22 replies to this topic

[CID Farwin]

(Pretty sure this goes here, as it's related to timeline debates, but if I'm wrong, feel free to move it.)

It's not my concern at all to look for a reason why this would happen, but rather to look at the myriad of blatant and insistent concordances between ALttP's backstory and events described in OoT, and therefore realize that ALttP's place should be nowhere else than right after a time which lies parallel to when OoT Link met Zelda in two other timelines.

"Similar" does not have to indicate "the same". The Dark Mirror could be the Twilight Mirror because they are similar, but they don't have to be the same. I believe that while ALTTP's BS is similar to OoT / TP, they are not the same. I believe that ALTTP's BS takes place after TP.

These two quotes got me thinking: I think there's a fundamental difference between the two sides here; In any debate, really. In fact, I think all timeline theorists can be separated easily into two factions:

1. The Divinators of Creator Intent[ignore inconsistencies to favor similarities group]
or
2. The Logical Cynics[ignore similarities because of inconsistencies group]
If you can think up better names for them, then feel free to tell me. For the purposes of this post, however, I will refer to them as DCIs and LCs.

DCI:
DCIs like myself have a very loose view on Zelda timeline theorizing. Generally they (or at least I, I can only speak for myself, you know) view the Zelda games as separate, and through similarities build a timeline. The reasoning behind this is that the developers think much the same way, hence the name, creating separate complete games with slight references to other games(These two are similar, maybe the developers are telling us something). This thinking, that similarities should not be overlooked and that differences can be explained, spurs such theories as the Dark Mirror and the Mirror of Twilight being the same, The Triforce and the Light Force being the same (or at least related somehow,) the Oracle Series coming before Link's Awakening, or even the Hero's Shade from Twilight Princess being the Hero of Time (all of which I acknowledge as possible, by the way.) This view can be taken to certain extremes, and can spawn theories like those centered around the Legend of the Fairy, the Single Link theory, and the "Triumph Forks" placement of The Minish Cap, among many others.

DCIs are far more likely to see geographical similarities between games as well, willing to twist and turn a map, lining up this or that landmark, so long as similarities exist. Not to say that all DCIs like, or even care, about geography, just that seeing similarities extends to geography.

LC:
The LCs tend to take a more logical view of the timeline, and take everything with a grain of salt, hence the name. This isn't to say that they're the only ones who think logically(or, for that matter, that DCIs are the only ones who care about intent,) Just that their argument is usually that of logic(because there's differences between the two, they logically aren't the same). Like Raian's quote, the mentality of "Just because they're similar does not mean they have to be the same" seems prevalent. The extreme on this side brings theories such as there being different Master Swords; differentiating between legendary hero and Legendary Hero; and viewing Light Force, Force Gems, and Life force as three entirely separate things.

Don't get all wound up just yet, you don't have to agree with all (or any) of the theories on either side to be LC or DCI. Those aren't the only things on either side, either, just (some of them are) extremes of the mentality. It just seemed redundant to say 'the LC way of thinking leads to theories such as the Dark Mirror and Mirror of Twilight not being the same mirror, the Triforce and Light force have nothing to do with eachother.' etc. etc.

In case you're still having problems seeing what I'm saying, let me give you a visual. There's a continuum, with extreme DCI on one end, and extreme LC on the other. Kind of like this.
 continuum.png   32.45K   2 downloads
Not perfect, but it gets the point across. The overlap has probably about 90% of people in it, so obviously almost everybody will take different sides on different issues. The middle line is the 'dividing point,' but that doesn't necessarily mean much. For example, let's say you're somewhere on the LC half, and an argument comes up way far out on the LC side. You would probably take the DCI stance on that issue, yet on the whole you'd be LC. The inverse is also true.

So, yeah. Obviously I have more to say about the DCIs, but that's probably due to a bias I have. If you've got something to add, speak up! Discuss, talk, hopefully this will help with never-ending-debates-that-go-nowhere.

Vote according to which one you are more like; Most everybody (I think) has a little of both.

Edited by CID Farwin, 01 May 2008 - 01:26 PM.

[Impossible]

I don't think your idea works. I'd rather divide theorists up into people who do and don't properly utilise context and intent. What you're saying doesn't make sense. I'm constantly talking about intent, but I don't favour similarities over inconsistencies at all. Many similarities are NOT in fact intended. It all depends on the context and the argument, so you can't say people actually prioritise either negative (favour inconsistencies, i.e. cynical) or positive (favour similarities) theories. I don't fit into either of the categories the poll lists, because I focus on what I believe was intended - which could be either.

The extreme on this side brings theories such as there being different Master Swords; differentiating between legendary hero and Legendary Hero; and viewing Light Force, Force Gems, and Life force as three entirely separate things.

I don't really see how theories like that fit with the idea of a logical, more conservative approach. That mentality wouldn't lead anyone to deny creator intent. On the other hand, plenty of the things you talk about in the other category are far from intended connections, and are just about ignoring any contradictions at all, even if they far outnumber anything else.

Edited by Impossible, 27 April 2008 - 01:16 AM.

[Hero of Legend]

Can't say I agree with you; I usually prioritize creator intent, but that doesn't mean I care about geography. Of course, it's all a matter of priority; sort of like that old debate where I argued that LA followed from the Oracles (which I no longer believe, by the way, but anyway); It certainly is a possibility, though it defies all kinds of in-game logic. I was criticized for it, of course, but then again, those same people would try and link the White Sword in TMC with the one in LoZ, or claim that the Trident belonged to ALttP Ganon, or something equally ignorant of in-game facts and (non-speculative) creator intent. Not worse by any means, but still, that's hypocrisy for you.

Edited by Hero of Legend, 27 April 2008 - 05:17 AM.

[MikePetersSucks]

What they both said. Can't agree, so can't vote.

[LionHarted]

Neither of you read the disclaimer:
"Vote according to which one you are more like; Most everybody (I think) has a little of both."
And the poll simply asks for a tendency; it doesn't have to match his definition of it.

The question here is really "Are you liberal or conservative concerning the use of references?"

It has nothing to do with how you look at the stories, really.

Edited by LionHarted, 27 April 2008 - 02:40 PM.

[Jumbie]

A very, very good idea, CID!
This issue seems way more important to be discussed than, for example, our differing views about natural laws in Zelda.

Needless to say, my choice lies with the 1st policy, through and through.
I think your descriptions of the groups are spot-on, especially what regards the examples.

E.g., the nitpickery about capitalization has been proven idiotic through the original Japanese not having capitals in the first place, and a similar thing is true for the Force issue. And two Master Swords... that used to be the epitome of comicality (also been defused by Japanese re-translation, btw).

In addition to that, I've always felt the LC way of thinking is bold and childish. To say, "It's similar but not stated to be the same", is like a big "Screw you!" in the developers' faces who were carefully placing subtle references for only the most attentive ones to pick up. (Cue: The hat and ending lines in TMC.)

The reason I do agree with your definition while most other posters don't, is that I actually prioritise similarities wherever they are found over the question of what was intended and what was coincidence.
(I should add that this only comes into play once I've finished looking at the *true* evidence for a placement, of course).

Edited by Jumbie, 27 April 2008 - 09:06 PM.

[CID Farwin]

I don't think your idea works. I'd rather divide theorists up into people who do and don't properly utilise context and intent. What you're saying doesn't make sense. I'm constantly talking about intent, but I don't favour similarities over inconsistencies at all. Many similarities are NOT in fact intended. It all depends on the context and the argument, so you can't say people actually prioritise either negative (favour inconsistencies, i.e. cynical) or positive (favour similarities) theories. I don't fit into either of the categories the poll lists, because I focus on what I believe was intended - which could be either.

The extreme on this side brings theories such as there being different Master Swords; differentiating between legendary hero and Legendary Hero; and viewing Light Force, Force Gems, and Life force as three entirely separate things.

I don't really see how theories like that fit with the idea of a logical, more conservative approach. That mentality wouldn't lead anyone to deny creator intent. On the other hand, plenty of the things you talk about in the other category are far from intended connections, and are just about ignoring any contradictions at all, even if they far outnumber anything else.

You seem to be missing the point. DCI and LC are just names, not behaviors. DCI isn't about intent, it's about (as I constantly say in my last post) favoring the similarities. LC isn't about logical thinking (I myself am quite logical,) it's about favoring inconsistencies.

I don't favour similarities over inconsistencies at all. Many similarities are NOT in fact intended.

There you go: you're definitely LC; These two sentences alone are enough.

Can't say I agree with you; I usually prioritize creator intent, but that doesn't mean I care about geography. Of course, it's all a matter of priority; sort of like that old debate where I argued that LA followed from the Oracles (which I no longer believe, by the way, but anyway); It certainly is a possibility, though it defies all kinds of in-game logic. I was criticized for it, of course, but then again, those same people would try and link the White Sword in TMC with the one in LoZ, or claim that the Trident belonged to ALttP Ganon, or something equally ignorant of in-game facts and (non-speculative) creator intent. Not worse by any means, but still, that's hypocrisy for you.

While I give you advice here, I'm also speaking to everyone:

It's as simple as this. When you hear a theory about a similarity, are you 1)More likely to accept it as true before seeing evidence of it being false, or 2)More likely to not believe it, until you see reasonable evidence for it to be true.


Now I'll address this:

I usually prioritize creator intent, but that doesn't mean I care about geography.

I'm a guy, doesn't mean I'm aggressive. However, on a whole Men are more likely to act aggressively then Women. It's a simple matter that people who are more prone to look at similarities will have an easier time seeing similar geography. And again, it's not about intent, that's a whole separate batch of enchiladas. It's a basic matter of: Do you favor similarities, or do they take a backseat if there's discrepancy around?

[Impossible]

There you go: you're definitely LC; These two sentences alone are enough.

Are you serious? Now you've really got me convinced that this entire idea is insanely flawed, because I know you're wrong, and if you read my WHOLE post instead of two sentences you would see that, too. I'm "LC" because I believe that people create unintentional similarities that don't exist outside of the timeline debate and were not intended? You're just proving how goddamn stupid these classifications are, because anyone who is familiar with my arguments knows that that wouldn't fit with my perspective on the timeline at all. Having the common sense to not immediately take a single similarity as fact does not mean that you don't care about creator intent. I don't favour inconsistencies over similarities, so don't give me your stupid fucking label and tell me it's definite because you took me out of context. Denying a similarity that was invented by a theorist, not suggested by the game plot, is in fact still focusing on creator intent.

The two labels you've created are not even remotely mutually exclusive. There are theories on both sides there that are fucking stupid for the SAME reason, usually the ignoring of intent or context, so those don't go into different categories. The LC theory examples you gave have little to do with whether people favour similarities or inconsistencies - when most people do neither, because it's determined by completely different factors. The conservative, logical approach doesn't produce bullshit like there being two Master Swords. And prioritising intent, which I do, does NOT produce the Triumph Forks or Legend of the Fairy connections. Claiming that you take consistencies, references or similarities, no matter how microscopic they may be, and turn them into the foundations of a timeline theory, is an insult to yourself.

I focus FAR more on creator intent than on tiny details, and I think people who nitpick at stupid little things are completely wrong. Yet, this would appear to directly contradict your stupid labelling of me... Until you realise that this kind of categorising says nothing about how we theorise. Because I hate that nitpicking for both positive (prioritising the connections) and negative (prioritising the inconsistencies) reasons; which one it is has no bearing on why I dislike it. It's for the same reason, which is a completely different principle to the one you think divides us. Or according to you, I'm somehow simultaneously both and neither to great extremes. I'm not more like either because they're completely unrelated ideas, and you're looking at the reasons why people tend to divide into two consistent camps, often with the same people, in completely the wrong way. It's all about context and intent, as well as how much we change them and speculate. It's how we approach that which always splits us into groups. I'm sure most people you would label as "LCs", who might in fact be more likely to call themselves "DCIs", would say the same thing: they hate those "extreme" theories for exactly the same reason, regardless of side. Because it's a different factor entirely that produces those two sides. It's about focusing on minute details out of context, in both cases. You've turned it into a "positive vs negative" division, which is a divide that simply doesn't exist. At least, not to any significant extent.

Edited by Impossible, 28 April 2008 - 02:00 AM.

[LionHarted]

I'm "LC" because I believe that people create unintentional similarities that don't exist outside of the timeline debate and were not intended?

Yes. You throw out references and similarities when they disagree with your logical view.

No one says you favour inconsistencies over similarities: the other side simply favours similarities IN SPITE OF inconsistencies.

Your views on the Dark Mirror essentially represent your views on the rest of the series.

:::

Both sides try to establish creator intent. The LCs try to do it through logic; the DCIs simply do it through weighing the use of references, especially plot references.

It's the difference between saying: "The Dark Mirror is not the Twilight Mirror because they're presented differently an nonequivalently" and "the Dark Mirror is the Twilight Mirror because most of its properties are closely comparable to the other."

Edited by LionHarted, 28 April 2008 - 06:50 AM.

[Fyxe]

Is there an option for 'These Labels Are So Agonisingly Nerdy And Meaningless That I'm Just Gonna Go Run Away To The Land Where People Have Better Things To Do With Their Time'?

No?

I do so hate how men have to label and categorise everybody and everything. This topic is just asking to turn into yet another Impossible versus LionHarted argument. WOULD YOU BOYS JUST KISS ALREADY.

[Raien]

The problem I have with this concept is that it doesn't account for the different contexts in which we find parallels. I actually don't see any reason not to believe that the Dark Mirror is not the Twilight Mirror, if I was to assume a TWW > ALTTP placement. But since I assume a TP > ALTTP placement, that immediately places the parallel in a context where it is impossible to be the same.

In conclusion, most parallels are determined by the timeline theory, not determining the timeline theory.

[CID Farwin]

I do so hate how men have to label and categorise everybody and everything.

Do you also hate Howard Gardner for his 'labeling and categorizing people' through his theory of multiple intelligences?

1. I created this topic to try and create some understanding in debates, not to 'label and categorize everything' and definitely not to start this freaking flame war.
2. Your sexism is so encouraging.


It's not a clear-cut split-down-the-middle type thing. There's a continuum, like with everything of this nature. DCI is on one side, and LC is on the other. 90% of people will fall within the half of the continuum centered around the middle, with a few outliers on each side.

Having the common sense to not immediately take a single similarity as fact does not mean that you don't care about creator intent.

When did I say it did? Are you taking 'divinator of creator intent' to somehow mean that that's the only side that cares about intent? I came up with the name because the most common arguments on that side center around the similarities being the developers throwing hints at timeline placement (ala 'Triumph Forks.') The name itself is even a jab at that mentality.

There are theories on both sides there that are fucking stupid for the SAME reason, usually the ignoring of intent or context

Both edges of the continuum are bad places, and both very much take things out of context. Oh, and see the above paragraph.

And just in case you missed it, I'll make this real big for ya:
THESE HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH ACTUAL CREATOR INTENT, JUST HOW WE VIEW THE EVIDENCE.

[Hero of Slime]

For the most part I agree with Jumbie, the connections implied by creators do have meaning. If the game creators make a connection it is true in spit of some inconsistancies that it may have. However, there I do tend to view most of these connections a purely allusions. I don not believe that every single conncection is intended to reveal the timeline. Most are there just as fun allusions to past games. I also do not stand for it when someone fan-fics up some kind of a connection to make the zelda world seem smaller. (Old theories of the Wind Tribe becoming the Gerudo come to mind here)

[Jumbie]

I also do not stand for it when someone fan-fics up some kind of a connection to make the zelda world seem smaller. (Old theories of the Wind Tribe becoming the Gerudo come to mind here)

But does it really make the Zelda world smaller, when TMC doesn't have Gerudo and OoT doesn't have a Wind Tribe anyway? Not that I believed that particular theory, but the overall series wouldn't lose any of its diversity through some theories stating one thing turned into another over time.
(Otherwise, tell that to the developers of TWW, with the Zora-Rito thing )

Edited by Jumbie, 28 April 2008 - 10:19 PM.

[Impossible]

I don't think you understand the problem at all. It is NOT our tendency to be negative or positive that divides us. At all. Because I disagree with theories on both sides for the SAME REASON, which is totally unrelated to what you're saying. The classifications don't work, if you'd actually read my post instead of focusing on one thing I'm saying that you don't like, you would realise why I'm saying that. I understand perfectly well what you mean, but it's still wrong.

Your labels imply that "DCIs" are more focused on creator intent, while LCs take a single inconsistency as definite proof. You can't change that by saying it's not true now. And if you DON'T think our understanding of intent is what divides us, then you're still completely wrong, because that IS the issue here. It's all about how we use or ignore context to understand and interpret (or ignore and misinterpret) intent. I'm not saying that because I think you've divided us into people who do and don't care about intent (although since every example you've given for the LC side is a blatant ignorance of intent, and since you've contrasted cynics with people pushing intent, that's not as false as you claim), I'm saying it because it's what you're failing to understand altogether.

Your views on the Dark Mirror essentially represent your views on the rest of the series.

Why the fuck is nobody listening to me? This isn't true at all. Claiming that a similarity IS NONEXISTANT is not the same as ignoring a similarity. Claiming that the argument for the similarity is fundamentally fucking wrong doesn't say anything about how I treat ANY OTHER ISSUE in the timeline. Well, except for the fact that I don't desperately search for a theory in order to conjure up meaningless, circumstantial evidence that doesn't prove anything. Anyway, I lean FAR more towards focusing on the similarities the creators intended than on stupid nitpicking. Your labelling simply doesn't work, and you can't seem to see that because you're already forcing me into a label that defines me as something I'm not.

the DCIs simply do it through weighing the use of references, especially plot references.

Yeah, like Triumph Forks. That's really part of TMC's plot.

Edited by Impossible, 29 April 2008 - 12:35 AM.

[CID Farwin]

Impossible:You seem unable to comprehend that I see things differently than you; That anyone can see things differently than you do. You even have the egotistical nerve to call anyone 'idiot' who won't share your view(which isn't always the right one, by the way.) You say people won't listen, when mostly you can't seem to listen yourself.

I firmly believe that OoT is the IW, and you don't. I believe it possible for the Dark Mirror to be the Mirror of Twilight in a different timeline, and you don't.

Why is that?

Your recent arguments lead me to believe that your answer would be because I'm 'a f****** idiot who has no understanding of context,' but then again, I might be taking you out of context to say that.

I believe that OoT is the IW because of the fact that the two stories are so similar. I assume you take the same reasoning as most and say that they aren't because of TP and TWW, as well as a few problems that were present before, when OoT was released.

What divides us? It's not that one of us is blind to what the developers intend for the future, (neither of us know what they plan.) It's because I choose to overlook the problems because the similarities seem to great, and you choose to overlook the similarities because the differences look to great.

Stop being impossible, Impossible.

[LionHarted]

To Raian, that's true, but if you believed the Dark Mirror was close enough to the Twilight Mirror to positively conclude they are the same, you would then defer to a post-TWW placement, and this, coupled with the fact that TP irrevocably removes the possibility for the IW to appear in the child timeline (at least as far as its self-placement, which I realize you don't accept) is in fact what inevitably prompted me to select it.

Your labels imply that "DCIs" are more focused on creator intent, while LCs take a single inconsistency as definite proof.

All references are obviously intentional.

DCI's are labeled as such because they take these intentional references and make them out to be timeline-significant. They herald the creator-intended references as the way to understanding the timeline. They're either right about the references, or wrong. In any particular case, the probability is about 50/50. They then interpret to fill the plotholes, but these interpretations are mostly tentative.

LC's disregard the references if they think they don't make sense. Therefore they shun the intentional references and try to find a logical interpretation. Since humans can use logic to come to multiple conclusions, this significantly distances LC's from the minds of the developers because they're relying on their own interpretation being the one the creators intended. The probability diminishes.

Both sides could very well be right.

Claiming that a similarity IS NONEXISTANT is not the same as ignoring a similarity.

Very few people are claiming this, though, because the similarities are obvious.

Yeah, like Triumph Forks. That's really part of TMC's plot.

Who said they had to be part of the plot of the game that they're in? The story developers of OoT both used references to things that weren't really part of their game-of-origin's plot to demonstrate the connections between those games and OoT, if you remember.

Edited by LionHarted, 30 April 2008 - 06:51 AM.

[Arturo]

Stop being impossible, Impossible.

I'll put it more nicely:

Impossible, SHUT UP

Please

^^

Edited by Arturo, 30 April 2008 - 08:34 AM.

[CID Farwin]

So...Anything else here anyone else have problems with? I think I've addressed the biggest problem, and I should probably edit my first post to include that stuff.

I want feedback here; I've got it pretty well thought out, but probably haven't said it right or addressed everything yet. Just one thing, don't be insulting me or calling me stupid because you stood up a mighty fine strawman. I'm willing to have level-headed discussions, but not more arguments.

The problem I have with this concept is that it doesn't account for the different contexts in which we find parallels. I actually don't see any reason not to believe that the Dark Mirror is not the Twilight Mirror, if I was to assume a TWW > ALTTP placement. But since I assume a TP > ALTTP placement, that immediately places the parallel in a context where it is impossible to be the same.

In conclusion, most parallels are determined by the timeline theory, not determining the timeline theory.

This is a legitimate concern, and I'm glad you brought it up. You say you would believe the Dark Mirror to be the Mirror of Twilight if you thought it possible in a separate timeline? That's a DCI view. If I favored a post-TP FSA/ALttP(Which I agree is most likely, but I don't actually put them after either TP or TWW,) I probably wouldn't think them the same.

It's only one argument, though, not nearly enough to find a tendency, you have to do that yourself. From what I've seen of your arguments, however, I would most likely place you somewhere close to the middle.

Different contexts should be taken into account. That last line is especially true, but my point is that on the far DCI side people actually do use parallels to determine the timeline, and on the far LC side there's theories with similar events happening, but they're completely unrelated to each other. Remember, both extremes tend to ignore context and intent.

[Showsni]

Personally, I cannot overlook contradictions. If there are two accounts of events, both of which are true, and they seem to describe a very similar event but with one notable (or even seemingly insignificant) difference, then logically I feel they can't be the same event.

[avroillusion]

...Hm. Well, you tried. Anyway, doesn't some of those supposed DCI theories go against the idea that the simplest solution is best? Occam's razor and all that. I'm not even sure the creators know what they want to do half the time so I think one should be prepared to change their theories accordingly or not take them completely seriously. Anyway, when it comes to a theory, it's innocent until proven guilty with me. It's fun to imagine things differently, though.

[DarkZero24]

hay guyz, lets focus on meaningless arbitrary divisions instead of working towards better theories!!!

[CID Farwin]

hay guyz, lets focus on meaningless arbitrary divisions instead of working towards better theories!!!

Meaningless arbitrary divisions? Alright, I must be completely blind here.

Where am I 'dividing' people? Where am I saying 'you're in this group and this is what you believe'? Why do so many people take offense to my idea? What's so taboo about doing this that I have three people basically calling me a moron? what?

If you aren't smart enough to do anything other than make fun of me than why are you even posting here?