Board Thread:Lore Discussion/@comment-9062114-20140217190926/@comment-16047389-20140220161155

I only accept MK's work as canon if it is actually referenced in the games, or acknoledged by Bethesda as canon. I do not think it is a blanket statement of "is MK's writings canon or not", that means that they are either accepted as a whole or denied as a whole. I've seen his work, and have seen plenty of reasons why Bethesda would accept some of it as canon and other parts as non-canon. I believe that labeling his work as either "completely canonical" or "completely non-canonical" is an enormous overgeneralization.