C'est la vie

Theory-building is somewhat of a double-edged sword, in retrospect.

On the one hand, trying to work out the mysteries of the universe is an exciting prospect. Folding back the layers, peering at problems from every angle, building and rebuilding perceptions about people and things and places and entire worlds, it’s all so much to occupy oneself with. Obviously dealing with a small fraction of a world, as Zelda theorists are forced to do, yields considerably less material to examine and considerably fewer holes to try to fill in, but even that slice is chock-full of goodies. I could spend forever just combing through the Zelda world, trying to assemble a set of my own personal opinions to explain what I see, based on the information given to us in the games. My Temple of Time article should attest to that.

But then you finish your theory, and proceed to submit it to the community at large… and those lofty prospects, more often than not, get trodden on, torn apart, and spit back out time and time again. This is especially true of communities like the timeline community, which have become near-religious in the way they critically examine theories. In any given timeline environment, statements by the Nintendo Gods are Absolute Fact (except when they’re not!) and not-quite-all “Canon” storyline references are imperative to understanding the timeline (the outliers classified as “Easter eggs”, often simply because they come in conflict with previously-supposed “fact”). Players who don’t follow these rules are subject to torture for their heresy and persecution by their opponents.

What happened to the excitement? What happened to personal opinion? These are both elements that help put the “theory” in theorizing, and they seem to be lost among these notions of “developer statements” and “canon” and “Easter eggs.” If someone can honestly make a case for the Four Sword being the Master Sword that takes the facts into account, by all means let them. Saying “LAWL n00b, your so WRONG! The Four Sword wuz made by teh Minish, and the Master Sword was forged by teh Sages! WHAT AN IDIOT LAWL”* is about as productive, since most theorists obviously take that presentation into account when formulating their opinions about the relationships between the two swords (though there are those, of course, who might not know that, and thus would not have given it any thought). Quite frankly the counterargument doesn’t prove anything beyond that, since:

(1) If the Master Sword was forged by the sages, it could have been a different sword (Four Sword) prior that was forged into a new sword by the sages and given different powers/properties;
(2) If the Four Sword was made by the Minish, it could have been a different sword (Master Sword) prior that was forged into a new sword by the Minish and given different powers/properties;
3) If the Four Sword was forged by Minish sages (which is also possible), then that interpretation would remove any disparity between the histories

So why do we conduct discussion the way we do? Because, quite frankly, we all want to be right (this includes me, especially on the SW topic). No matter our reasons for getting into theorizing, no matter how innocent and our initial approach, eventually we will always find ourselves forced to argue about something, be it wording, obscure color references, or why in the world you place LoZ first in the timeline. Not only that, but all of our arguments will boil down to is basically a tug-of-war in which one side says, “Your theory X is wrong, because counter-theory Y/“canon” fact Z tells us something else happened”.

It’ll almost never be exclusively a matter of discussing and/or improving one another’s ideas; most discussion will always be geared toward ensuring that a certain view comes out on top. Oh well. That’s human nature for you. Such is life.

*Obvious over-dramatization, as I hope you all realized without having to read this footnote.


Discuss. Mainly meant to relate to the politicizing of timeline affairs, and to the almost religiously-strict enforcement of canon "guidelines" and developer quotes (as well as how to interpret them) in debate. Have we basically screwed ourselves out of a casual look at the workings of the series, or ever achieving a community dedicated to this ever again?

On an entirely unrelated note:

BERRIES AND CREAM

Mmm...berries and cream...what?

I'm just here to shoot ideas out and see how they stand up against adversity. If I find a hole, I try to patch it as best I can. If the breach is too big, I abandon ship.

Until recently, I believed in a linear timeline (just more convenient that way) but with all these developer quotes flying around, its hard to truly believe that I know something to be true beyond the reason of doubt.

I think that we all have a vision of what Zelda should really be, sometimes our visons clash with each other. The point of sites like this is to try to find the holy grail of theorists: a foolproof timeline without any flaws that can detract from it. I'm just not sure that's possible with the current state of the series

I think the main problem the timeline community has is that different people view some things as valid that others do not. Developer quotes are a prime example of this. To some, any and all developer quotes are unquestionable, no matter how old, outdated and contradicted by more recent in-game evidence they may be. But to others, newer information from the games that clashes with the developer statement overrides the developer statement, as it's newer, and therefore more reliable and up-to-date.

If we all agreed on what is no longer valid evidence, perhaps debates would just be friendly banter on how to improve someones theories, should they be slightly inaccurate, perhaps they may not.

And now for something completely different:

The Berries and Cream Remix!

I sense that this is rubbish

EDIT: As Raian indicated,I was referring to the IGN Post that was since removed.

I guess what I'm saying is that theories need to be judged by the criteria they operate under:

Looking at a situation from the criteria being used by any given theorist, does the theorist's theory hold up in the climate of that criteria? Does it match the developer quotes he/she uses, or the evidence he/she is putting forward? Does another piece of evidence (from the games) contradict it (whatever piece of evidence is being used)?

And I'm being quite serious. Applying your own criteria to others gets us nowhere. Everybody knows what you believe; try to see if there's some way to make others' beliefs workable.

To Lex, in case you don't already understand the meaning behind oni_lunk's post, he is not referring to your post or any others on the current topic. Basically, someone posted a false IGN statement on this topic, which has since been deleted, and oni_lunk was addressing that. Just clearing that up.

Hmm. I was not at all aware of this. Could someone recall for me what exactly the "IGN statement" posed?

Sorry to interrupt but it was something about a future zelda game in which Tingle and Ganondorf were related and Ganondorf became a homosexual. Then the poster claimed he was a fairy and did the 'kooloo-limpah!" thing then got banned along with his accomplice. At least that's all I remember.

Just an ordinary day here at ZU lol....