Near the end of Season of Storms, we are at the wedding reception on the terrace when the rats come. Coral warns:

A tremendous storm. The rats can sense it. And I can too.

But in the chapter I don't see anything about why it occurred. It doesn't seem related to

the murder of the king at his wedding, or the new king.

Nor was it the vengeful fox-lady.

A friend suggested that it has something to do with the death of Ciri's parents, who apparently died at sea. Is there any support for this, perhaps in later books?

This doesn't seem like a natural phenomenon, especially given Geralt's frequent, foreboding comment: "this is a season of storms." Is there a curse or any artificial cause of the storm?

(I remember hearing someone warn "winter is coming" for a whole book. But in that world, abnormal cold weather foreshadows the rising power of a Night King.)

  • Season of Storms is the last published book and it is supposedly freestanding. And according to Witcher wiki, this book takes place 8 years before Ciri was even born. witcher.fandom.com/wiki/Timeline
    – Amarth
    Sep 6, 2020 at 11:25
  • @Amarth Thanks, I see the timeline although they include this caveat: "[date] according to a year mentioned in the in-novel letters, inconsistent with dates from the Saga" and I'm not sure if that discredits the date of 1245 Sep 6, 2020 at 20:32

2 Answers 2


I don't think there is any explanation given for why the storm came about. I admit I didn't really consider the possibility that it is the one that swept Ciri's parents away. But while the timeline could allow for this, as Season of Storms is set somewhere between the stories from The Last Wish and Sword of Destiny, I had the impression that the storm

Vilgefortz caused near the Skellige Isles

was of a much more local nature, rather than a huge tsunami that buried an entire kingdom. I didn't gather that this was suggested to be the same storm.

Even more so, I think there might not necessarily be an explanation for this storm. The storm derives its significance largely from the fact that it is not only a fitting finale for the story, but even more so a fitting end to the city/kingdom of Kerack.

Throughout the novel, we hear about the city's decadence, the arrogance of its leadership (I think we're told the mayor basically just declared himself king at some point and everyone went by with it, or something like that), as well as the mess of political intrigues among them. It is really not a nice place (yet you could probably say that about a lot of places in the world of The Witcher, which tends to paint politics in a generally cynical light). Adding to this, we even hear about the city not existing for many a while longer very early on in the story.

Now all this adds to the fact, that I think the reasons for this storm are to be sought more in the metaphysical realm than anywhere else. If you call it the "wrath of god", the course of history, or simply fate, it was an end deserving to this city. The murder of the king and the usurpation of the throne during the wedding is one part of the city's downfall and the storm is its finalization. It is analogous to many a classic tale of a city devoured by its own decadence in form of a seemingly natural desaster, be that Atlantis, Pompei, etc.

All this is to say that I think, yet again in a Sapkowski novel, the reason for the storm is left deliberately ambiguous as part of an ending more to be taken for its narrative and thematic value than to be questioned for its true background.

  • You answer is illogical. A storm is not a tsunami, and a tsunami is not a storm, though it is possible that a storm and a tsunami can happen at the same time. Are you saying that the natural-but-plsssibly-supernaturally-caused penomenon was a storm or a tsunami? Sep 4, 2020 at 17:21
  • @M.A.Golding I...make absolutely no difference between "storm" or "tsunami" in this answer and this difference has no bearing on my answer. I simply use the word "storm" for the entire event. Was this supposed to be a comment on the question (not that that seems to make a difference between those either)?
    – TARS
    Sep 4, 2020 at 17:30
  • I like the theory that it's metaphysical, although the storm does not seem to have completely destroyed the city since the king still gives the edict banishing mages from his land. Sep 6, 2020 at 15:43
  • @M.A.Golding I mention both tsunami and storm because it's stated that the storm's wind kicks up waves "3 stories high" and one much higher, which is not natural for a non-tsunami. So not a tsunami, but has the effects of one. Sep 6, 2020 at 15:45

Yennefer states at the end of the book Coral’s villa was the only one not destroyed by the storm and “she should buy a winning lottery ticket.”

She also left while the others went to rescue people. I think it was her, for some reason angry at the shift in power.

  • 2
    As it’s currently written, your answer is unclear. Please edit to add additional details that will help others understand how this addresses the question asked. You can find more information on how to write good answers in the help center.
    – fez
    Jul 22, 2022 at 9:41
  • Interesting. I wonder if she is that powerful to cause that. I had imagined that she actively protected the villa during the missing 30 minutes or so where she teleports away, gets a medical kit, and teleports back when it's all over. Either way, you answer needs more evidence. Sep 27, 2022 at 16:52

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge that you have read and understand our privacy policy and code of conduct.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.