Bael's Bastard Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Even though he rebelled, IMO it speaks volumes that Lyonel was ultimately willing to accept a Targ daughter for his heir in place of the original deal of his daughter being a future queen. To me that sounds like a hell of a compromise on Lyonel's part. And, for Egg's part, that he was willing to offer and follow through. Before the book I always thought Lyonel and his descendants would end up being big supporters of Egg and his descendants. And they did. But Lyonel's rebellion was definitely not something I expected. I never would have guessed that Robert's great-grandfather rebelled to the extent of calling himself a king, fifty or less years before Robert successfully rebelled and overthrew House Targaryen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramsay Gimp Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 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. ;) Yes, we all know Aerys was a wonderful Monarch whose reign was ruined by that dreadful Hand, Tywin Lannister. Clearly, every single account of Tywin's competence must be a Lannister conspiracy :rolleyes: Have you ever considered why Pycelle is such a Tywin fanboy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanTheBold Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 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. i wouldnt say he's a terrible historian he's doing exactly what historians do and that's take first hand accounts and comparing the to known facts it just so happens that the only first hand account he has for that time is pycell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Creighton Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 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.So I guess what you are saying is it's Yandel' head canon. It's what he believes, but that does not mean it is all correct. Though I am not so sure he has a personal bias towards the Lannisters. More like what he has read has been favorably biased towards them. He does not know the Lannisters, what he does know are the letters that Maester Pycelle sent to the Citadel. Now of course Pycelle has a bias towards the Lannisters particularly Tywin. I don't think he is telling the history he wants people to believe rather he is just telling the history he believes. He is taking what he has learned and putting it to paper but that does not mean what he has learned is correct. He does not know if it is correct he believes it is, and in some cases he does not know at all.Like Pycelle saying Tywin would never eat from another mans plate. I am sure he believes that, and it would seem in character for Tywin' public persona. But as the reader we know old Tywin took that Shea pie off his sons plate and jumped in face first "num num num num left overs." It is really a depraved act. Why he did it is really up to speculation. But that is information Yandel does not have.Unfortunately you are right he is not a very good historian, and writes a lot of conjecture, he applies supposition, at times he attempts to guide the narrative and does not appear to have written anything himself. Rather he has taken the works of others and applied his opinion and personal beliefs to it from the teachings, scrolls and books of the Citadel. Of course there are reasons the authors did that.Though given the author is saying the book is canon there actually are no Others, Children of the forest, Wargs, Giants, Dire Wolves or magic. This is now confirmed :) And I for one am glad, I was worried the Others might be a problem, turns out they are not real phew! Now Jon can focus on not being dead. Also he can't be an UnJon because the undead do not exist.Ok so I guess it is not canon but rather conjecture and applied supposition. So it's a sort of abridged history book based off conjecture and applied supposition, given by an in world character using 3rd person unreliable narration... I think. Oh and it has lots of nice illustrations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ibbison from Ibben Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 So I don't really see it as exceedingly pro-Baratheon. Or at least not as much as you would expect. They are decent enough men who get caught up in events and not much more. One example I should have given was the story about how Orys Baratheon fought Argilac the Arrogant. Yet still Argilac continued to battle. When Orys Baratheon came down the muddy hill with his own men, he found the old king holding off half a dozen men, with as many corpses at his feet. "Stand aside," Baratheon commanded. He dismounted so as to meet the king on equal footing, and offered the Storm King one last chance to yield. ...... Very flattering to Orys, if it indeed happened that way. No alternative version is related. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragon Roast Posted November 1, 2014 Share Posted November 1, 2014 Maester Yandel is a really terrible historian, but that doesn't exactly make this a non canon source... This seems right to me. Yandel strikes me as a bit of a lick-spittle. I assume that he is quite fond of Maester Pycelle (perhaps he'll even be his replacement). His reliance on Pycelle as the prime source (and more often than not only source) for so much of his recent history makes it clear that his later work is more propaganda than history. This is a work started for Robert (crossed out), revised for Joffery (crossed out) and finally for Tommen. I'm sure there were some last minute edits influenced by Tywin and Pycelle. I wouldn't be surprised if the suggestion that the King/kin slayer Tyrion was the son of the Mad King turned out to be one of those edits. I read it as thinking that anything thing or source Yandel discounted was likely true or accurate. It seems that Mushroom may be a source as factual as Old Nan. Even as a bad historian, Yandel is likely 80% accurate about dates and his thumbnail sketch of Weteros/Essos history. The fun now is to speculate where he was right and where he was wrong. When it comes to his information about the mysteries in the ASOIAF books, I think Yandel may be wrong 50-60% of the time. Anybody who would turn to him for wise counsel is doomed. Poor Tommen... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanTheBold Posted November 1, 2014 Share Posted November 1, 2014 This seems right to me. Yandel strikes me as a bit of a lick-spittle. I assume that he is quite fond of Maester Pycelle (perhaps he'll even be his replacement). His reliance on Pycelle as the prime source (and more often than not only source) for so much of his recent history makes it clear that his later work is more propaganda than history. This is a work started for Robert (crossed out), revised for Joffery (crossed out) and finally for Tommen. I'm sure there were some last minute edits influenced by Tywin and Pycelle. I wouldn't be surprised if the suggestion that the King/kin slayer Tyrion was the son of the Mad King turned out to be one of those edits. I read it as thinking that anything thing or source Yandel discounted was likely true or accurate. It seems that Mushroom may be a source as factual as Old Nan. Even as a bad historian, Yandel is likely 80% accurate about dates and his thumbnail sketch of Weteros/Essos history. The fun now is to speculate where he was right and where he was wrong. When it comes to his information about the mysteries in the ASOIAF books, I think Yandel may be wrong 50-60% of the time. Anybody who would turn to him for wise counsel is doomed. Poor Tommen... you really think george would publish a book that's half wrong about anything. also I don't think Yandle is a bad historian he does what he's supposed to do read written accounts measure them agains others and use a little common sense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragon Roast Posted November 1, 2014 Share Posted November 1, 2014 you really think george would publish a book that's half wrong about anything. In the voice of Yandal, he would. After all, Yandal is just anther character presenting his understand of the history that a new young King should know. It is a slice and relies on Yandal's biases and the biases/errors of his sources. We know from the ASOIAF books that Yandal is 100% wrong about many things. We also from the books that he is 100% right about a few things.Much and more that he wrote would fall somewhere in between. I'm glad that GRRM, along with his co-authors, came up with this clever device to provide us with more clues, details and hints while not giving up any spoilers for the coming books. Yandal reads like so many "official" and yet, unreliable historians of our real world. Of course George would would have a hand in publishing a book where a character like Yandal would be half and/or completely wrong about some things and right about others. I think this helps to build the world as more real and the books more enjoyable.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mithras Posted November 1, 2014 Share Posted November 1, 2014 What Yandel tells of greenseers are obviously proved to be wrong by Bran. So, that is a clue about which part of Yandel's book you should take as real and which part you should dismiss. Septon Barth seems remarkably accurate about everything he said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ibbison from Ibben Posted November 1, 2014 Share Posted November 1, 2014 I think Yandel is a typical maester. The errors he makes, the prejudices he shows are part of the corporate mindset of the Citadel. If he had a chance to write history, Luwin might be just as dismissive of Barth, just as dubious about magic and legends. (Although he would have treated Aerys II's reign differently.) A history by Marwyn, on the other hand, would be quite different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.