User blog:Zippertrain85/Lore Arguments: My theory on them

Hello, after reading the recent Schism amongst some of the Wiki's more prominent lore theorists about the validity of CHIM, it made me begin to wonder, why is lore so heavily debated on this website and why are some users so emotionally invested in what is/isn't true, or what others users believe.

Now, I've had my fair share of unpopular opinions about lore for awhile. I've made blogs on it, made them well known to fellow Wiki users, etc. To be honest, I've gotten way more criticism and downright hostile attitudes than respect by a landslide. This can especially be said about blogs I made on the Vampires and Dawnguard, which for some reason always bring out the worst in most users. But why do they care so much? It's not just them, a lot of people on this Wiki seem very easily angered by questioning and different interpretations of "established" lore.

We should get one thing out of the way, TES Lore like Real life history is very complex, like in multiple different ways, historically, scientifically, etc. Anyone who claims to completely "know" everything about TES and have the whole Games figured out, are lying to themselves. I bet not even Michael Kirkbride knows all the answers, probably neither do fans that just researched most of it. What else needs to be considered is that the amount of lore that is measurable in dialogue, books, etc is extremely small. And usually isn't that big of stuff, the really large questions about TES, like CHIM, Lorkhan, the Daedra, Nirn etc. Are pretty much unknown to us, and all we can go on is some vague clues Michael Kirkbride gives or that may be found in game dialogue or books.

With all this known, we should be more humble with our knowledge and open minded. Considering most of this is basically just speculation, why can't alternative speculation he considered valid as well? Well, the basic answer for this question might be people's love for the Elder Scrolls series, they want to see lore as the best it can be, and sometimes "best" is a very subjective word and therefor conflicts arise from this.

I always liked the MK concept of C0DA for this reason, because it gave every person who thought what made "great lore" was something different, a way for them to enjoy TES. Kind of a bald move in my opinion but it works well for our very divided and sometimes aggressive fanbase, full of diverse ideas and opinions on the games. I do wonder though why, oh why do Kirkbride fans than take part in Lore Arguments? If the man they clearly believe is knowledgable and right (Michael Kirkbride) pretty much admitted that lore can be whatever the player wants, why is there even an argument anymore? Much less, for the people who claim to understand him so well? Am I the only one who finds this super hypocritical of them?

Please, Kirkbride fans, Anti-Kirkbride users explain to me why you get involved in Lore Arguments. I personally do sometimes for the same reason as I explained above, I thought TES lore would be best "my way" and I admit it was an arrogant position to take. But I have toned down on them, since I know other people disagree with that and they can make their C0DA however they want, and I can do the same for mine... but now I want to know why others users do the same thing?