Here's a super overdone and oftentimes overthought topic - the canonicity of Michael Kirkbride's current works, but I've never discussed it on here and I'd like to.

For those of you that aren't aware of who MK is or what he's doing now, MK was a leading lore writer, concept artist and dialogue writer for Bethesda during Morrowind. He also helped out quite a bit with Knights of the Nine. MK is responsible for some of the most lore heavy and metaphysical topics, books, and dialogue in the Elder Scrolls series of games. After Morrowind, MK left Bethesda for unknown reasons, but continued writing Elder Scrolls metaphysical works after he left. Up until Oblivion, most, if not all of his works could be 100% considered canon or potentially canon. But, when Oblivion came out he and Lady Nerevar started writing joint works that some questioned the canonicity of due to partial or complete in-game conflicts. Then Knights of the Nine was in dev and MK was brought into the project where he helped with lore writing. In addition, he wrote the Mysterium Xarxes Commentaries, which is also a great lore document. After KN, MK left Bethesda again where he continued to write. MK was responsible for quite a few works after KN, and quite a few ideas that Bethesda used in Skyrim and its DLC, the most notable of which being the Thalmor (which was also used the Elder Scrolls Novel books). In addition to that, MK's work was also referenced several times during Skyrim by NPCs like Heimskr, Paarthurnax, and a few others.

Now you might be saying to yourself "Well, if all that is true, then his work must be canon." Well, there's another side to the story.

Michael Kirkbride wrote quite a few short stories, poems, etc that absolutely and completely contradict in-game lore, some of which was previously written by himself. A couple examples of this are Landfall, which contradicts Alduin's Wall, some of Almalexia/Vivec dialogue in Morrowind and the information given to us in Morrowind and Daggerfall about Aetherium and the Numidium by Sheogorath, Vivec, Dagoth Ur, and others, both in dialogue and books. C0DA is another example of this, as it actual contradicts the Book of Hours, which are a series of books in Morrowind written by MK. The 36 Lessons of Vivec was, admittedly, quite general in nature, so, obviously, it by itself doesn't contradict MK's works, but the way its ideas were explained in later games does contradict his books, based off of Oblivion and Skyrim books, Greybeard dialogue and Septimus Signus' dialogue.

So, is Michael Kirkbride's work canon? Honestly, I don't know. Zaric Zhakaron made a video called Canon vs C0DA on the subject, and I think he really hit the nail on the head. Some of MK's work was used by Bethesda because it is all their intellectual property, but just because some of his work is in the game doesn't make his ever-expanding inter-dimensional universe canon, and just because some of his works are not canonical doesn't mean that they are bad ideas or that Bethesda won't continue to use them later in the series.

What do y'all think about it all? I'd absolutely love to hear your opinions on the matter. Also, please, no flame wars, this is just a civilized discussion.

As https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T_zero once said, http://tamriel-rebuilt.org/about/about-our-lore.

Food for thought, I suppose...

It's about the lore in the games, and possibly the books. Personally, if it's not officially released, read in-game, I don't consider it canon.

You hold the belief of many, which I personally think is backed much better than "Kirkbride used to work for Bethesda, therefore his work is canon."

c0da is a canon all it's own.


People say it isn't, but it began as such.

Nothing is canon, everything is possible.

The problem of canonicity is that it assumes a correct and omnipotent perspective. Most books in TES lore are at pains to point out that they are written from an in-game perspective, which may or may not have all the right information. So works contradicting each other is fine.

The basic question for me is, does acknowledging his works enhance the experience of the game world, whatever that world is? For some, the world is just what's in the games. For others, it's a broader collection of works that contribute to their understanding of The Elder Scrolls universe. Both are valid.

I personally enjoy the metaphysical extrapolation and wrangling that comes from trying to produce answers in spite of the contradictions, and the more sources that sort of thing has the better; true or not doesn't matter, it's the journey and the understanding that are important.

From the perspective of Vivec, an omnipotent person, or Signus, one who has extensively studied those who have either achieved CHIM or those who sought ascension, or from the words of one who has extensive knowledge on the Divines, Daedric Princes, and the Elder Scrolls themselves like Martin Septim, some works are incorrect. I guess we can always say that MK's books that defy in-game lore are all misinterpretations made by Indoril scholars or something of the like.

This exactly. The books are all in-universe works with biases, agendas, and varying amounts of solid information. They often contradict each other but that does not mean they negate each other, much the same way that real-world historical texts may contradict each other without simply rendering the information in them invalid.

I personally enjoy the contradictions and trying to sort fact from fiction. Would we still be having the occasional discussion about what really happened at Red Mountain if the facts were just given to us? Vivec is a much referenced character on this forum and is a major source of exposition in the series through his books and first-hand encounters and is a primary source of information on things like CHIM. He's also probably lying at least half the time. Trying to divine the truth from what he says is a lot of fun for me. I basically got into the lore because I realized that some of the things in TES3 didn't add up and wanted to figure out what was really going on.

As to whether MK's out-of-game works are canon or not, I do not think they are canon per se. However, once included or even just referenced, I consider them canon. Either way, I think they provide a lot of insight as to what could be happening, and, since they do occasionally make it in in some form, they're worth paying attention to. People started talking about the possible importance and status of the various Towers before they were actually referenced in-game, for instance.

its sort of a grey area.. what he says is neither automatically or automatically-not canon..



although it seems what he writes still carries some weight even though he isn't on the team anymore, as ESO presents things anyways.. but that does not mean everything he writes is canon, they sorta pick and choose

Canonicity occupies a funny spot in The Elder Scrolls. So much is up to interpretation, and some things you can just flat out reject if you wish. But the ambiguity is a core part of the series. The aforementioned Battle of Red Mountain is one of the best examples.

And MK's stuff isn't much different in this respect, but it occupies an even grayer area. A lot of stuff in the games you still can't say didn't happen. The Nerevarine defeated Dagoth Ur. The Dragonborn defeated Alduin. Those are just a few examples. You can't really refute them. MK's out-of-game lore, on the other hand, you can for the most part choose to incorporate (or not) into your beliefs. Personally, I have mixed feelings about his stuff.

-Some out of his out-of-game stuff I very much enjoy, like the Magna-Ge Pantheon. Regarding that one in particular, we don't get much info on the Magna-Ge elsewhere, so having more info on them is cool.

-Some of it is okay to me, like Tiber Septim's Sword-Meeting with Cyrus the Restless. I absolutely love Cyrus's character (haven't beaten Redguard yet, but I know the story). Cyrus reminds me of Rick from Casablanca, one of my all-time favorite movies. So more stories about him are undoubtedly positive for me, right? Well, fighting with Tiber Septim is...a little too weird for me. Still, it is Cyrus and I don't think the story is terrible, so I don't outright dislike it or hate it. Oddly enough, I actually enjoyed the other Sword-Meeting story, where Cyrus fights Vivec.

-And then there are some that I just flat out am not a fan of at all. KINMUNE and C0da fall into this category for me.

It is annoying when fans look down upon those who don't subscribe to MK's lore, and while I hear them more often I certainly am not a fan of anytime someone does the exact opposite and denigrates them for liking MK's stuff. People should enjoy it if they want and even incorporate it into their headcanon if they desire. Personally, I'd rather not hear it be called "canon" and I don't think it should be considered so, but that does not mean that it is automatically false.

It's not an important topic.

There is an omnipotent perspective: the witness.


Hence the quote in my op.

IIRC, Kirkbride is still in some level of contact with people still working there, and regardless as to whether or not his work is considered "canon", Bethesda still sometimes go out of their way to through in references to his stuff, or flat out referencing the man himself. In other words, they're aware of it, and do make nods toward it. That's rather telling in of itself. We're also assuming his material isn't already apart of a greater collaborative narrative that Bethesda is using as a basic guideline in the events of broader Tamriel. Given the rise of the Thalmor and them explicitly trying to curb Talos worship, that seems more and more likely.

I still think clinging to canon in a series where the idea of canon is about as solid as wet tissue paper is honestly kinda silly.

The thing that bugs me about MK's work (well, more of a niggle than a bug, but..) is that they come across as declarative truth. It's easy to look at the 36 Lessons and say "they were written by Vivec with an agenda to influence the people and/or prospective Nerevarine" and take that into account, but then you look at something like the Seven Fights or Kinmune, and there's no perspective to it. It's a story that comes from the aether with no indication of how it connects to the world. Who is telling these stories? How do they know it? Why are they being told? At that point they come across more like the codex entries in Dragon Age or Mass Effect, messages from developer to player to give information about things, just with more flowery language, rather than in-world texts by in-world authors to your in-world character(s).

It's canon if you want it to be, noncanon if you don't like it, his rabid fans are the worse thing in the internet since a certain website (Which is censored? Weird) Personally I simply don't like the majority of his stuff.

Huleed: for Kinmune, maybe, but the context for the Aldudaggas is right there in their introduction:


"Editor's note: The following excerpts come from their lengthier versions in The Aldudaggavelashadingas, or "The Songs of Dragon and Dagon"; they are shortened here, as is the title of their parent volume. The songs herein are attributed to Bretonordic skalds of unknown number."


Conjoined Planes: your OP has some serious timeline issues, in regards to myself in particular. People have been questioning MK's relationship to TES since the 90s. We didn't write anything together till after Skyrim.


As for the question at hand. I don't think that there is a single Tamriel. There can't be, not when so many people have contributed to to it over so many years and so many pieces of media. Sometimes the Tamriels are close together, other times they are far apart, other times still they borrow only only select names and concepts from each other. Just because a given text doesn't show up in game doesn't mean it doesn't influence or examine the game in some fashion, nor does it prevent a fan (including a developer) from being influenced by it. Plus, when we're talking about texts penned by current or former developers, there is no knowing if the text is based on something that that is already planned and written by Bethesda that just hasn't been revealed formally yet.


I must also point out, as I always try to, that MK is hardly the only developer to post out-of-game media.


[Edited to add: the games contradict themselves and each other nearly as much as as they don't. Making that a part of the canon checklist would knock out half of what we think we know about TES.]

You're right about KINMUNE, and that's c0da's unforgivable sin. We see declarative truth amok in MK's worst writings (the Arcturian Heresy comes to mind.)

Monkeytruth strove for authenticity, c0da pompously declares "there is no canon."

That is how I feel about a lot of the works too. MK sometimes comes across as pretentious too, and tries to be deep for the sake for being deep. To be fair though, Lady Nerevar is right that some of the works do provide context. But KINMUNE doesn't, for example. And in general, his works feel like they are saying "this is irrefutable truth" even if they have some context.

Interestingly enough, I believe in an AMA that MK said the Arcturian Heresy was the work he regrets writing the most, or something to that effect.

MK has been a very important part of this series, and he deserves a lot of credit. His contributions should not be downplayed. I just can't stand his out-of-game works being regarded as infallible, especially with c0da. And I also can't stand when he is treated as basically the only person who contributed anything to the lore of TES. That being said, it is neat that there is stuff out there for a lot of fans to enjoy and choose to "believe" if they want or not, as long as they don't shove their opinions down others' throats.

Rader, its good to see you in the Lore Forum.


I think we the lore nerds need to distinguish the canons, for the sake growing our community. Monkeytruth is very different from the c0daverse, which is different from the mainstream canon of the series, and the fullness of ESO hasn't even been realized. If we're not careful to explain that c0da is an alternate can0n, we haven't helped anybody and only isolate ourselves further.


We've already lost a great deal of the community to the Amaranth fiasco, because nobody properly understood the Loveletter is about an event that never happens in the mainstream canon. Its a possibility: an invitation to explore the ramifications of Thalmor victory. It's concepts don't belong to the games, but are an alternate framework, and the view is subjective to the omnipotent witness.

Personally, I don't think there is any problem with the MK lore unless it flys directly in the face of established lore. Otherwise, to me it seems like a logical extension of the lore. Just like anything we do here, only with a great deal more time and thought dedicated to it most likely. And given the fact that there is a greater chance of those writings (that don't cause too much of a disruption to what has already been included in-game) being included than what we say her, its only fair to at least give his writing some weight when discussing lore.

Useful until proven that it isn't is kind of what I am saying.

Hail, Bactrian.

I think distinguishing the canons would be useful. But while I wouldn't consider a bunch of MK's stuff canon personally, I don't think we should outright say that it is non-canon either. Most lore, in-game and out-of-game, is up to the player's/reader's beliefs. Most of us take it for granted that TES canon is a gray area; but there may be a lot of people that don't grasp how canon in TES works in a general sense so I think that is an important part in helping people understand the lore to explain that as well. And people understanding each other's tastes are different would help too.

I am not sure if I explained myself that well. But if you love MK's stuff, go for it. If not, you don't have to. There is room for all sorts of viewpoints in the TES community.

Rader,

Although I absolutely agree with the notion that most of the history of Tamriel is quite subjective, a lot of superphysical things he says, like that of Landfall, can simply not be considered canon. Some superphysical things he says, like the idea of mantling and his creation story, are probably not correct as most in-game sources either outright oppose him or contradict a large part of it. The same applies to a lot of his metaphysical ideas, like C0DA.

This does not mean that his works are worthless or can't exist as opinions or ideas in the universe - they're just probably not the correct one. In fact, I might say that MK's work is beyond that of headcanon, and is rather a religion or ideological belief system with heavy Dunmeri undertones, developed to an almost cultlike extent, both in and out of game.

Could you please explain what contradicts mantling and "his creation story" (which one? He's the author of most of them).

I am quite glad you are here, Lady Nerevar. I've been dying to converse with you outside of the IL for a while due to your status as a loremaster.

Onto the subject, mantling never happens in TES. The Shezzarines don't replace Lorkahn, as he's still Shor in Sovnguard, the Tribunal don't become the Velothi gods, and Sheogorath willingly gives his title up the Hero of Kvatch.

How is it that the very nature of the Void (nothing, Sithis [is described as being the Void by his Dark Brotherhood worshippers and Hist worshippers]) birthed AE, but then was birthed by Padomay (Chaos) in the next step? Or that somehow an et'Ada could be the incarnate of Anu (order itself)?

Couple things: mantling happens where there is a mutual transaction between the "divine" and human. Let's say you've got a certain impressive tune. So impressive, the gods can't help but dance to it. http://youtu.be/UVrwzjtBHq0You don't just start the craze, nor do you mimick the gods, you actually dance the best. You're mantling. This happens in Shivering Isles. Instead of a tune, you bring mortality. Instead of a rave, you start a war. Instead of applause, you win freedom - freedom to become a god.


The other thing, Shor's not in Sovngarde. His Hall is, but his throne's empty.