- Joined
- Nov 14, 2015
Since the release of Hyrule Historia, timeline theorizing has taken a massive hit in the Zelda community. The book introduced its own official timeline, and, bar some minor tweaking with the inclusion of new entries, it has been endorsed with no change by Nintendo every step of the way, from the official Zelda.com website to their social media accounts. And honestly, this isn't an ENTIRELY bad thing; after all, it makes making theories about the series that aren't timeline related way easier to make, because everybody follows the same timeline; for example, if I made a theory about something from Minish Cap popping up in Wind Waker, but somebody else follows a timeline where Wind Waker precedes Minish Cap, I wouldn't even be able to present my theory from the start because it would completely contradict this other person's timeline.
However, even with the convenience that the timeline offers to the theorizing community, a problem surfaces with the official timeline when its placements directly cause plot holes and continuity errors within the story; for example, trying to say Ocarina of Time directly precedes A Link to the Past causes plot holes and errors to appear. In the backstory of A Link to the Past, Ganondorf was already known as Ganon before getting the Triforce, and once he accidentally opened the Sacred Realm, he claimed the entire Triforce and was unable to leave due to being both sealed in and not knowing how to leave before it was even sealed (1). In Ocarina of Time, Ganondorf only gets the Triforce of Power in the Sacred Realm which he actively knew about and was attempting to open, and leaves after obtaining the Triforce of Power to rule Hyrule for seven years where he is only THEN known as Ganon (2).
This is just a few of many inconsistencies caused by the book, and one of the many reasons that people such as myself take the book as little more than fan fiction. Sure, many people argue that because Aonuma gave his official stamp on the book and has referenced the timeline in interviews before, then that means it clearly must be canon, right? But how about the times that he's said he believes the timeline is up to the player?
"What's funny is to see the fans debate where BoTW fits in the timeline. But history has been written by historians that have been able to establish an order of events. Except no one is really sure everything happened in this exact order ! Anyways, when it comes to the Zelda timeline, I'm of the opinion that it's for the players to debate, and to imagine themselves the order of events!" - Aonuma in an interview with French youtuber Siphano
However, to play devil's advocate, I can understand if somebody believes the game continuity has been retconned by the books. For example, people believing Link DOES die at the end of Ocarina of Time in one outcome, and aLttP's backstory has been made void due to the updates the books introduce. I can't really fight this argument because it's entirely subjective on what matters more, the books or the games. However, one thing is extremely certain: the ingame story, lore and continuity cannot coexist with the current timeline's lore. So this is where my question to you comes in:
What do you as a player think of timeline theories? Do you think they've been made irrelevant due to retcons and changes to the story introduced by official Nintendo products and social media accounts, or do you think they still have a place in the Zelda community as fun ways to discuss the series in new shapes and ideas?
____
1.)
However, one day, due completely by accident, the entrance of the sacred place was opened by a band of thieves. [...] The man's name was Ganondorf, commonly known as the evil thief Ganon. - A Link to the Past original manual
However, it looks as though that was interrupted somewhere... Then, the one who again discovered the sacred land was the thief called Ganondorf. But, thankfully, he didn't know how to return to the World of Light. - Maiden, A Link to the Past Japanese translation
2.)
As I thought, you held the keys to the Door of Time! You have led me to the gates of the Sacred Realm... Yes, I owe it all to you, kid! - Ganondorf, Ocarina of Time
The Triforce separated into three parts. Only the Triforce of Power remained in Ganondorf's hand. - Sheik, Ocarina of Time
On that day seven years ago, Ganondorf suddenly attacked... and Hyrule Castle surrendered after a short time. - Impa, Ocarina of Time
However, even with the convenience that the timeline offers to the theorizing community, a problem surfaces with the official timeline when its placements directly cause plot holes and continuity errors within the story; for example, trying to say Ocarina of Time directly precedes A Link to the Past causes plot holes and errors to appear. In the backstory of A Link to the Past, Ganondorf was already known as Ganon before getting the Triforce, and once he accidentally opened the Sacred Realm, he claimed the entire Triforce and was unable to leave due to being both sealed in and not knowing how to leave before it was even sealed (1). In Ocarina of Time, Ganondorf only gets the Triforce of Power in the Sacred Realm which he actively knew about and was attempting to open, and leaves after obtaining the Triforce of Power to rule Hyrule for seven years where he is only THEN known as Ganon (2).
This is just a few of many inconsistencies caused by the book, and one of the many reasons that people such as myself take the book as little more than fan fiction. Sure, many people argue that because Aonuma gave his official stamp on the book and has referenced the timeline in interviews before, then that means it clearly must be canon, right? But how about the times that he's said he believes the timeline is up to the player?
"What's funny is to see the fans debate where BoTW fits in the timeline. But history has been written by historians that have been able to establish an order of events. Except no one is really sure everything happened in this exact order ! Anyways, when it comes to the Zelda timeline, I'm of the opinion that it's for the players to debate, and to imagine themselves the order of events!" - Aonuma in an interview with French youtuber Siphano
However, to play devil's advocate, I can understand if somebody believes the game continuity has been retconned by the books. For example, people believing Link DOES die at the end of Ocarina of Time in one outcome, and aLttP's backstory has been made void due to the updates the books introduce. I can't really fight this argument because it's entirely subjective on what matters more, the books or the games. However, one thing is extremely certain: the ingame story, lore and continuity cannot coexist with the current timeline's lore. So this is where my question to you comes in:
What do you as a player think of timeline theories? Do you think they've been made irrelevant due to retcons and changes to the story introduced by official Nintendo products and social media accounts, or do you think they still have a place in the Zelda community as fun ways to discuss the series in new shapes and ideas?
____
1.)
However, one day, due completely by accident, the entrance of the sacred place was opened by a band of thieves. [...] The man's name was Ganondorf, commonly known as the evil thief Ganon. - A Link to the Past original manual
However, it looks as though that was interrupted somewhere... Then, the one who again discovered the sacred land was the thief called Ganondorf. But, thankfully, he didn't know how to return to the World of Light. - Maiden, A Link to the Past Japanese translation
2.)
As I thought, you held the keys to the Door of Time! You have led me to the gates of the Sacred Realm... Yes, I owe it all to you, kid! - Ganondorf, Ocarina of Time
The Triforce separated into three parts. Only the Triforce of Power remained in Ganondorf's hand. - Sheik, Ocarina of Time
On that day seven years ago, Ganondorf suddenly attacked... and Hyrule Castle surrendered after a short time. - Impa, Ocarina of Time