In the early years of YouTube, Internet duo BriTANicK released the “Academy Award Winning Movie Trailer,” a collection of assorted movie tropes delivered as generic loglines. One line, in particular, took aim at narratives about colonialism, specifically as used in fantasy. Holding a spear and clad in furs, Nick looks directly at the camera and declares, “I’ve decided to fight with the Native American metaphor against the American military metaphor.” The line was obviously lampooningAvatar, which had recently smashed every box office record and used technological novelty to turn a stock “going native” plotline into Oscar-bait.
That line, however, also represents the most common trajectory of many colonialism narratives: to present indigenous populations as sympathetic, invading populations as oppressive, and protagonists as agents of reconciliation or reclamation. As more attention is drawn to the harm that colonialism does, it is rare to find a modern story about colonialism that uplifts the colonizers and vilifies the colonized — but such is the framing inThe Witcherbooks, which present the eradication of the elves with qualified criticism.
RELATED:The Witcher: Storylines that Could Be Explored In Season 3 Of The Netflix Series
The stories that together compriseThe Witchertake place in a fictional world, one formed by a multidimensional cataclysm that brought together diverse worlds — and, with them, diverse species. Besides the many monsters this Conjunction provided (for eventual Witchers to contain),the contemporary races of the worldinclude dwarves, dryads, druids…and elves. Much is made of the history of the elves, for they are presented as the prime race, preceding humans. While other races, particularly dwarves, have chosen to coexist peacefully with humans, elves are at war with humans in the central timeline of the five main books that tell Ciri’s story. It is a guerrilla war, waged by a militant faction of elves, the Scoia’tael, or Squirrels, amidst the chaos of Nilfgaard’s conflict with the Northern Realms, and it overlaps only briefly with Ciri’s narrative. Yet it is also an inevitable war, foreshadowed during Geralt’s first elven encounter, in “The Edge of the World,” a short story fromThe Witcher.
From “The Edge of the World” toLady of the Lake,the elves are portrayed asa proud and rigid race, sneering down their hauteur on the inferiority of humans and human intellect. There are many metaphors by which the elves characterize this perceived inferiority, referring to humans as “a rotting corpse” or “compost” — Eredin even uses brain structure as metonymy for Ciri’s incapacity to comprehend the elven perspective. If his phrasing smacks faintly of phrenology, it is no coincidence. The elves view themselves as a sort of master race, and they warrant the comparison as much in their practices as in their philosophy. Ciri’s story, along with the broader narrative of mutants and mutation, is shaped by eugenics, and the elves are complicit in attempting to further mold her destiny along eugenic paths. The elves may view themselves as superior to humans, but their actions — especially those meant to further a greater good — are as despicable asthe undertakings of the story’s human antagonists.
The elves are as prone to pride and pettiness as humans, and therein lies their decision to die out rather than cohabitate. When Geralt is his captive in Dol Blathanna, Filavandrel prattles on about elves’ disinterest in peaceful cohabitation, observing that a human would not peacefully cohabitate with the lice infesting their coat. He acknowledges that the changing world order corresponds to a changing of the very world, but he refuses to accept the changes the world has undergone, instead foretelling annihilation after a final, bloody stand. Readers should make no mistake about this rhetoric: the elves are not an agrarian society being invaded by the scourge of advanced technology, as in many colonial narratives in fiction. Instead, they are a people of superior magic and intelligence refusing to accept the diversity that comes with evolution. They would rather be violently eradicated than adapt.
Netflix’s adaptation ofThe Witcheris considerably more charitable to the elves, offering a balanced view of their predicament. For a start, the show abridges Filavandrel’s ranting into a handful of comments that summarize his position, toning down the profusions of disdain that characterize elven dialogue in the books. The show also takes screen time away from Geralt to enumerate specific aggressions by humans against the elves — and specific aggressions of elves against humans (better preparing the viewer for the elven misdeeds inLady of the Lake, which are not so easily justified). InBlood of Elves, Geralt summarizes his position as one of neutrality, telling Ciri, “To be neutral does not mean to be indifferent or insensitive. You don’t have to kill your feelings. It’s enough to kill hatred within yourself.”
In the show thus far, humans and elves are condemned equally for the hatred they foster. Radovid’s crusade against the elves is deplorable, but Francesca’s willingnessto make a deal with a demon(and her subsequent murder spree) undermines her moral position to do the deploring.
In books and show alike, Geralt plays a key role in establishing how the audience should interpret the elves’ conduct and the philosophical stance that motivates them. As a Witcher, Geralt is both human and mutant; he stands with one foot on either side of the conflict. It is Geralt who exhorts the elves to adapt, and it is Geralt who looks upon them with pity when they do not. The neutrality that he describes is an extension ofhis philosophy about the lesser evil— that no choice is preferable to choosing evil, even a lesser one. So, too, is he able to stand on moral high ground over both humans and elves. He recognizes that committing to the lesser evil is no different from pursuing the greater good. Rather, the pursuit of the greater good always requires a choice between lesser evils, a choice that corrupts the good intentions behind it. By keeping his focus on individuals and individual action, Geralt falls prey to neither trap, and is thus able to provide the most good to all.
So what, in the end, do the elves represent? What purpose does their narrative serve? In the books,where the overall trend is away from magicand towards humanity, they are a reflection of that trend: a totem of the Elder age, which must be razed to make way for the monuments of human achievement. In the show, they seem to be an object lesson in moral ambiguity, reinforcing the personal narratives of human protagonists.
What they are not, in either case, are the allegorical victims of colonialism, any more than humans are victimized through colonization by lice. The dynamic of colonialism relies on an imbalance of power, a disparity between the weapons of the colonizers and the defenses of the colonized. Any imbalance inThe Witcheris perpetuated by the weaknesses and wickednesses that both sides have in common. Audiences who are tempted to choose one side over the other should therefore heed Geralt’s position: the only safe choice is none.
MORE:How The Witcher TV Show May Have Foreshadowed the Game’s Crones
