• Welcome to ZD Forums! You must create an account and log in to see and participate in the Shoutbox chat on this main index page.

Headcanon vs Canon

Joined
Jun 30, 2014
Location
Yes
Gender
Male
My question is, what's the difference? A lot of the crazy stuff I come up with, I'm 100% sure was never intended by the developers. It doesn't mean I'm not making legitimate observations of the Zelda Universe, or drawing logical conclusions from those observations.

It's irrational to assume that every single gap in Zelda lore has some sort of official answer to it; Nintendo undoubtedly makes this stuff up as they go along. Yet I see a lot of people turn down certain theories on the assumption that the subject matter "wasn't intended."

A good example would be the timeline. No doubt it's been reemerging in the theory section as of late, so there's obviously some vested interest in it. But a ton of the criticisms it receives aren't necessarily because we've found cognitive flaws in it, or contradictions in it, but because there clearly was no "intention" by Nintendo to construct the timeline in such a way as they did, or even to link the games together in such a way as they have. Which, while 100% true, disagrees with what I consider the fundamentals of Zelda Theory, simply because it's unrealistic for Nintendo to have chartered such an expansive lore Way back in 1985.

IMO, if a theory is logical, realistic, supported, and without contradictions, no matter how complex, cryptic, or unintended, it should hold legitimate ground in the theorizing community.

This isn't a huge issue; I can't name more than a few isolated examples of this off the top of my head, but I think it's an important and fascinating question nonetheless.
 

Dio

~ It's me, Dio!~
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Location
England
Gender
Absolute unit
Thing I hate is that Nintendo really doesn't have an official answer for everything and they kind of make the lore up as they go along. We therefore have no choice but to make theories about certain aspects and there is absolutely nothing wrong with doing so using the evidence in game that points to certain things.
 

ILU

i luv u
Joined
Dec 17, 2011
What's the difference? One is approved fact, the other isn't (or has potential to be fact if logical, such as the Adult/Child timeline split).

I don't think what some might consider "logical" isn't logical to everybody. Some might find some things foolish, uncharacteristic, or downright impossible. Too much sway due to opinions.

Example: once somebody tried to argue that since the Sheikah eye was everywhere, it was "logical" to assume the races all evolved from Sheikah. :|

:| :| :|

"Logic" is definitely not a universal understanding among theorists. I think that for those who genuinely seek knowledge on the series instead of hoping to have their fanfictiony ideas confirmed, finding that information is easier when piecing together facts.

Perhaps not every gap in the story was intended to be filled, but that doesn't mean it won't eventually be explained. The timeline wasn't originally intended, and now it's a huge (and terribly messy), canonical document.
 
Joined
May 7, 2015
Intent is a tough question when it comes to Zelda. As others have said, I doubt they intended for the timeline to turn into what it did. And yet, it did. Because they are now building off that lore, we must accept it as canon.

There are many things we really only have guesses about and most people admit that. There are some things however that are purely in the realm of fanon.

For example, people have a huge variety of assumptions about where Link's going at the end of Twilight Princess. I've heard everything from being all boo-hoo about Midna to not being able to stand village life anymore. A lot of people assume he takes off, never to return.

But...

If we go by Hyrule Historia, he goes back to his old life in Ordon. This entirely strikes down any belief about Link leaving forever. So while yes, we do see him leaving, we have no reasonable proof that this was anything but temporary.

If you think about it, TP Link didn't really have any loose ends to tie up. He didn't have time and his accomplishments erased on him. He didn't really have any new worlds to explore. He wasn't all that close to Zelda. Most of the people he knew on his adventures were either adventuring themselves, or were tied into the events in various ways. Okay, Midna's gone. And? He still has everyone else. TP Link wasn't OOT Link. Even if they are related. Navi was like a final thread of sanity, proof that he really did have those adventures. That proof itself was unreachable. The same would not be true for TP Link.

Knowing what we do, it's easy to conclude that Link would be called away to other adventures after having defeated the King of Evil. It was also implied at the beginning of the game that he'd be a representative of sorts for the village. So it's only fitting that he go off adventuring every now and then. Nothing else can or should be taken from that scene. Anything beyond that is fanon.
 
Joined
Jun 30, 2014
Location
Yes
Gender
Male
Do you ever forget your own headcanon and start remembering it as established fact?

Sometimes the lines do get blurred, yes, but to be honest, because I (try my best to) build my headcanon off of what I can conclude from canon, they remain pretty distinct.

From what I've seen, however, a lot of heavily accepted notions in the greater community tend to be based off a whim, as far as I can tell, such as the Hyrulean Civil War being a conflict between the Hylians and the Gerudo (which I do follow, despite there being very little to even imply as such).

Headcanon is generally accepted by a fan, or fans, but is completely fictional. Canon means the events follow what is generally accepted and established by the series by the developers. That is the difference.

Very thorough explanation, but the question was more rhetorical. I was generally asking if theories should be dismissed solely because they weren't likely to have been initially intended in the canon.

If we go by Hyrule Historia, he goes back to his old life in Ordon. This entirely strikes down any belief about Link leaving forever. So while yes, we do see him leaving, we have no reasonable proof that this was anything but temporary.

The same could be said for his going back to Ordon Village. Hyrule Historia states that he "returned" to Ordon, not settled down again. He could have returned, then left the next day. "Returnig to Ordon" may have simply been a landmark signaling the completion of his quest. Besides, the glimpse we get of him leaving actually does heavily imply his rejection of Ordon life, but from a cinematic standpoint; as a medium, a game can stress certain implications in more ways than simply outright stating facts.

For the sake of argument, the support for either viewpoint contradicts the other to the point where neither can be necessarily assumed.
 
Joined
May 7, 2015
The same could be said for his going back to Ordon Village. Hyrule Historia states that he "returned" to Ordon, not settled down again. He could have returned, then left the next day. "Returnig to Ordon" may have simply been a landmark signaling the completion of his quest. Besides, the glimpse we get of him leaving actually does heavily imply his rejection of Ordon life, but from a cinematic standpoint; as a medium, a game can stress certain implications in more ways than simply outright stating facts.

For the sake of argument, the support for either viewpoint contradicts the other to the point where neither can be necessarily assumed.

The point is that any interpretation for why Link leaves Ordon, aside from the generic "adventure is out there" is fanon/headcanon/fanfic fodder. This is true, even without Hyrule Historia's input. The only information we have beyond him leaving is that Ilia apparently saw him off, Fado didn't know he was going, and whatever he was up to apparently warrants triumphant hero music. That could apply as easily to Link being called off on military service (ya know, because he's the hero and stuff) as it could be applied to him just leaving for the heck of it.

Hyrule Historia just gives us less reason to put any further meaning behind Link's departure. The fact that it was even brought up in Hyrule Historia tells me that Nintendo felt the need to specify what happened. Until somebody catches Miyamoto at a game convention and asks him, every interpretation is made up on the spot based on the fan's own preconceived notions.

For every person who argues that he was sick of being a rancher, another person could just as easily say he was off to buy wedding rings. The answer would be just as plausible, and have exactly the same amount of proof behind it. That is, absolutely none.

As they say in Phoenix Wright, evidence is everything.
 

Spiritual Mask Salesman

CHIMer Dragonborn
Staff member
Comm. Coordinator
Site Staff
Very thorough explanation, but the question was more rhetorical. I was generally asking if theories should be dismissed solely because they weren't likely to have been initially intended in the canon.

Oh ok. I don't really think all theories should be dismissed, in fact if a headcanon theory is made well enough and a vast majority of fans like it than it could maybe catch Nintendo's eye and slip it into already established canon. Of course the odds are slim that could happen but I sometimes wonder if maybe the official timeline was influenced by us, the fans, afterall there were some pretty well thought out timeline theories which popped up around 2008-2010.

Also like you pointed out in the OP, way back in 1985 there is no way they had everything planned out (they obviously put the games together as they went along) - in my opinion nothing was definitevily canon until the official timeline was released. My point is that Headcanon shouldn't always be dismissed, unless of course it would be destroying already established canon.
 

Batman

Not all those who wander are lost...
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Location
40 lights off the Galactic Rim
Gender
Dan-kin
No matter how logical, consistent, and non-contradictory your headcanon is, the fact remains that it is not canon. In the context of the fictitious world that has been constructed by its authors and their proclamations about canon, your headcanon simply holds no truth value whatsoever if it contradicts the canon. No matter how brilliant (or ridiculous) someone's ideas are - no matter how logical (or illogical) they are, no matter how consistent (or inconsistent) they are, and no matter how perfect (or imperfect) they would be for the franchise - they simply have no bearing on the reality behind what is considered true in the fiction by its authors. In the end if you don't like the canon, the only thing that can be said is "tough".

The fact that Nintendo is messy with Zelda and the facts that they don't know they're doing and are making things up willy nilly as they go along are absolutely irrelevant. The disorganization of the authors is completely irrelevant. The authors' intentions or lack thereof to create a coherent framework in the past is absolutely irrelevant. If the authors sometime down the road decide to construct a canon framework, no matter how weird or poorly put together or gappy it is, then fan theories that contradict that canon no matter their intentions and no matter the fact that the authors of the canon are disorganized, the fact remains that such fan theories are completely meaningless in any sort of objective sense for readers of the fiction about the truth inside of the fiction. As long as you value the concept of canon, that is. If someone does not value the concept of canon, then everything I've said fails to apply, but don't expect to be taken seriously by the overwhelming majority of other fans and the authors themselves - people who do value the concept of canon and respect the authors' proclamations about truth in their fictional worlds.

ReveredPartisan said:
IMO, if a theory is logical, realistic, supported, and without contradictions, no matter how complex, cryptic, or unintended, it should hold legitimate ground in the theorizing community.

As long as such theories don't contradict things in the canon or the known future intentions of the authors, then I completely agree. Open questions are fun to theorize about; closed questions are not to anyone who values the concept of the authority of canon for works of fiction.

In the end though, if someone likes creating their own theories about the Zelda franchise that contradict the canon or enjoy filling in the gaps about things unknown, and they consider these endeavors to be true despite the canon or the canon's potential future... in a purely subjective, personal artistic sense of fun... then of course there is nothing wrong with this. It only becomes "wrong" when such people coming at the franchise from this angle try to push their ideas as "real" on other people, mostly fans who don't have any interest in someone's random fancies that have nothing to do with the known truth of the fiction. It's annoying.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 20, 2008
Gender
Timecube
Well personally, Link and Zelda's subtle facial cues at the end of Ocarina of Time indicate to me that the developers intended an alternate ending, as presented in the later game, Twilight Princess. On a related note, the way Midna looked at Link in TP's ending cutscene implies that she is a religious fanatic.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom