20th May 2004, 2:18 PM
Yes we are, but still the thing is, that's much more complicated than it needs to be, and it sorta ignores what Wind Waker seems to ACTUALLY be telling me.
lazy, Zelda 1 and Zelda 2 use the same Link, as does MM and OOT. LTTP and LA are somewhat uncertain, but I'm pretty much convinced that LA and LTTP use the same Link as well.
ABF, regarding LTTP. It has many of the same features, but they are only somewhat similar. The forest is in the northwest for instance, and lake hylia is far different. Death Mountain is a completely different looking place. As to why they have the same names, I believe that's the same reason it's called Hyrule. They kept the memory of the old places. Keep in mind they went in search of a new Hyrule, in that search they were likely trying to find a place with all those terrain features of the old Hyrule of legends. Problem solved if you look at it from that way.
lazy, about Ganon in LTTP. I do believe you DO see him. He IS trapped in the Dark World, and you actually go there yourself to fight and actually KILL him that time, which is how you manage to take the triforce back. The triforce itself states that Ganon is dead. How he came back to life is likely due to someone using the blood ritual to bring Ganon back later on for Zelda 1. Anyway, my point is that the Ganon you face in the pyramid of power is most likely the real thing. His form was permanently twisted into that evil pig demon, resembling the form he took at the end of OOT. That too was his actual body, but it wasn't killed then, just banished. I think only Agahnim was the shadow body, Ganon being the real thing.
About your thoughts on Zelda and Link being related, kinda odd. I mean, having an uncle only means one of your PARENTS has a brother, not you. Link could have been an only child, and it would seem he was.
Going back to wind waker, I suppose your interpretation could in fact work, but it's all a bit much and taking a lot of stuff in a much too indirect way for my tastes. I like things to be much more obvious and direct in the explanations if at all possible.
The game itself never actually hints or tries to tell me that the above world is an illusion or is anything but the reality. The people don't know the truth of their past, but it's not needed for them to continue leaving. If anything, the old or real hyrule is intended to be the fantasy. The rito connection to the zora, if you ask me, was made clear by that ghost. I say ghost because WW states that these aren't images from the "real world", but are ghosts of two decendants that Ganon killed himself. That's what they say too. Why are they the same? I think simply put that valoo is the one who changed them. Valoo is considered a diety, and valoo is the one who gives all of them their wings. When the world flooded, valoo likely decided that the zora could no longer live as they had for some reason, maybe because, as the game states, the waters have no fish, and likely fish can't live there (the man-fish contradict that though, but honestly WW actually says a few times that the waters have no fish so I suppose the man-fish are some magical exception to this rule, breathing air and whatnot).
Now, anyway, your theory is intriguing, but honestly it's far too complicated and from my personal interpretation ignores a lot of what Wind Waker actually says. As for lord Jabu Jabu being Jabun, well the name similarity is there :D. Honestly, in OOT I was under the impression that Jabu Jabu simply left of his own accord after the whole incident. Ganon killing him off may have happened, I'm not sure. Perhaps, as a diety itself, it did leave to parts unknown. It's likely that Jabu Jabu later had a decendant named Jabun. Jabun, even considering the art style, does look a lot different and is in fact a large angler fish at that point. I suspect it is a decendant.
On to volvagia. In OOT, volvagia was never good, always evil. I don't think valoo is volvagia at all.
The koroks and kokiri, well the game itself also makes it clear that the koroks WERE originally the kokiri and the Deku Tree changed them to make them fit for that new world. All signs point not to them being a mirror of hyrule, but to the flood actually being exactly what the game presents it to be.
One last thing, as I said above, the golden land is no more by the time of Wind Waker. It's already completely under Ganon's control, so there isn't really a way to hide a kingdom in there. It's just a bit too much. Perhaps it could work, but the simpler explanation that everything is exactly as the game states it to be works too. I go with that. The LTTP hyrule being very similar in the same types of places is something, but consider what makes them different, and there is a LOT that makes them different. In fact, after beating OOT and coming up with my first idea on the story, I ended up having to think up reasons why LTTP world and OOT world looked so different from each other. I "knew" they were the same, but why were all these places in different parts of the land and further more, completely different sizes and mapped out differently? I just consigned it to the changes of time, meaning that OOT and LTTP were MUCH further apart in my mind at the time, talking millions of years here. However, WW actually solved the problem for me. They had to find a new land, but named many of the features after the old land. That explained all the differences to me. Now then, why is the Hyrule in Zelda 1 and Zelda 2 so different? Indeed, they are much different compaired to EACH OTHER. Even MORE different than OOT and LTTP compaired in fact, with death mountain actually being in the SOUTH in Zelda 2 and the NORTH in Zelda 1 (not to mention being mapped so differently that the game itself makes a small note of it). I also go with the triforce reverting back to the dark world after the flood incident. I don't think the king ever went back to the real world or anything like that. Every single word he says at the end completely contradicts that to me... He seems to be saying "I will forget my old kingdom and look to the future". I almost expected him to throw away his crown as some sort of token for this, but I guess Miyamoto didn't think of that himself. Indeed, if he was actually attempting to return to his kingdom, then they did a heck of a job hiding that fact, with him telling them to find a new land, forget the old land, that old hyrule is lost forever, and finishing it all off with a flood to wash it all away.
lazy, Zelda 1 and Zelda 2 use the same Link, as does MM and OOT. LTTP and LA are somewhat uncertain, but I'm pretty much convinced that LA and LTTP use the same Link as well.
ABF, regarding LTTP. It has many of the same features, but they are only somewhat similar. The forest is in the northwest for instance, and lake hylia is far different. Death Mountain is a completely different looking place. As to why they have the same names, I believe that's the same reason it's called Hyrule. They kept the memory of the old places. Keep in mind they went in search of a new Hyrule, in that search they were likely trying to find a place with all those terrain features of the old Hyrule of legends. Problem solved if you look at it from that way.
lazy, about Ganon in LTTP. I do believe you DO see him. He IS trapped in the Dark World, and you actually go there yourself to fight and actually KILL him that time, which is how you manage to take the triforce back. The triforce itself states that Ganon is dead. How he came back to life is likely due to someone using the blood ritual to bring Ganon back later on for Zelda 1. Anyway, my point is that the Ganon you face in the pyramid of power is most likely the real thing. His form was permanently twisted into that evil pig demon, resembling the form he took at the end of OOT. That too was his actual body, but it wasn't killed then, just banished. I think only Agahnim was the shadow body, Ganon being the real thing.
About your thoughts on Zelda and Link being related, kinda odd. I mean, having an uncle only means one of your PARENTS has a brother, not you. Link could have been an only child, and it would seem he was.
Going back to wind waker, I suppose your interpretation could in fact work, but it's all a bit much and taking a lot of stuff in a much too indirect way for my tastes. I like things to be much more obvious and direct in the explanations if at all possible.
The game itself never actually hints or tries to tell me that the above world is an illusion or is anything but the reality. The people don't know the truth of their past, but it's not needed for them to continue leaving. If anything, the old or real hyrule is intended to be the fantasy. The rito connection to the zora, if you ask me, was made clear by that ghost. I say ghost because WW states that these aren't images from the "real world", but are ghosts of two decendants that Ganon killed himself. That's what they say too. Why are they the same? I think simply put that valoo is the one who changed them. Valoo is considered a diety, and valoo is the one who gives all of them their wings. When the world flooded, valoo likely decided that the zora could no longer live as they had for some reason, maybe because, as the game states, the waters have no fish, and likely fish can't live there (the man-fish contradict that though, but honestly WW actually says a few times that the waters have no fish so I suppose the man-fish are some magical exception to this rule, breathing air and whatnot).
Now, anyway, your theory is intriguing, but honestly it's far too complicated and from my personal interpretation ignores a lot of what Wind Waker actually says. As for lord Jabu Jabu being Jabun, well the name similarity is there :D. Honestly, in OOT I was under the impression that Jabu Jabu simply left of his own accord after the whole incident. Ganon killing him off may have happened, I'm not sure. Perhaps, as a diety itself, it did leave to parts unknown. It's likely that Jabu Jabu later had a decendant named Jabun. Jabun, even considering the art style, does look a lot different and is in fact a large angler fish at that point. I suspect it is a decendant.
On to volvagia. In OOT, volvagia was never good, always evil. I don't think valoo is volvagia at all.
The koroks and kokiri, well the game itself also makes it clear that the koroks WERE originally the kokiri and the Deku Tree changed them to make them fit for that new world. All signs point not to them being a mirror of hyrule, but to the flood actually being exactly what the game presents it to be.
One last thing, as I said above, the golden land is no more by the time of Wind Waker. It's already completely under Ganon's control, so there isn't really a way to hide a kingdom in there. It's just a bit too much. Perhaps it could work, but the simpler explanation that everything is exactly as the game states it to be works too. I go with that. The LTTP hyrule being very similar in the same types of places is something, but consider what makes them different, and there is a LOT that makes them different. In fact, after beating OOT and coming up with my first idea on the story, I ended up having to think up reasons why LTTP world and OOT world looked so different from each other. I "knew" they were the same, but why were all these places in different parts of the land and further more, completely different sizes and mapped out differently? I just consigned it to the changes of time, meaning that OOT and LTTP were MUCH further apart in my mind at the time, talking millions of years here. However, WW actually solved the problem for me. They had to find a new land, but named many of the features after the old land. That explained all the differences to me. Now then, why is the Hyrule in Zelda 1 and Zelda 2 so different? Indeed, they are much different compaired to EACH OTHER. Even MORE different than OOT and LTTP compaired in fact, with death mountain actually being in the SOUTH in Zelda 2 and the NORTH in Zelda 1 (not to mention being mapped so differently that the game itself makes a small note of it). I also go with the triforce reverting back to the dark world after the flood incident. I don't think the king ever went back to the real world or anything like that. Every single word he says at the end completely contradicts that to me... He seems to be saying "I will forget my old kingdom and look to the future". I almost expected him to throw away his crown as some sort of token for this, but I guess Miyamoto didn't think of that himself. Indeed, if he was actually attempting to return to his kingdom, then they did a heck of a job hiding that fact, with him telling them to find a new land, forget the old land, that old hyrule is lost forever, and finishing it all off with a flood to wash it all away.
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)