• 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.

Is It Too Late to Lose Confidence in the Hyrule Historia?

Locke

Hegemon
Site Staff
Joined
Nov 24, 2009
Location
Redmond, Washington
Several pages in the Skyward Sword section of the Hyrule Historia conclude with brief speculative connections to other games. Glitterberri just posted a translation of (page 40), and it seems to confirm the suspicion - which I and several others that I've talked to have shared - that the Hyrule Historia was written by external theorists, and not by Aonuma himself nor any other director or writer ("Word of God") after all.

Pondering the many sacred locations in the Zelda series, this writer claims: "Although the Sealed Grounds probably don't have any connection, it's hard not to associate it with the place where the Master Sword is found in other games." This directly contradicts the statement in the timeline section which supposes that "the Temple of Time constructed by Rauru is thought to be located where the Sealed Temple once stood." To top it all off, the paragraph on page 40 is accompanied by an image of the Four Sword Sanctuary from FSA, housing the Four Sword!

Look at the language though: "probably don't have any connection"; "is thought to be located". This uncertainty is spread throughout the Historia and is what originally got me thinking that its writers are theorists just like you and me (with the benefit of being able to consult with Aonuma and other developers), not definitive sources on their own merits. I was actually surprised at how well they had done in matching the previously most well-accepted theories until I read here that they've mistaken the MS for the FS.

While Aonuma obviously didn't write the entire book himself, he was [producer? editor? I don't remember], and gave its contents his blessing in a statement at the end. Within this statement he makes significant efforts to hand-wave inconsistencies such as this which he knows his fans will pick out.
While reading over "The Full History of Hyrule," it's possible that
some parts may look contradictory. [...] I'd like to ask everyone
just to enjoy the book and to be broad-minded, and to think that those
parts are the way they are because of the way Zelda games are
developed.

So, should we bend over backwards to accept this as canon? Is the FS now the same thing as the MS, or is the ToT both related to and not related to the Sealed Temple? Is the HH "canon except for the parts that aren't"? (i.e. "My theory is true because this evidence from the HH supports it. That other evidence in the HH that refutes it actually isn't canon for the sole reason that it refutes my theory." *coughYourHeroescough*) The ambiguous language that permeates the book indicates that it is not meant to be binding for the future development of the series, so I'm almost inclined to think that it also gives us fans leeway in interpreting it (or, indeed, ignoring it). Except that would lead to situations such as the one I outlined earlier in this paragraph.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Feb 23, 2011
To be honest, I've always taken the Hyrule Historia as a credible source that - while sufficient for the most part - is still subject to alteration and retrogressive continuity with the release of new games and info. In essence, I've thought of it as a "this is the best we have at the moment" kind of deal. I think there may be a huge chance, however, that the HH's true purpose was (is) to get fans to shut up and stop complaining that each game - or rather the series as a whole - suffers from continuity issues and disconnectedness. The release of a so-called 'ultimate timeline' seems to attest to this notion. That aside, I still deem it wise to bring forth strong evidence to back up any claim that brings the Historia's credibility into question, instead of brushing it aside and composing groundless theories....
 
Joined
Jan 6, 2012
Maybe, just maybe, it was an error with the images, I have seen this before

tumblr_m4w8jtg7aI1qgb1o5o2_1280.jpg

note how the fire and spirit medallions seem to be placed wrong, and I don't think it means that they decided to change them
 
Last edited by a moderator:

felipe970421

Mardek Innanu El-Enkidu
Joined
Feb 21, 2012
Location
Colombia
or it may be a bad translation, only one person (zeldalady) has revised this page, so it may be understandable, and I don't see this loose statement as enough reason to doubt the whole historia
 

The Jade Fist

Kung Fu Master
Joined
Jul 17, 2012
I'm personally of the belief that the timeline is mostly bs. The games except for a few in direct relation to another one, were not designed as part of a time line. The whole timeline is mostly an after thought, rather then by design.

Further evidence that its wrong, I didn't notice this before, but yesterday i was playing oracle of seasons, but wait Link has the triforce on his hand, but that was never a thing in link to the past which according to the official time lime places the oracle games after. Yet after the n64 games he did have the triforce as a defined mark (it wasn't always visible but it was there). It just makes more sense for the oracle games to lead after majora's mask, which seamed to be the intent of capcom when they made the games.

I'm 70% sure, thats a contradiction unless Lttp mentioned it, and i just dont' remember because i was skipping all the text.

So Its hard to really accept any time line, because so much random stuff happens, and apperently whole races are never to be seen from again, the geography is also not even half way consistent.

The time line was an afterthought, and not of a pre meditated design, they were simply trying to make sense of their own jumble of random stories. Unless its a direct sequel, non of the games can really be solidly connected, other then some things have the same names and appearance.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom