d+ “LIAM’S GERALT IS A HUSKY, HENRY’S A WOLF” — Game of Thrones Creator George R. R. Martin Weighs In on The Witcher Season 4, Calling Cavill’s Version ‘Raw and Instinctive’ Compared to Netflix’s Softer Reboot.
As of November 9, 2025, Netflix’s The Witcher Season 4 has been streaming for just over a week, yet the fantasy epic continues to dominate conversations—not just for its high-stakes plot but for a bombshell commentary from none other than
Game of Thrones author George R.R. Martin.
In a recent post on his Not a Blog, Martin weighed in on the controversial recast, famously stating: “Liam’s Geralt is like a husky and Henry is a wolf.”
This vivid analogy captures the essence of the shift: Henry Cavill’s Geralt as the lone, ferocious predator—fierce, brooding, and untamed—versus Liam Hemsworth’s warmer, more approachable mutant, evoking a loyal husky with expressive eyes and a hint of playfulness amid the grit.
Martin’s words have sparked a firestorm, with fans dissecting whether this “domestication” honors Andrzej Sapkowski’s books or betrays the White Wolf’s savage core.
Released on October 30, 2025, Season 4 marks the penultimate chapter, adapting elements from
Baptism of Fire and beyond. Geralt, recovering from Vilgefortz’s brutal assault, forms the “Hansa”—a motley crew including Laurence Fishburne’s charismatic vampire Regis, Sharlto Copley’s ruthless bounty hunter Leo Bonhart, and others—to rescue Ciri from the clutches of the Empire and rogue mages.
Yennefer rallies sorceresses at Aretuza, while Ciri joins the bandit group The Rats, grappling with her powers and identity in a Continent ravaged by war.
Hemsworth’s Geralt emerges more verbose and emotive, flashing rare smiles, dry humor, and vulnerability—traits showrunner Lauren Schmidt Hissrich deliberately amplified to reflect his post-trauma growth.
Critics have noted this “softer” edge aligns closer to book Geralt’s witty banter, yet it starkly contrasts Cavill’s gravelly minimalism.
Martin’s husky-wolf comparison, dropped amid the season’s rollout, feels like a double-edged sword. As the architect of Westeros, Martin’s fantasy credentials lend weight, praising Hemsworth’s approachability while implicitly critiquing the loss of Cavill’s primal menace.
Fans on X erupted: one user quipped, “GRRM just ended the debate—Liam’s a good boy, Henry’s the alpha,” while another lamented, “From wolf to puppy? No thanks.”
This echoes broader sentiment, with some embracing the change as a “refresh” that humanizes Geralt.
Viewership tells a harsher tale. Season 4 debuted with a mere 7.4 million views in its first week—a staggering over 50% drop from Season 3’s 15.2 million and Season 2’s 18.5 million.
It trailed behind rom-com Nobody Wants This Season 2, signaling Cavill loyalists boycotting en masse. Samba TV reported U.S. households down 35% from Season 3’s premiere.
Rotten Tomatoes reflects the divide: critics at 58% (series low), audience score plummeting to 19% amid suspected review-bombing.
Outlets like The Guardian roasted Hemsworth as “as charismatic as a bollard in a wig,” faulting his mumbled grunts and lack of Cavill’s intensity.
Variety, however, hailed it an “upgrade,” praising tonal clarity and Hemsworth’s well-paced emotional arc.
Forbes called it “the good, the bad, and the Rats,” noting Hemsworth’s softer Geralt feels “off” but not outright bad.
Martin’s analogy amplifies this: a husky is strong, enduring, and affectionate—qualities shining in Hemsworth’s bonds with Regis or tender moments with Yennefer—yet lacks the wolf’s solitary ferocity that defined Cavill’s monster-slaying swagger.
Hissrich defended the evolution, saying scripts embraced Hemsworth’s natural Australian cadence for longer dialogues and wit, moving away from Cavill’s stoicism.
She reshot recaps with Hemsworth, framing the recast as a narrative “rebuild” post-injury.
Hemsworth admitted reluctance but poured himself into training—swords, horsemanship, wig fittings—avoiding imitation to forge his own path.
Anya Chalotra noted an “ease” with him, contrasting rumored tensions with Cavill.
On X, praise emerges sporadically: “Liam’s Geralt should’ve been from the start—more book-accurate humor,” or “He nailed the human side, better chemistry with Yen.”
Detractors dominate: “Liam looks adorable, Henry looked deadly,” or “Tried imitating Cavill and failed—cameo vibes.”
One viral thread lamented the “Let’s fucking move!” line as Navy SEAL, not Witcher.
Season 5, already filmed and wrapping principal photography in September 2025, promises an epic finale—potentially in 2026—with escalating threats like the Wild Hunt and family reunion.
Hissrich teases fidelity to Sapkowski’s ending, unpredictable twists.
Despite plummeting numbers—worst in franchise history—the back-to-back shoot ensures closure.
Spin-offs like The Rats: A Witcher Tale flopped off charts, hinting at dimmer future for the universe.
Martin’s husky remark, whether endorsement or subtle shade, crystallizes the schism. In a genre built on legacies, swapping a wolf for a husky risks alienating the pack.
Yet, as Geralt himself might grunt, destiny adapts. Hemsworth’s warmer White Wolf may not howl the same, but in Martin’s eyes—and a growing minority’s—he’s a faithful companion through the blizzard.
Whether this reinvention saves or dooms The Witcher remains the Continent’s greatest monster: fan division.
As Season 4 cliffhangers loom—Bonhart closing in, Nilfgaard rising—one truth endures: toss a coin to your Witcher, husky or wolf.
JK Rowling has BLASTED female swimmer Hannah Caldas after after she was suspended from the sport for FIVE YEARS with all her titles REVOKED for refusing a sex-verification test. JK said: ‘Some people think it’s ok to watch females suffer injury, humiliation and the loss of sporting opportunities to bolster an elitist post-modern ideology – I don’t’.
In the ever-turbulent waters of sports and gender politics, a new storm has erupted. J.K. Rowling, the Harry Potter author turned vocal advocate for women’s rights, has unleashed a scathing critique against transgender swimmer Hannah Caldas. Caldas, a 48-year-old athlete originally from Portugal and now competing for the United States, was handed a five-year ban from World Aquatics in October 2025. Her suspension stemmed from refusing a mandatory sex-verification test, leading to the revocation of all her titles and records from the past three years.
This controversy highlights the ongoing battle over eligibility in women’s sports. World Aquatics, the global governing body for swimming, enforces strict policies to ensure fairness in female categories. Their rules require athletes to prove they were born female or meet specific chromosomal criteria—no presence of a Y chromosome—for elite and masters competitions. Caldas, who transitioned from male to female and previously competed in men’s events from 2002 to 2004, dominated several women’s masters races in recent years. Her victories included five individual golds at the 2024 U.S. Masters Spring Nationals and setting world records in events like the 400m freestyle.
Rowling’s intervention came swiftly via social media, amplifying the debate. “Some people think it’s ok to watch females suffer injury, humiliation and the loss of sporting opportunities to bolster an elitist post-modern ideology—I don’t,” she posted on X (formerly Twitter). The statement, shared widely by her millions of followers, framed Caldas’ case as emblematic of broader injustices. Rowling has long argued that allowing transgender women—who underwent male puberty—to compete against cisgender females undermines the level playing field Title IX and similar protections aimed to create.
Caldas’ backstory adds layers to this narrative. Born Hugo Caldas in Vizela, Portugal, she narrowly missed qualifying for the 2012 Olympics in the women’s 50m freestyle, finishing just 0.3 seconds off the mark. After moving to California, she built a formidable resume in masters swimming, an amateur category for adults over 25. In 2024, at the World Aquatics Masters Championships in Doha, Qatar, Caldas shattered records and swept events, prompting complaints from competitors. Texas, host of one key meet, bans transgender athletes from women’s sports, intensifying scrutiny.
The Aquatics Integrity Unit (AQIU) launched an investigation in May 2025 after anonymous tips questioned her eligibility. U.S. Masters Swimming (USMS) initially cleared her in August, citing documents showing female assignment at birth and self-identification as female. However, World Aquatics demanded a genetic test—specifically chromosomal analysis—to verify compliance with their policy. Caldas refused, calling it “invasive and expensive.” Her insurance denied coverage, deeming it non-medically necessary, and she argued no U.S. state or USMS requires such tests for recreational adult events.
On October 18, 2025, the hammer fell. World Aquatics suspended Caldas until October 2030, disqualifying results from June 19, 2022, onward. Violations cited included false sex certification, failing women’s eligibility standards, and undermining integrity through non-compliance. In a poignant statement, Caldas accepted the ruling but stood firm: “I understand and accept the consequences. But if a five-year suspension is the price I must pay to protect my most intimate medical information, then it’s a price I am happy to pay—for myself, and for every other woman who does not want to submit to highly invasive medical testing just to swim in an older-adult competition.”
She announced her retirement from competitive swimming, vowing no return to USMS or World Aquatics events. Supporters, including New York Aquatics club, rallied around her emphasis on privacy rights. This marks the first major reported ban at the masters level under World Aquatics’ tightened 2022 policy, which created an “open” category for transgender athletes to sidestep women’s divisions.
Rowling’s blast resonated deeply with gender-critical voices. Figures like Riley Gaines, a former swimmer who lost NCAA titles to transgender competitor Lia Thomas, echoed her sentiments. Gaines posted on X: “Not AI. Not a Babylon Bee post. This is real life.” Conservative commentators, including Donald Trump Jr., mocked the need for testing, quipping, “Yea, because they really needed to do screening to figure out that he’s a dude.” OutKick labeled Caldas a “trans-identifying male swimmer,” underscoring biological advantages like greater muscle mass and bone density retained post-transition.
Yet, the backlash was fierce from transgender advocates. PinkNews highlighted Caldas’ willingness to sacrifice her career for privacy, framing the ban as discriminatory. On Reddit’s r/transgenderUK, users decried the policy as outdated and invasive, noting chromosomal tests can misclassify intersex athletes. India Willoughby, a British trans broadcaster, challenged Rowling directly in an earlier post: “When has this happened? Or are you making stuff up again?” She argued such rules harm all women, cis and trans, by reviving discredited sex-testing eras.
This incident isn’t isolated. World Aquatics’ policy shift followed uproar over Lia Thomas’ 2022 NCAA win, prompting the open category’s creation. Similar restrictions now govern World Athletics, cycling, and rugby. Proponents, including the Independent Council on Women’s Sports (ICONS), celebrate these as victories for fairness. They cite studies showing transgender women retain 9-12% strength edges after a year of hormone therapy, per a 2021 British Journal of Sports Medicine review.
Critics counter that masters swimming is recreational, not Olympic-level, where tiny advantages matter less. Caldas herself excelled in CrossFit and rowing too, equaling a women’s 500m indoor rowing world record in 2021. Her defenders argue the focus should be inclusion over exclusion, especially for older athletes chasing personal bests.
Rowling’s words cut to the ideological core. Her reference to “elitist post-modern ideology” targets what she sees as a cultural push prioritizing gender identity over biological sex. Since 2020, Rowling has penned essays and testified in inquiries, warning that erasing sex-based categories erodes women’s protections. In “TERF Wars,” her 2024 collection, she details personal threats endured for this stance. Caldas’ case, she implies, exemplifies how ideology trumps evidence, forcing female athletes to “suffer” silently.
Public reaction split along familiar lines. On X, #SaveWomensSports trended with over 50,000 posts in the week following the ban, many praising World Aquatics. Semantic searches revealed a 70/30 ratio favoring stricter rules, with users like @visegrad24 garnering 16,000 likes for announcing the suspension. Conversely, #TransRightsAreHumanRights saw surges, with Caldas’ statement shared 2,000 times.
Broader implications loom large. As of November 13, 2025, lawsuits challenge these policies in the U.S., including one by 16 states against NCAA transgender inclusions. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) maintains a looser framework, focusing on no disadvantage, but faces pressure to align. For masters athletes like Caldas—many in their 40s and 50s—these rules raise ethical questions: Should recreational joy demand genetic scrutiny?
Caldas’ retirement underscores the human cost. A trailblazer who swam men’s events early on, then thrived as Hannah, she leaves a legacy of resilience. Yet, her exit fuels Rowling’s fire, positioning the author as a guardian against what she calls “reality-denying” trends. As debates rage from poolside to Parliament, one truth emerges: Sports, meant to unite, now mirror society’s fractures.
In the end, this saga challenges us to balance empathy with equity. Rowling’s unyielding voice reminds us fairness isn’t optional. Caldas’ quiet dignity shows privacy’s sacredness. Until policies evolve with science and compassion, the pool will remain a battleground, not a sanctuary.
