolf, and Eskel, known for his prowess and Sign intensity, are the two Wolf witchers who remain and the two people who’s standards he has to meet and try to attain, even if he is an excellent witcher in his own right. However, more recently, I’ve been thinking about how at least Lambert can get some distance from that. Ultimately, he is from a different generation of witchers, and we see that he actively spends time away from the School of Wolf and interacts with at least one other witcher from a different school. Eskel, on the other hand, has to deal with a life spent being compared to Geralt. I don’t think he’s bitter about it - his famous line of being a simple witcher doesn’t come off as jealous or resentful:

Eskel: I’m a simple witcher, Wolf. Don’t fight dragons, don’t fraternize with kings and don’t sleep with sorceresses ... unlike some.

But then when he talks about how Vesemir couldn’t tell them apart, the way he says it makes it feel like now there’s something different, whether its the scars or something else:

Eskel: Right... Vesemir used to say he couldn't tell us apart. Like brothers, two drops of water... A long time ago, that. Thanks.

So, Eskel has had to deal with being compared to Geralt for his entire life, has had to slowly come to terms with the fact that Geralt is not the same person he grew up with, and has to come to terms with the fact that he has to continuously take a step back in Geralt’s life, as the latter becomes the White Wolf, becomes involved with Yennefer, and ultimately claims Ciri as a child of surprise which solidifies him into legend, one way or another. I think its very easy to point towards his scars and blame any lack of self-confidence in them, but I think that that also negates and downplays all the other trauma Eskel as a witcher has had to go through beyond the disfigurement. For one, you could consider whether Eskel sees Geralt’s protectiveness of Ciri in stark contrast to his perceived failure to protect Deidre. For another, there’s very little exploration of how the sacking of Kaer Morhen is on its own enough of a traumatic experience to leave intense guilt on the survivors.

Ultimately, all of this converges to what I feel is a person who just ... doesn’t think he is that important in the lives of his fellow witchers and in general. It’s sad because, in the books you can get a sense of how important Eskel is to the story, both as Geralt’s friend and one of the people Ciri considers her mentor. And perhaps its one reason why Eskel, even though he is not a main character, resonates so deeply with people. Its not something that I can personally say I have an exact understanding of, but I can certainly sympathise with the struggle of doing what you want versus being cursed with the conviction that what other people need or want is more important to you.