On the other hand...

Subject: On the other hand...
Author: Huinesoron
Posted on: 2014-08-07 15:49:00 UTC

... worlds (or at least some worlds) have their own internal logic. If the author says something which contradicts that - well, writers aren't perfect, either.

As an example: Terry Pratchett has gone on record to say that the Patrician in The Colour of Magic is Lord Vetinari, as written by a less experienced author. Which is fine - unless you want to treat the Discworld as an actual location. If you do that, then the man who decadently eats... candied jellyfish? something like that... can't be Havelock, whatever PTerry says.

Perhaps I can put it this way: if an author makes a statement that's inconsistent with the world as we see it, they need to justify that statement. That can be an actual explanation, or simply the claim or implication that there is an explanation. But if they simply state the bald fact, in a way that implies they haven't actually considered the other possibilities, when the version they're claiming is incompatible with the written canon... then it's open to dispute.

If J.K. wants to randomly declare that Ron was killed in The Order of the Phoenix, she can. But unless she gives us reason to believe that there's an explanation for him appearing in the two books after that - I don't feel I'm bound to consider that canonical. (And no, I don't believe she's done this, though it would be hilarious)

hS

Reply Return to messages

Jump to this post's position in the thread ↴

Interesting difference of opinion by zdimensia on 2014-08-07 10:47:00 UTC Reply

Copy-pasted from the comments section here. http://www.zeldainformer.com/news/nintendo-has-officially-ended-the-sheik-gender-debate#.U-NI7GNQE5I

milkyvampyre • 6 hours ago

The pope can say Jesus is god but that doesn't mean it's true. Jesus and Miyamoto could float down from the heavens and part the seas and say, "Sheik is Zelda and Zelda was always a female", but it wouldn't be definitive or end the debate. And that's because the world of Zelda is fictional and left to interpretation. Reality is difficult enough to figure out let alone fiction which is all false to begin with.

Once a piece of fiction is released the story tells what happened and people will interpret it differently. Nobody has any special power to say what happened, including authors. They had their chance when they were making the work, but once it's released out into the wild it may become a whole another story. It tells itself and that's different to everyone.

•

Nikki Colon milkyvampyre • 3 hours ago

UM... No? Just because you might be disappointed or upset by not getting the answer you want, doesn't change anything. Sure you are welcome to keep your imagination of Shiek as a male if you prefer. I understand, I love him too. BUT that doesn't mean you can say all that as if its a suitable or true.

The 100% TRUTH is, who has the absolute say in what characters do, say, or ARE, is the Author who the world belongs too. Your personal interpretation is in your mind alone, and has no say or weight in the situation of the final decision.
•

ZLT milky_vampyre • 4 hours ago

no, the only one who controls the story is the autor, would have love to see how the hell this is true but the fact as much as it bother is that this IS true, to not accept it is a lack of respect with the series and with the autor

Hmm... by eatpraylove on 2014-08-08 17:48:00 UTC Reply

It is pretty interesting. I prefer Nikki Colon's interpretation, myself; fans can say whatever they want, but the original author has ultimate power over his/her universe.
Generally, I side with the author. by doctorlit on 2014-08-08 03:48:00 UTC Reply

I see the author as the representative in our world of the canon they "created." Their mind is closer to the real deal than anyone else here can get, so their statements are most likely to be true.

Obviously, there will always be exceptions. As hS said, all authors make mistakes. The entire Left Behind series can't possibly be an accurate adaptation of the world it represents, because the ostensibly earth-like world is full of ostensibly human characters that don't behave like earth!humans. (I wonder if it's really a world full of orcs?)

It's a little trickier with games, since they don't have a single "author," even if you only focus on the story-boarding aspect. I haven't played any Zelda games, but reading through this article, it seems a character called Ruto gives Sheik a male pronoun in the game. That could have been a decision by multiple developers to mislead the player and leave the spoiler as a greater surprise. Ruto could have been doing the exact same thing in-universe, to help keep Zelda hidden.

On the other hand, I would be more willing to trust the pronouns supplied in-game, back when the story was being concepted, than an announcement now, sixteen years later. This announcement could just be an attempt to curb the weird fanart and other weirdness surrounding Zelda's apparent gender bending.

So there's really no easy way to say. I'll leave it to the actual Link fans.

--doctorlit can't leave the village, as he doesn't even have a sword or a shield

Hit it on the head. by Micharion on 2014-08-08 04:37:00 UTC Reply

Basically I agree with what was said. The author does ultimately have final say with what is and what isn't canon. Funny thing is Eiji Aounuma did kind of say a few years ago that Sheik was female, just in a roundabout way.

Also there is the fact that the in-universe explanation is that since Ganondorf was actively looking for Zelda that she had to go into hiding. Obviously the easiest way to escape detection from someone like that would require some extreme changes, exemplified when the minute Zelda drops the Sheik disguise is when Ganondorf captures her. It's just apparently that disguise was just as good out of universe. Not to mention this isn't the first time Nintendo would have mislead players about a characters gender before.

I'm confused by Snowy the Sane Fangirl on 2014-08-07 18:28:00 UTC Reply

Especially about what this person thinks Jesus has to do with Miyamoto or any of this. Is he trying to appeal to authority?

I also soundly agree with 99 and AdmiralSakai. Perhaps The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe tells itself to me in such a way that I am led to believe that the White Witch was the benign protagonist working for the good of the Narnian people. If that's the case, I'm an idiot.

99, that signature is a bit... different.

HН¬Н—НЊМЉНђН‘М‘НН®МЌ (nm by Anonymous on 2014-08-07 23:46:00 UTC Reply

Ignore the above. (nm) by 99Hedgehog on 2014-08-07 23:46:00 UTC Reply

Re: I'm confused by zdimensia on 2014-08-07 18:33:00 UTC Reply

People on the internet... *shrug emoticon*

Man, that reminds me of the time I found Jadis describing nuclear warfare in Magician's Nephew. I think it was before she left her home planet.

I'm with the hog here. by AdmiralSakai on 2014-08-07 14:10:00 UTC Reply

I mean, what is canon but things the author has said, written, or typed? That doesn't stop when the work is published. It's a lot more dubious when we try to guess a dead or otherwise uncommunicative author's original intent, but clear statements are clear.

On the sort-of flip side... by Huinesoron on 2014-08-07 14:33:00 UTC Reply

... things that are stated by characters aren't necessarily canon. To pick a random example, the statement by Elrond that the Ring can't be destroyed except in Orodruin is certainly a canonical statement, and I'm sure he has excellent reasoning and evidence to back it up - but none of that means that he's necessarily true. That goes doubly so if the character in question is noted for bending the truth.

(And the really nice thing is that the Middle-earth books are all written by unreliable narrators - Bilbo and Frodo - so they can be wrong anywhere you like)

And of course it's always nice to have an author who refuses to make firm statements. Tolkien did make a statement on the fate of the Entwives - that they were burnt with their gardens by Sauron - but he couched it as 'I fear', which means all options are still open. :D

hS

Re: On the sort-of flip side... by AdmiralSakai on 2014-08-07 15:22:00 UTC Reply

I think of it as the author defining reality. If Tolkien says, in the book or elsewhere, the sky in Middle Earth is green, then the sky in Middle Earth is green, then it is green. If he writes "Erond says 'the sky in Middle Earth is green'", all that means is that Elrond verbalized that statement. Since Elrond is not the author, his doing so does not make the statement true.

On the other hand... by Huinesoron on 2014-08-07 15:49:00 UTC Reply

... worlds (or at least some worlds) have their own internal logic. If the author says something which contradicts that - well, writers aren't perfect, either.

As an example: Terry Pratchett has gone on record to say that the Patrician in The Colour of Magic is Lord Vetinari, as written by a less experienced author. Which is fine - unless you want to treat the Discworld as an actual location. If you do that, then the man who decadently eats... candied jellyfish? something like that... can't be Havelock, whatever PTerry says.

Perhaps I can put it this way: if an author makes a statement that's inconsistent with the world as we see it, they need to justify that statement. That can be an actual explanation, or simply the claim or implication that there is an explanation. But if they simply state the bald fact, in a way that implies they haven't actually considered the other possibilities, when the version they're claiming is incompatible with the written canon... then it's open to dispute.

If J.K. wants to randomly declare that Ron was killed in The Order of the Phoenix, she can. But unless she gives us reason to believe that there's an explanation for him appearing in the two books after that - I don't feel I'm bound to consider that canonical. (And no, I don't believe she's done this, though it would be hilarious)

hS

My $10^9 by 99Hedgehog on 2014-08-07 13:15:00 UTC Reply

I believe that when it comes to canon, the author's word is law. Canon>Fanon. Simple. Except for when the author isn't making a modicum of sense, then the inverse is true. Of course, if there isn't any canon to fill in a gap, that's where the fanon comes in and that's where we get shiddery like headcanons.

If there is canon to tell us what is going on, the fanon is irrelevant. Except for when the canon makes no sense or is absent.

When it comes to the fundamental themes (what the author was trying to tell us), it is completely in the eye of the beholder and they can believe what they want to believe. Besides, the author should be able to get their message across without any mis-interpretations along the way.

When it comes to themes, the author should be able to get their message across and if they can't, what they mean is up to the reader.

T͙̦̞͛ͥ̾̈ͧ͛H̻̅́ͭ̂ͤ̓̅E͓̮͉̣̱͗ͪ̅̑ͫ͆̓ ̤̗͚͔͖̙Fͬͥ͆̍̐ͣA̱͖̟͓̪͍L̬̖̘̼̟̋̂̊S̳͓̩̯ͧͪͫ̃Eͣͦͬͨ̈́̃ ͉͐͒͗̑EM̘̭ͤͧP̖̱͈͇̫̋̾ͭ̄͐ͬ͌E͙ͯ̏̿̀̑͐̈R̯̹̥̼̎ͬͮ͛́̉̚O͌̎͊̈ͦR̭̣̙͚͈̩ ̖͙̞̓ͭ̒H͐̋͒A͖̳̲͓̰͙͍͛͂ͧ̌́͛̏Š̖̐ ̼͇͚̊̉ͧ̓͊̆N̻̱̗͉̪͔̞ͤͫË̠̳̲̠̼̲̰́̎̾̐͑͌̅V̱͈̯̪͙̘E̫͚ͮ̒ͨͣ̐Ṟ̝͔̂ͯͣͯ ̝̗̬̜ͧ̀̅P̯͇͙͈͍͙̣ͭ̔ͪ̃ͨR̉̍O̳̤̽T͕̙E̟͕̗̺ͭĆ͖ͨT̞ͤ̒̊͌E̻͖̤̬̦D̟̣̪̟̊̇̓͐ ͫͨͯͪͭͤA̲̙͗ͭ̂͋N̊̑Y̞͇̼̪̬͕̲ͩͥͩ̓̀ͩȌ͔̙͇͎̻̓̋̋N͙͇̰̺̘̻͔͑̍͐ͭE̍ͬ̆ ͍̠̟̪̳̅ͨ̊̌͐F͎̤͍̱O͉̻̘R̮̰ͩ ̦̙̼̰̂ͣͪ̎H͈̯̤͉͙͎̣E͖̪̬͇͐ͯ͐ ̙̓Ḯ͒ͦ̾ͦͧͧS̺͓̤̎ P̱̹͖͍̓̑̓O͚̼͍͖̓͆̍̒ͯ̎W̞͎͕̥͎͎̓ͮͮ͌̌ͤE͈̟͖̰̎̇R̗̠̲͈͈̳͙͂L̟̳̺͉̫̯ͯE͎̹͉͕̖ͤ̾ͥS̓͐̈́S͕ͣ!̙̞̩̣̀ͅ ̬̫͗̔̐ͥ̐AL͍͔̱̝̲͔̎L̝̱ͪ̚ ̠ͨH̫͔̖̉ͦͨÃ̰̣̾͊̏͐͋I͇̘̫̞L͓̠̣̼͎̥ ͎̥̩̣̲̻̳͆͛͆C̏ͭ̿̃̊Hͭ͗͆̽̊Ấ̙͕̰̬ͧ̀ͅO͖̤̘̲͐͐̂̑ͩS͍͖̹̳̭̙̺̑̋!̩̺ͮ̔ͩ̀̏ͮ

Ah yes. by zdimensia on 2014-08-07 15:47:00 UTC Reply

Because of executive meddling and other such things, I'm working with a canon that has huge gaps and things that can be misinterpreted. I'm glad that one of the concept artists has a forum where we can ask that sort of stuff, he sorted out my confusion about how Destiny works.