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.
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.
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: