Board Thread:Lore Discussion/@comment-4705438-20140201123109/@comment-218.186.254.44-20140201131929

MK can be canon, but only if it is obvious that the piece that he wrote can be indirectly inferred from in game sources, much like how Sherlock Holmes deduces. Also, whatever MK wrote when part of beth is pretty much probably correct, as that is what the mythology was built on. Same applies for all writers. So, if the text is unsubstantiated, archive it and do not use it as evidence yet. If it is contradicted, flush it down the toilets. If it can be substantiated without making assumptions or logical leaps from in game observation, its correct and part of lore, even if not overtly confirmed. Remember, MK is now only a mere historian of TES lore, able only to conjecture from what he knows and observes, so he could be right, he could be wrong (I'd say on a 50/50 split)

Books in game can be considered mostly reliable unless its obvious that it is propaganda, contradictory of in game facts or obviously bigoted and biased. Also, the timeline of events in books is probably correct, although what happened might have been deviant. If multiple different books cite the same event, that event is probably true and accurate as far as things go, unless, of course, those books share the same author.