No Time, No Time, Who's Got the Time

[Baysiderulez]

Especially when you're applying our world fiction to a fictional world's reality.

Who is to say that The Legend of Zelda is a fictional reality? And not just a story you're playing out? I mean legends tend to be stories. not a 'write as you go" sort of thing.

 

[Octo Rocked]

Those similar plot elements represent similar themes. Themes are reused all the time. However, the general outcomes of the stories are different. The cinderella stories can be different versions of the same legend because they all have the same general outcome (girl gets guy, iirc. sorry TS I didn't read them). In OoT, Ganondorf is sealed in the SR with the ToP and the ToC is split into 8 shards and the ToW into two. In LttP Ganon is killed and the entire Triforce falls into the hands of Link. The games may have similar plot elements and themes, but the outcome and the [what's the term in literature for the 'point of the story'?] are completely different.

They're completely different because the endings are different? Listen, why don't you go watch a Disney classic, one that everyone knows how it goes. The beloved classic tales. Done that? Okay, now go read the source material. Or, since that will probably take too long, read this article. I hardly think that, compared to those examples, "Ganon is defeated and sealed in the sacred realm" is hardly any different than "Ganon is defeated and dies." And you can say "yeah, but that Disney thing doesn't count because they were targeted at kids," because the same thing applies with the Legend Theory. If things are truly the same story, they would be adapted for audience.

 

[Baysiderulez]

Hes applying our world's fiction to a fictional world's fiction. The point he's trying to get across is that all the Zelda games are fiction [based on reality], even within the Zelda universe.

Basically if I understand you correctly, that is exactly what I am saying. When you turn on the game, you are playing a story as Link. And telling the story through his eyes. You have become apart of the legend.

I think Octo Rocked nailed it in the bud.

They're completely different because the endings are different? Listen, why don't you go watch a Disney classic, one that everyone knows how it goes. The beloved classic tales. Done that? Okay, now go read the source material. Or, since that will probably take too long, read this article. I hardly think that, compared to those examples, "Ganon is defeated and sealed in the sacred realm" is hardly any different than "Ganon is defeated and dies." And you can say "yeah, but that Disney thing doesn't count because they were targeted at kids," because the same thing applies with the Legend Theory. If things are truly the same story, they would be adapted for audience.

He gets it!

 

[PhantomTriforce]

Ok, let's slow down a bit here. I don't get how you can easily say that it is one story. WHAT? As we all know, Hyrule, Koholint, Termina, Holodrum, and Labrynna are all different places. Similarly, we all know that Ganon, Dark Link, Nightmare, Majora, Twinrova, Zant, Bellum, Vaati, and Malladus are all dufferent characters (maybe with the exception of Malladus, he is quite similar to Ganon). So how are these all the same legend, let alone similar legends? The Legend of Zelda, other than the first game, is simply a pre-title to give reference to the series. The main title, such as "Ocarina of Time" or "Twilight Princess" is what we should be looking at. We can obviously tell that they are not the same legend retold, and are in fact sequels and prequels to one another.

 

[figthersword]

Yes it's pretty obvious, but why the nintendo company didn't create the zelda series according to the story line?

 

[Satsy]

Okay so you're saying it's all a bunch of baloney even in the 'Universe' its being told in which effectively means all the games are moot anyway. That the only purpose of these games is like our dragon-slaying 'legends' in which there is a moral of "Good wins against monsters!!" and nothing more.

.... Kinda boring don'tcha think?

 

[Baysiderulez]

.... Kinda boring don'tcha think?

Nope, I actually think it's got the same excitement either way. Think about the child listening to the story. Since they do not know whats coming next its as if they are traveling through with the hero, much like the point of view we play from.

Once you've played one zelda game, you find the the plot on the others are rather similar, and you can almost guess exactly whats going to happen next (of course with a little variation, like Ganon being sealed into a chamber, turning to stone, dying, ect...) Yet because we are seeing this from the reader's POV it is new and exciting every time to us.

If we were the story teller, then of course we would know where the story was going the whole time, and then ya I would consider it from a players POV boring. But since you are acting the part of the reader as you travel through Link & Zelda's legend, it retains it's excitement every time the story is retold.

 

[MrMosley]

First, I'd like to point out that this theory is impossible. Based on the stories of the various games, most of the titles are dependent on another tale. It makes sort of a chain, or what we like to call a "timeline". Not to mention, the devs have stated that a timeline exists, which rules out this theory as possible. However, I will simply use the individual stories and aspects from the games to show how this doesn't work.

The Legend of Zelda had Link going about Hyrule to gather the pieces of the Triforce of Wisdom which Zelda had separated and hid all over the place. Link's goal was to do this, defeat Ganon (which he obtained the Triforce of Power from), and save Zelda. Pretty simple. This is also basically the overall theme of most main Zelda titles. However... Zelda 2 was a direct sequel to LoZ. Its story was a continuation of the first, so its impossible for these two to be the same Legend retold.

A Link to the Past was written as and promoted to be a prequel to the original two games. Since LoZ didn't have much backstory and just kinda started randomly, ALttP gave players a backstory to the Triforce and to Ganon. Also, ALttP was set during a time "when Hyrule was one country" as it states on the box or manual, I don't really remember. But obviously, Hyrule is split between LoZ and AoL (LoZ takes place in South Hyrule, AoL takes place in North). Again, this is a completely separate game based on its backstory and obvious placement to the originals. So, even though Ganon is there, even though you have to rescue Zelda, it is a separate tale. Therefore, it cannot be the same Legend either. Link's Awakening was a sequel to ALttP and obviously wouldn't be the same Legend because it begins after Ganon has been defeated.

Ocarina of Time, you also have the generic tale of Link having to save Zelda from Ganon. However, this story is clearly a separate tale from the others as it is actually showing the backstory of Ganon even further. Where ALttP mentioned Ganon once being a man named Ganondorf, OoT shows Ganondorf as the primary antagonist, as a man. Obviously here, you have a tale older than ALttP and is reliant on ALttP to show that it is an older tale. ALttP is reliant on LoZ to show that it is an older tale, so they are all separate. Majora's Mask was a direct sequel to Ocarina of Time, a side-story involving Child Link, which is quite obviously a different tale altogether.

Wind Waker and Twilight Princess are reliant on Ocarina of Time as a starting point. Wind Waker plays off the Adult Timeline ending of OoT, while TP plays off the Child Timeline ending. Each game is its own next generation of Link and Zelda, but Ganondorf follows the same path he would have during OoT, which is how he ends up how he does in WW and TP. Because WW and TP are reliant on OoT, they cannot be the same tale as any game so far.

Phantom Hourglass is a direct sequel to WW, and Spirit Tracks is reliant on what took place in WW to even occur. So that rules out PH and ST as possibly being the same.

The Four Sword games are sort of separate. We know that MC, FS, and FSA are all different games, as mentioned by FSA's intro. They work in that order as a series. FSA is arguable as to where it goes, but I like to place it before ALttP. That is not so important though. What is important is that MC and FS both involve a different antagonist altogether. FSA introduces Ganon as the new main antagonist, who was actually Ganondorf (man) prior to obtaining the Trident. I guess you could technically consider this a variation of the overall tale, though at this point, doing that would be kinda rediculous seeing as how all the other games are not the same tale.

The Oracle titles are reliant upon a previous defeated Ganon, since the whole point of those games is to resurrect him. Also, they take place in a completely different land. However, because Ganon is dead, this cannot be the same tale because another would have to come before it where Ganon was killed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As you can see, most ever game in the Zelda series is reliant upon a previous game to even be able to exist. Every game cannot be a retelling of the same events since each has a different story, a story that can not exist unless another, previous game, took place. This creates a chain. Game C exists because Game B happened, and Game B exists because game A happened. This continues throughout, the chronilogical releases not going in order but placing things in different places. So even though Game C might come out, then Game F would come out next, that doesn't mean Game F can be the same as Game C. It means that there is a gap that will eventually be filled where Game F is reliant upon Game E to exist, and E is reliant upon D.

 

[linebyline]

Clearly the argument that the games are mostly retellings of the same basic legend has merit. But that's like saying that all the variations of the Hero's journey are the same story. Same basic plot perhaps, but not the same story. (Or maybe it is. I guess it depends on the precise definition of "story.") But let me build on Hanyou's example. I'm not aware of anyone claiming that Return of the Jedi is the same story as Star Wars (Okay, fine, A New Hope). Why? Because it is made blatantly clear in the former film that it takes place in the same universe at a later date than the latter, which also happened. In Star Wars, Luke, Han, and Lea meet. In Jedi, they know each other. In Star Wars Luke blows up the Death Star, and the one in Jedi is called the "second" Death Star. Moreover, there's a film in between that makes the timeline even more clear: Luke loses his hand in Empire and gets a robotic replacement, which appears in Jedi. Han is in carbon...whatever it's called at the end of Empire and the beginning of Jedi. Obi-Wan gets dead-ish in Star Wars and reappears later in the same film as a disembodied voice that also appears in Empire. I could go on.

So how does this apply to Zelda? Let's look specifically at The Wind Waker and its immediate relatives.

First, we have Ocarina of Time, in which we have the seven sages. You know who they are. Ganondorf is defeated by Link the Hero of Time with the help of these sages. These same sages are depicted as stained glass windows in WW's Hyrule Castle, and Link as a statue (and a drawing in Tetra's cabin, if I remember correctly). Not only are these clearly references to people who existed in the past, but WW Link's relationship (or lack thereof) to OoT Link is explicitly mentioned (By the King of Red Lions and Jabun, if memory serves).

Then we have Phantom Hourglass, which is the most blatantly obvious example I can think of that shows a timeline. The cast at the very start of the game consists of Link, Tetra, and the pirates from WW. Niko's papercraft intro makes this clear. These characters are the same Link and the same Zelda/Tetra from WW, and this is a new adventure that takes place after that one. (And even if you want to say that this is a different Link, Tetra, and pirate crew, you still have to acknowledge that Niko's prologue refers to the events of WW as having occurred in the past.)

And then we come to Spirit Tracks. Niko is still alive. There's a picture of him in his younger days in the house he shares with Link. Tetra is hailed as the founder of the land where it takes place, referencing the King of Hyrule's exhortation to Tetra/Zelda and Link in WW to find a new land and make that the new Hyrule. Tetra's stained-glass representation can be seen in one cutscene. There's also Linebeck III, grandson of Linebeck I, who also makes a quasi-appearance in the form of a letter and of course his grave; you could argue that it's possible Linebeck I is not the same Linebeck as in PH, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to rule it out. (Additionally, the Anouki claim they "used to live on an island" but the less said about that the better.)

So it's very clear that at least these games have a timeline. Where/how/if they fit with the other games is a subject of debate (of course), but at the same time, this evidence disproves any claim that there is no timeline or that all the games refer to the same events.

But now that I think about it, that all sounds very stuffy, and I usually cringe when I see people talking about how logical or scientific their theories are. So let me give my opinion on what Zelda timelines are: fun! It's all just part of the game, which means that everyone is entitled to experiment with various ideas. That includes the idea that the games reflect a series of variations on a legend (or a few legends) rather than separate events that took place exactly as depicted in the games. It's a truly fascinating--and basically valid--take on the series. It just shouldn't be regarded as the final word.

 

[Hanyou]

linebyline, I agree with your post completely.

Mosely, I disagree with you on one major point, which you only mention in passing but which strikes at the heart of the Zelda series as a whole, and Jo's initial post.

Every game cannot be a retelling of the same events since each has a different story, a story that can not exist unless another, previous game, took place.

Wait...what?!

I think it's blatantly obvious that there's a timeline, and I've expressed my (friendly) frustration with the view that there isn't one earlier in this thread. However, I think it's equally obvious that several of the major games (though not all of them) are retellings of each other. That is to say, they tell their own distinct stories and have their own identities, but at their cores, they hearken back to exactly the same concepts and themes. The aforementioned Hero's Journey.

Let's make sure we're defining our terms correctly. A retelling is simply an interpretation of an existing story. One example I'll use is the George Bernard Shaw play, Pygmalion. This story, later adapted into the popular musical My Fair Lady, concerns a cockney-speaking flower girl who wants to improve her English and become ladylike. She speaks with a professor who is initially indifferent to her (viewing her simply as "his work") but later falls in love with her. This play/musical directly interprets a Greek myth concerning a sculptor who falls in love with his work. There are other nuances and similarities I won't go into for the sake of brevity, but this is the single most obvious and popular example I could think of of a retelling.

Shaw's Pygmalion takes place in "modern" England and stars a professor and a flower girl. The classic tale takes place in ancient Greece and concerns a sculptor and his sculpture. One is an obvious retelling of the latter in spite of these differences--and if they, by some miracle, took place in the same timeline, one would still be a retelling of the other. Whether one story follows chronologically from another has nothing to do with its status as a retelling.

As for Zelda games, they do bear striking similarities to each other (moreso than Shaw's Pygmalion does to the original), involving collection of certain numbers of items and the evolution of the main character into a hero. You have the Hero of Time and the Hero of the Winds; you have the sages and the sages' daughters; you have the common thread of the Master Sword running through multiple Zelda titles. The template exists, it is used often, and it will be used in the future. Zelda games are stronger for the use of that template, and the repetitions are just as pronounced--and just as important--as the sequential progression.

The mistake both you and Jo are making is the assumption that "retelling" and "chronological sequence" are mutually exclusive. The status of the stories as retellings of each other is a major component of Jo's post and it cannot be swept under a rug. She is correct. Zelda games do usually retell a basic plot. This changes nothing about their chronology. The modern view of the world as strictly chronological in its progression is infused with elements of a cyclical view so far as the Zelda series is concerned. As winter marks the end of one year and the beginning of the next, the end of one Zelda story is the beginning of another, similar one. In The Wind Waker, the old hero's quest is taken up by a new hero who hails from an island where the old hero has been revered for centuries...and so on.

 

[MrMosley]

The mistake both you and Jo are making is the assumption that "retelling" and "chronological sequence" are mutually exclusive. The status of the stories as retellings of each other is a major component of Jo's post and it cannot be swept under a rug. She is correct. Zelda games do usually retell a basic plot. This changes nothing about their chronology. The modern view of the world as strictly chronological in its progression is infused with elements of a cyclical view so far as the Zelda series is concerned. As winter marks the end of one year and the beginning of the next, the end of one Zelda story is the beginning of another, similar one. In The Wind Waker, the old hero's quest is taken up by a new hero who hails from an island where the old hero has been revered for centuries...and so on.

The orignial post, and Jo's overall idea or theory, is that the main Zelda games are based on the same story. Like, if I told you the story of the "Three Little Pigs", then told you that same story involving "Three Little Bears" or three of any other animal, THAT would be a retelling of the same story. You are confusing this with rehashing of a common overall theme. Its obvious that Zelda follows an overall theme, as does most any other game series. Link is there to save Zelda and defeat Ganon usually, but that does, in no way, make it possible for two tales to be the same as in meaning that both cannot have existed, as I have proven in my previous post.

Jo's theory was that as a Legend, each story could merely be different interpretations of a real event that happened long ago, hence different "Legends" of Zelda. This doesn't work though, and you really didn't prove her original theory as much as you only proved that the series uses an overall theme. This was never the argument here though. If I'm wrong about this, please clarify. And, even better, if you do believe that two or more titles could be different interpretations of the same Legend, explain them.

 

[bradley]

Heh, well there is an official timeline and what I think is that the official timeline is a bunch of separate timelines instead of all in one timeline, be it linear or split, although that is not my personal theory. Also, I think it is very obvious that many games continue after others, but they don't all necessarily have to take place in a whole timeline.

 

[Meego]

I think people should respect the fact that Bay here has taken time and effort to put together a theory that is not like the other timeline theories on this forum. It is a different approach and I feel that it is very well done. So even though some people disagree with me, I will stand by my opinion.

 

[bradley]

To Baysiderulez's credit, she does have a somewhat valid point. Some of the games do have obvious connections, but those together could be one telling of the legend.

 

[Heros Temporis]

Have You Ever Considered This?

The Zelda Timeline is one of the most frequently debated topics there is to discuss about Zelda. But have you ever considered that there is no timeline? To explain, the name of the series is The LEGEND of Zelda. Most Zelda games tell a similiar story, with different details. For many Zelda games, a courageous young boy sets out on a quest for one reason or another, eventually finds a special sword (usually the Master Sword) and ultimately defeats the evil Ganon/Ganondorf. Perhaps this is just the way the legend is being passed down from person to person, and all of the games are being told from a different point in time in the future as a story.

It's just a theory I found on Zelda Wiki the other day and have been wondering about recently. Obviously, with some games, there's a pretty big difference story-wise. Ocarina of Time, Link is summoned by the Deku Tree, sets out to find the other two Spiritual Stones, draws the Master Sword from the Pedestal of Time, awakens six sages, and defeats Ganon. In Wind Waker, Link sets out to save his sister, collects the Goddesses' Pearls, ascends the Tower of the Gods, travels under the waves to the forgotten land of Hyrule, draws the Master Sword, awakens two sages to return the power to repel evil to the Master Sword, and defeats Ganon. But with some other games, they can be suspiciously similiar at times.