Existence of Guan Suo and Meng Huo

Join the Romance of the Three Kingdoms discussion with our resident Scholars. Topics relating to the novel and history are both welcome. Don't forget to check the Forum Rules before posting.
Kongming’s Archives: Romance of the Three Kingdoms
Three Kingdoms Officer Biographies
Three Kingdoms Officer Encyclopedia
Scholars of Shen Zhou Search Tool

Existence of Guan Suo and Meng Huo

Unread postby TheRealWolfman » Thu May 12, 2011 1:58 am

Hyper90 wrote:
TheRealWolfman wrote:How is the novel not historical? It's not really "romanticized" of the historic is it?

Did Guan Suo exist or no? I ask because of the Hus Guan Suo Zhuan.


the novel is 80% true history.

guan suo is a fictional character of the novel


What's the point making up people that didn't exist? I mean they found a whole journal on him in the 60s and that's a fake?
Semper Fi on the God Most High.
User avatar
TheRealWolfman
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 744
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2006 9:14 pm
Location: Somewhere over the irradiated rainbow.

Re: Three Kingdoms Questions (You Ask, We Answer)

Unread postby KingOfWei » Thu May 12, 2011 1:59 am

TheRealWolfman wrote:How is the novel not historical? It's not really "romanticized" of the historic is it?

Did Guan Suo exist or no? I ask because of the Hus Guan Suo Zhuan.



From my understanding, a lot was changed and added by LGZ for entertainment purposes. For example: Red Hare being owned by Guan Yu, Guan Yu killing Hua Xiong, Xiahou Dun eating his eye, etc.

EDIT: Don't quote me on the entertainment purposes reason. I was just guessing as to a possibility.
Last edited by KingOfWei on Thu May 12, 2011 2:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
I am the only one worthy enough to walk the realm of ambition!
User avatar
KingOfWei
Academic
 
Posts: 191
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2011 6:13 am

Re: Three Kingdoms Questions (You Ask, We Answer)

Unread postby KingOfWei » Thu May 12, 2011 2:01 am

TheRealWolfman wrote:
Hyper90 wrote:
TheRealWolfman wrote:How is the novel not historical? It's not really "romanticized" of the historic is it?

Did Guan Suo exist or no? I ask because of the Hus Guan Suo Zhuan.


the novel is 80% true history.

guan suo is a fictional character of the novel


What's the point making up people that didn't exist? I mean they found a whole journal on him in the 60s and that's a fake?


I do question that as well. Just because the book is titled "Legend of Guan Suo" doesn't mean it is completely fictional. Babe Ruth was a legend. Doesn't mean he didn't exist.
I am the only one worthy enough to walk the realm of ambition!
User avatar
KingOfWei
Academic
 
Posts: 191
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2011 6:13 am

Re: Three Kingdoms Questions (You Ask, We Answer)

Unread postby Qu Hui » Thu May 12, 2011 2:38 am

TheRealWolfman wrote:How is the novel not historical? It's not really "romanticized" of the historic is it?

The novel is said to be 'seven parts fact, three parts fiction.' Several events taken from folklore were added to make the novel more accessable to the common folk, who would know more folklore than official history.

KingOfWei wrote:I do question that as well. Just because the book is titled "Legend of Guan Suo" doesn't mean it is completely fictional. Babe Ruth was a legend. Doesn't mean he didn't exist.

Because Guan Suo was not recorded in any official history? Because that's using the word legend in an entirely different way?

TheRealWolfman wrote:What's the point making up people that didn't exist? I mean they found a whole journal on him in the 60s and that's a fake?

Well, in Hua Guansuo's case it was to both give Guan Yu a virtuous, noble son and to give people a connection between Shu in the past and the Shu of when Guansuo shows up. Or something like that.
My avatar is Roy from Fire Emblem: Binding Blade, as he appears in Fire Emblem: Awakening
Quote of the "Day": "The world always seems brighter when you've just made something that wasn't there before." -Neil Gaiman
User avatar
Qu Hui
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 1796
Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2006 3:34 pm
Location: #SoSZ, 24/7

Re: Three Kingdoms Questions (You Ask, We Answer)

Unread postby KingOfWei » Thu May 12, 2011 2:45 am

KingOfWei wrote:I do question that as well. Just because the book is titled "Legend of Guan Suo" doesn't mean it is completely fictional. Babe Ruth was a legend. Doesn't mean he didn't exist.

Because Guan Suo was not recorded in any official history? Because that's using the word legend in an entirely different way?

If there was writing about him, then I am sure there had to be some basis behind it. Or if Guan Suo was not real, then maybe he was based off of someone.

Also, I'm not using the word legend in a different way. The Legend of Babe Ruth and the Legend of Guan Suo. If Guan Suo was not real, then perhaps he was based off of someone like I said. I doubt he was just spawned from nothing for absolutely no purpose.
I am the only one worthy enough to walk the realm of ambition!
User avatar
KingOfWei
Academic
 
Posts: 191
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2011 6:13 am

Re: Three Kingdoms Questions (You Ask, We Answer)

Unread postby Qu Hui » Thu May 12, 2011 2:51 am

KingOfWei wrote:If there was writing about him, then I am sure there had to be some basis behind it. Or if Guan Suo was not real, then maybe he was based off of someone.

Not necessarily. All of the Nanman officers of the novel were made up, and there is no basis for them nor is it likely they were modeled after real people.

KingOfWei wrote:Also, I'm not using the word legend in a different way. The Legend of Babe Ruth and the Legend of Guan Suo. If Guan Suo was not real, then perhaps he was based off of someone like I said. I doubt he was just spawned from nothing for absolutely no purpose.

Please read my previous post about his purpose. Also, yes they are used in a different way; legend when applied to Babe Ruth means celebrity, while when applied by Guansuo it means fable or myth.

Also, please stop double posting. If you need to add something on to a post, use the edit button.
My avatar is Roy from Fire Emblem: Binding Blade, as he appears in Fire Emblem: Awakening
Quote of the "Day": "The world always seems brighter when you've just made something that wasn't there before." -Neil Gaiman
User avatar
Qu Hui
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 1796
Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2006 3:34 pm
Location: #SoSZ, 24/7

Re: Three Kingdoms Questions (You Ask, We Answer)

Unread postby KingOfWei » Thu May 12, 2011 3:02 am

Qu Hui wrote:
KingOfWei wrote:If there was writing about him, then I am sure there had to be some basis behind it. Or if Guan Suo was not real, then maybe he was based off of someone.

Not necessarily. All of the Nanman officers of the novel were made up, and there is no basis for them nor is it likely they were modeled after real people.


King Meng Huo was probably real or fake. No one knows 100% for sure. You can't make a claim simply because you assume it to be false.

From http://kongming.net/encyclopedia/King-Meng-Huo

Whether Meng Huo existed historically is a debated subject, though he does appear by name in Han Jin Chun Qiu and Hua Yang Guo Zhi, two sources cited by Pei Songzhi.

If Pei Songzhi cited these two sources, and King Meng Huo was in them, then there has to be a purpose for it. I doubt it was for imagination.

KingOfWei wrote:Also, I'm not using the word legend in a different way. The Legend of Babe Ruth and the Legend of Guan Suo. If Guan Suo was not real, then perhaps he was based off of someone like I said. I doubt he was just spawned from nothing for absolutely no purpose.
Qu Hui wrote:Please read my previous post about his purpose. Also, yes they are used in a different way; legend when applied to Babe Ruth means celebrity, while when applied by Guansuo it means fable or myth.


The thing is, I am trying to apply it as well as Guan Suo was a celebrity in a sense. The Legend of Guan Yu. He was a celebrity according to your definition. What if Guan Suo was based upon someone who was a celebrity back then as well? That his prowess in battle greatly impacted Shu's campaign against King Meng Huo? You can't completely exclude the possibility that he existed. Like I said, I doubt he was spawned from nothing for no purpose.

And if you want to say that he was created for that fact of giving Guan Yu a virtuous, noble son, he had that in Guan Ping. I don't think that was Guan Suo's purpose.
I am the only one worthy enough to walk the realm of ambition!
User avatar
KingOfWei
Academic
 
Posts: 191
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2011 6:13 am

Re: Three Kingdoms Questions (You Ask, We Answer)

Unread postby Qu Hui » Thu May 12, 2011 3:34 am

KingOfWei wrote:King Meng Huo was probably real or fake. No one knows 100% for sure. You can't make a claim simply because you assume it to be false.

But, since he possibly didn't exist, you can't rebuke me for saying that. That would be hypocrisy.

KingOfWei wrote:Whether Meng Huo existed historically is a debated subject, though he does appear by name in Han Jin Chun Qiu and Hua Yang Guo Zhi, two sources cited by Pei Songzhi.

If Pei Songzhi cited these two sources, and King Meng Huo was in them, then there has to be a purpose for it. I doubt it was for imagination.

You use the word purpose far too much. Anyway, Pei Songzhi having chose those sources is inconsequential, especially considering the fact that most historians-- such as Rafe de Crespingy and Sima Guang-- do not acknowledge the existence of Menghuo.

KingOfWei wrote:The thing is, I am trying to apply it as well as Guan Suo was a celebrity in a sense.

Um, that doesn't really work, especially since the Legend of Hua Guansuo is literally the name of the collection of folklore that relates to his life.

KingOfWei wrote:The Legend of Guan Yu. He was a celebrity according to your definition.

First of all, I think you mean the Legend of Hua Guansuo. Second, don't put words in my mouth.

KingOfWei wrote:What if Guan Suo was based upon someone who was a celebrity back then as well? That his prowess in battle greatly impacted Shu's campaign against King Meng Huo?

Except, you know, he wasn't. Few if any of the fictional characters in folklore/the novel were based on people. Plus there is little recorded about the Nanman campaigns, indicating that they weren't the extravaganza they were made out to be in the novel.

KingOfWei wrote:You can't completely exclude the possibility that he existed.

Um, yes I can. As I have said, he was not recorded in history at all. That's a pretty good way to exclude the possibility of his existence. The fact that his father was so influential in Shu and he wasn't recorded makes it even more clear that he didn't exist.

KingOfWei wrote:Like I said, I doubt he was spawned from nothing for no purpose.

Are you even reading my posts? I've already explained his purpose and why he was created. Just because it doesn't sync with what you believe doesn't mean you can ignore it.

KingOfWei wrote:And if you want to say that he was created for that fact of giving Guan Yu a virtuous, noble son, he had that in Guan Ping. I don't think that was Guan Suo's purpose.

No, not really. Guan Ping never served that purpose (and you can't really say he served a literary purpose because he was not created expressly for said reason; i.e., he was real).
My avatar is Roy from Fire Emblem: Binding Blade, as he appears in Fire Emblem: Awakening
Quote of the "Day": "The world always seems brighter when you've just made something that wasn't there before." -Neil Gaiman
User avatar
Qu Hui
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 1796
Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2006 3:34 pm
Location: #SoSZ, 24/7

Re: Three Kingdoms Questions (You Ask, We Answer)

Unread postby KingOfWei » Thu May 12, 2011 3:57 am

You are going on and on about how he doesn't exist and blah blah. I am getting nothing of actual relevance from what you are saying.

If Pei Songzhi speaks of Meng Huo, you try to say he doesn't exist with de Crespingy. Doesn't mean that his opinion completely removes Meng Huo from possibly existing.

I wasn't speaking of Guan Suo when I spoke of Guan Yu. Also, I am not putting words into your mouth. You are getting too defensive.

Again. "Except, you know, he wasn't." You can't definitively prove this. You are basis everything on what you solely believe.

Trying to say that he wasn't recorded in history at all, I can rebuttle that with Meng Huo. Just because Chen Shou didn't write of him, does that mean he doesn't exist? Pei Songzhi speaks about Meng Huo, and yet you try to say what he wrote is a lie with de Crespingy. You aren't making sense. There is some form of record of Guan Suo. Period.

I am not ignoring anything. You are just siding solely on what you believe is your opinion, not what could actually be truth yet you don't want to believe it.

Where is the evidence that states Guan Suo was created 100% exactly for said purpose you claim?

----------------------------

Is this going to lead into a flame war? I have no time for it. From the look of your defensive posts, it kind of looks like it.

Also, I am not saying anything that what you say is not true, but everything you say seems to only be coming from what you believe. And I don't follow people's opinions all too well. I like facts. If you believe Guan Suo didn't exist, that's fine, but records of him indicate that there was something, perhaps someone, who was Guan Suo. There was something. It may not be 100% true, but it's more than just assuming he doesn't exist because I believe he doesn't. It's a lead. Whether or not that lead is proven false in the end is a different story, but that lead is the only evidence and fact I have to go on right now.
I am the only one worthy enough to walk the realm of ambition!
User avatar
KingOfWei
Academic
 
Posts: 191
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2011 6:13 am

Re: Three Kingdoms Questions (You Ask, We Answer)

Unread postby Dong Zhou » Thu May 12, 2011 6:55 am

TheRealWolfman wrote:How is the novel not historical? It's not really "romanticized" of the historic is it?

Did Guan Suo exist or no? I ask because of the Hus Guan Suo Zhuan.


It is a novel, one written probably for entertainment and partly for propaganda that contradicts the SGZ in several places. Some people get shafted so others can be lord awesome of awesomeness, it takes a blatant side (Shu is awesome, Wei is evil) and yes it makes people up.

He didn't exist. Why did LGZ add him? Possibly people had made up Guan Suo before and LGZ liked to add popular tales to his work and to add to Guan Yu's legend any way he can.

What's the point making up people that didn't exist? I mean they found a whole journal on him in the 60s and that's a fake?


Diao Chan is one of the best characters of the novel and she is fictional. Most of the fake characters seem to be used to add to a person's legend like Guan Yu's (Zhou Cang, Guan Suo, Hu Ban) or to be a killing spree like the family of Han De.

I do question that as well. Just because the book is titled "Legend of Guan Suo" doesn't mean it is completely fictional. Babe Ruth was a legend. Doesn't mean he didn't exist.


True. That Guan Yu only had two sons and there is evidence whatsoever that Suo existed in any historical source however suggests Suo is fictional. Babe Ruth is recorded in history.

King Meng Huo was probably real or fake. No one knows 100% for sure. You can't make a claim simply because you assume it to be false.


He is mentioned in one line of a source. The credibility of that source is up for debate

You are going on and on about how he doesn't exist and blah blah. I am getting nothing of actual relevance from what you are saying.


So when told a fact, it is irrelevance? If you ask "Is the sky blue today" and someone answers "no", it isn't of relevance?

If Pei Songzhi speaks of Meng Huo, you try to say he doesn't exist with de Crespingy. Doesn't mean that his opinion completely removes Meng Huo from possibly existing.


True. The difference being between Meng and Suo is one is mentioned in the history texts, granted a dubious annotation, and the other is only mentioned in folklore. Folklore is not considered a historical source,


Again. "Except, you know, he wasn't." You can't definitively prove this. You are basis everything on what you solely believe.


Ok.

Did you hear about Guan Yu slaughtering puppies until Cao Cao rode a pink T-Rex named Fluffy to save the day? Cao Cao's reward was a hot hot night with Liu Bei and the jade statue.

Now there is nothing in the history books that says that is true, unlike Meng Huo existing, but what I just said has as much historical validity as Guan Suo. Nobody can technically disapprove my tale so ergo it is true? What if I then added then Cao Cao was green and had a blue beard? Nothing in history contradicts it after all. So we now know that Guan Yu killed puppies and there was a pink T-Rex named Fluffy in the 3 kingdom era :wink: Heck there is some evidence that Cao Cao was bisexual and Liu Bei loved a jade statue just like we know Shu fought the Nanman.

Trying to say that he wasn't recorded in history at all, I can rebuttle that with Meng Huo. Just because Chen Shou didn't write of him, does that mean he doesn't exist? Pei Songzhi speaks about Meng Huo, and yet you try to say what he wrote is a lie with de Crespingy. You aren't making sense. There is some form of record of Guan Suo. Period.


So my tale about Fluffy has some validity as Pei Songzhi's work? Awesome. Can we have a Fluffy t-shirt?

Where is the evidence that states Guan Suo was created 100% exactly for said purpose you claim?


There isn't, quite what started the tale of Guan Suo is open for debate but we can make a guess based on the tales and human nature.

Is this going to lead into a flame war? I have no time for it. From the look of your defensive posts, it kind of looks like it.


Qu Hui, like myself, is an aggressive debater, doesn't nesccerialy mean a flame war. Accusing someone of potentially going down the route is a good way to further the chances of one starting becuase the person being accused (whoever that person is) tends to get offended

If you believe Guan Suo didn't exist, that's fine, but records of him indicate that there was something, perhaps someone, who was Guan Suo. There was something. It may not be 100% true, but it's more than just assuming he doesn't exist because I believe he doesn't. It's a lead. Whether or not that lead is proven false in the end is a different story, but that lead is the only evidence and fact I have to go on right now.


So if I found a romance novel that had, for example, George Washington slept with a Frenchwoman named Zarog Qataran, you will tell me Zarog exists?

Ok let's deal with facts: Guan Suo isn't mentioned in any historical text. Guan Yu was an important general in Shu and, like other important generals, his descendants to a point were listed. These points include the sons of such generals and their grandsons. Yet, in the SGZ, HHS, ZZTJ, the annotations and in the works of any historian I'm aware of, Suo is not mentioned. Unfortunately Chen Shou and Pei did not, inconveniently, have a crystal ball where they found each and every folklore or novel then wrote "this didn't happen, this person didn't exist, Guan Yu didn't wield a weapon that hasn't been invented yet", no did they have the foresight to rule out pink T-Rex's named Fluffy. No history source, unless trying to contradict a rival contemporary source, goes and does that, would take far too much time and would still miss things out.

The onus on someone declaring an unusual theory that contradicts the texts, or in this case declaring that Chen Shou was massively incompetent and missed out the son of a major general in a kingdom he served, to prove it. Else history (possibly science) would be full of the most outlandish "facts" since it is difficult to 100% disapprove something. So what proof have we that Chen Shou and every other historian missed out on a third son of a major general? None. Should mention all of Wang Yun's many many many sons (seven I think) seemed to have got mentioned.

What we have is folklore. Is folklore a historical source? No. The three kingdoms is a popular era and with popular era's or things people don't understand, people tended to make tales and they still do. This ranges from modern fanficion to the old Norse Saga's, from DW to novels like the SGYY. People in modern fanfiction add fake sons or daughters to generals, or someone unconnected, and create a tale around them, not surprising people in the past did so. If there is an area where history doesn't say much (a person's childhood or the Nanman camapign itself) then stories sometimes come in to flood the gap. Or they put their stories there becuase it's easier to insert someone like Suo into Nanman camapign and make him a major player there then into, say, Yiling or something well recorded.

I don't think you will find too many historians saying that since legend records the names of Arthur's Knights, they all existed. The novel's fictional characters, that of a play/novel/a game/a tavern tale/modern fanfiction, don't then end up with historians claiming that "since a fanfiction.net story contains a character named Fuzzy who served Shu and duelled Cao Cao, there was a man named Fuzzy". People like to make things up, a good tale after all is exciting and there has always been a market for fiction based on a historical time period and sometimes historical characters. So people made up deeds and characters and the historical basis of tales can vary widely, like any movie based on history. Or indeed the novel, which makes a lot of things up in the name of entertainment (and propaganda). Nothing wrong with someone doing a tale with minimal historical accuracy (aka right period, right names for some characters) but doesn't mean any characters they then make up are historically based. Or that their portrayals of historical characters are remotely accurate.
“You, are a rebellious son who abandoned his father. You are a cruel brigand who murdered his lord. How can Heaven and Earth put up with you for long? And unless you die soon, how can you face the sight of men?”
User avatar
Dong Zhou
A-Dou
A-Dou
 
Posts: 14362
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 12:32 pm
Location: "Now we must die. May Your Majesty maintain yourself"

Next

Return to Sanguo Yanyi Symposium

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests

Copyright © 2002–2008 Kongming’s Archives. All Rights Reserved

 
cron