Consigliere Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 Does that make the New York Times canon if GRRM reviews it or approves it? Now you resort to utter nonsense. Is the NYT part of the asoiaf universe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Freypie Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 Canon (...) c : a sanctioned or accepted group or body of related works No sanctioning authority does not apply. Lol, you quoted it and missed the mark. Sanctioning authority is GRRM who gave greenlight. It's things he accepted to see published, about His world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeaselPie Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 Lol, you quoted it and missed the mark. Sanctioning authority is GRRM who gave greenlight. It's things he accepted to see published, about His world. I dunno. I think Ran said it best: "Pro tip: Yandel's fallibility increases greatly in regards to events from the reign of Aerys II forward." There are plenty of in-universe beliefs (Jon is Ned's bastard, Joff is Robert's true heir) that have been or may be proven wrong. I don't think it's a surprise to anyone that GRRM intentionally includes these in-universe beliefs that we need to question. Ran's given us an interesting time frame to think about which events are pure conjecture with no first-hand POV accounts, which POV accounts might contradict each other, etc. It's not a very long list of questionable events (in Aerys II, the YotFS, RR, End of the Dragons) that appear to be intentionally fallible. The published novels trump everything, including the World Book, placing some of the information it contains. technically, in Ran's semi-canon category for now since some claims may change. We just don't know which ones yet until GRRM publishes the rest of the series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Freypie Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 How do you consider Asoiaf main serie as canon then ?Asoiaf is based on PoV, recognized as potential unreliable narrators by GRRM, and most of them educated by the same kind of biased maesters as the ones who "wrote" Twoiaf.Then everything is "semi-canon" until proven otherwise (say several PoV describe the same event), and everything past the serie can only remain "semi-canon" forever. Anyway I think we just don't have the same definition of "canon", for me it doesn't mean "guaranteed true", but "here to be considered part of the overall narrative" (ie : you can take the hints they give about what really happened, as serious if they should be considered critically and interpreted ; as opposed as the hints you can find in say a fanfiction, or the show based on its own canon). . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferocious Veldt Roarer Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 As GRRM says, the published books are canon. George directly wrote substantial parts, provided the material -- one way or another -- for almost everything else, and reviewed all of it. He wrote it with Linda and I. It isn't "fan fiction", as George succinctly notes. That said, because of the approach we took -- a maester's work written "in-universe" -- there is an inherent fallibility that means that if something in ASoIaF comes to contradict a detail from TWoIaF (and I mean concretely contradict; if Tyrion thinks about how they say Asshai is said to be full of laughing children, that's as much hearsay as the maester writing of Asshai being completely without children) then one should assume ASoIaF is more correct because what's actually witnessed and shown in the books is obviously going to be more correct than a maester's third-hand account based on his learning, his apparent biases, and the accounts of others. Pro tip: Yandel's fallibility increases greatly in regards to events from the reign of Aerys II forward. I'd say his bias increases when he approaches modern history. His fallibility, OTOH, covers also, let's call them "Old Nan's stories": Yandel can say things like "Others, wights, giants, greenseers, wargs, skinchangers, and other monsters from children’s tales and legend". He writes BS concerning Tywin & family in order to brownnose, but he writes BS about things ancient and distant because he honestly doesn't know any better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinoiserie Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 I think all the published books are canon but I would not personally count SSM as canon due to death or an author and all that but other people seem to think they are canon so I guess I am fine with them. And that is separate issue anyway.But is there really a Lannister bias in the World Book? I rather think the Maesters have exercised self censorship in regards on the entire current regime. Robert basically pardoned Tywin killing the royal children so putting that in the World Book would look bad for him and the regime. In addition Pycelle has his biases and has provided info to the author Maester Yandel accordingly like not telling how he adviced King Aerys to open the gates to Tywin. Pycelle maybe has made Tywin look better as Hand but this is just a possiblity, the info about Tywin could be completely accurate. Personally I think the only way GRRM to make clear that the facts in the books are not accurate is confirm them in past book (like Elia) or upcoming book for plot relevant reasons, or make clear in the World Book that the facts might not be trusted like with Septon Barth (or whatever his name was).But I do not think this is same as a Lannister bias people keep refering to. Otherwise there would be Lannister praise for previous generations as well, Tytos would not be made look as horrible lord and there would not be rumors about Joanna and Aerys included. Aerys could have been made look worse king than he was (and we might learn this in a later book) but this would primally be benefit Robert and the regime not the Lannisters specifically. The book was originally dedicated to Robert after all. So there might be soen inaccurate info in the book due to lack of information available to the author and some bias in some areas but no the entire book is inaccurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeaselPie Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 How do you consider Asoiaf main serie as canon then ? Asoiaf is based on PoV, recognized as potential unreliable narrators by GRRM, and most of them educated by the same kind of biased maesters as the ones who "wrote" Twoiaf. Then everything is "semi-canon" until proven otherwise (say several PoV describe the same event), and everything past the serie can only remain "semi-canon" forever. Anyway I think we just don't have the same definition of "canon", for me it doesn't mean "guaranteed true", but "here to be considered part of the overall narrative" (ie : you can take the hints they give about what really happened, as serious if they should be considered critically and interpreted ; as opposed as the hints you can find in say a fanfiction, or the show based on its own canon). . When it's all said and done, the "canon" will read, i.e.: No one in Westeros knew the truth about Event X and many rumors were spread. But in TWoW, GRRM explains through the POV of Character Y that the events of Event X actually happened this way. As in: It's canon most of the realm believes Joff, Myrcella and Tommen are Robert's kids. But it's also canon that they aren't. shrug Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mithras Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 Count me as an outlier, one who read the books as fantasy but considers the world-building in the later portions of the book to be pretty much "filler," not breadcrumbs for an asoiaf Aesir/Vanir war. I already do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Humble Maester Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 When it's all said and done, the "canon" will read, i.e.: No one in Westeros knew the truth about Event X and many rumors were spread. But in TWoW, GRRM explains through the POV of Character Y that the events of Event X actually happened this way. As in: It's canon most of the realm believes Joff, Myrcella and Tommen are Robert's kids. But it's also canon that they aren't. shrug You don't seem to understand what canon means. Canon can be "false", canon can be raving lunacy. Canon is an accepted piece of some collection, the substance of that piece does not matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluetiger Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 I see that there are some people who won't be convinced even if GRRM personally tells them.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeaselPie Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 You don't seem to understand what canon means. Canon can be "false", canon can be raving lunacy. Canon is an accepted piece of some collection, the substance of that piece does not matter. You don't seem to understand that I understand. I already gave an example of of false information that's "canon." Maybe you missed it. It will always be canon that Yandel believes what he wrote, or that most people in universe believe Joff was Robert's true heir. Their belief is canon, and so are the published actual facts that contradict their beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeaselPie Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 I see that there are some people who won't be convinced even if GRRM personally tells them.... On the contrary, I'll be convinced of the actual facts, as separate from in-universe beliefs, when GRRM tells us in the published novels of the series. Though it would be cool if he tells me personally, can't deny that part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Humble Maester Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 You don't seem to understand that I understand. I already gave an example of of false information that's "canon." Maybe you missed it. It will always be canon that Yandel believes what he wrote, or that most people in universe believe Joff was Robert's true heir. Their belief is canon, and so are the published actual facts that contradict their beliefs. In that case, my apologies for my misunderstanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stateofdissipation Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 Lol, you quoted it and missed the mark. Sanctioning authority is GRRM who gave greenlight. It's things he accepted to see published, about His world. Did GRRM sanction aGoT through aDwD or did he write the books? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeaselPie Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 In that case, my apologies for my misunderstanding. no big deal, cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Freypie Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 Did GRRM sanction aGoT through aDwD or did he write the books? Both as far I know. Was it supposed incompatible ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stateofdissipation Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 Both as far I know. Was it supposed incompatible ? GRRM writing aGoT through aDwD makes them canon as they are authentic works of the author. GRRM sanctioning aGoT through aDwD makes them canon if they were not already authentic works of the author. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dames do Moan Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 I see that there are some people who won't be convinced even if GRRM personally tells them....If GRRM personally says something it is not considered canon. So like all the SSM's are not canon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluetiger Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 If GRRM personally says something it is not considered canon. So like all the SSM's are not canon. So, in your opinion to prove that TWOIAF is canon, GRRM has to write it in WoW ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dames do Moan Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 So, in your opinion to prove that TWOIAF is canon, GRRM has to write it in WoW ?Personally, I just go by what Ran says, they have way more knowledge then I'll ever have. So TWOIAF is canon. But Martin saying something is semi-canon, which to me is pretty much just as good as canon but "technically" isn't.I cropped the quote some so I included the link to the thread.http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/34958-the-asoiaf-wiki-thread/page-50#entry7065631In any case, details in that tree that do not contradict details from the canon (the novels, D&E, the world book) are semi-canon, just as anything else that is sourced from George but not yet published. ... If someone asked him today about it and he confirmed that she died at the tower of joy, it would still be semi-canon, as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.