Are the Novels a Primary Source?

[The Fattest Leech]

4 hours ago, corbon said:

Its an unrestricted (I think, or close to) wiki - that is, its a collection of information that anyone can edit and change... Snipped

 

1 hour ago, Blind Beth the Cat Lady said:

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. 

That's kinda how I feel about the wiki too. I tend to use it as a general reminder of tertiary characters or some dates, etc. Not everyone is lucky enough tot remember who Shitmouth is all the time. However, I guess I assumed it was a set "committee" that updated and created the info. I remember something about wiki approached Elio and Linda (?) and asked them to set it up??? Now I know 

The search site is my dream come true because I don't use an e-reader to find these quotes so easily. 

 

3 hours ago, HelenaExMachina said:

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 

I suddenly feel the need to make everyone a Blackfyre pretender 

[talvikorppi]

I think several posters above have explained it well: everything GRRM has written and published in the traditonal manner is a primary source, everything else is secondary or tertiary etc. sources to us who read this stuff in our world. (The question of what is primary/secondary/etc. in Planetos is a whole separate question.)

I'm firmly in the camp that everything that is relevant to understanding the story of ASOIAF should be contained in the said story, i.e. the main books. Readers who do not read the "auxillary" novellas and stories (or internet forums! :-D) should be able to understand the story in the end. To make the main ASOIAF series intelligible only if you've read all the extra material is simply bad writing, and I give GRRM more credit than that. I've only read the main books so far, I'm trying to hold out until I've finished the main series until I read the auxilliary stuff, but I might break before 2026 or whenever it is that the last book of the ASOIAF series gets published. :-D

This idea of a self-contained story made me think of two of the great classics of 20th century- or any century - Finnish literature by author Väinö Linna. There's Tuntematon Sotilas (The Unknown Soldier) from 1954, which tells the story of a platoon of Finnish "everyman" soldiers in the Continuation War (1941-1944). Then there is the magnum opus, the trilogy Täällä Pohjantähden alla (Under the North Star), published in 1959, 1960 and 1962, which tells the story of an ordinary Finnish family (Koskela) from c.1880 to c.1950. As you can see from the dates the books cover, the North Star trilogy is both a prequel and also a partial sequel to Unknown Soldier.

I love Unknown Soldier, re-read it every two or three years. I also love the North Star trilogy and have re-read but I've never actually finished it. Because Unknown Soldier spoils the deaths of the younger Koskela brothers in the Winter War (1939-1940). So I just stop reading when they're off to war. It's just too heart-breaking and I can't go on. But when you read these books together, they both shed light on each other and you find "easter eggs". It's obvious Väinö Linna was already planning the North Star trilogy when he wrote the Unknown Soldier because he mentions - in passing - stuff that we readers more fully learn in the 'prequel' parts of the North Star trilogy, like the fate of Ville Koskela's father and his two younger brothers.

The point is, that the Unknown Soldier and the North Star trilogy can be read independently of each other, reading the one doesn't require knowledge of the other. In paractice, almost everybody in Finland will have read (or pretendended to have read, not just watched the film) Unknown Soldier, it's in the curriculum of most schools for 14-15-year-olds. Less... sorry, fewer, people will have read the North Star trilogy, and certainly very few will have read the North Star trilogy before the Unknown Soldier.

There are "überfans" of the Unknown Soldier who're trying to track the movements of Väinö Linna's imaginary platoon during the war. They kind of miss the point that the book describes something general and focuses on the characters and how they respond to the war and its horrors. It's basically a very anti-war book that mocks old-fashioned, bloated patriotism - one reason why some critics in 1954 severely slated the book. Ordinary Finns loved it because they saw themselves in it, and it went through ever-increasing 12 or so print runs in the first year, a runaway bestseller.

Nowadays, nasty right-wing nationalists are trying to appropriate the Unknown Soldier (book and film), our flag, our state sigil, all the war heroes (i.e. the war dead) and all the war veterans to their xenophobic cause. I'm glad remaining war veterans have spoken out against this. (The last time my country was at war was in 1945 so there are very few war veterans remaining, unlike in the US or the UK, for instance.)

Sorry to have strayed so far from the topic, but it just struck me how the main ASOIAF books and the "auxilliary" fiction have some similarities to this one Finnish author who published the later part of the main story before any of the main one, therefore rendering his magnum opus mostly a prequel.

[The Fattest Leech]

Another question about source material, this time one that comes from me.

I have seen people mention the app. Is that considered a canon, or primary, source? I tried it once then deleted it about 5 minutes later for reasons.

[Jak Scaletongue]

1 hour ago, The Fattest Leech said:

Another question about source material, this time one that comes from me.

I have seen people mention the app. Is that considered a canon, or primary, source? I tried it once then deleted it about 5 minutes later for reasons.

No, generally not.  It's about as accurate as the wiki, but it's not editable by anyone except the app-people.  But at the end of the day it depends on what type of evidence you're trying to provide from the app.  The app says Ned is Jon's father, as an example, so it does do what the appendices do and relates "common knowledge" not necessarily accurate information.  So it really depends what you're looking at "proving" with evidence from the app.

It's a great supplementary source, but I don't know if it would be a primary source.  Maybe secondary - it's an amalgamation of primary source documents, so there's that.

[Blind Beth the Cat Lady]

4 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said:

Another question about source material, this time one that comes from me.

I have seen people mention the app. Is that considered a canon, or primary, source? I tried it once then deleted it about 5 minutes later for reasons.

 

2 hours ago, Jak Scaletongue said:

No, generally not.  It's about as accurate as the wiki, but it's not editable by anyone except the app-people.  But at the end of the day it depends on what type of evidence you're trying to provide from the app.  The app says Ned is Jon's father, as an example, so it does do what the appendices do and relates "common knowledge" not necessarily accurate information.  So it really depends what you're looking at "proving" with evidence from the app.

It's a great supplementary source, but I don't know if it would be a primary source.  Maybe secondary - it's an amalgamation of primary source documents, so there's that.

Like the wikki, the app is a secondary source. As are the maps.  Again, this doesn't say anything at all about their accuracy. A secondary source can be incredibly accurate or totally off, it's still a secondary source if it's commenting on/summarizing the primary text.

 

[Lady Flandrensis]

On 3/7/2016 at 1:59 PM, 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!)

[corbon]

12 hours ago, Jak Scaletongue said:

No, generally not.  It's about as accurate as the wiki, but it's not editable by anyone except the app-people. 

Now thats unfair, rude even.
What the app does is give a strong summary of the best information known - but it doesn't differentiate between 'true but wrong' information, like Joffrey being Robert's son and Jon being Ned's son, and actual true information.
But I don't think its actually known to be inaccurate anywhere, so long as you understand the sources and what its saying - errors there get corrected and unlike the wiki's 'anyone can edit to anything they want' status, the app-editing is restricted to a very small core of very well informed people.
What gets difficult to figure out with the app is when there is new information in it that isn't in the books directly. Its impossible to tell whether such is sensibly inferred data (and even sensibly inferences can be wrong) or genuine new data from GRRM.

9 hours ago, Blind Beth the Cat Lady said:

 

Like the wikki, the app is a secondary source. As are the maps.  Again, this doesn't say anything at all about their accuracy. A secondary source can be incredibly accurate or totally off, it's still a secondary source if it's commenting on/summarizing the primary text.

 

Agreed.
I would classify the app as a secondary source with a very high level of reliability in its data (its had several iterations now of error finding and fixing I believe), but which doesn't always differentiate between truth and 'official stories masquerading as truth'.
The wiki I would classify as a useful but unreliable secondary source.

[b00gieman]

I know members of this forum don't agree with my ideas but I totally believe that TWOT is the primary source for ASOIAF.  Apparently so much so that someone banned all my threads that I authored prior to 6 Mar 2016.

http://howthegameofthronesends.blogspot.com/

Nowhere did I read that my theories had come exclusively from the material found within the text of the pages of the books written by George R. R. Martin.  Besides why should I not post my theory when ASOIAF follows so closely TWOT.  I feel it would be irresponsible to simply overlook a source of material that seems to jump out and tell you how this series will end simply because others don't agree.

[Jak Scaletongue]

8 hours ago, corbon said:

Now thats unfair, rude even.
What the app does is give a strong summary of the best information known - but it doesn't differentiate between 'true but wrong' information, like Joffrey being Robert's son and Jon being Ned's son, and actual true information.
But I don't think its actually known to be inaccurate anywhere, so long as you understand the sources and what its saying - errors there get corrected and unlike the wiki's 'anyone can edit to anything they want' status, the app-editing is restricted to a very small core of very well informed people.
What gets difficult to figure out with the app is when there is new information in it that isn't in the books directly. Its impossible to tell whether such is sensibly inferred data (and even sensibly inferences can be wrong) or genuine new data from GRRM.

I'm sure it comes off that way if you ignore everything else I wrote.  It is *about* as accurate as the wiki.  But it's got more going for it than the wiki because it can't be edited by anyone.  And it does depend on what you're trying to prove - if you're trying to prove that Jon *is* Ned's bastard son and you use the app as your "proof" you're gonna get laughed at.  But it is *about* as accurate as the wiki - if only because people take the info off the app to include in the wiki. It's a better secondary source than the wiki, but it's still a secondary source.

[LiveFirstDieLater]

1 hour ago, Jak Scaletongue said:

I'm sure it comes off that way if you ignore everything else I wrote.  It is *about* as accurate as the wiki.  But it's got more going for it than the wiki because it can't be edited by anyone.  And it does depend on what you're trying to prove - if you're trying to prove that Jon *is* Ned's bastard son and you use the app as your "proof" you're gonna get laughed at.  But it is *about* as accurate as the wiki - if only because people take the info off the app to include in the wiki. It's a better secondary source than the wiki, but it's still a secondary source.

As with your descriptions of primary/secondary material above, I agree completely...

It's a great tool if you forget someone's name or coat of arms. But mostly because it can direct you to the primary sources (read quotes) that apply.

One should never use either the wiki or app as an actual explanation or argument for, or against something... It has improved and been edited since its creation, but still has both errors and assumptions. One should find the primary text to prove a point.

[LiveFirstDieLater]

7 hours ago, b00gieman said:

I know members of this forum don't agree with my ideas but I totally believe that TWOT is the primary source for ASOIAF.  Apparently so much so that someone banned all my threads that I authored prior to 6 Mar 2016.

http://howthegameofthronesends.blogspot.com/

Nowhere did I read that my theories had come exclusively from the material found within the text of the pages of the books written by George R. R. Martin.  Besides why should I not post my theory when ASOIAF follows so closely TWOT.  I feel it would be irresponsible to simply overlook a source of material that seems to jump out and tell you how this series will end simply because others don't agree.

Probably because you actively spam links to some nonsense about a completely different series (I admittedly never liked)

[Blind Beth the Cat Lady]

9 hours ago, b00gieman said:

I know members of this forum don't agree with my ideas but I totally believe that TWOT is the primary source for ASOIAF.  Apparently so much so that someone banned all my threads that I authored prior to 6 Mar 2016.

http://howthegameofthronesends.blogspot.com/

Nowhere did I read that my theories had come exclusively from the material found within the text of the pages of the books written by George R. R. Martin.  Besides why should I not post my theory when ASOIAF follows so closely TWOT.  I feel it would be irresponsible to simply overlook a source of material that seems to jump out and tell you how this series will end simply because others don't agree.

That's not what primary source means.

[The Fattest Leech]

Quick question. Someone on another thread mentioned something that made me think back to this thread. 

What about official pictures? Whether it be items such as swords or pictures of people and castles. Is the wiki or app considered official, as in, did George give approval or direction to artists? I believe I read he did for somethings, but my mind is trying to hard to remember what it was and is coming up blank. 

[HexMachina]

2 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said:

Quick question. Someone on another thread mentioned something that made me think back to this thread. 

What about official pictures? Whether it be items such as swords or pictures of people and castles. Is the wiki or app considered official, as in, did George give approval or direction to artists? I believe I read he did for somethings, but my mind is trying to hard to remember what it was and is coming up blank. 

I think the only pictures GRRM approved were the ones in the World of Ice and Fire, and the Calendars. But even there they aren't "canon" in the sense that they are just one person's interpretation. Some will undoubtedly be more accurate than others, like Daena, Rhaena and Elaena, and also Aegon's Mistresses, because he gave quite detailed descriptions for the artists. But even so I don't think they are considered strictly canon 

[The Fattest Leech]

Thanks. I did notice a while back that this pic of Dany is actually the actress Jennifer , after a few bottles of hair dye. 

http://m.westeros.org/index.php/File:Daenerys_by_jekaa.jpg 

Ack! Picture won't post. 

Try this http://www.ebertfest.com/ten/frame_hulk.html 

[HexMachina]

That's nothing, there is a picture in the World book of one of Egg's sons (Daeron I think) who is the double of Tobias Menzies  

[Lord Lannister]

If the material, whatever it may be, adds to your enjoyment of the universe and story as a whole, then I don't think it matters what label you put on it or if it's "canon" or "official." Usually when people use these terms it's because they're trying to project their viewpoint upon you. If you enjoy it and it adds to the universe, more power to you,. It doesn't matter if it's a novel by Martin, a worldbook by someone else, the show, a fanfic or just an imaginary scenario in your head.

[Sir Matthis Light]

Quick question, has GRRM confirmed "The Song of Ice and Fire" series is all happening in the past?

Like is it someone telling a story about the past events?

[The Fattest Leech]

11 hours ago, HelenaExMachina said:

That's nothing, there is a picture in the World book of one of Egg's sons (Daeron I think) who is the double of Tobias Menzies  

I think I found it. Page 107? I think,it may be Duncan (in Tobias drag ) 

[jet199]

I'm petty sure that Bran will be revealed to be the narrator of the story at the end so the books are a secondary source. There is a theory for this somewhere on the board but I can't link to it now. Basically the change in chapter headings that happens in AFFC, descriptions such as "The Sacrifice" rather than character's names, is due to fact that Bran is just learning his greenseering so can identify people accurately. Theon's chapters changes back to Theon once he goes to the heart tree and Bran had a good look at him.