Ok, I'm wondering why most people consider the "Obscure Texts" section of The imperial Library a good source of correct TES lore information. I see a lot of posts in this forum have quotes from there. Why? Its not official or anything. When people make a topic about a lore question on here and somebody answers with quotes from Obscure Texts their seemingly automatically right. I just don't get that, how is something unofficial considered canon and lore correct. So do you think it a reliable source or not? Please explain your answer.

The obscure texts aren't fan-made works. They're written by some well-respected devs, both past and present.

They are generally regarded as good sources, however they're far from 'word of god' pieces (and indeed none of them have ever been written as such). Of course if you don't like one, you can always pretend it never happened, but you could do that with anything I suppose.

TES lore has always been something greater than just the games for me. It's the world that fascinates me and the Obscure Texts are a means to extend and build this world though other media than the games. Actually, I think that some of the Obscure Texts transport the "world" to the reader far better than the games. In that regard, yes, they are a good source of lore information.
However, I do have troubles with the wording of your question considering "correct" and "reliable" lore information. The problem with that is - they're in-character, as are the books in the games - and so there can be wrong, biased or altered information in it, depending on the ingame author and his/her knowledge and intention. However, if you ask me whether they are valid sources of lore for (your/our) consideration, then, yes they are.

I think - yes. Several reasons:

The people who wrote the books and created the lore kept many of the premises of the same implicit so we could take pleasure in pondering on them and discovering them ourselves. We as fans only occasionally come to know these premises in their explicit truth, and so we cannot build lore upon them the way the writers can, even if the pieces of lore in question are never "published " (in games and now also in RL books, so help us Julianos). In the extreme, a writer knows the whole story but has only shown some odd bits, and while we may try to reconstruct the truth/essence/point (and we indeed enjoy this effort and they know it), only the writer really knows it, and can enhance and prolong our lorgisms by showing us more peaces, little at a time.

Those same writers may have insight into the future events that the fandom lacks. Knowing, for instance, in which province the next game will happen, or whether the Empire falls now or much later, they can write stories that will have minimal conflicts with the future lore.

There is also the fact that some of the obscure texts remain obscure only until the next installment of TES, when they ascend into being official by making an appearance as in-world books. So the texts in question have the potential of becoming official, which "ordinary" fan fiction lacks altogether.

Last, but not least, some of the obscure texts were made obscure by limitations of media, and would otherwise be quite completely official - the Imperial Census of Daedra Lords is a well known example.

Nalion: the whole body of TES history and lore is built around the concept of unreliability, so these attributes do not set the obscure from the official texts apart, much on the contrary. Along the same lines, official lore has been overridden by new installments on a regular basis, so the fact that the same may happen to obscure texts is again not something that makes them any less lore-reliable.

I was actually commenting on the whole premise of "reliability" (of information) and was not comparing the reliability of obscure texts or ingame texts. So I basically just said what you said.

Todd said anything not in the games is not canon. Ignore Todd.

It's what you make of it, as some have already said here. I personally, take some of the pre-Morrowind release stuff pretty seriously because it ties in with its plot pretty handily. I also like MK's Nuhatta character as he ties together disparate concepts from all of the games into a neat little bow. However, I more or less completely dismiss the Seven Fights of the Aldudagga.

One could accuse me of having a very elven outlook on the TES world, and until something ingame comes along, they'd be right.

Yes. I must have misread something. Apologies.

I treat them as true sources, just as I deny Star Wars' newest Trilogy is authentic Star Wars, because I have a liscense to imagine, just as you. So when alot of us come together, we need a consensus.

This is why I love TES Lore. Every document is biased. Each is written with adifferent point of view. Look at the 1st Pocket Guide, it contained many falsehoods.
In response top the OP, though, I take them as being reliable. And if they are not then you can still enjoy them.

This may create some controversy, but I do not accept them as canon. They are never backed up in the games, and many of them are clearly intended as jokes, which clash with the otherwise-serious TES world (where the only jokes are from in-universe writing, not having actually happened). Accepting these writings as canon would bring in too many anachronisms and stretch the suspension of disbelief - as much as I like Sheogorath's poetry, the use of the modern slang word "svck" in a psuedo-medieval European setting is unacceptable and out of character for Sheogorath at that. So at least in my fanon world these writings were created only to amuse the fans and are not TES canon.

Besides, if the devs all jumped off a cliff, would you do it?

My friends,

I have a couple of things to add regarding the instant query. First, there have been times that official in-game elements would never be understood without an understanding of the Obscure Texts. Allow me to present but one example.

The Obscure Text known as "http://www.imperial-library.info/obscure_text/sporedream.shtml" was disseminated to lore fans well prior to the release of the TES IV expansion pack, Knights of The Nine. Take a moment to read this extremely important, however long, sentence:

"That all the Interplay is one flea of assertion on a wolf of naught, and that every experience (that is, everything) born from that primal wail would cascade unto the echo-need of hologram, each slice the same except for scale, and all the magic that would need to spring forth just to hold it together at living, divine cross-purpose, support struts made from the need to exist (axial, along its two-headed fighting rays, each refusing their origin point, that is, Tower), terrestons versus chronocules, and in the end (an end that ever refuses to hold) it all becomes a lobotomized (for what is not lobal if not the dracochoreography made flesh?), reptilian (coiled), and massive map-god (holding a compass, holding a timepiece), drooling (the water from which we dragged ourselves out of to say, mirror-like, autochthonic, automatic, "WE ARE, TOO") on his countless knees, dementia given dimension, dimension dementia..."

That sentence has been used many times as further argument for Akatosh and Lorkhan being one entity. But why bring it up? Because that notion is addressed by the Prophet of Anvil in Knights of The Nine when he states "'There are loremasters among you, heads so heavy with learning that you cannot raise your eyes to the heavens to see the truth there written! ... That all the Interplay is one flea of assertion on a wolf of naught.' It is by these heresies that you fall from grace! ... Al-Esh...is the mother to us all. The Queen of Stars asks you: where is her issue? Where are the men who can walk in her steps? In whose blood has the dragon taken purchase? Alessia! Reman! Talos! They cry for blood akin to theirs to rekindle the dragonpact! You pore over your dusty tomes of lore. You study ancient genealogies and bloodlines. Look you to blood for truth? There is truth in blood, but it is not the truth that you seek! And Talos said to the Arctus, "Let us join as one to fortify this throne, this land, these people, each one glorious under heaven!" Would you not do the same ... The Eight And One require a champion, a Divine Crusader reborn." (http://www.imperial-library.info/tsoo/kotn01a.shtml)

What we find in these statements are nuggets of wisdom that ultimately stem from the Obscure Texts section. We learn that everyone in Tamriel is a piece of Akatosh, and it is through a person's DEEDS, and not via actual sanguine affiliation, that one attains the "Dragonblood" needed to ascend to the proper status to make changes, whether through hero or Emperor. Without the Obscure Texts we would not truly understand why Pelinal's chest sang "like a mindless dragon" unless we had read the "'et'Ada" text describing why Akatosh went insane.

I hope this helps, for I remain...


Yours in the Scrolls,


___The Word Merchant of Julianos

Sheogorath's poetry isn't in the Obscure Texts section, though.

Also, unless you still frequently use the verb "to wend" and spontaneously know the meaning of the noun "rede", basing your use of vocabulary on a 'pseudo-medieval European setting' is more of an anachronism than anything.

Thanks to everyone that replied. :foodndrink:

I agree with that, because the games are the only true canon, same with everything in them. I'm not saying that the only truth about lore is in the game, what I mean is that the game is the only thing that is absolutely certain, we know there is a book series titled "The Real Barenziah" that contains the text that we can read in the game, that's the only true canon in my opinion, any INFORMATION from that series is NOT canon, as some in-world person has written it, and noonke knows how or why, the only way it could be canon would be you to experience it in the game. I think that there is no true canon in TES beside what's in the games, we KNOW that the nerevarine defeated dagoth ur, if a book in the game told you about it, the only canon in that book would be the letter assortment. Obscure texts are special, most of them take form as in-world accounts and stories, and because they are not in the game, they are not canon.
Canon is word of god statements, anything related to TES is NOT word of god, so the only true things in TES are what we have seen in the games, like that vvardenfell is an island, and that the champion of cyrodiil saved kvatch.
I take an obscure text as an example(Vivec's Sword-Meeting with Cyrus the Restless)
As an obscure text, it does exist in some form, MK says it has happened and tells about it, so it does exist, and is a lore referencee, but not canon in any way.
If it was in a game, we would know that that story really does exist, maybe who wrote it/told it, and what the story is, that's the canon, because it's in a game, we KNOW it exists.
It would only be true canon if you experienced it in a game.
What I mean is that Todd talks about canon, not lore, the only flawlessly proven things are those that are in the games, not stories or truths, but the existence of them, something outside of TES that is official is lore, but it's not canon in anyway because it isn't proven it even exists.

If the author of a book you like wrote something off the cuff to explain something about a character or event in his narrative, you'd have to take it as canon, wouldn't you? The story is their creation, and there's really no one more qualified to explain in greater detail certain aspects of their story. It's the same with the developers of TES and TES lore. The story of TES is more than what is found in the games, it's the collective creation and ideas of the devs who developed the story. It gets a bit more complicated when there are multiple authors (or devs, in this instance) especially when they disagree about things, but I think most of what appears in obscure texts is good enough and adds enough to the story to be taken as canon, even if it's an out-of-game source.

Several devs with a different opinion make it even better from where I'm sitting because that means that all thier stuff is subjective, and so all of it could be either wrong or right.

My answer is yes, for that reason. Just because the books haven't appeared in-game dosen't make them any less fun to read, or any less a part of this overarching set of fiction we call TES.

Yes.

Why?

Because half of the really deep crap in TES wouldn't make sense without help from the devs like MK and Tedders.

Yes, anything officially written by devs is reliable. Unless it was ment to be unreliable.

Canon extends to more than one type of entertainment. To me Elder Scrolls is more than just a video game.

The games themselves are not lore, they're just a partial window into what the world "would be". For a number of reasons, ranging from practicality to convenience and including aesthetics as well as market research, a lot of things that "should" be in the games if they were lore-accurate aren't there, and a lot of things that "shouldn't" be is there anyway. That's why you get threads where people ask "where are the fat people?" or "why are there sewer systems but not any toilet or gutter?"...

The obscure texts make sense in the world beyond the games.

I don't think you fully understood the argumentative tour de force that Turns-The-Page just pulled there.

Well met,

I must first ask for clarification. Are you equating "correct lore" with "canon lore"? If so, then the phrasing of the query is, in and of itself, self-answering, and therefore a logical fallicy. The Obscure Texts are obscure because they were not placed in the game itself. One cannot deny that only subjects actually included in the game(s) are what we call "official" or "canon". Thus, logic dictates that we conclude that the Obscure Texts are not "correct / canon".

If, however, you are equating "correct lore" with "accurate lore" (read: being based upon extensions of actual in-game lore elements), then I will answer, "yes, the Obscure Texts section is a good source for correct TES lore information."

We must also remember that many of the Obscure Texts were, in fact, submitted for game publication but left out for editing reasons. I cannot, however, put my finger on which of those were done so, at the moment. Nonetheless, reading those Obscure Texts would be like watching the "uncut" version of a movie.

To clarify, there is a wonderful story by MK entitled http://www.imperial-library.info/obscure_text/viveccyrus.shtml which deals with two of the most popular characters in the TES mythos, Vivec and Cyrus. Be that as it may, when one reads http://www.imperial-library.info/history/, which is a timeline prepared by the Librarians at http://www.imperial-library.info, neither those events nor any others encapsulated by the Obscure Texts writings, are recorded therein.

Why? Because the Obscure Texts are, as stated before, not "official".

I will conclude, however, upon the following statement: I, personally, am a huge fan of the Obscure Texts section and find those works to be extremely beneficial and helpful in one's understanding of the lore as a whole. Nonetheless, much as one cannot cite the annotations of a Supreme Court case irl and expect it to carry the weight of law (only the words in the case itself pack that punch), the Obscure Texts, however helpful they may be, could be contradicted by events in a later game, and it would be the Obscure Texts that are out of sync, not the game.

That being said, I take my leave. May JHUNAL illuminate your searches...


Yours in the Scrolls,


___The Word Merchant of Julianos

I read too fast through to get the joke :foodndrink: :thumbsup: But if it's a joke or not, it added to discussion with more than that Todd isn't canon.

Canon is what we make of it, as dear and deeply religious friend of mine would put it. Canon is the not only the word of the author, but includes his intentions and vision as another more literary inclined friend of mine would put it. Canon comes in many gradation, from George Lucas to fan fiction as yet another friend would put it.

So canon is a set of established rules, set by a body of people and often considered to be axiomatic within this body.

What is it that can be considered axiomatic here?

• Characters have a motivation.
  
• Authors have a motivation.
  
• Characters have a vision.
  
• Authors have a vision.
  
• There are multiple character in Tamriel.
  
• There are multiple authors working on the Elderscrolls.

But more importantly:

• Authors use characters to portray their visions.

And of course:

• Canon has no relation to factual accuracy.

So what matters here is not so much the the factual events or character motivations, but the various visions of Tamriel. They are what should be considered the real canon. No actually, not even the vision of Tamriel but the authors whole repertoire as it contains a way to look at things.
Now of course this also means that visions which do not derive from Bethesda but do provide an inspiring or enlightening vision can also be considered canon. Perhaps not in the scope of the series, but still in their own perspective. Something the concept of Monkey Truth depends on. And the other way around visions from within Bethesda that are particularly uninspiring should be ignored.

This then gets to the heart of the issue, canon eventually is an argument of taste. The scope of which any two people in a discussion should agree upon before setting out.

This may sound very self-evident and highly philosophical, but consider the alternative where canon dictated by a single person. Lore would lose the depth and richness of ideas as they're created by the interaction of different visions. It would take away just the thing that makes Lore interesting. Rather then discussing the real world philosophical concepts behind lore and their implications, there would be nothing left but try facts and wikipedia style notes for conflicting sources.

Seriously, get that [censored] out of the sandbox.

That's kind of contradicting, if that's canon, canon really is what we make of it, but I think that only is true for religion because there all stories should not be counted, only the moral of the stories and what the author wants to tell you with it, in world buiding, in most cases the point of the creation is not to bring out some kind of vision, instead that vision is part of the creation.
Also canon does mean something absolute, opinions and visions of people on the big meaning behind a fantasy world can not be absolute ever.