Still I can't help but wonder why Qarth was excluded from the World Book. Something very odd must be going on there.
There's a bit of info on Qarth in the Beyond the Free Cities: The Grasslands section. But yeah, very strange it doesn't have it's own. An oversight?
Perhaps and perhaps not.
Still considering how important the city seems to be to Dany's story is very odd that we know next to nothing about the city. Preston Jacobs seems to think the Red Wastes survived a nuclear attack and Qarth may have been affected (effected? please correct me grammar Nazi's)
Not sure what I think still I find it odd that the walls seem to be regressing in Qarth instead of expanding.
Darkstar will be the next Vulture King.
Craster has 19 daughters and there are 19 castles on the Wall, coincidence I think not!
Speaking of retcons: I read a piece on Cracked that explains away a plot hole in LOTR. Why didn't the hobbitses ride the eagles to Mordor? Well, it was Gandalf's plan ALL ALONG! Except he got Balrog'd in Moria before he could reach them and had to keep his plan super secret.
Your lordship lost a son at the Red Wedding. I lost four upon the Blackwater. And why? Because the Lannisters stole the throne. Go to King’s Landing and look on Tommen with your own eyes, if you doubt me. A blind man could see it. What does Stannis offer you? Vengeance. Vengeance for my sons and yours, for your husbands and your fathers and your brothers. Vengeance for your murdered lord, your murdered king, your butchered princes. Vengeance!
But, as published, it is a soup blending the author's canonical contributions with interpretive contributions from two fans.
Even in book I'm starting to get worried that we'll see more fan interpretations than GRRM material. GRRM has said so many times now that he's started to rely on Elio and Linda as fact checkers because "they known my series better than I do". And you know, I will hand it to them they have had (and I'm saying had basically everybody now can do their job of just searching through the databases to find the information he wants) a good ability to point out inconsistencies and keep references to things that have happened such as who married who and stuff like that that can get lost among all the other ongoing stuff. But at the same time, I don't like that GRRM is turning to anybody in the first place, simply because, and we've seen this plenty with those two at least, that fans have their opinions about things in the novels. A simple question like "remind me what happened at X event" could have entirely different meaning to a fan than it did to GRRM.
Basically, I'm worried that we'll get a point where GRRM relies on a fan telling him what happened, GRRM not remembering that things were different or he didn't mean for that to be important or anything, and GRRM will just go with what he was told because he's relied on these fact checkers before. I'd like to think that for the more major plots that GRRM has all the information down himself that he needs to do them as he sees, but I'm afraid that eventually there'll be a bleeding in of outside material into the actual books.
Your lordship lost a son at the Red Wedding. I lost four upon the Blackwater. And why? Because the Lannisters stole the throne. Go to King’s Landing and look on Tommen with your own eyes, if you doubt me. A blind man could see it. What does Stannis offer you? Vengeance. Vengeance for my sons and yours, for your husbands and your fathers and your brothers. Vengeance for your murdered lord, your murdered king, your butchered princes. Vengeance!
I believe that much of the historical material will turn out to be canon, in the sense that it will be true/won't substantially change anything in the story itself. And this will be true no matter who authored those sections. I see little reason to intentionally lie (via "errors and omissions") about the names of the kings that Nymeria sent to the wall, for example. There's evidence that GRRM gave Linda and Elio some free reign with certain parts of the book. Likely because those details wouldn't matter/could be incorporated without a problem.
I doubt the canonical works will contradict much of the more distant world-building stuff in the wb, but I still wouldn't dub it canon. Like Fantastical Beasts and Where to Find Them, it is peripheral. Unlike Fantastical Beasts, it is not written by the author alone. This tarnishes its legacy a bit.
Let's call it for what it is...the glaring example of canon v. not-canon in the WB is Yandel's version of the story of Rhaegar and Lyanna, and how it ends with the cop-out of the phrase "But that tale is too well-known to warrant repeating here." That phrase screams intentional errors and omissions.
Sure. But I can see why the faithful would regard it as somewhat validating. For those who support RLJ, the theory's lack of subtlety is not an issue. For those who do take issue with the lack of subtlety, phrasings such as this one have a very subversive air about them. It all depends on one's perspective.
But even that is a fine line. Because several characters in the novels believe some of what Yandel hands us. So, some of those "facts" about R+L are canon in-universe - until we know more. But just like Joffrey being Robert's son, or Jon being Ned's son, are canon facts in-universe that have changed/can change based on new information, it's the exact same thing with R+L and the boring rote story repetition that Yandel gives us, skewed for King Robert's consumption and approval.
So why use the cop-out phrase if not to point out that something is wrong with the story that most people believe?
Well, I think the cop-out only looks like a cop-out if we are skeptical of RLJ. Otherwise, it appears like validation. I'm reminded of the many comments in a certain other place that read something like, "GRRM has said he will not change the ending just because we have figured it out..."
"I can see it. You have more of the north in you than your brothers."
Even in book I'm starting to get worried that we'll see more fan interpretations than GRRM material. GRRM has said so many times now that he's started to rely on Elio and Linda as fact checkers because "they known my series better than I do". And you know, I will hand it to them they have had (and I'm saying had basically everybody now can do their job of just searching through the databases to find the information he wants) a good ability to point out inconsistencies and keep references to things that have happened such as who married who and stuff like that that can get lost among all the other ongoing stuff. But at the same time, I don't like that GRRM is turning to anybody in the first place, simply because, and we've seen this plenty with those two at least, that fans have their opinions about things in the novels. A simple question like "remind me what happened at X event" could have entirely different meaning to a fan than it did to GRRM.
Basically, I'm worried that we'll get a point where GRRM relies on a fan telling him what happened, GRRM not remembering that things were different or he didn't mean for that to be important or anything, and GRRM will just go with what he was told because he's relied on these fact checkers before. I'd like to think that for the more major plots that GRRM has all the information down himself that he needs to do them as he sees, but I'm afraid that eventually there'll be a bleeding in of outside material into the actual books.
Thankfully, I think GRRM does have a firm enough grasp on his own story that this will not become an issue that distorts it. He views them as fact checkers. And, given his level of technological prowess, I think he will continue to rely on them instead of the databases we all have access to. But, I think he will always view Ran and Linda as readers and fans. Being such, he will want to surprise even them - perhaps them more than most.
I'm reminded of that quote in which he mentions wanting to write a story so nuanced that even his own mother would have a hard time guessing the ending, and Parris' mention of George not doing 'obvious'. As if the brothel chapter alone wasn't enough to poke some major holes in the theory, such leaks certainly do. There is nothing, not one single thing, more obvious in fantasy literature than the done and done and done notion of a secret prince hidden in plain sight.
"I can see it. You have more of the north in you than your brothers."
I doubt the canonical works will contradict much of the more distant world-building stuff in the wb, but I still wouldn't dub it canon.
GRRM's insurance here is the fact that all canon is POV-dependent. There is no objectively-stated "truth." To that extent, the entire World book is indisputably canon. It is exactly what it's said to be: Maester Yandel's version of history, up to King Robert's reign - with all the inherent limitations and prejudices that would imply.
In other words... there are areas in which Yandel is simply misinformed, or uneducated, or unwilling to risk censure from a king and ruling family whose reign depends on a certain version of recent history.
It's for this same reason that I have little patience with attempts to support argument through appeal to "the App." (The "GRRM approved" App, as it has been called.) Because there is no objectively stated and agreed upon "true version" of history in Westeros - period. And nobody can ever tell me whose POV is represented in the App.
There is nothing, not one single thing, more obvious in fantasy literature than the done and done and done notion of a secret prince hidden in plain sight.
It's interesting because I just started reading the Wheel of Time books (just finished The Great Hunt so no spoilers anybody please as I have a long ways to go lol), and I feel like I'm just calling things left and right so far. I mean don't get me wrong, I'm enjoying the series, but at the same time it's all so obvious. Who the Darkfriends are, who the destined saviours are, who's got the secret pasts, who's going to fall for who, blah blah blah. And I have some theories already for how some future stories will play out, and knowing nothing more about the series than the 2 books I've read so far, I'm fairly confident that they'll turn out either outright right, or that at the very least that the truth will be different than it was originally presented even if my guess was wrong. Because these books are fairly basic fantasy and Jordan from what I've seen followed the tried and true stories that we've all read dozens of. They're good stories, but I haven't yet been confused as to how a twist played out as I caught all the clues leading up to them ahead of time (I'm fairly eagerly anticipating meeting this Asmodean fellow though as I saw a bunch of outrage on the internet over that particular mystery and how it was eventually "solved").
But while it's all fun to be validated everytime I called something right, it is a little disappointing that things were indeed, at least to me, obvious. They're moments instead of ??? . I should be shocked and confused when something unexpected happens, not being happy that I saw that suspicious thing so easily 100 pages before or whatever.
Your lordship lost a son at the Red Wedding. I lost four upon the Blackwater. And why? Because the Lannisters stole the throne. Go to King’s Landing and look on Tommen with your own eyes, if you doubt me. A blind man could see it. What does Stannis offer you? Vengeance. Vengeance for my sons and yours, for your husbands and your fathers and your brothers. Vengeance for your murdered lord, your murdered king, your butchered princes. Vengeance!
GRRM's insurance here is the fact that all canon is POV-dependent. There is no objectively-stated "truth." To that extent, the entire World book is indisputably canon. It is exactly what it's said to be: Maester Yandel's version of history, up to King Robert's reign - with all the inherent limitations and prejudices that would imply.
In other words... there are areas in which Yandel is simply misinformed, or uneducated, or unwilling to risk censure from a king and ruling family whose reign depends on a certain version of recent history.
In-universe, yes. Maester Pycelle might well have known Maester Yandel and his works. That they are fictional works of the Citadel, I agree.
In the real world, however, no. Canon is by definition the work of the author. So while the parts of the world book written by GRRM are most certainly canonical, the problem arises wherein there is no identifier as to which passages he wrote versus those written by Elio and Linda. Thus, the soup.
If instead the content of the world book were included in an Anthology of Ice and Fire, in which his fan-understudies were able to write their own original works alongside his own, and in which GRRM's own were clearly and separately titled, I would agree that those penned by GRRM were canon.
It's for this same reason that I have little patience with attempts to support argument through appeal to "the App." (The "GRRM approved" App, as it has been called.) Because there is no objectively stated and agreed upon "true version" of history in Westeros - period. And nobody can ever tell me whose POV is represented in the App.
Agreed. I think the app has accurately been criticized as a retelling of the wiki. And while the wiki is a wonderful resource, it is not canon.
"I can see it. You have more of the north in you than your brothers."
No one in their right mind believes that some unseen and unverified old notes sent to Ran from one of GRRM's assistants in 2006 (or whatever the story was) should be treated the same way as the published novels.
Especially when those "notes" weren't even supposed to be a basis of the app. The app was supposed to be just on information that Ran had covered with GRRM over their lunch because that information was indeed "GRRM approved". Finding out that he'd gone and put stuff in the app from material, that first of all no one but him apparently ever knew existed (which makes me wonder why reveal it now after years and days after it was asked for when the answer should have come right out from Ran if it wasn't supposed to be a secret), that wasn't under GRRM's authority, was well I won't say shocking as it's not, but disappointing. Like if the information was years and years old, and didn't even come from GRRM in the first place, didn't you think that you should check it out and ask if it was still valid information and okay to include? Or did you simply assume that it was still valid on your own and put your information as having come from GRRM when it didn't, which is basically what happened? This was either a huge mistake, or a huge authorial fraud.
And of course, as I'm reminded you pointed out WeaselPie, well if this source exists, how does anybody know it's objectively true? Who wrote the family tree, GRRM or a character in his story? I believe your test was who did it say was Jon's parents as if it said Ned then either the tree is subjective to a POV character from our books who'd know that or Jon actually is Ned's son, to which we got no answer. I mean obviously even if it did say who was Jon's Stark parent Ran couldn't say that, but the fact that he couldn't even tell you whether the tree was objective or not, without even having to answer the test as really that information should have been covered when he got the document and he should already know the actual full validity of it, was even more disappointing. He just assumed it was not only still valid and GRRM hadn't changed his mind, just assumed it was okay to put in without asking, and just assumed that it was even a straight truth in the first place instead of a POV "fact". Which is disastrous IMO.
Your lordship lost a son at the Red Wedding. I lost four upon the Blackwater. And why? Because the Lannisters stole the throne. Go to King’s Landing and look on Tommen with your own eyes, if you doubt me. A blind man could see it. What does Stannis offer you? Vengeance. Vengeance for my sons and yours, for your husbands and your fathers and your brothers. Vengeance for your murdered lord, your murdered king, your butchered princes. Vengeance!
Except...GRRM says the WB is pretty damn close to canon. But not canon. Curious tricksy old turtle, eh?
Not really, imo. I mean, it is a little cute, but at the same time, he wrote it. It's not an off the cuff statement. Even when answering questions in an interview, his answers are always incredibly deliberate - even when joking or sidestepping. He is never surprised by anything thrown at him.
His manner of speaking generally leaves a lot of room for interpretation. It's cryptic. It's hesitant. It's half-truths. This goes double for his writing.
So while he left open a lot of room for interpretation, he has told you, and I quote:
"Only the books are canon."
and..
"The worldbook is pretty damn close to canon..."
That seems pretty clear cut to me. "Semi-canon" is a good term for a subcategory of materials that are pretty damn close to canon, but are not the books.
If I were to don my linguist's hat for a moment, I would be tempted to translate this:
..."but since it was written by maesters, errors and omissions have crept in."
as "but since it was written with Elio and Linda, errors and omissions have crept in."
As wise ole Maester Maeks taught us, pretty damn close to being dead doesn't make someone dead...
But while it's all fun to be validated everytime I called something right, it is a little disappointing that things were indeed, at least to me, obvious.
I felt the same way reading the First Law Trilogy by Joe Abercrombie. Great characters, and some of the dialogue and monologue made me laugh my ass off, but the endings were so predicable I couldn't believe the books were actually over when I turned the last page. I kept waiting for twists that never came. And apparently, some of the predicable plot developments were supposed to be twists! Quite a bummer.
This series spoils us. We become so used to multiple layers to unravel that even slightly less-intricate fantasy writing feels like child's play.
"I can see it. You have more of the north in you than your brothers."
For the record, I don't think anything was meant maliciously. Because there are two scenarios. 1). Ran knows certain things are absolutely true, in which case isn't he betraying secrets? or 2). Ran has no idea what's true or not, he's just enjoying his position as a fan who got in early to be in the van and promote the most popular theory ever.
I choose 2. So I think it was a combo of backpeddling and saving face.
Four times agreed. Definitely not malicious. I think Ran has been around so long he simply forgot it wasn't canon.
"I can see it. You have more of the north in you than your brothers."
here here, old chap. And I would have been content enough with that, knowing logically that anything could change in the next books.
Except...GRRM says the WB is pretty damn close to canon. But not canon. Curious tricksy old turtle, eh?
Yes, that is intriguing. And I'm quite impressed that you've received an answer to both of your questions about canon. Lots of possibilities there, in terms of imagining why Martin is concerned enough by the "canon" issue to engage on the topic.
My own guess is two-fold. First of all, this particular issue - the uncertain relationship between popular legend and underlying fact - is precisely one of the themes Martin loves to explore in his books. In fact, he's said as much very clearly in interviews in the past, and it figures in to many of the plots and mysteries in ASOIAF. But second, I think Martin is about to reveal the truth of Jon Snow's parentage in his next book. And I suspect that, in spite of himself, he's begun to feel a little nervous and guilty about how long he's allowed his most dedicated fans to delude themselves with this RLJ nonsense. He completely, and intentionally, set them up. And they - we - bought it, hook, line, and sinker... even most of us who continue looking at other solutions have fallen for RLJ somewhere along the way. But then he left us all hanging for 15-20 years. Which is ridiculous, whatever the reason.
So he's hedging his bets a bit. He's appealing to this "semi-canon" or "damn-near canon" concept to explain Yandel's book, even though there's no reason at all for him to do so. And he's commissioning "narrative illusions" to be painted on the back wall of his theater - then featuring the art form on his blog. He's subtly but consistently reminding his readers that the Sealord's Cat was just a fucking cat, after all. That the story presented to us may not always be what we expect it to be, no matter what we've been told. That we should look with our eyes, proceed with caution, and that (maybe) he's not the one to blame if we end up slamming our face into a brick wall.
"Anticlimax is, of course, the warp and way of things. Real life seldom structures a decent denouement." - Martin Silenus
Post by whitewolfstark on Dec 14, 2015 2:21:22 GMT
Ran I think is just a Promoted Fanboy (or at least considers himself to be one). Nothing harmful there--most people would love to be in that position. It's just hard to come back down the ladder after such a promotion. Perfectly human response.
who was looking to make it big in the new emerging Middle Class by being a glover
What's a glover? Do they make gloves?
Indeed they do. A few times Shakespeare even makes references to different types of materials that would be used in a glover's business. In one, he compares a man's morality (or virtue, I forget which) to an extremely stretchy piece of fabric that gets all distorted the more you pull on it.