What is "canon"?

[DvSag]

[according to Dictionary.com]
canon - (n) A group of literary works that are generally accepted as representing a field; (n) The works of a writer that have been accepted as authentic

I've always wondered about the term "canon" and what can be described as such, especially when it comes to the Zelda series.

So, what makes Zelda games canon?
Is it the fans, or is it the creators/writers/developers?
Authenticity is obviously a factor; the Zelda CD-i games are not considered canon because they were not developed by Nintendo, but what about the manga? To my knowledge, some of the stories not only add up and fit in, but they were actually published by Nintendo. Is that not authentic enough?

And what about some of the games?
There are two versions of ALttP: the original on the SNES, and the most recent GBA version. There aren't many differences story-wise, but in the newest version there is a new added dungeon: The Palace of the Four Sword. With this, the newest version of ALttP on the GBA is widely considered canon because of this, but does that make the original SNES version non-canon now? It was considered canon at one point, and the overall story hasn't changed more than a few hairs, so why wouldn't it still be? It just doesn't tell the "whole" story. It'd be like saying that the original, unaltered Star Wars films ("A New Hope", "The Empire Strikes Back", and "Return of the Jedi") aren't canon anymore because we now have digitally remastered versions with added scenes. If the story is there for the most part, what does it matter if some pages are "omitted"?

And what of the "alternate reality" games?
[SPOILER ALERT]
(Link's Awakening, Majora's Mask, and Phantom Hourglass) Each of these games has Link in an altered state of reality or consciousness, and his actions in the main story seem to hold little value of consequence to the rest of the world.
~ The adventure in Link's Awakening was just a dream of Link's; are dreams canon?
~ In Majora's Mask, Link enters a land called Termina. It is unknown if Termina actually exists, or if it is a parallel dimension of Hyrule. Is it considered canon if it doesn't exist?
~ Phantom Hourglass starts with what seems like Link falling overboard into the ocean chasing after Tetra who had been taken by a ghost ship. Phantom Hourglass ends with Link waking up on the same ghost ship, only to find that no time had elapsed for the rest of the pirates on Tetra's ship. Do we know if the events actually took place? Do we know if that section explored in PH even exists? If it doesn't exist, and if the world and everyone in it (outside of Link and Tetra) were uneffected by the events of the game, is it still considered canon?
[/Spoilers]

What do you think?
What is "canon"?
Do you feel any games may be "questionably canon"?

 

[Midna666]

Here is a list of what is considered Zelda canon.
LOZ.
AOL.
Game Boy Advance version of ALTTP, a lot of people say that a new verison of a game overrides the old verison.
LA, ever though it does not take place in Hyrule.
OOT.
MM, it continues the adventures of the Link from OOT, and just because it does not take place in Hyrule does not mean it's not canon.
The Oracle games are games that some people don't consider to be canon, because they were made by Capcom, and not Nintendo. I myself consider them to be canon because Nintendo supervised Capcom in making the games.
The Four Sword games, MC, FS, and FSA are canon.
WW, TP, and PH are canon.
The Manga are not canon because they are not actually made by the people who made the Zelda games, and in some cases the Manga goes against the games.
Well I hope my list helps you.

 

[DvSag]

I wasn't asking what is or isn't canon. I know what is and what isn't. I'm asking what makes a game canon; and what you feel about games that "never really happened". (I'm not saying games that didn't take place in Hyrule aren't canon.) Did you even read my whole post?

And by the way, MC and FS were made by Capcom, too.

 

[Kaynil]

Sometimes I do feel in doubt about what is canon regarding LoZ, specially the mangas, a lot of people seems to disagree on that one.

 

[DvSag]

Sometimes I do feel in doubt about what is canon regarding LoZ, specially the mangas, a lot of people seems to disagree on that one.

I feel the same way.
I mean, if Nintendo publishes these mangas, and the stories don't contradict the stories in the games but do nothing more than fill in the blanks, then why aren't they considered canon?
It's not like it would hurt the series.

 

[El Bagu]

Sometimes I wonder if anything at all is canon. Maybe it sounds strange but it´s what I feel. Just look at the discussions at the Zelda Dungeon forums, so many gaps, so many uncertainties. I´m not an expert (guess I should play some of the games a bit more and try to get some manuals, why are they never included when you buy used games?) and I must say I get quite confused at times D:

 

[Midna666]

The problem with canon is that it can change at a moments notice.
Take Comic books as an example, how many times has a character came back from the dead?
What's canon one day, can be noncanon the next.

 

[DvSag]

I think Captain America is dead for good, now. Lol

Comic books tend to be more clear about the canon and the "what-if" scenarios, but Zelda really isn't. Someone needs to interview Shigeru Miyamoto so he discusses each Zelda game individually.

And even though you're right, Midna666, I hate how things that were once-canon can become un-canon. It doesn't make any sense (especially if the old canon was a masterpiece.)

 

[basement24]

My answer's a long one, so my short version is this: I believe canon is defined by fans alone, and it varies from fan to fan as to what is actually canon and what isn't.

Here's the long version if anyone's interested!:

I think often times canon is decided based on what fans think. Companies themselves don't often state "This is, or this is not canon". There's problems in comic books all the time of minor characters returning from the dead without explanation (take last week's Batman issue and the inexplicable reappearance of Garfield Lynns aka The Firefly), and even large giants just as George Lucas have even gone on the record as saying that he can't keep track of all the stories that take place in the world of Star Wars.

It's because of things like this that leave it up to the fans to decide. If the companies really did care, I think they'd put messages before games such as "The events of A Link To The Past are no longer relevant. We now present you with what REALLY happened!" and then you play the GBA version. Of course, if they DID say this, then we'd be crazed with anger that they just dismissed something as to not happening, so companies never seem to go on the record as to what is and what isn't officially canon.

In an example of fans making a decision over a company in terms of Zelda -- Nintendo has never come out and said that the CDi games didn't happen, but most fans consider them to be some off-shoot of the real story that didn't happen just because they were bad games. Other than being quite silly in terms of presentation, there's nothing to say the CDi games didn't actually happen.

There's things in the cartoon and manga that contradict other things that happen in the Zelda games, so most consider them not canon But then, they did exist, and Nintendo did approve them, so I believe that makes their official statement on the matter "We don't really care what's canon", thusly leaving it up to us to decide.

Then you get things like Super Mario Bros 2, which was clearly all a dream. The you have Shyguys and Sniffits in other Mario games. So, was Mario 2 canon? Or is there some inexplicable reason why items of Mario's immagination are suddenly real? Then you have the issue of which Mario 2 is really canon? The N.America version or the Japanese one? Or are ethey both? Nintendo will never make a decision, because then they are officially on the table admitting that one of their own products is null and void.

Another issue when it comes to a fan by fan interpretation is what they have and haven't experienced. I have never played the GBA ALttP with the Four Sword temple. So, why should I have to consider that canon? I would prefer to think ALttP is canon, because that is something I have experienced. It would make sense that an updated version would be the one to follow, but I don't know what goes on in this updated version.

A similar notion of something updated being the be-all-end-all and not being accepted is Han shooting Greedo first in Star Wars. Technically, the latest DVD version where they shoot at the same time is now canon, but try and tell that to die-hard fans who grew up in the 70's with Han shooting first.

I think, more often than not, if something contradicts something else in a franchise, then fans choose the version they like more and consider that one canon, and the otherone is dismissed.

 

[DvSag]

Wow, basement, that was simply... beautifully perfect.

You nailed just about every question with a well thought out and explained answer.

I would add to your reputation right now, but apparently I'd already thought you were amazing not too long ago, and alas I cannot up your rep right now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Funny you mention Mario games, as I was thinking about those while I was walking my dog a little while ago. I've never considered any Mario game as canon or non-canon, as I've never felt the need to. They've just always hit me as fun, arcade-esque games. The story is more or less EXACTLY the same (Bowser takes Peach, Mario and/or Luigi set off to rescue her), so I just imagine it in a new scenario with no real position on any sort of timeline, and each game is nothing more than just a game.

I suppose this is how we should all view Zelda, but I for one have come too far to take that road now. Zelda has become such an tale that it can contend with great epic novels such as Homer's "Odyssey" and J.R. Tolkien's "The Lord of the Rings" and J.K. Rowling's "Harry Potter"; and movie franchises like Steven Spielberg's "Indiana Jones" and George Lucas' "Star Wars". It holds such deep value to me that I feel, as a fan, I must strive now to find its true form.

And you're probably right, the Zelda canon is exactly what we make it out to be and no one can tell us otherwise, so by now we should all have already found our own "canons"; but at this point it's just a matter of how much we want the legend and legacy to continue.

 

[basement24]

Thank you kindly! Thanks for bringing this idea up as well, it really interested me.

I never thought of the Mario series in that way, but it really does kind of work that way, doesn't it? There's connecting themes and characters, but there's really no overall feel of a bigger picture at hand with their world. Canon's a looser term there I think than in the Zelda universe, although I do think about it from time to time (as I mentioned above with Mario 2).

I think, as you say, this should be a way to view Zelda, or possibly what the designers thought the way it should be viewed, but it's just grown into something more. I would put it up there with some of the greats. It definitely gets my immagination going more than Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter do. (But I'm getting off topic here...)

 

[DeletedUser9]

The term canon or canonical used in this manner applies to something being official. Things that are canonical would have to be accepted as such by the game's creator.

The mangas are new versions of the game's storyline, not written or produced by Nintendo themselves. Whether or not they publish them is irrelevant; they didn't actually make them. Unless Miyamoto or whoever's in charge of the series says they're canonical, they're not.

Two examples of something similar being canonical are:

The Metroid E-Manga. It was officially acknowledged as canon by Nintendo.

The Mega Man X remake, "Maverick Hunter X." It was intended by the creator of the series to replace the original as canon.

Once again, in both these cases it was stated by the creator.

 

[Alter]

If I'm going to go on a rant, I'll say that I think everything should be considered canon. It's just that some things fall into the non-story part. The mangs? They clash with the games. Canon? Probably not. The Valient comics? No one else seems to have read them, any they do fit into the timeline, but people say they "aren't real" anyway.

I think that you have brought up an interesting point. Is it the people or the publishers? I'd like to think the latter, because the people are stupid (often). But seriously, "canon" is becoming an ambigous term when put in the same sentence as "Zelda".

Why are the CD-i's non-canon? Nintendo approved them, along with the Valient comics. How about the mangas? Nintendo stated that they are not canon.

I think that we should just accept it all as Zelda, and leave the non-story parts seperate.

I know I've been getting off-topic here. I think that we (the fans) should let the big "N" decide.

Sorry about the short post. I'mtyping on a stupid laptop... I'll add some more detail later.

 

[DvSag]

I say: if it's got Nintendo's official seal of approval, it should be canon.
The way each piece of the puzzle fits into the big picture is up to you.

(Oh, and any game with the suffixes "-Party", "-Kart", or "-and Sonic at the Olympic Games" should be considered non-canon per default.)

 

[Welbanks]

(Oh, and any game with the suffixes "-Party", "-Kart", or "-and Sonic at the Olympic Games" should be considered non-canon per default.)

That made me lol.
And dont forget any games with the prefix "Paper", or anything that has to do with Mario constantly playing asinine sports with his enemies.