This is a theory I've been working on for a long time, and it has two parts that don't exactly fit together as well as I'd like them to. Incubating it hasn't resolved those issues, so maybe someone smarter than me can fix it (or convince me to throw it out entirely).
Part I: The Legend of Zelda as a Monomyth in Our World
My son loves Zelda, and I mean LOVES it. I was discussing this with a friend of mine, and he said he wasn't surprised that he responded so well to the games, as they're basically just another version of the monomyth that we've been telling for thousands of years. Stolen from the above wiki page, a monomyth is a story where
Of course, it's possible that I'm over-thinking this. My son is only four, and he may just like Zelda for the same reason he likes riding his bike: because it's fun. But my son doesn't pretend to be a bike when we play-fight; he doesn't want to be a bike for Christmas; he doesn't want his name to be "bike." He wants all of those things with Link. He identifies with Link as a hero, and with his heroic journey in a way that I wouldn't believe was possible for a four year old if I didn't see it myself every day. He wants to be Link, much in the same way that I imagine children who grew up listening to the stories of King Arthur wanted to be King Arthur.
The hero's journey is something that we respond to, whether it's in the form of a space opera (Star Wars), high fantasy (LotR) or a videogame. Zelda's success as a series results from its ability to tap into that ancient vein of storytelling, and allow us to actually be the hero. I've been pretty outspoken in my criticism of Skyward Sword, but there's no doubt in my mind that my son identifies with Link as strongly as he does because of the connection the Wiimote allows him to have with Link. He can experience the monomyth in the first person. It shouldn't surprise me either that he enjoys it so much.
Part II: The Legend of Zelda as a Monomyth in its Own World
I've always rejected the idea of a Zelda timeline. Mainly because it literally makes no sense (see: Nintendo's "official" three-way absurdity), but also because it doesn't strike me as very interesting. Putting together puzzle pieces that clearly don't fit isn't my idea of fun, and a cohesive timeline adds nothing to the games for me.
My interpretation has been that the Legend of Zelda series is an oral tradition: most of the games in the series are retellings of the original LoZ, but as time passes and the story is passed down, names, locations and details of the story change. LttP, OoT, WW, TP and SS would be re-tellings of the original story that have been altered as the story is passed down orally across generations. The other stories in the series (LA, OoS/OoA, MC, MM, ST, PH) are embellishments for each particular re-telling of the main story. They aren't passed down with the main story.
This explanation works better in a practical sense to explain the myriad contradictions and omissions across the series. Things changed in oral tradition all the time as aspects of the original story were forgotten and new details were added. But more than explaining away the inconsistencies, it offers a framework for understanding the similarities across the Zelda games. The lakes, volcanoes and forests may have different names, but there are ALWAYS lakes, volcanoes and forests. There are always giant monsters with one eye to be defeated; there's (almost) always mystical music that grants power. It becomes easier to understand this if we think of the Zelda games as the same story. Some things will be different, but overall it will be the same.
More importantly though, it adds a new dimension to the Zelda universe, namely a culture that is completely separate from the actual Zelda universe. After all, if the Legend of Zelda is just a story, then who's telling the story? Speculating about a culture passing down the exploits of Link is far more intriguing to me than arguing over the specifics of a timeline. Was Link a real person in this culture's past, and have his heroic exploits simply been blown to mythic proportions? Or is Link this culture's Gilgamesh, a divine being whose story serves a social and cultural purpose? What kind of culture would create this specific hero and the circumstances he faces?
Of course we know the real answer: developers at Nintendo created these games. But fandom is a funny thing, and it allows us to move beyond the simple reality of where Zelda actually comes from. I suppose that's why I prefer the oral history explanation more than the timeline. Arguing about whether Minish Cap or Four Swords came first strikes me as a boring technical exercise, matching up facts and hints that limit interpretation. The kinds of questions I posed about the culture that tells the Legend of Zelda, questions that really engage my imagination...that's what I enjoy about gaming the most. The experience, yeah, but also how it affects me once its over.
Part I: The Legend of Zelda as a Monomyth in Our World
My son loves Zelda, and I mean LOVES it. I was discussing this with a friend of mine, and he said he wasn't surprised that he responded so well to the games, as they're basically just another version of the monomyth that we've been telling for thousands of years. Stolen from the above wiki page, a monomyth is a story where
There are some aspects of Zelda which deviate from the definition of the monomyth laid out on that wiki page, but it's close enough that I don't think there's anything controversial in describing The Legend of Zelda as "the hero's journey."
Of course, it's possible that I'm over-thinking this. My son is only four, and he may just like Zelda for the same reason he likes riding his bike: because it's fun. But my son doesn't pretend to be a bike when we play-fight; he doesn't want to be a bike for Christmas; he doesn't want his name to be "bike." He wants all of those things with Link. He identifies with Link as a hero, and with his heroic journey in a way that I wouldn't believe was possible for a four year old if I didn't see it myself every day. He wants to be Link, much in the same way that I imagine children who grew up listening to the stories of King Arthur wanted to be King Arthur.
The hero's journey is something that we respond to, whether it's in the form of a space opera (Star Wars), high fantasy (LotR) or a videogame. Zelda's success as a series results from its ability to tap into that ancient vein of storytelling, and allow us to actually be the hero. I've been pretty outspoken in my criticism of Skyward Sword, but there's no doubt in my mind that my son identifies with Link as strongly as he does because of the connection the Wiimote allows him to have with Link. He can experience the monomyth in the first person. It shouldn't surprise me either that he enjoys it so much.
Part II: The Legend of Zelda as a Monomyth in its Own World
I've always rejected the idea of a Zelda timeline. Mainly because it literally makes no sense (see: Nintendo's "official" three-way absurdity), but also because it doesn't strike me as very interesting. Putting together puzzle pieces that clearly don't fit isn't my idea of fun, and a cohesive timeline adds nothing to the games for me.
My interpretation has been that the Legend of Zelda series is an oral tradition: most of the games in the series are retellings of the original LoZ, but as time passes and the story is passed down, names, locations and details of the story change. LttP, OoT, WW, TP and SS would be re-tellings of the original story that have been altered as the story is passed down orally across generations. The other stories in the series (LA, OoS/OoA, MC, MM, ST, PH) are embellishments for each particular re-telling of the main story. They aren't passed down with the main story.
This explanation works better in a practical sense to explain the myriad contradictions and omissions across the series. Things changed in oral tradition all the time as aspects of the original story were forgotten and new details were added. But more than explaining away the inconsistencies, it offers a framework for understanding the similarities across the Zelda games. The lakes, volcanoes and forests may have different names, but there are ALWAYS lakes, volcanoes and forests. There are always giant monsters with one eye to be defeated; there's (almost) always mystical music that grants power. It becomes easier to understand this if we think of the Zelda games as the same story. Some things will be different, but overall it will be the same.
More importantly though, it adds a new dimension to the Zelda universe, namely a culture that is completely separate from the actual Zelda universe. After all, if the Legend of Zelda is just a story, then who's telling the story? Speculating about a culture passing down the exploits of Link is far more intriguing to me than arguing over the specifics of a timeline. Was Link a real person in this culture's past, and have his heroic exploits simply been blown to mythic proportions? Or is Link this culture's Gilgamesh, a divine being whose story serves a social and cultural purpose? What kind of culture would create this specific hero and the circumstances he faces?
Of course we know the real answer: developers at Nintendo created these games. But fandom is a funny thing, and it allows us to move beyond the simple reality of where Zelda actually comes from. I suppose that's why I prefer the oral history explanation more than the timeline. Arguing about whether Minish Cap or Four Swords came first strikes me as a boring technical exercise, matching up facts and hints that limit interpretation. The kinds of questions I posed about the culture that tells the Legend of Zelda, questions that really engage my imagination...that's what I enjoy about gaming the most. The experience, yeah, but also how it affects me once its over.
