Know Your Lore: Lore 101 -- How to fold a Tinfoil Hat

Out of all of the lore articles I've written so far for WoW Insider, none seem to garner quite as much commentary as the tinfoil hat series. Whether I'm babbling on about Elune being a naaru, the Lich King being a walking plane of existence, or the possibility that Azeroth is just a giant trap for Sargeras, coming up with theories and tossing them at you guys is an exercise in creative thinking.
Rather than go on with another crazy theory, this week I decided to go a different direction entirely. There are a few tricks to trying to predict what's going to happen with a book or an ongoing story like Warcraft. It's not just about coming up with wild ideas; they have to actually be plausible ideas. And it's not about what you think should happen; it's about trying to define what may come to pass. Today, we're going to take a look at the nuts and bolts of what defines a story, what makes up a tinfoil hat theory, and how to apply it not just to Warcraft but to anything you happen to be reading.

The single most important part of trying to come up with any kind of plausible theory in regards to story development is that you absolutely must have a grasp on everything that's come before. In the case of Warcraft, it's not just reading the stories in the novels, comics and manga; you have to know the story of all the games from Warcraft I up to Cataclysm. For a monster like World of Warcraft, you have to know each quest in game and how it interlinks to the others. In vanilla, not a lot of quest material was "important" -- for example, your typical fetch-and-carry quests could be ignored. But quest chains with stories, like the chains for Onyxia attunement, were clearly important to the overall story being presented.
Does this mean I remember everything there is to know about Warcraft at every given time? Yes and no. As far as I'm concerned, I collect useless information and store it just as readily as I store useless gray items and other junk in my character's bank. It's not just Warcraft -- other video games, other novels, movies, useless trivia ... there's a lot kicking around up there. This doesn't mean I'm a walking encyclopedia, though, nor does it mean I get all the names and dates right every single time (Draenor and Durotar, I am looking at you.)
But I don't need to remember every single last thing that happened at any given time because I know where to find the reference information when I need it. I've got all the novels and comics, the RPG source books (though the information contained in the RPG books is now being muddily defined as "non-canon"), the games, and pretty much anything Warcraft-related easily at my disposal for reference. On top of that, there are wonderful sites out there like Wowpedia and Wowhead that I can go to if I forget the name of that one quest in that one zone with the dragon where stuff happens.
Does this mean you need to purchase all that material? Nope! More often than not, your local library will have the Warcraft novels available. Or if they don't, most libraries have an interlibrary loan system that will let you get the books from another library that does carry them.
So why is it so utterly important that you remember all this stuff? For a couple of reasons. If you're making some sort of prediction regarding future material, you need to know everything that's come before. This is because there may be something back there that completely invalidates whatever crazy theory you've come up with. More importantly, though, you need to know the story before you can deconstruct the story -- and deconstructing the story is what tinfoil hat theories are all about.

What's all this deconstruction nonsense about, anyway? It's storywriting 101, of course. Writers often have common threads in what they are writing. If you can figure out what all of the main threads are, generally speaking, you can predict what the next major threads are going to be. For example, in the case of Warcraft, many (and I mean many) of the typical hero/villain conflicts involve corruption or outright insanity. Sargeras started it all at the outset, but if you start ticking off the villains on your fingers -- Arthas, Deathwing, Illidan, Kil'jaeden, Archimonde, Kael'thas, the Scarlet Crusade -- the list goes on and on.
If you look at that list, you can pretty much construe that the likelihood of any villain in Warcraft actually being an okay sort who was just corrupted by one evil influence or another is incredibly high. From that, you can predict that the next major villain you see is likely going to be some pretty okay sort who ended up being corrupted. Does it fit? Certainly it does -- Blizzard's been doing it for years and isn't likely to change something that's become a standard in Warcraft lore.
Here's where we go a little deeper. You have your common threads, all lined up in a row, right? Generally speaking, if there's a series of common threads, there's a reason for that series of common threads. For example, the dragonflights are all in trouble of one kind or another. Deathwing's been corrupted, the Emerald Nightmare was haunting the Emerald Dream, Nozdormu was missing, Malygos was rampaging against mortality. Alexstrasza's flight was about the only one that wasn't in any sort of dire trouble.
That's your collection of common threads. But if all the dragonflights being in trouble represents a series of common threads all lined up in a row, then the likelihood is that there is one explanation for all those common threads occurring simultaneously. That's where you get theories like the one surrounding the Old Gods and the dragonflights -- there has to be a reason all dragonflights are experiencing some level of distress. The Old Gods were just one theory out of a million. Is it correct? Maybe, maybe not -- but the point is that it fits neatly within the continuity of the Warcraft universe.

There's this thing that magicians use frequently to pull off seemingly impossible feats of magic called misdirection. It's a form of deception. A magician diverts the audiences' attention to something completely unrelated while the real trick is being performed. That's why magic appears to be so magical -- because you're so busy paying attention to the thing they say you ought to be paying attention to that you don't notice what's going on right under your nose.
The same applies to writing. Authors deliberately leave out information or bring up something outlandish and unrelated to draw the reader away from what's really going on. At the end of a book or a story, you've got yourself a gigantic, grand, shocking reveal that is the result of all those inconsequential things being woven together into a cohesive whole. Whether it's characters who only show up for a page or two and come back later, or seemingly ordinary events in a character's lifetime, if you're reading a good story, it's all going to come back.
Authors do not write information that isn't somehow relevant to the story at hand. Every tiny detail is placed there deliberately. If there weren't a point to that information, it wouldn't need to be written out, after all. So part of prediction and coming up with these wild theories is deliberately looking for that left-out information, for those little inconsequential events that don't seem to have any real importance. Nine times out of 10, the reason those little events are there is because they are all pointing to something way bigger than you'd think.
Alternatively, authors will deliberately omit information -- not because it isn't important, but because it will be revealed later in detail. This type of thinking is the kind of thing you saw highlighted in the latest Ask a CDev.
Q: Where is X? (X = Calia Menethil, Turalyon, Alleria Windrunner, Med'an, Gallywix, etc.)
A: There are several "missing" characters in the Warcraft universe, but they are not forgotten! While we'd love to talk about these characters, doing so would spoil a number of the plots we have for Cataclysm and beyond. Believe us when we say that you will definitely hear about these characters when we're ready to talk about them!
A: There are several "missing" characters in the Warcraft universe, but they are not forgotten! While we'd love to talk about these characters, doing so would spoil a number of the plots we have for Cataclysm and beyond. Believe us when we say that you will definitely hear about these characters when we're ready to talk about them!
Missing characters? There's a reason they are missing, more likely than not. Missing events and lore, plot holes? Chances are there's a reason for that too, and it's something we'll see addressed at some point. For example, when you look at the current state of draenei lore, you'll notice there is really very little there to pull from. You can assume this is because someone didn't feel like writing all that information out -- or you can assume that it's because it was deliberately omitted. If it was a case of deliberate omission, guess what? We're probably going to see that later.
And if we're going to see it later, we might as well try making some sort of grand and crazy theory about it all!

Perhaps the most important thing you have to keep in mind when making these wild speculations about stories and lore is context. The theory you come up with has to make sense within the context of everything we've seen before. It's not just about crazy theories; it's about what is plausible, probably, likely to occur. When you're coming up with tinfoil hat theories, it's not about what you want to see happen in a story or a game. That's what fan fiction is for. Feel free to write the story in any way you see fit.
What it is about is looking at the sum and scope of everything that's come before, and then trying to predict within the context of it all what's going to happen next. For example, would Elune actually being a naaru make readers happy? That's about a 50/50 split right there; die-hard night elf fans would hate it if that were the case. Is it likely? Given all of the evidence we've seen, sure it is, and it'd fit in with Warcraft lore as we've seen it presented already.
But you can't simply make a statement like that and expect people to believe it, which is why you have to gather evidence to support it. In the case of Elune being a naaru, there is plenty of information both in game and out, when lined up neatly all in a row, that points to the possibility of a naaru origin. The illustrations of Elune that we've seen, the fact that her crown resembles naaru architecture, is pretty telling right there.
Beyond that, though, we have the things that haven't been said. Elune's role has never been clearly defined. She's been called a deity, but that's what the night elves believe. What about everyone else? Night elf priests use something similar to the Light than priests from the other races, but it's always been referred to as the powers of Elune, rather than the Light. Who's to say that isn't a common thread that can be given one explanation?

Why? Why bother coming up with theories? Why try to predict what's going to happen? Why try and guess what the author is going to do next? I first learned about story analysis in an AP English class in high school. My class was introduced to the concept, and then we took up the onerous task of trying to unravel Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass. Over the course of ripping the story apart, we used a book called The Annotated Alice in which all the various references that Carroll was trying to make were carefully outlined.
The thought and care put into writing that book and the sheer amount of references contained within it absolutely fascinated me, and it still does to this day. As a writer, I know when I put a story together that I have a common theme in my head, reasons for slipping information in and reasons for leaving information out. I love the process of it all. There's an art to writing a good story that draws people in and surprises them, and part of that art is knowing the technical parts behind the process -- what a reader will respond to emotionally, what will consistently bore people.
It's an art, but it's also a technical process, and I like picking apart the works of other writers and seeing how they do it. In the process, I pick up tricks that help my writing along. It's sort of like watching a tutorial on life drawing or digital coloring; you always find some useful information in those tutorials that you can apply to your own work and improve it. But that's the really technical answer to the question.

So remember, if you're trying to come up with a theory behind a story, whether it's Warcraft or something else entirely, keep in mind what the author has to say, what he has said before, and what he isn't saying. Don't get wrapped up in trying to write the story for yourself. Look at the story as it unfolds, and find the next step that would logically make sense. And don't keep the information to yourself -- sharing speculation is what the fun is all about!
Tinfoil hat theories definitely aren't for everyone. Not everyone enjoys picking stories apart and trying to figure out what makes them tick. But for Know Your Lore, tinfoil hat articles are some of my favorite ones to do because it gets you guys talking, thinking, questioning and discussing the story behind Warcraft. To me, that's the ultimate kind of fun.
For more information on related subjects, please look at these other Know Your Lore entries:
- Lore 101, part 1
- Lore 101, part 2
- Story analysis and the misconception of "lolore"
- Tinfoil Hat Edition: Elune is a naaru
- Tinfoil Hat Edition: The Deathwing Conspiracy
- Tinfoil Hat Edition: Silence of the Titans
- Tinfoil Hat Edition: The final boss of Cataclysm
While you don't need to have played the previous Warcraft games to enjoy World of Warcraft, a little history goes a long way toward making the game a lot more fun. Dig into even more of the lore and history behind the World of Warcraft in WoW Insider's Guide to Warcraft Lore.
Filed under: Lore, Know your Lore






Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
gobuywow Jul 24th 2011 8:18PM
I like the story of Arthas and Illidan :) They are both heros, though they don't have a good ending
Sergel Jul 24th 2011 8:28PM
I've always wondered, what does tinfoil hat mean?
linkers746 Jul 24th 2011 8:35PM
It protects you from alien mind control.
Tokhand Jul 24th 2011 9:01PM
That's what THEY want you to think!
Drakkenfyre Jul 24th 2011 9:27PM
Google it.
Proffesor Orc Jul 24th 2011 10:17PM
Way back in the day conspiracy theorists believed that either Aliens or the government were to trying to read or control their minds with electromagnetic waves. They believed they could block theses rays with hats made our of tin or aluminum foil.
Now some speculation theories on WoW lore are similar to real world conspiracy theories in the sense that people believe secret motives are happening behind the scenes. When people make these claims about WoW lore they jokingly compare themselves to the tinfoil hat wearers who believed there was also some kind of conspiracy afoot.
Typically in this context the term is used when you speculate about something without anyway to verify the speculation and often, but not always, the speculation is describes something radically different then the current status quo.
Hob Jul 24th 2011 11:11PM
The CIA deliberately spread misinformation that tin-foil hats prevent mind control.
Actually, it enables it.
Arrohon Jul 24th 2011 8:37PM
Wait, you mean English classes forcing us to dissect a story is actually a good thing? Eh, I personally believe that the only way doing that will help anyone is if they are doing it because they want to and they know what they're looking for. Every english paper I turned in the past year was covered in red ink. Most people would be worried by all the ink but I'm not. For some odd reason that ink was always compliments on my writing. My former teacher considers me a great writer yet I still loath english. I simply don't see the point in many of the things we have to learn. I'm open to any reasoning how knowing if a verb is concrete or abstract is going to improve writing or reading skills. Nice irony there as well as an explanation for my rant!
MusedMoose Jul 24th 2011 8:48PM
If you really want to know how knowing the rules of grammar and so forth can help your writing skills, read a book called "Sin and Syntax" by Constance Hale. It's all about writing well by picking the right words and knowing how to use the language, and it's actually a very fun read - I've read it three times, which is more than I can say for any other book on writing. One of my friends said that she noted a distinct difference in my writing before and after I read the book. Might be worth giving it a shot. ^_^
[/tangent]
Iirdan Jul 24th 2011 11:49PM
"I'm open to any reasoning how knowing if a verb is concrete or abstract is going to improve writing or reading skills."
It's funny you should mention this; concrete and abstract verb usage was one of the central arguments in one of the papers I wrote about Macbeth in a literature class a few years back. I remember it distinctly because as I was writing it, I kept thinking "this is such BS, there is no way that [the teacher] is going to buy this..."
I got it back with praise for picking up on the distinction between "Glamis hath murdered sleep" being a concrete verb rather than an abstract verb, indicating that Macbeth is still at a point where sleep is murdered and thus he will not be able to sleep for the rest of the drama.
Moral of the story: Language is so incredibly nuanced that things that sound ridiculous are actually completely plausible - English class is always useful.
Arrohon Jul 25th 2011 1:40AM
One thing I have learned is how awesome a Thesaurus is. I titled a paper about Leo Szilard, "Morally Meticulous: an Insight into Leo Szilard". I got some praise for that one. I do have to say that I have no clue what the murdered sleep thing means. Granted it is Shakespear, I've never read it, and it likely makes more sense if you look at the context. I find it funny how much I dislike english. I enjoy christian rock due to how the music has powerful meaning (plus is sounds epic). I enjoy reading and writing yet I dislike english. I somehow have this ability where I can read almost anything if I have to and still be entertained (usually things that I wouldn't have read). I love the story of a book and far too many english classes dissect a book to the point where the story doesn't really even matter to the class. The first english class I remember disliking was in 5th grade. I was quite upset that we didn't even read the entire book. We would skip chapters and have no idea what had happened. Authors write stories. When the story is pulled apart to the point that there is none I find that to be disrespectful of the work the author did. They wrote a story for people to enjoy and you're going to rip it apart and disregard the story? That is my biggest frustration with english classes... followed by book reports. I personally can read a book and if I thought it was good, I'll be able to tell you the story years later. Months later and I can remember details. The fact that I had to dress up as Ronald McDonald to get a high A on a book report is pretty sad (it was over a book on fast food... disgusting stuff but still tasty!). Seeing english classes as they are I'm not really surprised by the fact that there is a large percentage of teenagers that don't like to read and won't read after high school and college. I blame that they don't enjoy reading solely on parents and schools. Of course some would still hate to read no matter what any does but I'm sure that many would've enjoyed reading under different circumstances. English classes have use but I believe that a rehaul is in order. Yeesh, I sure can get ranting about these things!
Lee Woodworth Jul 25th 2011 8:54AM
English classes teach you the components of what makes a story good instead of just mediocre, much like how sites teach you to play WoW better. I can write a book, but I can write a better book if I know what parts work better together, or how to structure it to build suspense. That being said, there are people who do write purely for structure, casting content aside for critical acclaim. Those cur can keep their poor contributions to reading culture. Being Canadian, I had the pleasure of taking french immersion classes, and thus skipped all the English verb stuff you mention, instead learning obscure conjugations of another language. Having learned more of English since, I don't envy those in the English curriculum.
Xantenise Jul 25th 2011 6:56PM
I used to think the same about English class. It totally over-analysed and crushed every single story to death and taught kids which stories to loathe for the rest of their life. The classics? You know, the ones Mark Twain says that everyone wants to read but never actually does? Sometimes I swear they're only popular because of high school English.
But having said that...
Years later as I develop as a writer, I'm suddenly thankful for it. Because analysing every detail of a story in high school, while it may crush the story, has suddenly came in useful now because now I'm doing the reverse -- I'm the one making the themes, I'm the one putting in the symbolism. Sometimes it's an accident, and because of high school English I know how to spot these accidents and make the most of them (even if it's just leaving them as they are). It teaches me a lot about myself as a writer, too, because when you include things by accident it says more about you than the story.
So yes, while English class sucks when you're taking it and kills stories dead, if you want to write novels one day you'll be glad later down the track for it.
Amaxe Jul 24th 2011 9:07PM
"Missing characters? There's a reason they are missing, more likely than not. Missing events and lore, plot holes? Chances are there's a reason for that too, and it's something we'll see addressed at some point."
Didn't Blizzard admit they forgot Uldum and Gilneas for awhile? I don't think they put them on reserve. I think they run out of ideas, put them on hiatus and forget about them until (unless?) they happen to say "Oh yeah, don't we have someone we can use there?"
And let's not forget the Red Shirt Guy. There's a lot of stuff they do forget about.
Personally I wouldn't go the way the X-Files fans did at the peak of the hype in the 1990s, where people were scanning episodes frame by frame to find out secrets... when the creators admitted they had no idea how the series would end.
Remember the Blizz team is only human, and something which might seem like a secret clue really is just a goof on their part.
Proffesor Orc Jul 24th 2011 10:24PM
I kinda agree with Amaxe here. Although some of the unanswered elements of WoW lore were put there as precursors many elements are added without considering the wider arc. They exist more as potential instead of a beginning.
Also writers often include things that have unintended references or effects that gain a meaning the original writer never realized. For example you mentioned how you would dissect Alice in Wonderland, linking what he wrote with what it referenced. Although some of those references were certainly intended I believe that many of them were placed by Carrol superficially and it required his readers to find their true meaning.
loop_not_defined Jul 24th 2011 10:29PM
People frequently put things on reserve and then forget about it. The two possibilities are not mutually exclusive.
Arrohon Jul 25th 2011 2:00AM
I live with crazy people and they have taught me one thing. People will find something where it doesn't exist easily. I've been told the Lord of the Rings has christian symbolic messages. Uh, not a chance. The Silmarillion is very likely full of those messages though (it reads with a similar feel to the Bible and is basically the Bible to Middle Earth... without it being religious as it would only be a history book if it existed there).
Al Jul 25th 2011 2:16AM
"Everyone in the Valley of Heroes will appear in The Burning Crusade."
Over 3 years later.. "Turalyon and Alleria? Umm... we have.. something planned.. HEY! LOOK AT THAT THING BEHIND YOU!"
Daedalus Jul 25th 2011 8:09AM
@Arrohon:
Not a chance there's symbolism in The Lord of the Rings?
Tolkien himself said the book was full of Christian, and more specifically Catholic symbolism and imagery. (Though not allegory; he said he detested it...)
First off, you've got three versions of Jesus: Frodo, Gandalf, and Aragorn represent Jesus as a priest, prophet, and king, respectively. All three have some form of symbolic (or real) death and resurrection, and other aspects of their characters also point that way: Frodo trying to redeem Gollum including his hope that someday Gollum will be able to eat the special bread, Gandalf dies to save others, and comes back more powerful and glorious, and Aragorn goes down into a place full of tormented dead people and brings them redemption. (The belief that Jesus descended into Hell after the crucifixion to free people who came before he made redemption possible being a big part of Catholic dogma.)
There's a lot more than this; Galadriel as Mary, the eagles as the holy spirit or divine intervention, lembas as the Eucharist, etc. All stuff Tolkien himself admitted was intentional.
I understand wanting to read a story just as a story, and not trying to find a deeper meaning when there isn't one. (Hemingway famously hated efforts to deconstruct his work, and claimed that the only symbolism in The Old Man and the Sea was that the fish represented the story, and the sharks the critics and academics who were going to pick it apart.) However, when the author specifically says that there is something there, (or at least remains silent enough on the point to warrant speculation...) then ignoring it is just as bad as skipping chapters; you're getting part of the story, but you're not reading everything the author intended.
Lishalacey Jul 25th 2011 12:04PM
My senior project in college was focused on film adaptation of fantasy literature and I can never walk away from a good LOTR discussion.
Here is an excerpt from "The Rough Guide to The Lord of the Rings" which explains it better than I could in my own words:
"...[W]hat exactly is The Lord of the Rings really about? It's an easy question to ask, but a hard one to answer.... If nothing else, the sheer variety of interpretations suggests that The Lord of the Rings is a subtler, richer experience than many of its critics allow. If it really were a book of annoying verse, dreadful songs, unfunny humour and a suffocating earnestness, would we all still be arguing over what it means?
"The author himself would have shivered at all this debate. He could get quite cross with those who equated Sauron with Hitler and the Ring with the atomic bomb.... If you want to believe Frodo is a Christ figure (the name may derive from an Old Norse king called Frothi who ruled in a Christ-like fashion), you can - but some readers also find Christ-like elements in Gandalf and Aragorn. You'd be on roughly the right lines; Tolkien may well have agreed with Elisabeth Carey, noting, as he did, that, 'The Lord Of The Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Roman Catholic work; unconsciously so at first but consciously in the revision.'" (84-85)
Though the author did state that it was "fundamentally Catholic" in a letter, it is important to note that Tolkien used such a seamless blend of mythologies (Norse and Christian), linguistics and imagination that to limit it to only a religious interpretation is just plain silly. But you can't ignore the author's own statement... :)