Valiant Comics - Canon?

[Mases]

Hey guys, I was wondering what the view is on whether or not the stories in the Valiant Comics that were released after Adventure of Link. Chronologically they are supposed to take place after the events of Zelda II: The Adventure of Link.

http://www.zeldawiki.org/Valiant_Comics

Zelda Wiki has labeled them as being 'ambiguously' canon, which I'm not sure what that means. For timeline fanatics, what are your thoughts on the Valiant Comics? Are they supposed to appear on the timeline? Does it not matter at all since their inclusion doesn't effect any of the placements of the games and/or backstories?

I'd like to know what others think in regards to these. Has anybody actually read them? What do you think of them?

 

[PureLocke]

Kinda like the varying levels of Star Wars Canon, (i.e. movies, books, games/tvshows) the stance I believe is that if they don't conflict with the games themselves they fill in the blanks. Even in that capacity they should be taken with a grain of salt for theory support.

 

[ChargewithSword]

Well, I've never seen anything in the comics that could conflict with the story of the game. Also, if Nintendo allowed Valient to make the comics then perhaps they could be considered canon in that regard, somewhat like how the OOT manga is now considered canon. Anyways if it only adds to the story then I don't see why not consider it canon.

 

[LANZZ]

I already read them and I agree with ChargewithSword's opinion...
It can consider canon because it take place after AOL event. It also a official nintendo comics...

 

[Zeruda]

Eh, I tend not to pay much attention to Zelda Wiki. However, I think "ambiguously canon" refers to how some things are canon (location names, items, etc). Perhaps at one time the events could've been considered canon, but if they were, are they still considered canon? Maybe, since there aren't any real direct sequels to AoL.

I read these when I was younger, so I hardly remember them... maybe I outta dig them out of my closet. But, if I remember correctly, there were lots of things considered canon that had to do with location and whatnot like I mentioned above. As far as the events go, it's hard to say. You could argue that, no, they aren't canon because they didn't happen in-game; however, you could argue that they are canon because they are from Nintendo. If you support the latter, though, then you have to accept the OoT manga as being canon as well since it is also from Nintendo.

So, it's hard to say. A lot of what is inside the comics plays on inside jokes from the cartoon series which is hardly considered canon at all. Plus, there's the whole Princess Zelda walking around in pants and boots thing. That's not to say that Zelda isn't capable of having a more aggressive role, but Nintendo almost always portrays her as a more regal, feminine character save for Tetra in The Wind Waker and Phantom Hourglass. But even when Tetra is revealed to be Princess Zelda, she's adorned in regal attire and presented as a more gentle character.

The comics really contrast that image that Nintendo prefers to give her, so I lean more towards the notion that the comics are more fan-fiction than anything else. Still, the events found in the comics hardly clash with anything else found in the series, so at this point there isn't that strong of an argument to say they aren't canon save for what I've mentioned in the paragraph above.

These were made long before the timeline ever really took off, so perhaps it can be considered canon for its time. Maybe even still. However, once Nintendo decides to fill in gaps between the games, these events may end up being ruled out entirely.

 

[PureLocke]

An example of a non-canon bit is Volvagia being Link's pet dragon he got at the market as opposed to the canon backstory: an ancient resurrected dragon that was originally killed by the Megaton Hammer.

 

[Zeruda]

An example of a non-canon bit is Volvagia being Link's pet dragon he got at the market as opposed to the canon backstory: an ancient resurrected dragon that was originally killed by the Megaton Hammer.

That's just an example of a discrepancy, not an example of non-canon. Just because one part of a comic or manga goes against what happens in-game, it doesn't mean that new part doesn't become canon, especially if it's meant to change the (events of the) original.That's why the Valient Comics' are being questioned as canon or not.

The comics (and manga, but that's besides the point of the topic) are seemingly backed by Nintendo as Nintendo holds the copyright to both comics and manga. However, while the manga has been stated to "fill in gaps" and modify events of the game (OoT), the Valient Comics haven't been given such a solid statement, at least not one that I've seen. So did they say, "Hey, let's just make profit off the games by making fun fillers!" or did they say, "Let's add to the story with a different form of media!"? Without some form of legitamacy from Nintendo, the fans are left to wonder if these comics are canon or not. And while we may come to a conclusion, in the end, we don't really have the final word.

So, since the Valiant Comics take place after Zelda II, they might be able to be considered canon because they don't actually interefere (as far as I remember) with events in the game. But if the comics end up mentioning something that happened in-game and they make it out to be completely different then how it happened in-game, then that's where canon has to be called into question.

This is why I tend to think that the comics may have been considered canon once (before the timeline fiasco), but now that the timeline has been developed, I find it hard to think that Nintendo would still want those events to take place. Not saying it's not possible that they do, but Nintendo's mindset on Zelda has drastically changed since then. Without Miyamoto or Aonuma saying "these events happened after Zelda II!" as they did for Akira Himekawa's manga, I can't really think that they hold any solidity nowadays.

But maybe they did mention something and I (or we as a fanbase) just haven't stumbled across the quote yet.

 

[Shadsie]

I've read them courtesy of North Castle.

I consider them non-canon, but fun. I occasionally have used them as basis for my own fanfiction when dealing with the Zelda II era, but I do not consider them canonical. If I'm not mistaken, they were just something that the North American guys did without any word or official sentiment from Miyamoto.

You could consider them "their own canon," in a way, as in the same way the cartoon is "it's own canon." Say, I write a Valiant Comics based fanfic, I might say "based upon the Valiant Comics canon" -- but it's not the same as (official) Nintendo canon.