And yes, I agree it's especially dumb after they just solved the problem the previous "joke" had made...
I'm atually not sure why they couldn't have just stuck with the book's way of doing it? The joke felt pretty out of character and was, as you say, just generally dumb.
Heh, yeah, Nenneke and Calanthe are the strong women done right,
Agreed, and I loved them both, unsurprisingly. (And thought the show did a pretty good job with Calanthe.)
So, what the first wish was in the show, then? No twist at all? Geralt means "Fuck off!" and he really says what he thinks he says?
It wasn't very memorable, so already has started to fade, but I think his first wish -- which he speaks when it looks like there is no djinn/the djinn is a dud, or if it exists, that Jaskier is its master, so it's also not meant as a wish -- is for Jaskier to shut up, which causes Jaskier's condition that they need to search for a healer for. Or at least that's what I think happens...
Wow, your translation is really good! :D I mean, I can't judge how it reads,
It reads very well, too! (I figured the Russian translation had to be pretty close to the Polish, but it's good to have the confirmation! :)
Don't expect a plot or even much sense and just enjoy scenes, quotes and acharacters
I can do zat! Probably even more so now after having watched the TV show, which definitely should be enjoyed on that level :)
I'm atually not sure why they couldn't have just stuck with the book's way of doing it? The showrunner/whoever-(un)wrote-this felt the need to prove themselves for the payroll? :P
It wasn't very memorable, so already has started to fade "... : the show's review". XD
is for Jaskier to shut up, which causes Jaskier's condition that they need to search for a healer for. Hm, that's actually not so bad idea, aside of that there was no need to coming up with ideas in the first place, especially at the cost of existing ones... Also, this makes a need for coming up with a new reason to why the djinn ran away.
Probably even more so now after having watched the TV show, which definitely should be enjoyed on that level :) Fight & bath scenes + Jaskier being cute, as I hear, yeah. :D Come to think of it, while I think the books leave much to demand... (1. everyone loving to listen to their own voices as a result of Sapkowski loving his own writing, which makes for a lot of pompous speeches mid-dialogue, which builds on the pathos in spite of the constant breaking-the-pathos trope; 2. while Sapkowski is not bad with making characters, his second plan, cameos and extras are often easier to root for than protagonists; 3. everything poses for SO DEEP and MULTILAYERED and MEANINGFUL and OPEN TO INTERPRETATIONS that finally you start suspecting he got lost half way in this shit himself; 4. it's all just a tangle of threads and scenes in a desperate search for a plot) ...but at least those characters and threads and scenes once in a while actually succeed in getting deep, cliches actually get subverted (as was his intention, according to him), mythos gets retold with a twist, and philosophy gets philosophed, inbetween the pathos. So, you could expect that the recipe for fixing such source material is keeping the good stuff, just making it clearer and patched where holes and loose ends are, or at least I thought so? Instead, the image I gather of your relation + what I read here and there is pretty opposite: they shallowed the deep (for the jokes sake o.O), made it more cliche (Yennefer, for one), and nuanced thought went out of the window (the elves, for one). Doesn't help that apparently the showrunner either outright lied about their plans ("faithfull to the source material" my ass; in fact it seems one of the worst cases of on-motives-ing I've ever heard of) or is really bad on planning more than one day ahead and general consistency of everything with anything. And a cringey attitude toward crisis management and being questioned as a cherry on top ("My own vision" and "Dubious scenes aren't dubious because it wasn't our intention").
The showrunner/whoever-(un)wrote-this felt the need to prove themselves for the payroll? :P
Maybe they cut it for time? (it kin of is an entire subplot, that needs to happen, and then Geralt needs to show off what he thinks he's doing, and then the punchline. On the other hand, the episode had a whole bunch of Ciri related things that could've gone elsewhere, so I dunno.
Also, this makes a need for coming up with a new reason to why the djinn ran away.
It's actually not clear in the show that it did run away. It's not immediately malevolent, so it doesn't need to be banished -- before I read the story, I figure the wind and things associated with the djinn were just it doing its magic, not a threat in itself. And it's only shown to be destructive once Yennefer tries to trap it, which also kind of made sense. (But, yeah, the book way hangs together better/makes more coherent sense, as well as being FUNNIER.)
I confess that I find the Russian/Slavic fantasy I've read to take itself a little TOO seriously -- like, I didn't actually miss the philosophizing here, although it doesn't bother me in the book version. I *did* miss the more nuanced worldbuilding aspects, of course -- the thing with the Elves, for example, yeah.
I mean, shallower is what I expect from a TV adaptation, anyway (with the exception of something like Good Omens, which is made by the book author, basically), so I was largely OK with that. But it is what it is.
As I see it, they made a mistake by advertising it as adaptation and especially a faithful adaptation. They should have just said up front they're doing something spin-offy, "our story in the Witcherverse blah blah", and everyone would be happy, even the fandom. So, basically a honest calling fanfic a fanfic.
I confess that I find the Russian/Slavic fantasy I've read to take itself a little TOO seriously Hah, that's more like the high fantasy trait than "Slavic" fantasy - from the old fans POV. :D That's funny, actually, because when we look at it in context, the books origin was just this - it aimed at taking the fantasy (as Poles of 80/90s knew it) off its high horse. At that time and place it was fresh - Tolkien and ethereal Elves all around, suddenly there comes in a fantasy where beer and guts are spilled equally, and people talk (local!) Villagese instead of Elven. Of course, inspiration and popularity did their thing, so this approach was original maybe for a few months. Meanwhile, the western fantasy and creative writing in general took a similar route over years - everything aims for being cracky, campy, intertextual and subversively mocking (so, still very much in line with the books that are an epitome of subversion&intertextualism, though in the time they were written it was called postmodernism in Polish metas, including the mainstream critics), but also - and this is more recent - is viewed as a fandom placeholder more than its own complete thing. People watch for inspirations (fanartists&writers) and for canon (fic readers), myself I watch MCU like this, for one. So, now the show - of what I hear - seems to work best for people used to and expecting crack and, most importantly, not really caring that much about the franchise beyond a few evenings of fun and new hot ships, but of course at the same time it's going to disappoint the "deep core" fans every fandom has. So, everything as usual. ;D
with the exception of something like Good Omens Or is it because we care for GO more? In case of GO we are the "deep core" fans. ;) And well, because GO was overall better to the start with, especially if we judge by how well it has aged, comparatively.
(Btw, I happened to run yesterday across this essay. It has very interesting points on that "Slavic soul" thing, and in places the author nails the problem spot on, in a nuanced way. Though on the spectrum of people's opinions he describes I'm personally closer to the "it's not a thing and a dumb term" end than him. Unless we agree 1. soul = cultural personality, and 2. it's not unique to have one, every culture/nation/group has one and then yes, each is unique, though not sharp cut. Though I don't think he'd really disagree. (Comments are mostly dumb, tho.))
I confess that I find the Russian/Slavic fantasy I've read to take itself a little TOO seriously Hah, that's more like the high fantasy trait than "Slavic" fantasy -
No, I actually don't think the thing I'm talking about is a genre-specific thing. But maybe I shouldn't have used the term "Slavic fantasy" -- I don't mean it in the Witcher sense where it's specifically Slavic in flavor(/soul), just as a broader origin term, since I've noticed it in Russian fantasy I've read but it seems to me Sapkowski is similar.
Like, if there's 'native' high fantasy, in the truly exalted, non-grounded, ethereal Elf sense in Russian, I haven't read it. There is definitely a tendency to take those words and bring them down to more grounded -- people talking in slang, wizards who are not sitting aloof in their ivory towers but like a bit of a drink down at the tavern, and may steal your wallet if you're not careful sort of thing. Witcher is a good example of that. The other author I've read a lot of in this mode is Olga Gromyko (Belorussian author writing in Russian): she has a secondary world, Beloria, that's very high fantasy in terms of who you have inhabiting it -- Elves, Dwarves, dragons, dryads, wizards, also vampires and shape-shifters, but you get the same kind of low tone that's similar to the Witcher books (though not riffing on existing fairytales or Arthuriana nearly as much). And there was the guy who "continued" Tolkien's books by focusing on the Hobbits and the Orcs and making the humans all grubby mercenaries and ignoring the Elves, I think -- very well known in Russia for a time; I even read a few. But it's not just secondary world fantasy: I actually first noticed this trend when I was reading Lukyanenko's Dozor books -- they are very much urban fantasy, as much as Dresden Files is, although instead of a lone noir hero you get someone inducted into a magical bureaucracy (which I know exists in the West, too; that's basically the Laundry Files, from what I've gathered). Anyway, the difference I'm talking about is that in all of these cases, there's a tendency for the narrative or the POV character to have a long philosophical digression about Big Ideas. The choice between Good and Evil in the Witcher story is a great example (the adaptation included some of the lines but cut a lot of the philosophizing between Renfri and Geralt). The protagonist/first person narrator of the Dozor books has a tendency to muse about politics and duty and whatnot. Even the lighthearted Beloria books from Gromyko invariably have these passages where we're going to stop quipping and muse on the Inevitable Tragedy of Life or whatever. As a primarily Western fantasy reader, these bits jump out at me as jarring -- I'm not used to seeing them as set pieces like that! Which is not to say that you don't have Big Ideas in Western fantasy, you certainly do! (like, say, Discworld) But in my experience they tend to be a lot subtler and more subtexty, a line here and there, not full-blown Platonic dialogues or monologues. That's the kind of thing I meant.
(I do agree with you about the general trend away from pure High Fantasy and towards more grounded works, in Western genre, too. I've read a range, from the still-Romantic-but-definitely-beer-and-guts ASOIAF to things that are purely grimdark deconstruction, like Abercrombie's The First Law trilogy, and the seriousness I mean in Slavic fantasy happens along some other axis than the "noblebright" to grimdark scale. And I think it's a cultural convention thing.)
I don't mean it in the Witcher sense where it's specifically Slavic in flavor(/soul), just as a broader origin term This is how I understood it too, I didn't think/know "Slavic fantasy" as a genre is a thing, hmm...
And there was the guy who "continued" Tolkien's books by focusing on the Hobbits and the Orcs and making the humans all grubby mercenaries and ignoring the Elves, I think -- very well known in Russia for a time; I even read a few. Perumov? Haven't read him, though.
re: treatises on life, universe and everything out of the blue - Yes, I definitely confirm. That is, before it never jumped out to me as differing Eastern/Western, but yes, I know the thing itself you describe. If it's really more of it here, my first/tentative/working hypothesis is that this might have grown from how fantasy in general is viewed in both cultures and their literary traditions. Fantasy (even more than sci&fi, though that too) here still hasn't quite scraped off the "kid stuff & cheap trash" label. And I don't know about Russia, but in Poland "Slavic mythology" outside of the most academical circles is an uncommon idea - the Egyptian, Greek, Mayan etc. pantheons, the Germanic sagas, the Hindu everything - oh yeah, those are mythologies aka serious scholar things, and the Bible & Co. stuff is something else yet, most people here would feel uncomfortable/blasphemous calling it mythology. Local stuff, though? "What you mean, Polish myths? No such thing, myths are all those with Zeus and pictures of white columns, I remember from school. What? Krasnoludki? Devils in castle ruins and old willows? Cursed gold under every other hill? Stones with demon pawprints? Water monsters, bloodsuckers and marsh flames? You kidding me? That's all folk tales for kids!" There was a time - most of 19th-early 20th c. - when the folk stuff in the Polish mainstream literary world was considered the next best thing after Gutenberg, but it ended somewhere in the Interwar. And literary what-ifs and therefore sci&fi never really had a great time here - there was always that stigma of "stop playing and get down to real problems" around them. Add to it the very strong "literature has a mission" permeating our literary upbringing, and you get authors that always have in the back of head that need to put a Message even in their shopping lists, probably. And thing is, they not-quite-wittingly must feel they need to put it IN CAPITALS and with a caption "here goes the message" because the mainstream critics and most of readers won't notice it otherwise. That's a huge generalization, of course, but stigma is there anyway. Hence the Speeches of Justifying This Book's Existence instead of show-not-say, I guess. *squints* I feel like I made it three times too long already and still not sure if I got to my point...
the seriousness I mean in Slavic fantasy happens along some other axis than the "noblebright" to grimdark scale. And I think it's a cultural convention thing. Like this?
Though it probably also needs a third one for implicit-explicit, and maybe also comedic-tragic. I can't draw in four dimensions. XD
That's the one :P Is he known in Poland, too? (I did read the first 2 books or so, because I wanted to see what it was like and also wanted more Middle-Earth, but I can't say he's a good author, or does much of anything original with it. I mean, it's fanfic, basically, but very self-important fanfic.
but in Poland "Slavic mythology" outside of the most academical circles is an uncommon idea
My sense is, the same in Russia -- it's folktales and stuff, not Myth.
My theory on the srs bsns message in fantasy is a little different, though. Because I feel like sci-fi WAS seen as a legitimate genre in Russia (and I assume Poland, if Lem was as popular there as he was in the USSR?) while it was still viewed as pulpy nonsense in the West. But it was a legitimate genre because it grappled with serious issues -- utopias/dystopias, What Is Man, etc. But fantasy was never really a thing, outside of children books. So when fantasy started taking off, it had to borrow the Serious Messages of big sister Sci-Fi to be a legitimate grown-up genre and not children's stories.
Add to it the very strong "literature has a mission" permeating our literary upbringing,
Yep this too, definitely!
And, hee, yes! I like your matrix -- that's what I was trying to say -- but also agree that one could add a few more axes :)
Is he known in Poland, too? I think he might be more known ~20 years ago than now, though it always was a niche popularity, just among fantasy fans. I think in recent weeks I've seen someone mentioning him on some forum as an example of "retelling from bad guys POV". (Might or might not be a Polish forum, though. *scratches head* You know, one of those "can't remember what language I read it in" cases. o_______o)
Because I feel like sci-fi WAS seen as a legitimate genre in Russia (and I assume Poland, if Lem was as popular there as he was in the USSR?) I confirm, for the whole paragraph. On one hand sci-fi was "plaything", on the other side it was "still better than fantasy" and easier to associate with Big Themes. However, there also always was that shift of the perspective waiting behind the corner - sci-fi = plaything, but good sci-fi = actually mainstream, and then it usually was called "alegorical", "surrealistic", "grotesque" and such; anything but the genre name. Lem was maybe the only author regarded as a top tier writer while still being undeniably sci-fi, because it was impossible to deny him quality and at the same time that his writing was as sci-fi as it gets. The guy put robots in titles, for sanity's sake, come on! And that his sci-fi was what made him top tier, so it couldn't possibly be framed as "and he also dabbled in less serious genres" or "played with writing on the side of his academic career". Conversely, this "not seriousness" was also what made sci-fi a popular if still niche vessel for political criticism, the same way as it worked with cabarets and rock music. Fantasy not so much, because it developed too late for it - Wiedźmin was one of the first cases of its modern form (aka post-Tolkien/not-19c.).
(Today I've seen on a forum someone saying about Eastern European fantasy taking itself too seriously, so I confirm, it's not just your impression. I'm still not necessarily sharing it, unless it takes the form of overdone & overtalked pomposity, then yes, I hate it.)
but good sci-fi = actually mainstream, and then it usually was called "alegorical", "surrealistic", "grotesque" and such; anything but the genre name
I concur for Russia, except that "fantastika" was a respected enough name in itself -- because it was assumed to stand for "allegory", "surrealism", etc.
On the other hand, there are works that I would map onto fantasy that definitely never got called that, like Master i Margarita (I mean, how is that not the same genre as Good Omens?) -- because there wasn't even a name for it. (I should've asked, actually, what is fantasy called in Polish? Because in Russian it's "фэнтези, so you can tell it's of very modern vintage)
And I should say, if one is a Tolkien or a Bulgakov (or a Pratchett), and actually has profound things to say, and the style of the work fits it, I have no problem with fantasy taking itself seriously -- though I still think usually long philosophical digressions are not necessary. It's more that authors who don't necessarily have anything truly profound to say still insist on saying it at length because it seems a staple of the genre in Eastern European fantasy. (Which is to say, I think you and I are fundamentally in agreement on this score :)
fantasy that definitely never got called that, like Master i Margarita (I mean, how is that not the same genre as Good Omens?) Exactly.
what is fantasy called in Polish? Mostly copied English with Polish mixed in. A typical bookstore or library has a section/bookcase/whole wall of "fantastyka" (so, speculative fiction in general), and within this there are recognized (more in discussions and reviews than physically on the shelf) those three main ones, with sub-subgenres: 1. Science-fiction or, if one wants to be academical about it, fantastyka naukowa, so literally scientific fantasy; btw, we don't shorten it, like there's science-fiction and sci-fi or sf, but only fantastyka naukowa and no fan-nauk or anything. 2. Fantasy (just that, no other general Polish term). 3. Horror or (rarely) fantastyka grozy (fantasy of dread). Sub-subgenres are recognized, but mostly by English terms. Some cases of Polish ones in use are fantastyka socjologiczna/militarna/katastroficzna/postapokaliptyczna/humorystyczna... I guess I don't need to explain them. :D Space opera got calqued as opera kosmiczna. Urban fantasy or cyberpunk only got polonized in pronounciation (I think), while science-fiction not even that. One thing that seems to be either entirely Polish or so unimportant in English that it got no popular English names is fantastyka bliskiego/dalekiego zasięgu (sci-fi of the short/long range). The former is typically something imaginable in a few years or tomorrow; Weir's "The Martian" very much counts in. The latter is typically something super sophisticated and set at least centuries ahead. All this said, I'm somewhat rusty on current meta discourse, so this is maybe ~20-10 years old. :) Btw, fandom as a word has been in use here for at least ~30-40 years, but back in the day it meant speculative fiction fans in general - people that read the genre, organized first clubs and cons, made first printed zines and so on. Also, in huge part it was made of the authors themselves. Some traces of it are still there - phpbb forums that are still feebly kicking somewhat, populated by guys and gals with stacks of books and translations under their belts. The meaning "fans of franchise X" came only later. So, when I said "the old fandom" here, I meant that, not just "old fans of Witcher", because back in the day that meant the same - if you were in the fandom, you also knew Wiedźmin. You read Wiedźmin because you knew about it by being a fantasy (fantastyka) fan in general, and the other way around - "I've read Witcher and then discovered there is a whole genre like this and people gather around it" was much rarer, I think, though of course everyone had some point of entry at first.
authors who don't necessarily have anything truly profound to say still insist on saying it at length ...because they're actually convinced they do have it. :D And since having it is a must, it becomes a causal loop... Btw, I remember we talked once about how homo sovieticus and corpo-rat are actually quite similar mindsets/realities, and now it occured to me that here we have another kind-of-a-parallel: "literature has a mission"and Tumblr-ish mentality. In both, everything is (and must be) educating and representative, both have an overgrown conviction of self-importance, both think the reader's mind can be shaped like a topiary bush and it's creator's holy duty to do it, and so on.
I'm not sure about modern shelving, but to my mind, in Russian, "fantastika" would be just a shorter way of saying "nauchnaya fatastika" (the official way of saying it) and would not, I think, include fantasy. I think it is abbreviated as NF, but I might be making that up... And your subcategorization makes me realize I have no idea how to say "horror" in Russian as a genre, or whether it's even a thing...
I don't think I've heard the fantasy subgenres referred to in Russian at all...
or so unimportant in English that it got no popular English names is fantastyka bliskiego/dalekiego zasięgu (sci-fi of the short/long range
I actually have heard the English terms "far future SF" and "near future SF", but in my experience that's the kin of thing you find in blurbs and reviews, not as official subgenre categorization.
Btw, fandom as a word has been in use here for at least ~30-40 years, but back in the day it meant speculative fiction fans in general - people that read the genre, organized first clubs and cons, made first printed zines and so on.
Oh, interesting! So like in English, then, if not quite for as long as in the US.
and now it occured to me that here we have another kind-of-a-parallel: "literature has a mission"and Tumblr-ish mentality. In both, everything is (and must be) educating and representative, both have an overgrown conviction of self-importance, both think the reader's mind can be shaped like a topiary bush and it's creator's holy duty to do it, and so on.
Ooh, that's a really neat point actually! I can definitely see those parallels! (and dislike both manifestations of this thing, as you know.)
And your subcategorization makes me realize I have no idea how to say "horror" in Russian as a genre, or whether it's even a thing... Huh, that's actually surprising. Russia has such horror potential it could be for horror what Scandinavia is for crime. It could easily grow own subgenres. Taiga gothic... :)
"far future SF" and "near future SF" Ah, thanks! I was sure it must be a thing, just apparently too little discussed to find names easily.
(and dislike both manifestations of this thing, as you know.) In Polish we call it "smrodek dydaktyczny" (didactic stenchie?) and it's a name much older than Internet. ;)
Heh, true! And I'm sure creepy stuff gets written (I don't read horror, so I wouldn't know), and there's some tradition of it, e.g. Viy, which scared the hell out of me as a child, when my mother would read the stories aloud.
I had to click around a long time in Wiki categories before finding a name for the genre: literature of horror, but it sure doesn't seem to be used much in everyday conversation.
"smrodek dydaktyczny"
Heh! I understand it with Russian, actually, because -- and I feel like we might've talked about that already? -- "smrad" is used in Russian, too, as an archaic sort of word). Although I don't know that it would be used with a diminutive, I've definitely not heard that.
"I mean, technically it has no vampires in it, and technically it isn't exactly imperial either, more like time jumping everywhere, but trust me, it still makes better imperial vamps than 'Yekaterina's Fangs' ever got close to." "...You know, I kind of hoped for the bar set somewhat higher. Also, I almost managed to forget it, thanks a lot..." "Oh, come on, it's not like we can have everything on the 'White Nights' level, can we?"
"For the record, I'm really glad we finally got something, anything else that Yakut spooks again, but how do we call it now? Evenk spooks? It's just one book, it doesn't make a genre." "Have you seen how it's selling? Just wait a year... This said, it's still as much Yakut spooks as it gets, so why bother with new names, everyone will know what you mean." "So, what, are we going to say whenever something like this comes up 'It's Yakut spooks, but with no Yakut spooks'?" "Well, when you put it like this..."
"It's not taiga gothic, it's tundra gothic. There's only some trees in the last chapter. At least, if it was some tiger that ate him instead of that white mishka..." "Meh, details, you're hairsplitting." "Me hairsplitting? If you want to see hairsplitting, try talking with that guy with a yenot icon, whatwashisname..." "You mean, what he said about summer and winter subsubgenres? Actually, I thought he had some good points." "Yeah, well, but recently he mentioned something about months..."
"Panelpunk without a scowling neighbour babushka just doesn't count." "Not like I disagree, but it's just so predictable with them being always the first victim. What if, in the end, she turned out actually..." "..." "Wait, you were planning to write it?" "Nah, now I'll just find something else to twist."
(I'm writing fanfiction not even for but about a fandom that probably isn't even there... Is it meta meta meta already, or just meta meta? o____o)
literature of horror, but it sure doesn't seem to be used much in everyday conversation. And it makes an impression like it used to be viewed higher (closer to mainstream?) in the past than now. I'm not sure if it was the case here, too, but I'd say there was something like a first era around the Interwar (which is rediscovered right now and republished as vintage), then it was the "degenerate western trash", and now it's a thing again, though still mid-way from "trash" to "real literature". Interestingly, we have an author or three in it that are actually respected by the mainstream, even if not the whole genre. And once in a while it goes the other way - a mainstream author putting a toe in the genre.
I feel like we might've talked about that already? I remembered telling ikel89 about it once, but wasn't sure if you were around that time. :D
Or is it because we care for GO more? In case of GO we are the "deep core" fans. ;)
I do certainly care about GO more, but I don't think I'm biased because of that... I think the difference is likely more the motivation behind making the show? Like, GO was driven by Gaiman for Pratchett, and I do believe he was determined to do it right or not at all. Whereas Witcher, and most other adaptations, happen in order to make money -- and sure, you don't want to totally alienate the "deep core" fans, but they're not the ones who are going to make the return on investment, so it has to be pretty and funny and have cool special effects, and the rest is negotiable. (I definitely think Witcher dispensed with a lot of the Slavic flavor, for example. And I can't judge whether the video games did or not, but I'm sure the video game players were a bigger consideration, as far as "core fans" than the book fans were.)
Thank you for the essay link! I read through it and listened to bits of songs (but skipped the comments, heh)
I'm definitely more with you on:
Unless we agree 1. soul = cultural personality, and 2. it's not unique to have one, every culture/nation/group has one and then yes, each is unique, though not sharp cut.
I do think this is true. And I do think that tinge of fatalism ("well, everything sucks, but what did you expect?") is a Slavic hallmark -- and one of the things I both recognize and like a lot about the Witcher books (that I don't think the show captured at all, and probably didn't even try to, which is probably just as well).
But I'll add that you can find shared echoes sometimes in the mostly unlikely places. I've mentioned before that B likes listening to Afrikaans, because he understands it almost perfectly with his Dutch, but it sounds funny to him. Well, because of that, we've listened to a bunch of South African songs, in Afrikaans, and both he and I noticed a thing about them that feels VERY Russian to me: there's this connection to the land -- to the ground, to the physical earth -- which hits very much the same tone that I'm used to from Russian songs, especially post-WWII ones: this is our earth which we are connected to as children of those who resisted a greater might and stood their ground. I don't think I can explain it exactly, because put that way, it sounds like it could be almost anything, but it's a specific combination of, like, groundedness and defiance and still living the history long after the actual battles are over. So, anyway, that was an unexpected connection, but it's cool to discover those.
I'm atually not sure why they couldn't have just stuck with the book's way of doing it? The joke felt pretty out of character and was, as you say, just generally dumb.
Heh, yeah, Nenneke and Calanthe are the strong women done right,
Agreed, and I loved them both, unsurprisingly. (And thought the show did a pretty good job with Calanthe.)
So, what the first wish was in the show, then? No twist at all? Geralt means "Fuck off!" and he really says what he thinks he says?
It wasn't very memorable, so already has started to fade, but I think his first wish -- which he speaks when it looks like there is no djinn/the djinn is a dud, or if it exists, that Jaskier is its master, so it's also not meant as a wish -- is for Jaskier to shut up, which causes Jaskier's condition that they need to search for a healer for. Or at least that's what I think happens...
Wow, your translation is really good! :D I mean, I can't judge how it reads,
It reads very well, too! (I figured the Russian translation had to be pretty close to the Polish, but it's good to have the confirmation! :)
Don't expect a plot or even much sense and just enjoy scenes, quotes and acharacters
I can do zat! Probably even more so now after having watched the TV show, which definitely should be enjoyed on that level :)
Reply
The showrunner/whoever-(un)wrote-this felt the need to prove themselves for the payroll? :P
It wasn't very memorable, so already has started to fade
"... : the show's review". XD
is for Jaskier to shut up, which causes Jaskier's condition that they need to search for a healer for.
Hm, that's actually not so bad idea, aside of that there was no need to coming up with ideas in the first place, especially at the cost of existing ones... Also, this makes a need for coming up with a new reason to why the djinn ran away.
Probably even more so now after having watched the TV show, which definitely should be enjoyed on that level :)
Fight & bath scenes + Jaskier being cute, as I hear, yeah. :D Come to think of it, while I think the books leave much to demand...
(1. everyone loving to listen to their own voices as a result of Sapkowski loving his own writing, which makes for a lot of pompous speeches mid-dialogue, which builds on the pathos in spite of the constant breaking-the-pathos trope;
2. while Sapkowski is not bad with making characters, his second plan, cameos and extras are often easier to root for than protagonists;
3. everything poses for SO DEEP and MULTILAYERED and MEANINGFUL and OPEN TO INTERPRETATIONS that finally you start suspecting he got lost half way in this shit himself;
4. it's all just a tangle of threads and scenes in a desperate search for a plot)
...but at least those characters and threads and scenes once in a while actually succeed in getting deep, cliches actually get subverted (as was his intention, according to him), mythos gets retold with a twist, and philosophy gets philosophed, inbetween the pathos. So, you could expect that the recipe for fixing such source material is keeping the good stuff, just making it clearer and patched where holes and loose ends are, or at least I thought so? Instead, the image I gather of your relation + what I read here and there is pretty opposite: they shallowed the deep (for the jokes sake o.O), made it more cliche (Yennefer, for one), and nuanced thought went out of the window (the elves, for one). Doesn't help that apparently the showrunner either outright lied about their plans ("faithfull to the source material" my ass; in fact it seems one of the worst cases of on-motives-ing I've ever heard of) or is really bad on planning more than one day ahead and general consistency of everything with anything. And a cringey attitude toward crisis management and being questioned as a cherry on top ("My own vision" and "Dubious scenes aren't dubious because it wasn't our intention").
Reply
Maybe they cut it for time? (it kin of is an entire subplot, that needs to happen, and then Geralt needs to show off what he thinks he's doing, and then the punchline. On the other hand, the episode had a whole bunch of Ciri related things that could've gone elsewhere, so I dunno.
Also, this makes a need for coming up with a new reason to why the djinn ran away.
It's actually not clear in the show that it did run away. It's not immediately malevolent, so it doesn't need to be banished -- before I read the story, I figure the wind and things associated with the djinn were just it doing its magic, not a threat in itself. And it's only shown to be destructive once Yennefer tries to trap it, which also kind of made sense. (But, yeah, the book way hangs together better/makes more coherent sense, as well as being FUNNIER.)
I confess that I find the Russian/Slavic fantasy I've read to take itself a little TOO seriously -- like, I didn't actually miss the philosophizing here, although it doesn't bother me in the book version. I *did* miss the more nuanced worldbuilding aspects, of course -- the thing with the Elves, for example, yeah.
I mean, shallower is what I expect from a TV adaptation, anyway (with the exception of something like Good Omens, which is made by the book author, basically), so I was largely OK with that. But it is what it is.
Reply
I confess that I find the Russian/Slavic fantasy I've read to take itself a little TOO seriously
Hah, that's more like the high fantasy trait than "Slavic" fantasy - from the old fans POV. :D That's funny, actually, because when we look at it in context, the books origin was just this - it aimed at taking the fantasy (as Poles of 80/90s knew it) off its high horse. At that time and place it was fresh - Tolkien and ethereal Elves all around, suddenly there comes in a fantasy where beer and guts are spilled equally, and people talk (local!) Villagese instead of Elven. Of course, inspiration and popularity did their thing, so this approach was original maybe for a few months. Meanwhile, the western fantasy and creative writing in general took a similar route over years - everything aims for being cracky, campy, intertextual and subversively mocking (so, still very much in line with the books that are an epitome of subversion&intertextualism, though in the time they were written it was called postmodernism in Polish metas, including the mainstream critics), but also - and this is more recent - is viewed as a fandom placeholder more than its own complete thing. People watch for inspirations (fanartists&writers) and for canon (fic readers), myself I watch MCU like this, for one. So, now the show - of what I hear - seems to work best for people used to and expecting crack and, most importantly, not really caring that much about the franchise beyond a few evenings of fun and new hot ships, but of course at the same time it's going to disappoint the "deep core" fans every fandom has. So, everything as usual. ;D
with the exception of something like Good Omens
Or is it because we care for GO more? In case of GO we are the "deep core" fans. ;) And well, because GO was overall better to the start with, especially if we judge by how well it has aged, comparatively.
(Btw, I happened to run yesterday across this essay. It has very interesting points on that "Slavic soul" thing, and in places the author nails the problem spot on, in a nuanced way. Though on the spectrum of people's opinions he describes I'm personally closer to the "it's not a thing and a dumb term" end than him. Unless we agree 1. soul = cultural personality, and 2. it's not unique to have one, every culture/nation/group has one and then yes, each is unique, though not sharp cut. Though I don't think he'd really disagree. (Comments are mostly dumb, tho.))
Reply
Hah, that's more like the high fantasy trait than "Slavic" fantasy -
No, I actually don't think the thing I'm talking about is a genre-specific thing. But maybe I shouldn't have used the term "Slavic fantasy" -- I don't mean it in the Witcher sense where it's specifically Slavic in flavor(/soul), just as a broader origin term, since I've noticed it in Russian fantasy I've read but it seems to me Sapkowski is similar.
Like, if there's 'native' high fantasy, in the truly exalted, non-grounded, ethereal Elf sense in Russian, I haven't read it. There is definitely a tendency to take those words and bring them down to more grounded -- people talking in slang, wizards who are not sitting aloof in their ivory towers but like a bit of a drink down at the tavern, and may steal your wallet if you're not careful sort of thing. Witcher is a good example of that. The other author I've read a lot of in this mode is Olga Gromyko (Belorussian author writing in Russian): she has a secondary world, Beloria, that's very high fantasy in terms of who you have inhabiting it -- Elves, Dwarves, dragons, dryads, wizards, also vampires and shape-shifters, but you get the same kind of low tone that's similar to the Witcher books (though not riffing on existing fairytales or Arthuriana nearly as much). And there was the guy who "continued" Tolkien's books by focusing on the Hobbits and the Orcs and making the humans all grubby mercenaries and ignoring the Elves, I think -- very well known in Russia for a time; I even read a few. But it's not just secondary world fantasy: I actually first noticed this trend when I was reading Lukyanenko's Dozor books -- they are very much urban fantasy, as much as Dresden Files is, although instead of a lone noir hero you get someone inducted into a magical bureaucracy (which I know exists in the West, too; that's basically the Laundry Files, from what I've gathered). Anyway, the difference I'm talking about is that in all of these cases, there's a tendency for the narrative or the POV character to have a long philosophical digression about Big Ideas. The choice between Good and Evil in the Witcher story is a great example (the adaptation included some of the lines but cut a lot of the philosophizing between Renfri and Geralt). The protagonist/first person narrator of the Dozor books has a tendency to muse about politics and duty and whatnot. Even the lighthearted Beloria books from Gromyko invariably have these passages where we're going to stop quipping and muse on the Inevitable Tragedy of Life or whatever. As a primarily Western fantasy reader, these bits jump out at me as jarring -- I'm not used to seeing them as set pieces like that! Which is not to say that you don't have Big Ideas in Western fantasy, you certainly do! (like, say, Discworld) But in my experience they tend to be a lot subtler and more subtexty, a line here and there, not full-blown Platonic dialogues or monologues. That's the kind of thing I meant.
(I do agree with you about the general trend away from pure High Fantasy and towards more grounded works, in Western genre, too. I've read a range, from the still-Romantic-but-definitely-beer-and-guts ASOIAF to things that are purely grimdark deconstruction, like Abercrombie's The First Law trilogy, and the seriousness I mean in Slavic fantasy happens along some other axis than the "noblebright" to grimdark scale. And I think it's a cultural convention thing.)
Reply
This is how I understood it too, I didn't think/know "Slavic fantasy" as a genre is a thing, hmm...
And there was the guy who "continued" Tolkien's books by focusing on the Hobbits and the Orcs and making the humans all grubby mercenaries and ignoring the Elves, I think -- very well known in Russia for a time; I even read a few.
Perumov? Haven't read him, though.
re: treatises on life, universe and everything out of the blue - Yes, I definitely confirm. That is, before it never jumped out to me as differing Eastern/Western, but yes, I know the thing itself you describe. If it's really more of it here, my first/tentative/working hypothesis is that this might have grown from how fantasy in general is viewed in both cultures and their literary traditions. Fantasy (even more than sci&fi, though that too) here still hasn't quite scraped off the "kid stuff & cheap trash" label. And I don't know about Russia, but in Poland "Slavic mythology" outside of the most academical circles is an uncommon idea - the Egyptian, Greek, Mayan etc. pantheons, the Germanic sagas, the Hindu everything - oh yeah, those are mythologies aka serious scholar things, and the Bible & Co. stuff is something else yet, most people here would feel uncomfortable/blasphemous calling it mythology. Local stuff, though? "What you mean, Polish myths? No such thing, myths are all those with Zeus and pictures of white columns, I remember from school. What? Krasnoludki? Devils in castle ruins and old willows? Cursed gold under every other hill? Stones with demon pawprints? Water monsters, bloodsuckers and marsh flames? You kidding me? That's all folk tales for kids!" There was a time - most of 19th-early 20th c. - when the folk stuff in the Polish mainstream literary world was considered the next best thing after Gutenberg, but it ended somewhere in the Interwar. And literary what-ifs and therefore sci&fi never really had a great time here - there was always that stigma of "stop playing and get down to real problems" around them. Add to it the very strong "literature has a mission" permeating our literary upbringing, and you get authors that always have in the back of head that need to put a Message even in their shopping lists, probably. And thing is, they not-quite-wittingly must feel they need to put it IN CAPITALS and with a caption "here goes the message" because the mainstream critics and most of readers won't notice it otherwise. That's a huge generalization, of course, but stigma is there anyway. Hence the Speeches of Justifying This Book's Existence instead of show-not-say, I guess.
*squints* I feel like I made it three times too long already and still not sure if I got to my point...
the seriousness I mean in Slavic fantasy happens along some other axis than the "noblebright" to grimdark scale. And I think it's a cultural convention thing.
Like this?
Though it probably also needs a third one for implicit-explicit, and maybe also comedic-tragic. I can't draw in four dimensions. XD
Reply
That's the one :P Is he known in Poland, too? (I did read the first 2 books or so, because I wanted to see what it was like and also wanted more Middle-Earth, but I can't say he's a good author, or does much of anything original with it. I mean, it's fanfic, basically, but very self-important fanfic.
but in Poland "Slavic mythology" outside of the most academical circles is an uncommon idea
My sense is, the same in Russia -- it's folktales and stuff, not Myth.
My theory on the srs bsns message in fantasy is a little different, though. Because I feel like sci-fi WAS seen as a legitimate genre in Russia (and I assume Poland, if Lem was as popular there as he was in the USSR?) while it was still viewed as pulpy nonsense in the West. But it was a legitimate genre because it grappled with serious issues -- utopias/dystopias, What Is Man, etc. But fantasy was never really a thing, outside of children books. So when fantasy started taking off, it had to borrow the Serious Messages of big sister Sci-Fi to be a legitimate grown-up genre and not children's stories.
Add to it the very strong "literature has a mission" permeating our literary upbringing,
Yep this too, definitely!
And, hee, yes! I like your matrix -- that's what I was trying to say -- but also agree that one could add a few more axes :)
Reply
I think he might be more known ~20 years ago than now, though it always was a niche popularity, just among fantasy fans. I think in recent weeks I've seen someone mentioning him on some forum as an example of "retelling from bad guys POV". (Might or might not be a Polish forum, though. *scratches head* You know, one of those "can't remember what language I read it in" cases. o_______o)
Because I feel like sci-fi WAS seen as a legitimate genre in Russia (and I assume Poland, if Lem was as popular there as he was in the USSR?)
I confirm, for the whole paragraph. On one hand sci-fi was "plaything", on the other side it was "still better than fantasy" and easier to associate with Big Themes. However, there also always was that shift of the perspective waiting behind the corner - sci-fi = plaything, but good sci-fi = actually mainstream, and then it usually was called "alegorical", "surrealistic", "grotesque" and such; anything but the genre name. Lem was maybe the only author regarded as a top tier writer while still being undeniably sci-fi, because it was impossible to deny him quality and at the same time that his writing was as sci-fi as it gets. The guy put robots in titles, for sanity's sake, come on! And that his sci-fi was what made him top tier, so it couldn't possibly be framed as "and he also dabbled in less serious genres" or "played with writing on the side of his academic career".
Conversely, this "not seriousness" was also what made sci-fi a popular if still niche vessel for political criticism, the same way as it worked with cabarets and rock music. Fantasy not so much, because it developed too late for it - Wiedźmin was one of the first cases of its modern form (aka post-Tolkien/not-19c.).
(Today I've seen on a forum someone saying about Eastern European fantasy taking itself too seriously, so I confirm, it's not just your impression. I'm still not necessarily sharing it, unless it takes the form of overdone & overtalked pomposity, then yes, I hate it.)
Reply
I concur for Russia, except that "fantastika" was a respected enough name in itself -- because it was assumed to stand for "allegory", "surrealism", etc.
On the other hand, there are works that I would map onto fantasy that definitely never got called that, like Master i Margarita (I mean, how is that not the same genre as Good Omens?) -- because there wasn't even a name for it. (I should've asked, actually, what is fantasy called in Polish? Because in Russian it's "фэнтези, so you can tell it's of very modern vintage)
And I should say, if one is a Tolkien or a Bulgakov (or a Pratchett), and actually has profound things to say, and the style of the work fits it, I have no problem with fantasy taking itself seriously -- though I still think usually long philosophical digressions are not necessary. It's more that authors who don't necessarily have anything truly profound to say still insist on saying it at length because it seems a staple of the genre in Eastern European fantasy. (Which is to say, I think you and I are fundamentally in agreement on this score :)
Reply
Exactly.
what is fantasy called in Polish?
Mostly copied English with Polish mixed in. A typical bookstore or library has a section/bookcase/whole wall of "fantastyka" (so, speculative fiction in general), and within this there are recognized (more in discussions and reviews than physically on the shelf) those three main ones, with sub-subgenres:
1. Science-fiction or, if one wants to be academical about it, fantastyka naukowa, so literally scientific fantasy; btw, we don't shorten it, like there's science-fiction and sci-fi or sf, but only fantastyka naukowa and no fan-nauk or anything.
2. Fantasy (just that, no other general Polish term).
3. Horror or (rarely) fantastyka grozy (fantasy of dread).
Sub-subgenres are recognized, but mostly by English terms. Some cases of Polish ones in use are fantastyka socjologiczna/militarna/katastroficzna/postapokaliptyczna/humorystyczna... I guess I don't need to explain them. :D Space opera got calqued as opera kosmiczna. Urban fantasy or cyberpunk only got polonized in pronounciation (I think), while science-fiction not even that.
One thing that seems to be either entirely Polish or so unimportant in English that it got no popular English names is fantastyka bliskiego/dalekiego zasięgu (sci-fi of the short/long range). The former is typically something imaginable in a few years or tomorrow; Weir's "The Martian" very much counts in. The latter is typically something super sophisticated and set at least centuries ahead.
All this said, I'm somewhat rusty on current meta discourse, so this is maybe ~20-10 years old. :) Btw, fandom as a word has been in use here for at least ~30-40 years, but back in the day it meant speculative fiction fans in general - people that read the genre, organized first clubs and cons, made first printed zines and so on. Also, in huge part it was made of the authors themselves. Some traces of it are still there - phpbb forums that are still feebly kicking somewhat, populated by guys and gals with stacks of books and translations under their belts. The meaning "fans of franchise X" came only later. So, when I said "the old fandom" here, I meant that, not just "old fans of Witcher", because back in the day that meant the same - if you were in the fandom, you also knew Wiedźmin. You read Wiedźmin because you knew about it by being a fantasy (fantastyka) fan in general, and the other way around - "I've read Witcher and then discovered there is a whole genre like this and people gather around it" was much rarer, I think, though of course everyone had some point of entry at first.
authors who don't necessarily have anything truly profound to say still insist on saying it at length
...because they're actually convinced they do have it. :D And since having it is a must, it becomes a causal loop... Btw, I remember we talked once about how homo sovieticus and corpo-rat are actually quite similar mindsets/realities, and now it occured to me that here we have another kind-of-a-parallel: "literature has a mission"and Tumblr-ish mentality. In both, everything is (and must be) educating and representative, both have an overgrown conviction of self-importance, both think the reader's mind can be shaped like a topiary bush and it's creator's holy duty to do it, and so on.
Reply
I'm not sure about modern shelving, but to my mind, in Russian, "fantastika" would be just a shorter way of saying "nauchnaya fatastika" (the official way of saying it) and would not, I think, include fantasy. I think it is abbreviated as NF, but I might be making that up... And your subcategorization makes me realize I have no idea how to say "horror" in Russian as a genre, or whether it's even a thing...
I don't think I've heard the fantasy subgenres referred to in Russian at all...
or so unimportant in English that it got no popular English names is fantastyka bliskiego/dalekiego zasięgu (sci-fi of the short/long range
I actually have heard the English terms "far future SF" and "near future SF", but in my experience that's the kin of thing you find in blurbs and reviews, not as official subgenre categorization.
Btw, fandom as a word has been in use here for at least ~30-40 years, but back in the day it meant speculative fiction fans in general - people that read the genre, organized first clubs and cons, made first printed zines and so on.
Oh, interesting! So like in English, then, if not quite for as long as in the US.
and now it occured to me that here we have another kind-of-a-parallel: "literature has a mission"and Tumblr-ish mentality. In both, everything is (and must be) educating and representative, both have an overgrown conviction of self-importance, both think the reader's mind can be shaped like a topiary bush and it's creator's holy duty to do it, and so on.
Ooh, that's a really neat point actually! I can definitely see those parallels! (and dislike both manifestations of this thing, as you know.)
Reply
Huh, that's actually surprising. Russia has such horror potential it could be for horror what Scandinavia is for crime. It could easily grow own subgenres. Taiga gothic... :)
"far future SF" and "near future SF"
Ah, thanks! I was sure it must be a thing, just apparently too little discussed to find names easily.
(and dislike both manifestations of this thing, as you know.)
In Polish we call it "smrodek dydaktyczny" (didactic stenchie?) and it's a name much older than Internet. ;)
Reply
Heh, true! And I'm sure creepy stuff gets written (I don't read horror, so I wouldn't know), and there's some tradition of it, e.g. Viy, which scared the hell out of me as a child, when my mother would read the stories aloud.
I had to click around a long time in Wiki categories before finding a name for the genre: literature of horror, but it sure doesn't seem to be used much in everyday conversation.
"smrodek dydaktyczny"
Heh! I understand it with Russian, actually, because -- and I feel like we might've talked about that already? -- "smrad" is used in Russian, too, as an archaic sort of word). Although I don't know that it would be used with a diminutive, I've definitely not heard that.
Reply
"I mean, technically it has no vampires in it, and technically it isn't exactly imperial either, more like time jumping everywhere, but trust me, it still makes better imperial vamps than 'Yekaterina's Fangs' ever got close to."
"...You know, I kind of hoped for the bar set somewhat higher. Also, I almost managed to forget it, thanks a lot..."
"Oh, come on, it's not like we can have everything on the 'White Nights' level, can we?"
"For the record, I'm really glad we finally got something, anything else that Yakut spooks again, but how do we call it now? Evenk spooks? It's just one book, it doesn't make a genre."
"Have you seen how it's selling? Just wait a year... This said, it's still as much Yakut spooks as it gets, so why bother with new names, everyone will know what you mean."
"So, what, are we going to say whenever something like this comes up 'It's Yakut spooks, but with no Yakut spooks'?"
"Well, when you put it like this..."
"It's not taiga gothic, it's tundra gothic. There's only some trees in the last chapter. At least, if it was some tiger that ate him instead of that white mishka..."
"Meh, details, you're hairsplitting."
"Me hairsplitting? If you want to see hairsplitting, try talking with that guy with a yenot icon, whatwashisname..."
"You mean, what he said about summer and winter subsubgenres? Actually, I thought he had some good points."
"Yeah, well, but recently he mentioned something about months..."
"Panelpunk without a scowling neighbour babushka just doesn't count."
"Not like I disagree, but it's just so predictable with them being always the first victim. What if, in the end, she turned out actually..."
"..."
"Wait, you were planning to write it?"
"Nah, now I'll just find something else to twist."
(I'm writing fanfiction not even for but about a fandom that probably isn't even there... Is it meta meta meta already, or just meta meta? o____o)
literature of horror, but it sure doesn't seem to be used much in everyday conversation.
And it makes an impression like it used to be viewed higher (closer to mainstream?) in the past than now. I'm not sure if it was the case here, too, but I'd say there was something like a first era around the Interwar (which is rediscovered right now and republished as vintage), then it was the "degenerate western trash", and now it's a thing again, though still mid-way from "trash" to "real literature". Interestingly, we have an author or three in it that are actually respected by the mainstream, even if not the whole genre. And once in a while it goes the other way - a mainstream author putting a toe in the genre.
I feel like we might've talked about that already?
I remembered telling ikel89 about it once, but wasn't sure if you were around that time. :D
Reply
LOL! It's very meta-meta-meta but hugely amusing XD
Reply
Or is it because we care for GO more? In case of GO we are the "deep core" fans. ;)
I do certainly care about GO more, but I don't think I'm biased because of that... I think the difference is likely more the motivation behind making the show? Like, GO was driven by Gaiman for Pratchett, and I do believe he was determined to do it right or not at all. Whereas Witcher, and most other adaptations, happen in order to make money -- and sure, you don't want to totally alienate the "deep core" fans, but they're not the ones who are going to make the return on investment, so it has to be pretty and funny and have cool special effects, and the rest is negotiable. (I definitely think Witcher dispensed with a lot of the Slavic flavor, for example. And I can't judge whether the video games did or not, but I'm sure the video game players were a bigger consideration, as far as "core fans" than the book fans were.)
Thank you for the essay link! I read through it and listened to bits of songs (but skipped the comments, heh)
I'm definitely more with you on:
Unless we agree 1. soul = cultural personality, and 2. it's not unique to have one, every culture/nation/group has one and then yes, each is unique, though not sharp cut.
I do think this is true. And I do think that tinge of fatalism ("well, everything sucks, but what did you expect?") is a Slavic hallmark -- and one of the things I both recognize and like a lot about the Witcher books (that I don't think the show captured at all, and probably didn't even try to, which is probably just as well).
But I'll add that you can find shared echoes sometimes in the mostly unlikely places. I've mentioned before that B likes listening to Afrikaans, because he understands it almost perfectly with his Dutch, but it sounds funny to him. Well, because of that, we've listened to a bunch of South African songs, in Afrikaans, and both he and I noticed a thing about them that feels VERY Russian to me: there's this connection to the land -- to the ground, to the physical earth -- which hits very much the same tone that I'm used to from Russian songs, especially post-WWII ones: this is our earth which we are connected to as children of those who resisted a greater might and stood their ground. I don't think I can explain it exactly, because put that way, it sounds like it could be almost anything, but it's a specific combination of, like, groundedness and defiance and still living the history long after the actual battles are over. So, anyway, that was an unexpected connection, but it's cool to discover those.
Reply
Leave a comment