Are the Novels a Primary Source?

[Pornish Dornish]

Specifically, what if we're not meant to be having all of the answers due to Martin's purposeful misdirection of narration (perhaps it's written as a compendium of lost history ((in the world of Ice and Fire)) by some king or queen to gather folks from around the world in a shared knowledge of their ancestry). I'm aware that nearly everything comes from a first-hand, first-person perspective, but in the spirit of old timey tale telling, most stories are told this way regardless of who is actually telling the tale or when it is being recited. If this were the case what could we use to further some theories and what could get thrown out the window, and how can this viewpoint be used to find the endgame for the series.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

I think that the primary sources are the ASOIAF series and the D&E series. The PatQ, RP and WoIaF, maybe even the which I cannot recall the title, are meant to give us some information about the main series but not always the right information. I cannot believe that Elia killed her children even if it is mentioned as a possibility in WoIaF.

[Littlefinger's dagger]

For the purposes of crafting theories on this forum, yes.  Our narrators are not always above lying to themselves or to others, so it can get a little sticky, but better to have evidence you can compare with other evidence than to have theories wholly crafted from speculation and wishful thinking.

 

I must be missing something: how would the novels not be a primary source?

[Jak Scaletongue]

Meh, Cicero is considered a primary source for the Late Republican period in Rome and most of those are letters (which, as one would expect, are very biased towards Cicero - which is normal, you're writing a letter to a friend, you clearly focus on you) and published, polished works from orations after they've been presented (take out bits that weren't well received at the time of oration, add in a cutting remark here and there that he hadn't thought of til later or wasn't relevant until the time he's polishing an old oratory).  It *is* an invaluable look into Roman life, but Cicero's letters and published orations are highly biased towards Cicero.  It doesn't make his works any less "primary" because they're biased.  Primary sources are "primary" not because they're unbiased, but because they were written at the time you're studying.  So if you're studying late-Republic Rome, and Cicero lived in late-Republic Rome and is writing about daily events it's a primary source (if Cicero's writing a history of Sicily he wouldn't be a primary source, he'd be using primary and secondary sources for his research).  A secondary source would be someone writing 100-200+ years after the late-Republic about the late-Republic.  Plutarch is a decent example (maybe not the best, but certainly not the worst).  Plutarch would have likely used secondary sources when writing his "Life of Alexander" (making Plutarch a tertiary source when it comes to Alexander) but while writing his "Life of Caesar" he likely had access to multiple primary sources (making Plutarch a secondary source when it comes to Caesar) that he researched and in the end amalgamated everything he read from multiple primary sources into a single secondary source (not his intent, specifically, when writing - the way we separate sources was unknown back then).  Cassius Dio and even Virgil are decent examples of secondary and tertiary sources. (ETA: Suetonius, too - his "Lives of the Twelve Caesar's" is actually a pretty good read.  He makes sure to add in all the juicy gossip! He's no Procopius, but who can be?)

But basically, "primary" means it was written at the time (late-Republic) about that time (late-Republic).  "Secondary" means it was written later (Imperial period) about an earlier time (late-Republic).  "Tertiary" means the writer used both secondary and primary sources and everyone they're writing about has been dead for a good 50 years if not longer.

And I don't see how any of that changes the way I should read the story.  I suppose I've been reading it like I read Cicero - I know it's overall true, but I also know there's stuff he's not telling the reader. (It is fiction though, so it's not an exact parallel obviously)

[RobOsevens]

1 hour ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

I think that the primary sources are the ASOIAF series and the D&E series. The PatQ, RP and WoIaF, maybe even the which I cannot recall the title, are meant to give us some information about the main series but not always the right information. I cannot believe that Elia killed her children even if it is mentioned as a possibility in WoIaF.

I'd disagree I think really only the main series is important, everything else is fun auxiliary stories but should not have a major impact in the main series.

AS to your point about Elia, that is placed in their because Yandel is writing the book for Robert and he is trying to absolve him of being ok with murdering children.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

3 minutes ago, RobOsevens said:

I'd disagree I think really only the main series is important, everything else is fun auxiliary stories but should not have a major impact in the main series.

AS to your point about Elia, that is placed in their because Yandel is writing the book for Robert and he is trying to absolve him of being ok with murdering children.

I know. I was trying to give an example why woiaf cannot be trusted.

[Blind Beth the Cat Lady]

30 minutes ago, Jak Scaletongue said:

Meh, Cicero is considered a primary source for the Late Republican period in Rome and most of those are letters (which, as one would expect, are very biased towards Cicero - which is normal, you're writing a letter to a friend, you clearly focus on you) and published, polished works from orations after they've been presented (take out bits that weren't well received at the time of oration, add in a cutting remark here and there that he hadn't thought of til later or wasn't relevant until the time he's polishing an old oratory).  It *is* an invaluable look into Roman life, but Cicero's letters and published orations are highly biased towards Cicero.  It doesn't make his works any less "primary" because they're biased.  Primary sources are "primary" not because they're unbiased, but because they were written at the time you're studying.  So if you're studying late-Republic Rome, and Cicero lived in late-Republic Rome and is writing about daily events it's a primary source (if Cicero's writing a history of Sicily he wouldn't be a primary source, he'd be using primary and secondary sources for his research).  A secondary source would be someone writing 100-200+ years after the late-Republic about the late-Republic.  Plutarch is a decent example (maybe not the best, but certainly not the worst).  Plutarch would have likely used secondary sources when writing his "Life of Alexander" (making Plutarch a tertiary source when it comes to Alexander) but while writing his "Life of Caesar" he likely had access to multiple primary sources (making Plutarch a secondary source when it comes to Caesar) that he researched and in the end amalgamated everything he read from multiple primary sources into a single secondary source (not his intent, specifically, when writing - the way we separate sources was unknown back then).  Cassius Dio and even Virgil are decent examples of secondary and tertiary sources. (ETA: Suetonius, too - his "Lives of the Twelve Caesar's" is actually a pretty good read.  He makes sure to add in all the juicy gossip! He's no Procopius, but who can be?)

But basically, "primary" means it was written at the time (late-Republic) about that time (late-Republic).  "Secondary" means it was written later (Imperial period) about an earlier time (late-Republic).  "Tertiary" means the writer used both secondary and primary sources and everyone they're writing about has been dead for a good 50 years if not longer.

And I don't see how any of that changes the way I should read the story.  I suppose I've been reading it like I read Cicero - I know it's overall true, but I also know there's stuff he's not telling the reader. (It is fiction though, so it's not an exact parallel obviously)

Right on.

Just wanted to add that when discussing fiction/literature, the piece itself is considered a primary source. So all of the ASOIAF-universe fiction written by Martin (I'm including the Worldbook since it's his content even if partially written/organized by Elio and Linda) is by definition a primary source. Even stuff purporting to be a secondary source by the imaginary-history definition (because it's not really written by Yandell or whoever, but by Martin.)

Secondary sources would be commentary on the thing itself. SSM's are secondary, as are books like Beyond the Wall or essays written by fans/critics.

[Jak Scaletongue]

10 minutes ago, Blind Beth the Cat Lady said:

Right on.

Just wanted to add that when discussing fiction/literature, the piece itself is considered a primary source. So all of the ASOIAF-universe fiction written by Martin (I'm including the Worldbook since it's his content even if partially written/organized by Elio and Linda) is by definition a primary source. Even stuff purporting to be a secondary source by the imaginary-history definition (because it's not really written by Yandell or whoever, but by Martin.)

Secondary sources would be commentary on the thing itself. SSM's are secondary, as are books like Beyond the Wall or essays written by fans/critics.

Right - so that's generally where the term "canon" came into use for fiction, right?  Anything the author writes pertaining to the universe is "canon" (ASOIAF, TWOIAF, D&E, tPatQ, etc) or a "primary source."  Before joining the HP fandom years ago, the only other time I'd ever heard the word "canon" used was in reference to the Bible (the canon texts vs the apocryphal texts = what made into the Bible vs what didn't), but that's been my understanding of it.

Being a "primary source" or "canon" doesn't necessarily means it's necessary to read ALL the canon to understand the main series, but ALL the canon is still canon, regardless of whether it's "essential" reading.  I, personally, don't think TWOIAF or D&E is essential to understanding and following the ASOIAF series, but you will have a deeper understanding of how the world of Westeros got to where it is by reading the "extra canon" as well as some Easter Eggs and some world-building that, while not necessary to the ASOIAF series, is certainly still relevant and informational. (It's not necessary* to read Cicero while studying the late-Republic, but he's still relevant and informational)

(*if you're an actual professional, you likely *had* to read it.  But I'm just an amateur and read it for fun!)

[Victarion Chainbreaker]

Only Mushroom is a completely objective source. And perhaps Barth.

[RobOsevens]

5 minutes ago, Jak Scaletongue said:

Being a "primary source" or "canon" doesn't necessarily means it's necessary to read ALL the canon to understand the main series, but ALL the canon is still canon, regardless of whether it's "essential" reading.  I, personally, don't think TWOIAF or D&E is essential to understanding and following the ASOIAF series, but you will have a deeper understanding of how the world of Westeros got to where it is by reading the "extra canon" as well as some Easter Eggs and some world-building that, while not necessary to the ASOIAF series, is certainly still relevant and informational. 

Jak, 

This is the best explanation of the canon and essential reading I have seen on here. I agree only the main series should be essential. All of the other stuff is fun and adds more for the hardcore fans but at most they will just pay off with easter eggs and fun tidbits in the main series. Anything else would feel unearned in the main series.

[Jak Scaletongue]

53 minutes ago, RobOsevens said:

Jak, 

This is the best explanation of the canon and essential reading I have seen on here. I agree only the main series should be essential. All of the other stuff is fun and adds more for the hardcore fans but at most they will just pay off with easter eggs and fun tidbits in the main series. Anything else would feel unearned in the main series.

Exactly - there's definitely *relevant* information in the "extra" canon, but relevant doesn't mean essential.  Reading the "extra" canon may alter how you re-read the main series, having more information available to you and giving you a different perception into these characters but even that isn't necessary, because once you've gone through all 5 books and start a re-read your perceptions will be altered anyway and you'll be keeping your eyes out for stuff you missed the first [dozen] time(s)!

The "extra" canon can give you a bit of access to the "whole story" that an off-hand comment some character in the main series made [mentions of past rulers is a good example], but anything that's "essential" will be presented in the main series (it *might* be hidden in plain view in the "extra" stuff, but until we've made it to the end of the main series even those of us who have read the "extra" stuff won't know it was essential to the main series until the main series gives it to us!  I'm thinking some stuff Yandel said about Robellion *might* have been presented to us in TWOIAF in a very biased manner and in a way that doesn't make it obvious that it is essential.  Basically, I imagine once the main series is done we will all go through TWOIAF again and go "Oh sh*t, he says it right here, how the hell did we miss that? Who would've guessed?!" because we won't know it mattered until the main series is done.  I bet there's a few Easter Eggs in there like that - we'll go over it a million times, but it *can't* be relevant to us until it is relevant in the main series).

Sorry, I got rambling....hope it continued to make sense! LOL!

[RobOsevens]

2 minutes ago, Jak Scaletongue said:

Exactly - there's definitely *relevant* information in the "extra" canon, but relevant doesn't mean essential.  Reading the "extra" canon may alter how you re-read the main series, having more information available to you and giving you a different perception into these characters but even that isn't necessary, because once you've gone through all 5 books and start a re-read your perceptions will be altered anyway and you'll be keeping your eyes out for stuff you missed the first [dozen] time! 

The "extra" canon can give you a bit of access to the "whole story" that an off-hand comment some character in the main series made [mentions of past rulers is a good example], but anything that's "essential" will be presented in the main series (it *might* be hidden in plain view in the "extra" stuff, but until we've made it to the end of the main series even those of us who have read the "extra" stuff won't know it was essential to the main series until the main series gives it to us!  I'm thinking some stuff Yandel said about Robellion *might* have been presented to us in TWOIAF in a very biased manner and in a way that doesn't make it obvious that it is essential.  Basically, I imagine once the main series is done we will all go through TWOIAF again and go "Oh sh*t, he says it right here, how the hell did we miss that? Who would've guessed?!" because we won't know it mattered until the main series is done.  I bet there's a few Easter Eggs in there like that - we'll go over it a million times, but it *can't* be relevant to us until it is relevant in the main series).

Sorry, I got rambling....hope it continued to make sense! LOL!

Your explanation is great, I've had this position on a few threads and I'm definitely going to steal your quote when trying to explain myself in the future. 

And no worries about the see-through I go on a few rambling rants from time to time as well  

[Jak Scaletongue]

You go right ahead and use it if you think it'll be useful!  God knows I'll never say it that well again! (Maybe I should save it myself...lol!)

ETA: on a side note, I can see where the confusion between "primary" and "secondary" sources come in.  In-world, Yandel is mostly a tertiary source (though even that gets a bit confusing when you get into the later periods where Yandel was alive, which is where he becomes more of a secondary and even primary in some excerpts where he's talking about stuff he's seen/heard himself).  But mostly he's a tertiary source, because he's taking primary and secondary sources and amalgamating them into a single volume.  In-world, in Westeros.  IRL, The World of Ice and Fire is a canon/primary source for our (the readers) purposes.  It was written by GRRM, Linda and Elio, not Yandel.  Since we don't live *in* Westeros, the book is a primary or canon source. To those who do live *in* Westeros, Yandel is a tertiary source.

[Blind Beth the Cat Lady]

1 hour ago, Jak Scaletongue said:

Right - so that's generally where the term "canon" came into use for fiction, right?  Anything the author writes pertaining to the universe is "canon" (ASOIAF, TWOIAF, D&E, tPatQ, etc) or a "primary source."  Before joining the HP fandom years ago, the only other time I'd ever heard the word "canon" used was in reference to the Bible (the canon texts vs the apocryphal texts = what made into the Bible vs what didn't), but that's been my understanding of it.

Being a "primary source" or "canon" doesn't necessarily means it's necessary to read ALL the canon to understand the main series, but ALL the canon is still canon, regardless of whether it's "essential" reading.  I, personally, don't think TWOIAF or D&E is essential to understanding and following the ASOIAF series, but you will have a deeper understanding of how the world of Westeros got to where it is by reading the "extra canon" as well as some Easter Eggs and some world-building that, while not necessary to the ASOIAF series, is certainly still relevant and informational. (It's not necessary* to read Cicero while studying the late-Republic, but he's still relevant and informational)

(*if you're an actual professional, you likely *had* to read it.  But I'm just an amateur and read it for fun!)

Yep, exactly.

When people debate about whether TWOIAF is cannon I feel like they didn't pay very close attention in English class, lol.

[Lord Varys]

In a certain sense TWoIaF and the abridged histories from Fire and Blood are 'better canon' than the actual books because the latter are essentially fiction whereas the pretense in the other cases is that they are existing books/text that directly come from Westeros. Watching a Star Trek episode also happens on a different level as actually holding a phaser (or reading a manual how to pilot the Enterprise).

In regards to their informational content the history books aren't more biased than the chapters depicting the thoughts and memories of certain POV characters. Everybody lies, after all, and many people should misremember quite a lot of things.

What TWoIaF and the like don't do is telling the story of ASoIaF - that's what the novels do.

[The Fattest Leech]

Good points all on the written canon. 

What about the wiki? Where do people stand with that... And why? 

I have noticed some accept it, some do not. 

I Find it useful for somethings, mainly dates. Some things are good, some things are too vague. 

[corbon]

7 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said:

Good points all on the written canon. 

What about the wiki? Where do people stand with that... And why? 

Its an unrestricted (I think, or close to) wiki - that is, its a collection of information that anyone can edit and change. Thus its inherently unreliable - someone could write into the wiki that Rhaegar was really a Velaryon bastard and anyone who doesn't have access to other sources can't tell that that information isn't direct from canon and absolutely true. OTOH, most information there is correct because someone will catch and edit errors fairly quickly.

In addition, there are a number of inconsistencies and uncertainties in GRRM's work. Dates and distances don't always fit well with the best info we have. The wiki usually reflects the best approximation, but its not necessarily correct, or agreed upon and it may be 'calculated' data point inferred from several sources and even the inferrences are not always agreed upon (example a recent discussion about the use of "close to a year" and whether it could extend beyond 12 months or not).

So in general, probably the wisest advice is to use it, but with the understanding of its flaws and checking the most critical things yourself. You seem to have that covered anyway.
Personally I find asearchoffireandice.com an awesome resource for checking many things.

7 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said:

I have noticed some accept it, some do not. 

I think its more a case of, if you are in a discussion where people are disagreeing, the wiki is really only what an unknown third party says, so its not an authoritative source. If you want to convince someone, don;t use the wiki for your argument, use the wiki for your base knowledge then research primary sources for the argument.

[HexMachina]

8 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said:

Good points all on the written canon. 

What about the wiki? Where do people stand with that... And why? 

I have noticed some accept it, some do not. 

I Find it useful for somethings, mainly dates. Some things are good, some things are too vague. 

The wiki is fan-edited (mostly by posters here, who largely do a very good job). There will be inevitable errors, and some changes made by people who want to present their opinion as fact, but as long as the references and suchlike are in order I tend to trust it.

I agree with corbon above, you should always try and use book quotes rather than the wiki page. That's where the references are handy though, they tell you where to look 

[Blind Beth the Cat Lady]

9 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said:

Good points all on the written canon. 

What about the wiki? Where do people stand with that... And why? 

I have noticed some accept it, some do not. 

I Find it useful for somethings, mainly dates. Some things are good, some things are too vague. 

Accuracy notwithstanding, the wiki is a secondary source except when it's quoting SSM's or comments from Elio and Linda (or other secondary sources) in which case it's tertiary.

But yeah, in terms of reliability I agree with corbon and Helena. 

[Blind Beth the Cat Lady]

When you're talking about literature, all secondary and so on sources are going to introduce an element of unreliability because no matter how straightforward they're trying to be there is always some amount of interpretation going on. That's the main issues I've found with the wiki. Not that people are putting in wrong information but that the summary interprets something in a way that's not definite.

But the good thing is that citations are usually quite thorough so it's easy to track down the reference and see if you agree with their take.