I know that Mankar says a lot of things but what of the things he said where true?

Of course it's true!

To be brief: it's all lies and propaganda!

Hypothetically possible is as good as true as far as I'm convinced. This is Tamriel. It's never fully right to equate belief with truth, but in this case it would be unwise to disregard any of it as lies. Basically, what Mankar Camoran says is interesting and new (and is scattered with stuff on subjects such as Lyg and Mnemoli that are hard to find information on elsewhere) so you should dissect it and understand it even if you don't regard him as the sole authority on Tamrielic metaphysics. Fully comprehending Tamriel requires the ability to hold several conflicting points of view in mind at once, knowing full well that none of them will ever be confirmed fully true or false.

His speech in Paradise rings false to me - Tamriel isn't a Daedric realm. However some of the things he says in the Commentaries are worth considering.

I remember reading somewhere that his dialogue was unfinished, and therefore quite a lot is incorrect.

To sum it up, you are trying to give him the benefit of the doubt, especially in those cases where the lore is sparse.

The only problem with this is that we cannot separate his lies from the truth. Which means that if we use any of his statements to construct a theory we may very well end up building it on sand. Unless we can prove every statement by cross-referencing it with other lore, I'm not buying a single one. Especially in those cases where the lore is hazy and thus, with enough imagination, any lie can be incorporated into it.

The names of the realms are mixed up, but other than that it's solid. From Michael, who wrote the dialog:

Quite so. Except I'd say that the "lies" are worth considering true if the theories constructed upon them are good.

While it's perhaps just a different way of looking at things, I'd say that his books are well-written and fun, and so, until proven true or false (this will probably never happen) we should consider ALL of it true, not none of it. As for the stuff which directly conflicts with it? That can be true as well.

In Tamriel, the "facts" - as I see things - are not those things that can be proven true, but rather those things that somebody might believe. Factuality in this fictional world need not be a binary thing. And even if it is, you're going to be found wanting for irrefutable evidence most of the time.

That doesn't mean that you shouldn't bother backing stuff up with sources. On the contrary, it makes the sources more important, as you can't readily dismiss things by saying "the author is blatantly lying/mistaken". You have to consider what the implications of what he says are. Are those worth considering? Do they fit into Tamriel as you know it?

It is likely sensible to assume Mankar did indeed receive the Mysterium Xarxes from Dagon (we have no evidence otherwise). So, what does Dagon have to gain from each semi-possible statement in it? Why are these beliefs ones that he wishes propagated? This question is to me more important than the base "factuality" of the text.

Plus, it's all myth anyway.

Personally, I take most of his claims seriously except his belief that Nirn is a daedric realm. Lots of interesting stuff about the previous kalpa, ascension, mnemoli, and numantia in there.

1. Well, that's the problem, what can be considered "good" without additional proof?

2. His books are mostly there to serve as hints as where to find their base and to confuse the Oblivion out of anyone who reads it.

3. Even on Nirn facts are still facts. Even while beliefs can shape reality, they rarely manifest themselves on Mundus. Mostly because every change there is initially nullified by other people's beliefs. Only the overpowering belief of a god can overcome the mundane and significantly alter reality, like Tiber allegedly CHIM-ed away the jungle. Mankar can alter his own realm, but he is not powerful enough to change Mundus.

4. Tamriel has a lot of plot/lore-holes. But that doesn't mean that any theory can be used to plug them. Just because both a electric plug and scissors fit into an outlet doesn't mean you should go with the scissors. We can construct a lot of false theories based on his lies. However since I haven't seen any Mankar-based theories here on the forums shows that most people prefer to stick with less contradicting lore.

5. I still think Mankar could've altered it to suit his propaganda. Or it was Dagon's propaganda to begin with. Really, it reads like the writer was deliberately trying to confuse the reader. The most devious thing about that is that the more lore-versed the reader is, the more confused he would become. By forcing the reader to question everything the Mythic Dawn hoped to undermine his beliefs and gain control over him by filling those gaps with their dogma.

The nature of Elder Scrolls lore is, in my opinion, too subjective and interpretable for a unanimous consensus agreement on what was true and false.

Edit: My personal belief is that the vast majority is 'fact'.

Ah. Thank you. I'm going to have to go and replay oblivion's main quest and see what Mankar said again.

Also, Tamriel cannot be a daedric realm and Lorkhan cannot be its Prince because he's missing the main attribute of a daedroth, immortality. Additionally, everything we know about him points at his aedric origin.

http://uesp.net/wiki/Oblivion:Mankar_Camoran

For ease of access. :V

The main thing that gets to me isn't the obviously mistaken names of the realms, but rather his reasoning for Lorkhan being a daedroth. He claims that the Heart is alive, and thus Lorkhan is alive, but gives no reason for Lorkhan's absence from the world. The daedric lords usually take great pleasure in interfering with the mortal plane - even Nocturnal has ties to the Thieves' Guild and she's probably the most reclusive. So if Lorkhan were alive, why would he shy away from the world he created? What are the moons if not his dead body?

Mankar gives a reason in his speech. The Aedra betrayed Lorkhan and tried to erase him completely, but were unable to erase the Heart.

1. You cannot read the Xarxes' itself, only the commentaries. There, Camoran could've written everything, ranging from ramblings of a madman up to devious propaganda. I think it's something in between. He even confuses the names of daedric realms!

2. Don't forget, the Mythic dawn is a crack-head quasi-religious sect and its writings are on par with the best worst our world has to offer.

3. If Tamriel is indeed Lorkhan's deadric realm, what does this "Dagons birthright" http://uesp.net/wiki/Oblivion:Mankar_Camoran is speaking about mean? How can Mehrunes "liberate" Tamriel, if he's technically taking it from Lorkhan? The realms are inseparably tied with their princes. The answer here is, again, propaganda in the wake of an invasion.

A daedroth cannot be killed or erased. He can be banished to the waters of Oblivion, but even then, he would "reconstruct" and return after a while.

I never said Lorkhan was killed or erased. I said the Aedra failed to erase Lorkhan. They failed to erase his Heart, the most important part. But they still succeeded in erasing most of him.

Remember, the Prince and the Realm are equivalent. The Aedra betrayed Lorkhan and conquered his realm almost completely, reducing Lorkhan to nothing but his Heart. Dagon wants to liberate the realm and (presumably) bring Lorkhan back.

A daedroth has no "parts", except for his immortal Animus and the current shell. Even if the shell is destroyed, his complete Aniums is cast into the Waters of Oblivion. But he can always return from there and shape a new shell. It's the Aedra, which can be permanently sundered, that's how the mortal plane was constructed in the first place.

Dagon doesn't want to bring Lorkhan back, he is simply conquering Tamriel.

For all we know, Lorkhan could yet reconstruct himself. And how do you know that a Daedroth can't be split into parts? They can be transformed utterly, most people agree on that.

Consider this: does it matter of Lorkhan is Aedra or Daedra? Ultimately, what is the difference between Mundus and a Daedric Realm beyond the presence and interaction of the realm's Prince?

I'ma gonna have to disagree with you there. Supposedly Malacath's realm contains his actual spine, but that could just be Sheogorath talking crazy talk. But that doesn't make it wrong.

Everything. The Aedra represent "stasis", thus they, their creations and their realm is mortal. They can be split apart or even killed. Daedra represent change and everything they create is inseparable from them. They also cannot be killed and thus everything they create, too.

Well, I'm not going to believe Sheogorath on this one since crazy talk is his specialty.

Fair enough, but what about Daedra Hearts? If Dremora and Clanfears have hearts, it's not a stretch to say that the Princes do too.

Just out of interest, what gives you the idea that the Aedra can be killed? I'm not saying you're wrong, of course.

There's a theory out there that states the Aedra are already dead. I think SOMEONE was referring to that? Although if Tamriel were Lorkhan's realm it would be impossible to reinterpret the Monomyth as the Aedra's rise from the shadow of Lorkhan, either via subgradience or from the lesser daedra-Him stealing away bits of His power, although those two ideas are kind of the same thing?