KKC Theory WikiThe Chandrian May Not Be the True Villains of the Chronicle
Kvothe's confirmation bias may have led readers to misidentify the Chandrian as the antagonists when the text suggests otherwise.
About: The Chandrian
Also involves: Kvothe, The Archives
The theory§
Conventional wisdom in the Four Corners, and the assumption most readers inherit, casts the Chandrian as the Chronicle's true villains — the seven who killed Kvothe's troupe and serve Haliax. This theory argues that this consensus rests almost entirely on Kvothe's own conviction, and that the narrative deliberately exploits his confirmation bias, and through him the reader's. What is actually known of the Chandrian is filtered through an unreliable narrator with a blood debt: Kvothe wants vengeance for his murdered parents regardless of whether Lanre's cause is just. A children's book Kvothe and his companions find in the Archives presents the Chandrian in an unexpectedly benign light — 'The Chandrian never fight or fuss / In fact they are quite nice to us' — a stray counter-text that Kvothe pointedly questions rather than weighs. If the foundational evidence for their villainy is this thin, the books may be misdirecting the reader about who the real antagonists are, with figures such as the Cthaeh, the Amyr, or even Kvothe and Denna as candidates for the true threat.
Evidence§
"WE" don't know anything about the Chandrian. All WE know is what Kvothe has been given to assume.
Core claim: all Chandrian knowledge is filtered through Kvothe's assumptions. — u/taborlyn13Since I'm pretty certain the Rothfuss is playing on Kvothe's (and therefore OUR) confirmation biases, this is a risky proposition indeed. I'm not entirely convinced the Chandrian actually ARE the bad guys.
Thesis: confirmation bias may have misled readers about Chandrian villainy. — u/taborlyn13The first is the overlooked children's book that Kvothe and his buddies find in the Archives: "The Chandrian never fight or fuss/ In fact they are quite nice to us."
First evidence: a children's book portrays the Chandrian benignly. — u/taborlyn13Since Kvothe goes out of his way to question another book that seems intent upon making children afraid of rainbows, I'd venture that his analyses are basically sound. Except when it comes to the Chandrian.
Argues Kvothe applies critical reading elsewhere but not to the Chandrian. — u/taborlyn13Denna's song was very sympathetic toward Lanre (later Haliax, according to another story that we shouldn't take without a bit of scepticism). Denna's research seems to have been much more far-reaching than Kvothe's
Second evidence: Denna's deeper research yields a sympathetic Lanre. — u/taborlyn13Kvothe rejects her interpretation merely because it doesn't accord with a story he heard as a kid in Tarbean!
Shows Kvothe dismisses Denna's view on biased, non-evidential grounds. — u/taborlyn13Denna's investigation closely reflects (third reason) Arliden's research, which resulted in a portion of a song that, again, casts Lanre as a tragic hero rather than a villain.
Third evidence: Arliden's independent research also frames Lanre as tragic hero. — u/taborlyn13So what has changed in the few years between Arliden's song, which apparently got him killed, and Denna's song, which becomes an immediate classic? Or was the "wrong sort of song" NOT a reference to Arliden's Lanre song at all?
Raises an open question complicating the assumed motive for the troupe's murder. — u/taborlyn13
Book refs: NOTW, WMF
Tier reasoning§
tier kept: plausible, distinct theory
Contributors§
- u/taborlyn13 — extended · 12 pts