‘The Witcher’ season 3 slapped with accusations of homophobia over key character change

Netflix’s adaptation of The Witcher has experienced a controversial few months. After a stirring second season that really blew the mediocre first one away, the producers have since axed well-known nerd and lover of the games Henry Cavill, despite him being one of the most popular members of the cast, replacing him with Liam Hemsworth for season four.

This led to plenty of uproar among fans of the world created by Polish writer Andrzej Sapkowski, with lots of fan attempts to get Cavill back as Geralt as a result. And, now, a decision that writers and producers of season three have made about one of the world’s most interesting characters is leading to even more backlash, as well as strong accusations of homophobia.

Jaskier (or Dandelion as he’s sometimes known in the books and games), played by Joey Batey, is a traveling bard who is one of Geralt of Rivia’s closest confidants. Unlike most of the men in the world of The Witcher, he’s flamboyant and effeminate but is also very much a womanizer who uses his unique charms to attract women sick of the gruff, emotionless men that populate most of The Continent. However, in season three of the show, he’s shown to be attracted to the maniacal Prince Rodavid, which is a huge break from the game and book universe.

While representation is usually a good thing, many fans of the show are pointing out that this change has more sinister undertones because of the way it plays to harmful stereotypes of gay men. Part of Jaskier’s brilliance is that he confounds those who have set ideas about masculinity while also being a ladies’ man of the highest order, so despite being what many would consider to be flamboyant and camp, he is proving that doesn’t have to mean he’s also queer. Fans on the /r/witcher subreddit are particularly irritated with the change in his sexuality, which they feel is pandering to the stereotype that all effeminate men have to be gay — especially insulting as the episodes were released at the tail end of Pride Month.

Many are going a step further and claiming that not only is this dangerously homophobic, but it’s also a pathetic attempt by producers to shoehorn diversity in so that they can tick boxes, instead of actually developing queer characters that move beyond stereotypes. While nobody can know if this is true other than those who worked on the show, it wouldn’t be the first time a famous bit of media has done something similar (J.K. Rowling, anyone?)

However, it hasn’t all been negative news for those who took part in crafting the third season, and this shift in character arc for Jaskier. On Twitter, there have been plenty of folks excited to see some gay action in The Witcher, even if it does mean deviating from the source material in a way that some might consider exploitative or cynical.

With that said, the overwhelming opinion among the fandom seems to be that this is a mistake.

However, some have taken a more expansive view of Jaskier’s sexuality and pointed out that while he does only seem to sleep with women in the books, that doesn’t necessarily mean he doesn’t enjoy the wine more than the label.

Questions about the effectiveness of representation in helping to promote equality have become more and more pressing in recent years, with many large Hollywood productions utilizing minority characters in a way that does feel like a box-ticking exercise, rather than trying to show them as fully formed humans. And, with the radical shift in Jaskier’s character being criticized so heavily, it seems The Witcher may be added to the pile of shows that are more concerned with looking like they care about promoting diversity and inclusion rather than actually doing something substantial about it.

While it’s not exactly heretical to change source material in an on-screen adaptation (some would say it’s basically impossible not to), this kind of vast character change will always come with backlash. Whether or not it’s homophobic is up for debate, but there’s no doubt there’s a tinge of something uncomfortable here, especially given the playing up of negative stereotypes.