sifth Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 I heard online that the Maester telling this history is either telling lies or wrong about certain information in the book? If that's so, doesn't that make a good chunk of this history non canon? I loved the 20 pages or so I read during my lunch break, but this is something that is worrying me as I read the book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonBranRickon Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 I can agree with you. I suspect some of the issues stems from how great a POV writer GRRM is and how boring facts can be in laid out with no colored commentary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ran Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 It's canon history, in the sense that this is a history written by a maester in Westeros based on the knowledge a maester will have. What he believes is what some learned people in Westeros believes. George will never write a "tell all" history that says how everything _really_ went down, so... this is as close as you'll get. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lowborn Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 It's doubtful that anything is explicitly wrong, except for the more legendary stories that is presented as such anyway. What you have to take in consideration is that since it was written for Robert, anything close to the modern day, and especially the parts about Robert's Rebellion, is written in usch a way that Robert would not be offended. So the Targaryen's are most likely painted in a worse light than is true. I still think we can take most things in it as fact. But everything should at least be interpreted in its context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sj4iy Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 I heard online that the Maester telling this history is either telling lies or wrong about certain information in the book? If that's so, doesn't that make a good chunk of this history non canon? I loved the 20 pages or so I read during my lunch break, but this is something that is worrying me as I read the book. It seems to be the type of opinionated history that can be retconned at a moment's notice. I also have a problem with the 'tone' of the book- switching back and forth from 'encyclopedic' to 'opinionated'. Honestly, I wish much of this had either been written as an actual novel (or a collection of short stories) or a straight-up encyclopedia without the opinions. I'm sure it was done to avoid problems with history Martin doesn't wish to reveal just yet, but the mix of tones is bothersome at times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sifth Posted October 28, 2014 Author Share Posted October 28, 2014 It's canon history, in the sense that this is a history written by a maester in Westeros based on the knowledge a maester will have. What he believes is what some learned people in Westeros believes. George will never write a "tell all" history that says how everything _really_ went down, so... this is as close as you'll get. :) but will certain facts be refuted or changed entirely in future books, say by Bran having a weirwood vision into the past or through one of Dunk and Egg's adventures? That's sort of my biggest concern. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liz Stark-Targaryen Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 Really loving this book so far, but then, I'm one of those weirdos who prefers The Silmarillion to The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. As far as its veracity goes, "What is truth?" Even our own history is narrative from a particular point of view. TWOIAF is like ASOIAF in that we're limited to the viewpoint narrator. But unlike the characters we all know and love so well, Yandel is a bit removed from the events in question. I am sure he wants to please Robert Joffrey Tommen and by extension powerful Lannisters like the Queen and Lord Tywin, but beyond that? It's what we've got to go on until TWoW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Pepper Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 Maester Yandel is a really terrible historian, but that doesn't exactly make this a non canon source. We are simply getting one view, much like we get one view at a time in the series. The reader has to kinda use their brains to determine the validity of the information Yandel presents. He's definitely heavily biased, especially towards Lannisters. I haven't read a lot of the book to see if that bias extends to other areas. From what I do see, we are given enough information to know when a certain section is questionable or not. Like, we know his opinions about Tywin and Jaime during the Rebellion is mostly bullshit because we know the truth and we also know that other characters in the books know the truth. Yandel is basically telling the history he wants future generations to believe. There's still a lot of good new info but as with the series, the reader has to sort through it all to decide which info is valid and which isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Selig Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 It's kind of hilarious how the maester invented some tales blaming Aerys or even Elia herself for the death of Aegon and Rhaenys. And I haven't read the Lannister section yet, but the one on Aerys' reign is very flattering for Tywin, constantly quoting his biggest fanboy Pycelle and proclaiming Tywin's awesomeness. Maybe Tywin sponsored the publication. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sj4iy Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 It's kind of hilarious how the maester invented some tales blaming Aerys or even Elia herself for the death of Aegon and Rhaenys. And I haven't read the Lannister section yet, but the one on Aerys' reign is very flattering for Tywin, constantly quoting his biggest fanboy Pycelle and proclaiming Tywin's awesomeness. Maybe Tywin sponsored the publication. ;) I actually found it quite hilarious that Yandel disparages Lyanna, saying that she doesn't 'live up to Elia's charms', in a book meant for Robert. I mean, if he's going to suck up, you'd think he'd be sucking up to Robert by praising the women he loved more than anyone else. Instead, he's essentially like "Yeah, I don't know what Rhaegar saw in her, it must have been a political move". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Selig Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 Yandel probably correctly deduced that Robert wasn't much of a reader and wouldn't ever read this, but Tywin would. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ibbison from Ibben Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 Yandel often refers to theories put forth by Septon Barth, then immediately disparages them, and gives a competing version from a different source which he endorses. Given that Barth's works were burned in the time of Baelor the Befuddled, and are thus generally unknown, Yandel does a remarkable job of acquainting his readers with Barth's ideas. My question is, did Yandel do this purposely to bring Barth's works back to light? Yandel freely admits his main source for Aerys II's reign is Pycelle. Taking it with a grain of salt is inadequate - you need a 50lb salt lick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitering Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 Yandel probably correctly deduced that Robert wasn't much of a reader and wouldn't ever read this, but Tywin would. ;) Ya, but Renly would read it and laughingly tell Robert about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bael's Bastard Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 It's canon history, in the sense that this is a history written by a maester in Westeros based on the knowledge a maester will have. What he believes is what some learned people in Westeros believes. George will never write a "tell all" history that says how everything _really_ went down, so... this is as close as you'll get. :)It is crazy to me that some people still don't understand this, even though it has been made explicitly clear over and over for a long time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bael's Bastard Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 I actually found it quite hilarious that Yandel disparages Lyanna, saying that she doesn't 'live up to Elia's charms', in a book meant for Robert. I mean, if he's going to suck up, you'd think he'd be sucking up to Robert by praising the women he loved more than anyone else. Instead, he's essentially like "Yeah, I don't know what Rhaegar saw in her, it must have been a political move".I'm sure Robert's death changed the tone of some things. Keep in mind that while it was started for Robert, it is being given to Cersei's son. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sj4iy Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 I'm sure Robert's death changed the tone of some things. Keep in mind that while it was started for Robert, it is being given to Cersei's son. Nah. It's just a way to keep from revealing anything too important in ASOIAF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellstaysia Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 I worry about it too. I do understand why it was written that way though, even if I find it disappointing. curious how I'll feel as I get further in. so far I think it's laid out well & just beautiful to hold & stare at. like others have said, the art is brilliant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sifth Posted October 28, 2014 Author Share Posted October 28, 2014 I worry about it too. I do understand why it was written that way though, even if I find it disappointing. curious how I'll feel as I get further in. so far I think it's laid out well & just beautiful to hold & stare at. like others have said, the art is brilliant. The art is amazing. I'd love to have some of it as a wall paper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bushum Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 ""but then, I'm one of those weirdos who prefers The Silmarillion to The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings." I thought I was the only one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sj4iy Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 The art is amazing. I'd love to have some of it as a wall paper. :agree: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.