History VS. History: What Kind of Theorist Am I?

Every theorist in any field of study finds himself or herself on a quest to excellence. How we define “Truth” is merely what historians have collectively found, expressing their studies and exposing them to scholars around the world to reflect upon. Just like in our own Zelda Theorizing hobbies, there are many perceptions on what we claim to be canon. And it is no surprise we have never universally come up with a hierarchy on which is more merited towards seeking the true “absolute truth”. Nonetheless, most theorists agree that “in-game” and other textual resources, and or developer intent is the highest sense of guidance to defining truth. (All other categories considered canon by the fans, are debatable, and will not be gone in depth for the purpose of this thread).

I am conducting a study in regards to the canonical trends that Zelda Theorizing follows. I am hoping that I can provide concepts that most theorists may want to adopt into their way of thinking. Further more, this will help me in how I plan to develope the Theory Sections for ZI. The presentation below comes from a college level history class, but I have broken it down into basic terminologies for the reader in my own way.

This study aims to clarify what “truth” is, or is not; hopefully making general distinctions between different types of logic of those that participate in this field of study. I hope that you may find this refreshing to your intellect and devotion to being great Zelda Historians. It is my sincere wish that you fully read through all of this, then label what Type of Zelda Theorist you generally are.


History VS. History:
A Fundamental Distinction


Objects to be Known:
“Things in Itself”

What is compared and contrasted as a natural and unarguable state of being.

Example: The Triforce judges a person between three forces: Power, Wisdom, and Courage

Knowledge
“Things as it appears”

What we interpret to be evidence (canon) based on what is made by something or someone.

Example: The NoJ direct translations, by fans, are more accurate than NoA’s work; thus the Japanese cultural understanding of the series, in ALL textual resources and manual regards, is more sophistically developed than any other language translations.

Knowledge Depends on:
- Sensor/ed information (What other Historians tell us is “Truth” – Think of the Zelda Developers this way.
- Reflection (What evidences we compare and contrast to other historians’ conclusions and our own)
* Hardware (The core elements of study - The Games themselves)
* Software (The relating elements of study -The extra resources that are not part of the Games themselves, but may provide insight)


History

“The Past in Itself” (Also called History)

VS.

“The Past as it Appears” (Also Called History)

History [Does NOT Equal] History

Simple Interpretation: There is no “Absolute Truth”

For Example:

As humans, are senses are limited to sight, hearing, taste, touch, and smell. With these boundaries, a diversified intake of what is considered “evidence” by different individuals, skews what is commonly thought as “knowledge”.

[This does NOT mean stop thinking or theorizing by all means]

Since Zelda Theorists seemingly are limited to only sight and hearing what others say, it makes our study extremely difficult. Therefore, in order to utilize the latter three senses, we must picture ourselves as “part of the game/s” as if we are a person observing things within Hyrule itself – or wherever. This means: Being creative in our reasoning in where society’s knowledge is limited, in their current state of being in the games; Understanding theories inside of theories – For Example: Chad, in TP, says that some people theorize the Ooccoo created the Hylians. This can be interpreted in a literal or metaphorical sense when comparing and contrasting other elements that show us they helped advance the Hylians way of living, rather than being divine descendants.

Historical Categories:

- Time [periods, eras, centuries, etc.]

- Space [geography]

Aspects of Society:

- Economics [The production and exchange of material goods]

- Social [Relations among individuals and groups, as well as the nature of every day life]

- Political [Government legal systems, power groups, and relations between states]

- Cultural/Individual [The realm of ideas (philosophy and science), the arts and religion.

Because there is no official timeline for the Zelda Series, this relation shown below only limits historical understandings to timeline arcs that have been proven to be unchanged.

Given Structure -> [Continuity and or Change in Theorists’ Trends] -> New Structure

In Zelda Timeline Theorizing – specifically – we are given defined timeline ark structures that are unarguable because it is what the Developers have stated. Theorists adapt trends in which to theorize off these timelines and or perhaps try and connect them into a massive chronology, or even argue the developer intent. Because of this, certain trends may vary and even change universally as people begin to theorize on other elements with a specific chronological understanding in mind. With all of the historical fundamentals in mind, it is up to the scholars to determine if the Developers/Historians intent is accurate to their work. A scholar must decide whether to defend common intent, despite the plot holes, or argue the intent has changed because of the plot holes, or argue that some areas are accurate to developer intent and some are not because of plot holes.

In my years of practice, and observing things outside of practice in Zelda Theorizing, I have seen trends evolve and branch four major types of logical understandings of the series. These are not definite terminologies and they may be seen by some as broad. However it is crucial to labeling these types of theorists like such so people can understand where a theorist is coming from in their perspective. It does not have any intention of being political; rather I am purely doing this from a sociological stance.

Updating the Definitions so they may be clearly understood.


Types of Theorists:

Traditional Zelda Theorists:

Developer's word over their intent has not changed. These theorists generally argue that anything the developers have said is their intent: past, present, and future. Despite plot holes left open in the in-game and other misc. manual text canon, these theorists argue that developers leave things unspecified in order to unrestrict how they make future games. Depending on what an individual is theorizing a relation to be, all storyline elements between games can plausibly correlate to make conclusions. Under this logic, general hypothesis may be made to provide universal explanation/s on why things happen a certain way, and or how they would happen. Traditional Zelda Theorists believe in an overall chronology.

Non-Traditional Zelda Theorists:

Developer’s word over their intent has changed. These theorists generally argue that in-game and other misc. manual text canon contradicts some of the developer's word – providing reason to why they may have changed their intent. Depending on what an individual is theorizing a relation to be, most storyline elements between games can plausibly correlate to make conclusions. Under this logic, general hypothesis may be made to provide universal explanation/s on why things happen a certain way, and or how they would happen. Non-Traditional Zelda Theorists can believe in an overall chronology, or believe certain timeline arks (like the FS series, for example) have been dismissed from relating to other title's storylines.

Independent Zelda Theorists:

Developer's word over their intent hardly means anything anymore, or has become indifferent as the series has progressed. These theorists argue that in-game and other misc. manual text canon is contradictive to developer's intent in many areas – providing reason that they have abandoned fixing things for an overall chronology to be possible. Depending on what an individual is theorizing a relation to be, storyline elements between games - within a timeline ark only - can plausibly correlate to make conclusions. Under this logic, general hypothesis may be made to provide explanation/s on why things happen a certain way, and or how they would happen according to explicit references only. Independent Theorists do not over extend their boundaries of bias’s and rarely let other theorists trends effect their skeptical judgments.

Innovative Zelda Theorists:

These Theorists weigh the checks and balances between the views and trends of what is considered canon by all types of Zelda Theorists. They do not over extend their boundaries of bias’s and rarely let other theorists trends effect their personal judgments. However, these historians may retain there opinions in certain areas (and perhaps even lean more towards certain Zelda Theorist's ideals) but do not let popular opinion impair on their reasoning. Innovative Theorists try to adopt the different logics between all three types of theorists and apply their rhetoric to debate efficiently when the time is appropriate. (Beginner Theorist will adopt this platform first and foremost - usually for a short time to find where their bias falls under more. Senior scholars that have been in more than two of the other catagories of theorists may find themselves returning to this stage to redefine where the series is actually going.)

Special Note:

I am not sure if all types of theorists generally accept NoJ > NoA canon as a trend. So I am assuming otherwise until someone points it out that they don’t – please make a separate thread on this if you don’t. There is room to expand and or correct these generalizations by all means.

----------------------------

So now comes YOUR part:

What type of Zelda Theorist are YOU?

I am hoping to have this adopted into the Theory Resources section in some way or fashion. I also hope that people will participate here to label themselves as one of the four categories most representing them generally; and state so in the Point of Views sticky thread. It is one thing to lay out what you believe in, but it is another to make it easier for newbies to understand the fundamentals of history and debating in general. There must be a general “point of being” for those to start out as, and then later develop and or change point of views.

Please discuss anywhere you may see a distortion in my work. Unlike debating a point of view, this is a trend I feel must be instilled here as a reminder to others that do not quite know where someone is coming from all the time.

Thank you.

~LOZ H~

Note:

For the record, I am currently an Innovative Zelda Theorist – slightly leaning towards conservative trends, but not a whole lot yet.

Dude, you were bored

No, just kidding. But seriously, someone should stick this thread. Of course that's my opinion and that's not really my decision...

I like the way you define the types of theorists, but I'm against this. The last thing we want is to divide the theorists into parties so that fights will be more exciting

Plus, I don't think it's possible for anyone to be only one of those tpes. The innovatives, as you called, is just a secondary label. In my opinion all theorists are either Comformists or Non-Comformists. The first being divided into Liberals and Conservatives. And everybody can/can't be an innovative theorist. I, for example, am clearly something in-between Conservative Comformists and Non-Comformists, slightly leaning towards "innovativism".

Nice writing though...

Originally Posted by Smertios

Dude, you were bored

Not really.

Originally Posted by Smertios

I like the way you define the types of theorists, but I'm against this. The last thing we want is to divide the theorists into parties so that fights will be more exciting

I specifically was not aiming at that. You are reading an old book of me and I resent the fact you'd think I was trying to repeat history.

The fights - debates more appropriate terminology now and days, are more formal and distinctive anyway. I just happen to be the one labling. The diffrentiations of between peoples' logic exist nonetheless, and the intent for this thread is NOT to start that up again. Hense I said this was non-political. You are being highly unfair to me Smertios, and your ignorance is uncanny.

Originally Posted by Smertios

The innovatives, as you called, is just a secondary label.

Perhaps. But it is the only way I can keep myself unbias until I entirely chose to be more forward in certain things. I refuse to become radical in any sense. I'll remain open minded.

Anyone can be a skeptic or non conformist too. Maybe you think I should relable it as Independent Zelda Theorist?

Originally Posted by Smertios

Nice writing though...

Thanks.

Originally Posted by Caulaincourt

I didn't really understand the different types of theorists.

Oh, that's probably because those types wouldn't make much sense outside of the theorizing world. It was a good sum-up done by LOZH there. Let me try to explain.

In the beginning (way before i started theorizing), what made the first theorists theorize about Zelda was the fact that Miyamoto himself stated that there was a true timeline set in a document in which all connections between games were listed. Of course this means that all the original theorists were comformists. They only theorized because they believed in the developers' intent to make a timeline.

With time, I believe that theorists eventually got divided into the first two groups LOZH listed. Some continued to believe that there was a solid ultimate timeline and some started to question if the developers ever changed their intent. This caused the first schism between theorists.

With time, some people started to argue if the information stated by devs was really consistent. This is what caused the third group to exist. As for the last group, I believe that's just LOZH trying to prove his point that we can't really have a timelien right now.

And the intent for OoX-LA is an example. (Eat that everyone)

Liberal Zelda Theorists:

Developer’s intent has changed. These theorists generally argue that in-game and other misc. manual text canon contradicts some of the developer intent – providing reason to why they may have changed their minds. All mythos and elements behind the state of “knowledge” can plausibly relate to one another in some fields of trends shown in other games; general hypothesizing a universal explanation for why things happen a certain way, and how they will happen. Liberal Zelda Theorists can believe in an overall chronology or believe certain timeline arks (like the FS series, for example) have been dismissed from relating to other released titles.

I'd say that sorta describes me.

I declare that everyone else who believe in LttP-LA is, by default, a Conservative Theorist.

I still sorta believe in TP/LA.

What does that make me? >_>

Alright Smertios. Thought this over and you made your point. I've changed it to Independent Zelda Theorist. The reason I labled it the way I did before is because these types of theorists refuse to follow the norm in Zelda Theorizing trends that people adopt when they believe in an overall chronology. That is all.

I won't change the other lablings after making this correction until further notice. I have provided plenty of reason why I have them catagorized like such because of their fundemental differences in canonical trends.

And you need to look back at my first post too. I editted that and I'd like a response.

Originally Posted by Smertios

As for the last group, I believe that's just LOZH trying to prove his point that we can't really have a timelien right now.

No. If I were feeling that way, I'd be in the third group catagory. What I am trying to say is that I am indifferent about Nintendo being smart and using the bloody Split Timeline format as an outlet to fix their damn chronology. It really just boils down to if they are still sticking to their intent or not. Both TP and TWW leave dead ends, and anything goes at this point. But I refuse to be skeptical - saying there is no overall timeline.

Originally Posted by Caulaincourt

If Madness is right then I'm conservative sure enough

Conservative means you stick by everything the developers say. Not just one part - for that would make you a liberal.

I've read the categories twice, but I still don't know what kind of theorist I am.....

I'm conservative. Every quote I have followed except the one for FS, which has a good reason for not being considered. After looking at the BS LoZ story, it talks of the seal war, which leads me to believe good ol' miyamoto wasn't crazy after all when he said OoT-LoZ/AoL-alltp.

Conservative.

It pains me to say that when the conservative party of Canada sucks

Originally Posted by The Goron Moron

I've read the categories twice, but I still don't know what kind of theorist I am.....

Anything someone theorizes on, bases their ideas off some sort of chronological understanding of the Zelda series. Within one's reasoining, he or she sees certain aspects relating to one another and can hypothesize on whether it can be the case in other games too.

If you believe in multi/micro chronologies, and only elements within those timeline universes can be applied to making sense of mysteries presented in each, then you are most likely Independent.

If you believe the developer intent is absolute, and relating mythos and elements (like the state of Ganon and the Triforce) in Hyrule can be compared and contrasted to make chronological conclusions, then you are a Conservative. You are abiding to making sense of their most rescent views.

If you believe developer intent has changed in more or less areas, and can still make ethical sense for how things may relate differently (like Ollathir does with his explanations for putting LoZ/AoL after ALttP), you are a Liberal.

Putting LA after TP is non traditional, you are argueing developer intent. So you would be Liberal.

Conservative/Traditional.

Well written LOZH.
It's interesting to look at ones self as a theorist, and then realise why you make particular desicions about the timeline etc.

Hopefully this will aid you in expanding ZI's theory forums as well.

As far as I'm concerned, the order of the games has always been OoT-LoZ/AoL-ALttP. I don't see any reason for that intent to have changed at any point, and I strongly believe that since then they've been trying to make that timeline work even better with each game that is released.

So with all that said, I too am conservative.

Originally Posted by Lord Insizor

Well written LOZH.
It's interesting to look at ones self as a theorist, and then realise why you make particular desicions about the timeline etc.

Hey, thanks.

Originally Posted by Lord Insizor

Hopefully this will aid you in expanding ZI's theory forums as well.

This will allow me to keep an unbias tone unlike what LA has been doing for the past six years or so. It's crucial I know people's perspectives in the majority and minority of these catagories while keeping an open mind - especially if NoJ canon is now considered higher in-game canon. I have to account for this and be sure I can find a translator who will hit everything I target that theorists will need quick references too.

I think I may change the titles now come to think of it. What Smertios said keeps ringing in my head.

Anyone feel I should change the generalizations to something like this?

Traditional Zelda Theorists (Instead of Conservative)

Non-Traditional Zelda Theorists ( Instead of Liberal)

Independant Zelda Theorists (Fine as is?)

Innovative Zelda Theorists (Fine as is?)

Some people tend to view the term "liberal" in a bad way - even though it isn't. I don't want the terminology to scare anyone off from participating.

As a side note:

Anyone putting the 2D games after the CT in the traditional developer intent, is still considered conservative (or "Traditional" if need be changed until then).

As a side note:

Anyone putting the 2D games after the CT in the traditional developer intent, is still considered conservative (or "Traditional" if need be changed until then).

That is incorrect. You would be liberal because you're arguing against OoT being the SW.

Originally Posted by LOZ Historian

I specifically was not aiming at that. You are reading an old book of me and I resent the fact you'd think I was trying to repeat history.

The fights - debates more appropriate terminology now and days, are more formal and distinctive anyway. I just happen to be the one labling. The diffrentiations of between peoples' logic exist nonetheless, and the intent for this thread is NOT to start that up again. Hense I said this was non-political. You are being highly unfair to me Smertios, and your ignorance is uncanny.

OK, sorry. I still can't see this as non-political...

Perhaps. But it is the only way I can keep myself unbias until I entirely chose to be more forward in certain things. I refuse to become radical in any sense. I'll remain open minded.

I see the point. That is what I was talking about. You made that category for people like you, who can't be put in any of the other categories.

Anyone can be a skeptic or non conformist too. Maybe you think I should relable it as Independent Zelda Theorist?

I like that name better. Non-Comformist seems like they are trying to prove things that are wrong by default.

Originally Posted by Caulaincourt

ALttP and ALttP DX are an example, right?

You mean LA and LA Dx, right?

Originally Posted by LOZ Historian

Alright Smertios. Thought this over and you made your point. I've changed it to Independent Zelda Theorist. The reason I labled it the way I did before is because these types of theorists refuse to follow the norm in Zelda Theorizing trends that people adopt when they believe in an overall chronology. That is all.

Ok, but that was not my point at all I kind of liked the old names. And I like the new ones too

And you need to look back at my first post too. I editted that and I'd like a response.

It seems good to me.

No. If I were feeling that way, I'd be in the third group catagory. What I am trying to say is that I am indifferent about Nintendo being smart and using the bloody Split Timeline format as an outlet to fix their damn chronology. It really just boils down to if they are still sticking to their intent or not. Both TP and TWW leave dead ends, and anything goes at this point. But I refuse to be skeptical - saying there is no overall timeline.

I see your point. Still, I believe you only created that fourth group because you didn't think you fit in any of the others, right?

Conservative means you stick by everything the developers say. Not just one part - for that would make you a liberal.

And that's why most people around here should be labeled Liberal. I'm a proud Conservative-Independentist.

Originally Posted by LOZ Historian

I think I may change the titles now come to think of it. What Smertios said keeps ringing in my head.

I'm glad I could help. Just, please tell me, what was it that I said that made you change your mind again?

Anyone feel I should change the generalizations to something like this?

Traditional Zelda Theorists (Instead of Conservative)

Non-Traditional Zelda Theorists ( Instead of Liberal)

Independant Zelda Theorists (Fine as is?)

Innovative Zelda Theorists (Fine as is?)

Seems better. Less political oriented. I like the conservative and liberal names better though. I'm kind of a political enthusiast.

Anyone putting the 2D games after the CT in the traditional developer intent, is still considered conservative (or "Traditional" if need be changed until then).

Yup, definitely conservative sounds better. It's too political though

Originally Posted by Smertios

I see the point. That is what I was talking about. You made that category for people like you, who can't be put in any of the other categories.

I see your point. Still, I believe you only created that fourth group because you didn't think you fit in any of the others, right?

And that's why most people around here should be labeled Liberal. I'm a proud Conservative-Independentist.

I'm glad I could help. Just, please tell me, what was it that I said that made you change your mind again?

Seems better. Less political oriented. I like the conservative and liberal names better though. I'm kind of a political enthusiast.

Yup, definitely conservative sounds better. It's too political though

Your down right set on trying to make a muck of this thread because of my past track record huh? Well your game won't work.

The reason I'm changing it is because it was political in terminology - and that is not what I wanted. I've made a better example in saying so ever since I've been back. Although political science is an awesome subject (and I accidently let that reflect through my writing), its not part of the mission in this thread. I just couldn't think of any better words. So your stink over the issue is groundless in regards to thinking I was going to use this to format the basis for theorist parties. I'm a small part of the reason no such groups have been able to arise in this era. I've been watching more than what most thought when I left ZU.

So without further ado, I'm changing the names for sake of this thread's mission. People do not have to repost their stances. Conservative has been replaced by Traditional and Liberal has been replaced by Non-Traditional

And also: I made the fourth catagory for people like me, who want to be more resourceful in applying their knowledge to different points of views and standing as a mediator until one theory stands more valid than the other. I have my bias, but its not as forward in ideals like the other catagories define.

Originally Posted by LOZ Historian

Anything someone theorizes on, bases their ideas off some sort of chronological understanding of the Zelda series. Within one's reasoining, he or she sees certain aspects relating to one another and can hypothesize on whether it can be the case in other games too.

If you believe in multi/micro chronologies, and only elements within those timeline universes can be applied to making sense of mysteries presented in each, then you are most likely Independent.

If you believe the developer intent is absolute, and relating mythos and elements (like the state of Ganon and the Triforce) in Hyrule can be compared and contrasted to make chronological conclusions, then you are a Conservative. You are abiding to making sense of their most rescent views.

If you believe developer intent has changed in more or less areas, and can still make ethical sense for how things may relate differently (like Ollathir does with his explanations for putting LoZ/AoL after ALttP), you are a Liberal.

Putting LA after TP is non traditional, you are argueing developer intent. So you would be Liberal.

The problem is, when I read the categories.... they all don't seem to apply to me.... Even if I sorta believe in TP/LA.... I don't think developer intent has really changed. Or maybe it has changed. How am I to know, I'm not part of NoJ....

So I guess I am a... TMGian Theorist....

Originally Posted by The Goron Moron

The problem is, when I read the categories.... they all don't seem to apply to me.... Even if I sorta believe in TP/LA.... I don't think developer intent has really changed. Or maybe it has changed. How am I to know, I'm not part of NoJ....

So I guess I am a... TMGian Theorist....

You could decide to be Innovative, laying out every strength and weakness and weighing your options until you adopt a more particular set of bias you see in other peoples arguments. Or, you could remain skeptical until you get definitive hard core canon in your personal notes - which would restrict assumptions in your theories and leave little room for flaws, but also limit your creative thinking too. That would make you Independent, like Average Gamer.

But if my best guess is that you are following the Miyamoto statement: "LA can go anywhere", but still feeling some developer intent has changed, you would technically be abiding to Non-Traditional (not labled as Liberal anymore) Zelda Theorists' values.

You may be taking that official "quote" too literally though... I have not seen your arguement for TP/LA......

Originally Posted by Pinecove

That is incorrect. You would be liberal because you're arguing against OoT being the SW.

Although I feel the same way about the SW, it still needs to be covered in depth. Direct me to a topic that entirely demolishes the plausibility of it on the CT. Then I'll reiterate.

Indeed a great thread...

I think I'm more of a Traditional Zelda Theorist. I of course believe NoJ to be over NoA...

To me in game is most important in any theory, yet at this stage I believe all developer quotes to be correct and able to easily fit in with a chronology that also takes in game evidence.

In my opinion a lot of developer quotes are very broad, possibly because of mistranslation, but I believe their game, their say... unless proved wrong some time in the future when they say something completely ridiculous.