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.
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
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?”