39 replies to this topic

[Doopliss]

Becuase of the lack of activity, I have decided to open this thread. I had been trying to come up with something interesting to post, but it was only until I read Pie's thread that I realized that it would be a good idea to discuss on this before Twilight Princess is released because it will help us to discuss more appropriately. And also because the admis could do something fancy if we continue spamming this place.

We have already been discussing about the Zelda storyline for some years and we have gotten to some important conclusions. We all have a clear idea of how some games are connected and we clearly know what can and what can't be done when making a timeline. So now there are a few theories that have strong arguments that support them and that are followed by groups of sotryliners. Lately it as become too difficult to discuss on these topics because it's difficult to disprove any of the most important theories that are out there, and I think that this is because we have never agreed on how to discuss. In most of the threads we end up discussing about something completely different from the original topic because we don't agree with the proves that the other people provide, what they consider canon or how they interpret canon.

Therefore this thread will be dedicated to discuss how to theorize and what is the best method to do it. I think that we should start discussing some of the main aspects that aren't allowing us to have a fluent discussion on more specific topics. Right now I can think of these: What is canon? Does canon change over time? If it doesn't, should we interpret more recent canon in a way that it doesn't contradict older canon? (this is important, so if I wasn't clear enough on this, tell me) What isn't canon? Is there any canon source that is more valid or accurate than other? How should we interpret canon? Should we give different levels of validity to in-game canon according to the character that is speaking? Do elements as geaography, physical caracteristis of races and techonology can be used as proves? If so, are they equally or less valid as other proves?

As you have noticed all of this are aspects that can apply to any theory and everything that can be discussed related to the Zelda storyline. Please keep on the topic. The intention of this thread isn't to discuss the timeline, it's to discuss how to discuss. If you can think on any other aspect please post it. Maybe we'll need different threads to do this, as there is too much to talk about.

Edited by Doopliss, 19 November 2006 - 01:06 AM.

[Hero of Slime]

The Canon it self is every aspect of the Zelda Games (LoZ, AoL, ALttP, LA, KnS, OoT, MM, OoA, OoS, FS, TWW, FSA, TMC, and all of their remakes) that is not a game play function. When discussing the games individually any aspect of the games that is not a game play function can be used as evidence. But when concerning the way the games connect, the only evidence that should be used is that which the creators made to imply a connection. To use any evidence that was not meant to imply a connection is a form of fanwanking.

[Doopliss]

How do we know what are their intentions? Why should we take into consideration the creators' intentions to make the connections between games? I don't completely ignore their intentions, but I think that we should only take them into consideration only when canon is too vague to understand it by itself, because it's too difficult to know what the intentions of the creators were and most importantly because in my opinion the creators' intentions aren't too important as canon itself, therefore we should ignore creatrors when they contradict canon. Instead of trying to discover what were the creators' intentions to determine which game factors are relevant when discussing, I think that we should determine what kind of evidence is vital to make the connections between the games.

Despite this, I think that there are some factors that we should completely ignore because they aren't relevant to the storyline and there are some other factors that are clearly more important and more valid.

[Jumbie]

Hey, good idea Doopliss! Nice to see you've followed through with it.

So, this would be my personal answers to those questions:

What is canon?

Here's the best definition of it

Does canon change over time?

Part of me says: clearly not. But then again, there might be instances when older canon just doesn't allow consistency anymore with newer games.

If it doesn't, should we interpret more recent canon in a way that it doesn't contradict older canon?

Again, normally I'd say yes, but if it goes as far as taking every word in ALttP's backstory literally just to avoid some minor discrepancies with other games, I'd say no, there is no need to give older canon the rule over common sense.

What isn't canon?

Manga, comics, CD-i games, easter eggs, gameplay instructions, artwork style, enemy style, geography (although to a small extent, the last is canon).

Is there any canon source that is more valid or accurate than other?

Between the different games, I don't think so. For everything else, I've given/will give my opinion.

How should we interpret canon?

Well, I think what we see in-game is all to be taken as happened exactly like that, minus gameplay instructions and some easter eggs. I say "some" because there may well be easter eggs that are acually there in the "real" Hyrule, not only in the game, and simply aren't reminiscent or funny for Link, only for the players.
Artwork is canon too, but going into detail, I think that the particular style used might omit or show details in a different way than we'd perceive them in the "real" Hyrule. For cases where artwork shows an object more detailed than the respective in-game sprites or polygons do (so, almost always), I'd say that the particular artwork has priority over in-game design.
Now what is in-game but should nonetheless be taken far less truthful than the main quest's content, is the legends (most often in the intro, in the manual, or explained by game charas along the way). A legend is something completely different from a historical account, but it's not a mere fairytale either. It's something in between, which means for us that we have to take the details that do fit with other games as true, and disregard or bend details that contradict other games. This may sound rigorous, but you'll find it couldn't be avoided in anybody's timeline.

Should we give different levels of validity to in-game canon according to the character that is speaking?

Hm, basically not. Of course, there might be charas that are lying, but then it'd be Nintendo's responsibility to make this apparent in some way. Roughly, I'd say what Zelda says is very reliable, what Ganon says is also very reliable although you have to see it through his eyes, and what Link says just can't be wrong And remember, Navi's words are words of wisdom!

Do elements as geaography, physical caracteristis of races and techonology can be used as proves?

In this aspect I'm very very undecided.

If so, are they equally or less valid as other proves?

Well proof is proof, isn't it. The only question is if they *are* evidence.

To use any evidence that was not meant to imply a connection is a form of fanwanking.

I agree. So all the fan..fiction I will use comes into play only when the games' order has made sense to me already without it. Fan fiction is meant as a completely optional and personal answering of open questions that are left after all the canon has been used to put the games into a connection. I've never denied this.

Edited by Jumbie, 12 October 2006 - 06:21 PM.

[Doopliss]

Hey, good idea Doopliss! Nice to see you've followed through with it.

So, this would be my personal answers to those questions:

Here's the best definition of it

Yes, I think that everyone will agree with Davogone's article. So now that we know what is canon, we have to find out how it works.

Again, normally I'd say yes, but if it goes as far as taking every word in ALttP's backstory literally just to avoid some minor discrepancies with other games, I'd say no, there is no need to give older canon the rule over common sense.

But, what if we aren't interpreting canon correctly? The problem could be that we don't know how to interpret canon so everything matches. This is why I think that we should adjust our methods so that they fit the needs of the games.

Well, I think what we see in-game is all to be taken as happened exactly like that, minus gameplay instructions and some easter eggs. I say "some" because there may well be easter eggs that are acually there in the "real" Hyrule, not only in the game, and simply aren't reminiscent or funny for Link, only for the players.

Hmm... but how do we know which factors are Easter Eggs? And, why should we consider sometheing an Easter Egg?

Artwork is canon too, but going into detail, I think that the particular style used might omit or show details in a different way than we'd perceive them in the "real" Hyrule. For cases where artwork shows an object more detailed than the respective in-game sprites or polygons do (so, almost always), I'd say that the particular artwork has priority over in-game design.

I agree. Artwork only help us to get a more detailed idea of how everything is.

Now what is in-game but should nonetheless be taken far less truthful than the main quest's content, is the legends (most often in the intro, in the manual, or explained by game charas along the way). A legend is something completely different from a historical account, but it's not a mere fairytale either. It's something in between, which means for us that we have to take the details that do fit with other games as true, and disregard or bend details that contradict other games. This may sound rigorous, but you'll find it couldn't be avoided in anybody's timeline.

That sounds good. But how do we know they are legends? Then, shouldn't 'legends' have the same validity as speechs since we don't know if the characters are right or wrong?

Hm, basically not. Of course, there might be charas that are lying, but then it'd be Nintendo's responsibility to make this apparent in some way. Roughly, I'd say what Zelda says is very reliable, what Ganon says is also very reliable although you have to see it through his eyes, and what Link says just can't be wrong And remember, Navi's words are words of wisdom!

I completely agree.

I have come up with some new questions apart from the ones I wrote in my first post: Should we consider artwork details as evidence, such as the different looks of the Master Sword? Are images more accurate than speechs because of the possible misinterpretation of words, or vice-versa? What makes a specific timeline better than others?

[Reflectionist]

If the canon contradicts between old games and new games, or even between old games and their remakes, which has more authority?

[Doopliss]

I don't exactly know, maybe the more recent one. However, in my opinion canon can't contradict itself. It's just that we can misinterpret it.

Edited by Doopliss, 12 October 2006 - 10:21 PM.

[Jumbie]

But, what if we aren't interpreting canon correctly? The problem could be that we don't know how to interpret canon so everything matches. This is why I think that we should adjust our methods so that they fit the needs of the games.

Okay. Let's figure that out... somehow.

Hmm... but how do we know which factors are Easter Eggs? And, why should we consider sometheing an Easter Egg?

Easter eggs are very easy to notice as such. Either they come straight from another series, like all the Mario cameos in Zelda. Or take the Hylian writing on Phantom Ganon's sword, which completely contradicts the basic principles of how the Zelda world works, and is therefore an easter egg. Things like those are obvious. But then we have the infamous item issue, of course. Master Sword in Oracles, and the likes. Opinions heavily differ here, and I assume that's what you were talking about. Basically I'd say a thing is an easter egg when most players instantly go like, "LOL, I know where they took this from, although it makes no sense in the game".

But how do we know they are legends?

Most often, legends are called like that by game charas (e.g. "the legend of Zelda" by Impa in AoL, or "the legend of the Gorons" by Darunia's son in OoT). In cases where the word 'legend' doesn't appear in the text, when we're dealing with a game's intro legend for example, a general rule is that most Zelda games consist of two parts: 1. the legend, which refers to ancient times (and possibly other games), and 2. the main game. This is true for AoL, ALttP, LA, OoT, MM, TWW, FS, FSA and TMC.

Then, shouldn't 'legends' have the same validity as speechs since we don't know if the characters are right or wrong?

Well yes, that's right in those cases were the legends are told to us by game charas. Whenever someone mentions the words 'legend', 'rumour' or 'they say', the player knows that it could be untrue. Then again, Zelda is a game where almost everything labelled as rumour turns out to have been a shrouded gameplay hint.

Should we consider artwork details as evidence, such as the different looks of the Master Sword?

As for the Master Sword, a clear no! Now in TP its appearance will be different again, with additional lines and spikes, but who would honestly think that alone makes it a different build? Who cares if the sword's hilt is red in ALttP. If we absolutely must, we could simply apply the term 'rusted over the ages'

Are images more accurate than speechs because of the possible misinterpretation of words, or vice-versa?

I don't think so. I remember theorists who usually misinterpret words, but that shouldn't be the normal case. Also, from images you hardly get any crucial storyline information.

What makes a specific timeline better than others?

If it makes more sense, if it connects the games more naturally and smoothly, and most important of all, if it matches the creators' intention.

[mmmmm_PIE]

Canon is Truth
Consider the idea of a "Zelda Universe" which contains all things ever thought of in relation to the Legend of Zelda. Games, Manuals, Creators, Fans, Fan fiction, Comic books, Persoanl Theories, TV Shows, even emotional responses.

The Zelda storyline, then, is a subset if the Universe which contains the information which is (in some manner) "true". We can then definable a canonical statement as one which is a member of this "true" set.
A statement is true or not, there are no shades of gray.
Two "true" statements will never contradict one another, that would make one false.
"Graivty pulls small stuff towards big stuff" is a canonical statement, because it is true in the Zelda Universe.

A large portion (85%+) of canoncial statements are never actually "made" by any recognised Zelda authority, but deducted based on preexisting postulates. We see things fall, and understand why, even though no Zelda game to date has contained a lecture on the Fundamental Forces.

An inducted statement cannot be canonical. Cannot be "true". This is part of the basic definition of induction. In order to prove an inducted statement, one must beable to experiment and gain the nesassary data to deduct truth. This is impossible in the Zelda Universe. The Scientific method is impossile in the Zelda Universe. Induction is impossible in the Zelda Universe.

Filling in the blank
The remaining portion of canon, that which is made up of stand alone postulates, and not based on a previous thought, must have a source with the authority to state truth. I beleive we all agree on what sources have this authority, and so we needn't discuss that further.

I'd like to have a name for such basic information *besides* canon, which is almost always used in a much more general sence (as to include not only this information, but also our reasoning of it). For the rest of this post, I'll simply call it "The Basics".

How does one theorize?
First, by recognising the basics in there entirity. This is almost always done subconcionsly, but requires a better-than-average knowledge of each and every canonical authority. IOO; play the Zelda games. Play 'em good.

Secondly, by drawing true connections from The Basics by way of deductive reasoning, continuing this process as far as possible will (eventually, if one so desired) unearth everybit of "truth" in the Zelda Storylne. At this point, there would hardly be a complete timeline, a complete order perhaps, but never a well explained one.

Thirdly, study developer intent in an attempt to fill outstanding questions. As no interprtation od DI will be 100% correct, you will not be understanding "truth", you will, however, create a more concise timeline. This timeline will scease to be universal, transitioning from universal timeline fact to personal timeline thoery

Employ Inductive reasoning. Develop explanations which are likely true, completely uncontradicted by our previouse understanding of canon (important) and ultimately fill the holes of your timeline. It is at this point you will begin to notice contradictions in your thoery, dur to the imperfect nature of deductive reasoning, and the general icompleteness of the canon.

The highly optional, highly contravertial, step five: modify your original canonical conclusions in order to "fix" contradictions in your inducted theories. This will result in (A) an all around cleaner theory, likely preferable to you, and likely contested by fellow theorists and (B.) an entity that is no lonbger a part of the Zelda storyline (no longer "true"), but more of a fanfiction.

Personally, I'm no fan of steps 3 and 4, but I recognise the harmless nessisty they hold for most theorists. Acitons in accordance with Step 5, IMO, should be regulated to a sperate area, and not consdiered timeline theory at all.

Buuuut, I'm a bit of an extremist... Whadaya say?

Edited by mmmmm_PIE, 13 October 2006 - 12:38 AM.

[Fyxe]

I say THIS IS NOT A PHYSICS ESSAY.

...It had to be said.

[mmmmm_PIE]

Well, no, it can't be...
But I don't want a creative writing competition either. If our goal here is to create a timeline which will be accpeted generally, rather than personally, we will need a well constructed, easily employed epistemology...

[Arturo]

Games and manuals are the only canon. Creator's quotes should only be used to interpret canon, so if they have no canon base, they are not to be listened if they have no canon base.
In-text games are more canonic than images. And the style is not canonic AT ALL.

And that's all.

[mmmmm_PIE]

Why does eveyone keep pointing out that style is noncanonical? Who ever suggested it was?

[Arturo]

Because that would mean that OoT and TWW have no connection at all, for example.

Edited by Arturo, 13 October 2006 - 03:38 PM.

[Fyxe]

epistemology...

See, this is the problem. Words like 'epistemology'. Who the heck knows what that word even means?

The stage when you start taking the Zelda timeline really, REALLY seriously is the stage when you've lost the entire point of it.

[Arturo]

Wasn't that the phylosophy that studies wisdom?

[mmmmm_PIE]

Yeah, epsitemology is our body of knowledge about knowledge; the nature of it, the scope of it, the method by which it is attained.

I take the timeline as seriously as I do any other problem I'm interested. I'm doing this to find the solution, because I enjoy the challange of the process. Yes I want to have enjoy the process, but I don't feel that I need damper my voacabulary to acheive that.

Of course, this is a group activity, foremost, and I'll play to please. I apologize for my destractions...

[Jumbie]

Buuuut, I'm a bit of an extremist... Whadaya say?

I say you're a bit of an extremist I didn't understand much of what you wrote, for the simple reason that I would have needed to spend a lot more time on understanding it, which I'm not willing to spend.

If our goal here is to create a timeline which will be accpeted generally, rather than personally, we will need a well constructed, easily employed epistemology...

I doubt that's anyone's goal anymore. We tried that only some months ago in two threads, and it simply failed, although the true reason for it was lack of interest. Topmost I don't aim to reach acception of other theorists, but to reach the largest possible concordance with the developers' timeline, which by Aonuma's promise will come to exist one day.

Why does eveyone keep pointing out that style is noncanonical? Who ever suggested it was?

With me personally, it's only out of caution. You asked about names, so: Master of ALttP heavily suggested that artwork style and enemy style may be used as criteria that connect certain Zelda games with each other.

See, this is the problem. Words like 'epistemology'. Who the heck knows what that word even means?

I agree. I can't be bothered to look it up, because I don't think it even belongs here.

The stage when you start taking the Zelda timeline really, REALLY seriously is the stage when you've lost the entire point of it.

Exactly. The Zelda series is not a series with the most complex and confusing in-game stories. You may simply play them, read them, and use that knowledge to draw connections. Not all connections are explicitly stated, but most of them suggest themselves automatically by common sense. If something sounds very similar to something else, then the likelihood that it's the same event is much too big to disregard it as two different things.

[mmmmm_PIE]

I doubt that's anyone's goal anymore. We tried that only some months ago in two threads, and it simply failed, although the true reason for it was lack of interest. Topmost I don't aim to reach acception of other theorists, but to reach the largest possible concordance with the developers' timeline, which by Aonuma's promise will come to exist one day

Well I don't see what the difference is.
If you beleive that the developers timeline will depart from our current knowledge, then it is, for now, unatainable and not worth worrying about.
If you beleive the devlopers timeline will be the perfect fulfillment of all we know at the moment, and that it is indeed inferable, then, in its ture form, it would only be denied by the most closed minded of theorists.

We work as a group for a reason...

Edited by mmmmm_PIE, 13 October 2006 - 07:20 PM.

[Jumbie]

Well I don't see what the difference is.
If you beleive that the developers timeline will depart from our current knowledge, then it is, for now, unatainable and not worth worrying about.
If you beleive the devlopers timeline will be the perfect fulfillment of all we know at the moment, and that it is indeed inferable, then, in its ture form, it would only be denied by the most closed minded of theorists.

We work as a group for a reason...

What fans have been doing up to this point in time is try to create the most sensible order the games could have, because Nintendo themselves didn't seem willing to do it. I don't think that after TP and PH the timeline will make much more sense than it does now, so fans' theories are by no means futile yet. Should we one day manage to find a theory that everyone can agree on, and Nintendo would present their own valid timeline.. what then?!
I'm actually pretty sure Nintendo's own worked out timeline will have its inconsistencies and oddities still, so there might be a fan's theory that makes more sense, but hey, if they nail the timeline down in form of game canon, we'll have no choice but accept it...

[Hero of Slime]

How do we know what are their intentions?

Sometimes it's obvious, Like MM. No one questions MM's placement because the game creators made it's placement clear.

What do you think? Should we assume that anything that could be an implied connection is an implied connection?

[LionHarted]

Why does eveyone keep pointing out that style is noncanonical? Who ever suggested it was?

There were two main reasons that we went with the 2D graphics for the GameCube Four Swords. One was that it was a sequel to the Game Boy Advance Four Swords game and so for continuity we chose to retain the same graphic style.
Source

Some guy named Aonuma seems to think so. Hey... doesn't he make the Zelda games?

Edited by LionHarted, 18 October 2006 - 01:06 PM.

[mmmmm_PIE]

I'm not doubting that the graphics are important, especiallywhen used to imply intent, but peeps kept stating that art was not canon in such a way (I felt) that showed they had had past experience with the sentiment.

I wondered if there was an arugment wherein had been dismissed as canon somehow....

[Arturo]

Some guy named Aonuma seems to think so. Hey... doesn't he make the Zelda games?

He wasn't speaking about Storyline, but about style. He chose that style to continue with the style of FS.

[Doopliss]

Hi! It's been a month since I was last here, but I haven't forgotten this topic. Now I'll move to the serious things.

Does canon change? I'd say the answer is no. Can canon contradict itself? No. Therefore, if things don't fit, we have to change our interpretation of canon and not vice versa. This is a good example:

As you remember, some weeks ago I was discussing with LionHarted if the Imprisoning War and the Seal War were the same. ALttP uses different names for both wars and we really can't know if they are the same or not. Anyway, we know for sure that it must there is only one answer from both is possible, and that when ALttP was released there was already an answer that hasn't changed since then.

Now, if we assume that the IW and the SW are the same, then OoT can't be the same as the IW/SW in a single timeline because it is stated that Ganon couldn't escape from the Sacred Realm after he was sealed in the IW, but we know that TWW is a direct sequel to OoT, so Ganon would have to escape from the Sacred Realm, thus making a paradox. So... TWW has determined that OoT isn't the IW/SW or that the SW and the IW aren't the same?

I think that the right answer is the first one. We really don't have any concrete evidence to claim that OoT is the IW/SW. TWW can't determine if the IW and the SW are different because both, TWW and the wars, are canon. However, it isn't canon that OoT is the IW/SW, so TWW can prove it or disprove it. The obvious conclusion is that OoT isn't the IW, but I can't use this to prove that the SW and the IW are different or are the same. Then, the only thing that fits is that OoT is the SW then or none of them. In this reasoning, I made my theory (that OoT is the IW or not) fit the canon (TWW and ALttP), not vice versa. Also, I didn't modify the old canon.

I hope it was clear enough.

See, this is the problem. Words like 'epistemology'. Who the heck knows what that word even means?

I think it's necessary to make at least a set of basic rules. We don't have to do it as professional philosophers, just what we need to be able to theorize correctly.

I say you're a bit of an extremist I didn't understand much of what you wrote, for the simple reason that I would have needed to spend a lot more time on understanding it, which I'm not willing to spend. This is the only purpose of this thread.

[MikePetersSucks]

My only nitpick: Canon CAN contradict itself. It's called plotholes.

[CID Farwin]

My only nitpick: Canon CAN contradict itself. It's called plotholes.

But does the Canon contradict, or the interperatation? Give me an example.

[mmmmm_PIE]

Again, defining canon as "truth concerning zelda" rather then "any bit of information from a credited source" completely eliminates the chance of contradiction.

Of course, until somone can give an example of a true contradiction, it doesn't make to much of a difference...

[MikePetersSucks]

I don't NEED to give an example. It's perfectly common sense that any story, franchise, whatever can objectively contradict itself. Doesn't mean it has or will, but the possibility is there. Zelda isn't immune. Hell, it's at risk since plotline isn't a huge priority like with some games.

[CID Farwin]

I don't NEED to give an example. It's perfectly common sense that any story, franchise, whatever can objectively contradict itself. Doesn't mean it has or will, but the possibility is there. Zelda isn't immune. Hell, it's at risk since plotline isn't a huge priority like with some games.

My bad, I misread your post. Nobody said Zelda was immune; we'll deal with any contradiction should they come up. Until then, forget it.