"Fake History"

[zaafsta]

Hey guys,

I watched a video of George R. R Martin talking about this book, and he mentioned about this being a "fake history".

Can someone tell me what that means? I first interpreted it as "not the actual history of Westeros". But does it just mean, a fictional history (as asoiaf is fictional) thus fake history?

Cheers

[Ramsay's Penguins]

The latter.

It's the ~real~ history for a fake world. Real as in all they know about the history.

[Ulthosian Stark]

The latter.

It's the ~real~ history for a fake world. Real as in all they know about the history.

As real as Yandel wants it to be, remember he's writing this for the Baratheons/Lannisters so certain things are up for debate.

I think a big point of having it written by a Maester like Yandel is so you can't take it as the last word on any subject, given the obvious horrible claims about Elia killing her children. This leaves things open for George to change as he sees fit, which from a writers point of view is brilliant

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

Hey guys,

I watched a video of George R. R Martin talking about this book, and he mentioned about this being a "fake history".

Can someone tell me what that means? I first interpreted it as "not the actual history of Westeros". But does it just mean, a fictional history (as asoiaf is fictional) thus fake history?

Cheers

The bolded part ;)

[AryaNymeriaVisenya]

Hey guys,

I watched a video of George R. R Martin talking about this book, and he mentioned about this being a "fake history".

Can someone tell me what that means? I first interpreted it as "not the actual history of Westeros". But does it just mean, a fictional history (as asoiaf is fictional) thus fake history?

Cheers

Its actually both.

Its bias. Its not a completely factual account of events, its skewed towards certain prejudices and perspectives. eg Queen Alysanne is given a glowing report in this book but Roose thinks she was a harridan. If Roose wrote the book it would be very different. You have to gage the truth based on the probabilities.

[ChillyPolly]

I watched a video of George R. R Martin talking about this book, and he mentioned about this being a "fake history". Can someone tell me what that means?

"Fake history" = "made-up story" = "fiction".

In this case it is a story within a story: a story told by a maester, who is a character in the world of Westeros.

Also, it also may mean the fiction is not told in modern fantasy's usual novelistic style, but rather in the style of a work of academic "history".

I first interpreted it as "not the actual history of Westeros".

That too. But they have the unreliable narrator thing and unreliable source thing going on in the main volumes as well.

[cgf]

Little bit of column A, little bit of column B.

[mankytoes]

I think of it as a history book, I mean all views on history contain biases in some way, even if the author is trying to be neutral. Aside from the almost comical (though totally believable) bias in documenting the rebellion (maybe Elia stabbed her daughter fifty times?), there's a clear anti-Blackfyre bias, hardly surprising, and I also felt a more subtle anti-faith sentiment seeking through, I guess evidence that the enternal struggle between science and religion is around in Westeros too.