The works of the Port Ashraven Saga are written in third-person limited perspective. That means every event is filtered through a particular character’s lens, including their biases, blind spots, and incentives. The same situation can produce parallel truths depending on who experienced it and what they are able to admit, notice, or remember.

People forget events, misremember dates, lie to themselves, and interpret what they see in ways that are not objectively reliable. I want the writing to reflect that. In the series, it shows up as three models of ambiguity.

1) Perceptual ambiguity

The text is unclear because the viewpoint is limited. The narration is not omniscient, and it may not be fully clear what happened in objective terms. A reader can often infer a likely version of events, but later information may complicate or contradict that inference because the original perception was incomplete.

2) Deliberate openness

In some cases, I know what happened, but I leave interpretive room on purpose. The question is not always the factual sequence of events; it is what those events mean to the people involved, what they are prepared to call them, and what they need to believe in order to keep functioning. The text gives enough to support more than one reading, even if one reading aligns more closely with a canonical answer.

3) Permanent ambiguity

In other cases, I do not establish a single truth in-world, and there will not be a later reveal that resolves the uncertainty. The point is not to tease an answer, but to let the uncertainty remain, because it changes how the reader interprets characters, relationships, and intent. Two readers can carry different versions of the same event and still be reading the same book. The plot does not hinge on a later clarification, and the text does not require one definitive interpretation.

What to expect as a reader

I do not signal which model applies in any given moment. That is intentional. Part of the reading experience is sitting with incomplete information the way the characters do, making judgments, and then living with what those judgments lead to. The goal is a coherent reading experience where uncertainty changes what people assume and how they act.

What I can promise is that ambiguity is not used to hide missing structure. When something is unclear, it is unclear for a reason, and that uncertainty shapes what characters choose and what readers conclude.

If a scene leaves you unsure, I encourage you to decide what you think happened and carry that interpretation forward. Later text may complicate it, contradict it, or leave it standing, but until then it is yours to hold.