#kalh is on the loose

[vagueandominousvibes]

I hid my phone away for the weekend, and have just now had a moment of clarity in terms of choosing beliefs and making up our own minds. 

The vocal around us (newspapers, influencers, shows, movies, arts, etc.) stand for something. They’re an expression of what the writers, creators, and spokespersons believe. I’m not saying they have an agenda, but rather that there’s a conscious or subconscious replication of their own thoughts and ideas. In short: if they’ve not thought about how they want to frame something, they continue to replicate the framework they grew up with; if they have thought about it, they might deliberately change it (or deliberately not).

We end up with something that can be boiled down to: “take this side in the conflict for reasons A, B, C”; or “take this side for reasons D, E, F”. Sometimes it’s not as straight forward as that. Sometimes it’s “take this side for reasons A and B”, and “take this side for B and C”. Sometimes it’s “take this side for reasons A+1” and sometimes it’s “take this side for reasons A-1”. 

What I’m trying to say is that there’s a lot of opinions around, and depending on how we cultivate our social and our online world, we might see only one side, or we might see both. If we see only one, it’s our responsibility to find out about the other — and not just through the lens of so-and-so. Hear what someone who truly supports and believes it has to say — not in defence or anger, but in faith. You don’t have to listen to them, just hear them. Then, choose. What do you believe? What do you stand for?

It’s hard, I know, and sometimes it takes time. Sometimes you need to let yourself process it — for days or weeks. And that’s okay. Learn to say, “I’ll need to sit with this for a little while”. There’s no rush to jump to conclusions. 

This isn’t a dig at any particular conflict. It’s purely this: What we choose to believe is our own choice. Who we choose to believe is our own choice. Sometimes, standing for what you choose is hard. And that’s okay. 

It’s also okay to be tired. There’s a lot out there that we’re told we have to have an opinion on, otherwise we’re bad people for not believing or supporting one thing or another. But the thing is, as an individual, it’s okay to simply say, “I don’t know”. Or, “I need time to sit with this and consider”. Belief isn’t easy. Not all beliefs come naturally. That doesn’t mean you’re a bad person. It just means you’re human.

[vagueandominousvibes]

This is so important y’all!

I did my BA in English at the University of York, and then an MSc in Modern Literature at the University of Edinburgh. These are both universities that, to some extent, have specialised in humanities subjects, and they have a number of researchers that are really good at what they do, and they’re starting to expand their horizons in terms of cultural studies

At York, I worked with a researcher who’s so fascinated by the developments of literature in online medias. He’s supervising a PhD student who’s researching Harry Potter fanfiction and queer representation in online story-telling

At Edinburgh, my dissertation supervisor worked with pulp fiction (equivalent of today’s “popular literature” genres, including, I’d argue, fanfiction), and was deeply fascinated by the conversations we had about fanfiction when compared to the modern and postmodern “classics” on our reading list

The earliest edited collection of resarch on fanfiction that I’m aware of is from 2014 (I don’t have the title anymore, but I vividly recall bringing the date up whenever someone scoffed at me reading and writing fanfiction) 

Research is happening, and it’s really exciting that it’s being paid attention to, but it’s still a tiny field, and there’s a very real divide in humanities research between “elitist” and “popular” works. Fanfiction tends to fall into “popular” works, which is why many disregard it, but as has already been mentioned, it’s the popular works that tend to survive time — it’s the popular genres that persevere

The only real issue, as has been pointed out above, is that the online world is fleeting. Sure, information is stored somewhere, but what if that storage is somehow damaged? Millions of records on a vital part of online culture would disappear, and we’d lose so many records of the vibrant culture we’re part of

I downloaded some books about folklore and i keep getting more and more convinced that capitalism is wrecking so many areas of academic study. In the past 20 years or so there's so many untapped areas of study that aren't getting any attention.

In particular a critical period of the development of internet folklore is going virtually undocumented and ughhhhh it's so frustrating

[vagueandominousvibes]

a bit late but,,, top 5 mytological/fantasy creatures

Hi Niz, not to worry! I'm still happy to answer :)

I've been thinking about this for about a day now, and I keep thinking that I should put dragons on the list, because dragons are really cool and I play an Ancient Golden Dragon in one of the D&D campaigns I'm in, except ... I could interpret 'mythological/fantasy creatures' to also include folkloric creatures. And let me tell you, there are some Norse/Scandinavian folkloric creatures that, in my humble opinion, absolutely fuck.

(Note: Some of these made it into the award-winning children's trilogy Alvetegnet, by Sigbjørn Mostue, which I started translating into English for my degree, because it hasn't been translated yet and I'm absolutely devastated by this. I've tried to get in touch with publishing companies, but no luck so far. Hopefully you'll all get to read it someday!)

In no particular order:

Elves. Specifically, Old Norse elves. These aren't whatever British elves have got going. These elves appear occasionally in Old Norse texts, usually in association with the Vanir (a subsection of the Norse pantheon), either separate from the Vanir or as the Vanir themselves. Although they could take a human likeness, they were distinctly not human. They could cause or heal illnesses, and they could have intimate relationships with humans that produced half-elven children. What I find most fascinating, however, is that the Poetic Edda suggests an overlap between human ancestors and elves. Essentially, humans could become elves after death, and isn't that cool and absolutely terrifying? You life your life and die, expecting to meet Hel and find rest in Helheim, only to become a maybe-deity worshipped by your family? You live and live and live, with no end in sight, other than a foretold Ragnarok, and years drag on around you and you watch the world change, but you're still the same? And you used to be human — you know what it means to be human — but now you're not, and what does that even mean? You have undergone a profound Othering, but do you still feel some kinship to humans? Do you still remember your family and come when they call? Have you become a guardian spirit? The individual deity they pray to when their need is great? What happens when the last of them dies, killed by war or famine, and your name is your own, remembered by no one but the gods?

Fjøsnissen. There is no decent translation of this word into English. I've tried. The closest would be the Scottish brownie (known in Scottish Gaelic as a brùnaidh or gruagach), but it's not. Fjøsnissen is generally viewed as a creature of halfling size. They're round, dressed in knitted woollen clothes, and live in the barn. They help out around the property, keep animals hale and healthy, and generally ensure peace and bounty. On the 23rd of December, the family repays fjøsnissen with a bowl of rice porridge sprinkled with cinnamon and sugar, and maybe some butter and almonds. (My family has done this every year for as long as I can remember, and although I don't live there anymore, I'll do my best to keep the tradition going.)

Fossekallen. You know how folklore is filled with creatures that lure you to your death? This is the first of three such ones included in this list. Fossekallen, as I recall it, is a handsome young man of a terribly grouchy disposition. You usually find him under waterfalls, where he plays his fiddle and sings mournfully, luring people over the edge.

Nøkken. No, don't think about that horse in Frozen II. That is, admittedly, one version of it, but it's not the one I grew up with. The one my grandmother and older cousins told me about lived at the bottom of the mountain lake down the road from our cabin, under the fallen rocks and hairy freshwater seaweed. If you swam too far out, you had to watch out for nøkken, who would grab your ankles and drag you down under his rocks. He would then either drown you, or keep you alive until he ate you. To this day I'm still terrified of going swimming in that lake, and will only go out fishing if I'm with someone else. The illustration of him that has stayed with me is this one, by Theodor Kittelsen (1904):

(Source)

Huldra. This one looks like a beautiful young woman. She sings and walks the pastures, sometimes herding cows, sometimes on her own. Her voice and beauty enchant you, and she will lure you into the nearby marshes and drown you. The enchantment can only be broken if you catch a glimpse of her tail, which is that of a cow, or her back, which is a gaping rotting hole where her spine has been gouged out.

If creatures like these last three have been created and passed down through generations to keep children from wandering into potentially dangerous situations in the wilderness, then they've certainly worked on me. To this day, I don't swim where there's seaweed, I walk around marshes if I can, and I stay clear of the slippery edges of waterfalls.

[vagueandominousvibes]

So last week my partner and I discovered rain frogs — specifically the black rain frog and the desert rain frog. We’re late to the party, we know. We watched multiple videos on rain frogs. We sent videos about rain frogs to our friends. I looked up more photos to learn how to draw rain frogs. 

Then I thought, heck, frogs are delightful little guys, surely there’s going to be numerous podcasts about them to listen to on a day I’m feeing Not Great?

WRONG.

There are two podcasts that I (with an, admittedly, somewhat sleep addled brain) managed to find: Tales from the Lily Pad by Marlene Wurfel, which, if you’ve listened to it, you’ll know is a collection of bedtime stories told by Lily the frog; and Frog of the Week that, once a week, selects a frog to talk about for 2-3 minutes, in a very soothing and calming tone, with some ambient background music — it feels a little bit like reading the summary of a wikipedia page. 

BUT WHERE’S THE RESEARCH?? Where are the fun facts, presented in a “wtf did I just read” kind of way, as if you’re a bunch of undergrads clustered around a particular piece of info?? Where’s the weird obscure details you’d need to talk to highly specialised researchers to know about?? Where are the nerds desperately trying to describe a feature in the most ridiculous way to try to convey the frog’s appearance to their listeners?? 

[vagueandominousvibes]

📚 for the music ask game?

📚 A song or album you could write a term paper on

Oh boy, ok, let me just—

There are so many amazing songs with fantastic lyrics and meaning, full of allusion and meaning and symbolism — 'Achilles Come Down' by Gang of Youths comes to mind, as does 'Spanish Train' by Chris de Burgh (and, frankly, his entire 'Moonfleet & Other Stories' album), 'Telegraph Road' by Dire Straits, 'Suzanne' by Leonard Cohen, 'All Is Found' by Kacey Musgraves ...

But the one I want to tell you about is 'Byssan Lull' (trans.: 'Galley of Riches'), a Swedish lullaby written by Evert Taube. I don't know a whole lot about music theory, so all I can say about it will be based on text and convention. The translation I'm using is this one, because although I understand most of it, I'm not proficient enough in Swedish to trust my own translation of it. If you want to listen to it, my first recommendation would be to get my dad to sing it (he's a bass singer in the local choir, and his rendition is absolutely gorgeous). My second recommendation is Helene Bøksle's cover, which I can't find on YouTube, but know is on Spotify.

'Byssan Lull' has a repetitive structure, where each verse starts with the line 'Byssan lull, koka kittelen full' (trans.: 'Byssan lull -- boil the full kettle'), and is then followed by a list of three. The first verse lists three wanderers, the second lists three winds, the third lists three sailing ships, the fourth lists three figures on a treasure chest, and the fifth lists three religious figures (which, interestingly, was changed in the version I grew up with, and is something I'll come back). From what I understand, the melody is based on the Swedish fiskeskärsmelodin, which is a folk melody associated with lullabies about fishing, rowing, sailing, etc. Taube is to have heard his mother sing this particular melody, and claims to have improvised the song on a summer evening at Skagen. We know that the song was dedicated to a partner Taube had, and that Skagen was where he met the mother of his daughter. 'Byssan Lull' was first published in 1919 alongside seven sjömansvisor (trans.: sailor songs, sea shanties).

I'm neither a sailor nor Swedish, so my brief analysis here may be lacking.

What I love about this song, however, is that it focuses on the seemingly small and forgotten things. First come the three wanderers, of which one is limping, one is blind, and one is implied to be mute. Do they travel individually or in a group? Is there anyone with them? We don't know. All we know is that they seem small, quiet, and far away.

Second come the three winds. One blows on 'the great ocean', one on 'little Skagerrak', and one 'far up on the gulf of Bothnia'. The winds blowing on the great ocean are grand and terrific, known primarily to sailors, and the image of a ship caught in towering waves is a dismal one indeed. Skagerrak is denoted as 'little', and 'the gulf of Bothnia' (Swedish: 'Bottniska viken') is the northernmost part of the Gulf of Bothnia, which in turn is the northernmost part of the Baltic Sea (between Sweden, Finland, and the Baltics). It's remote, removed, and liminal.

Third come the sailing ships. The first one, a barque, is a ship with three or more masts. The second one, a brig, has two masts. The third one 'has ragged sails'. This time the visual grandeur of the ships shrinks and fades into something worn and weary.

Fourth are the figures on the chest: our faith, our hope, red love. After all the melancholic images of the small, the lost, and the weary, this verse shows a turning point. Firstly, the language changes. It's no longer listing one, two, three people, natural phenomenons, or objects, but talks about 'our' faith and 'our' hope. Sure, there's definitely something Christian going on here (which is emphasised in the fifth verse), but there's also something infinitely warming in the way the language goes from external and excluding, to internal and including. Where the first three verses compared and contrasted, this fourth one brings everyone and everything together in 'red love'.

Fifth and final are the religious figures, introduced as 'three good things'. These are God, the Son, and the Virign Mary. What I find interesting about this is that, whereas Taube could have used the Trinity (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit), he chose to focus on the actual family instead — the father, the son, and the mother. He even emphasises Mary by ending the verse and the song on her name, and I wonder if that is his way of paying tribute to his own mother, the partner he dedicated the song to, and the mother of his child. Aside from this, the focus on the family also works to bring the lullaby back to the idealised love of the nuclear family, once more placing the internal and including over the external and excluding.

The version of this I heard growing up, however, changed the fifth verse out with the following (first line preserved in Swedish, the rest transcribed in Norwegian):

Byssan lull, koka kittelen full, Der skinner tre stjerner på himmelen. Den ene er så blank, Den andre o så fin, Den tredje er månen den gule.

Lyrical translation:

Byssan lull, boil the kettle full, Three stars are aglow in the heavens. The first one is so bright, The second oh so fine, The third one is the moon so golden.

I don't know why it was changed. If dad heard it from his mother, I wouldn't be surprised if she fiddled with it — she was known for fiddling with lyrics and concocting new text to go with old melodies. I don't know that she was overtly religious, either, but I do know granddad did agricultural application of science in uni, so maybe there was a mutual appreciation for early astrophysics?

Who knows. The point I want to make about this is that 'Byssan Lull' is a gorgeous melancholic lullaby that, at least in my family, has survived through generations and been changed to reflect our culture. This, I think, is the nature of lullabies. Because we sing them to our children, and our children in turn sing them to their children, lullabies carry that inter-generational love and affection that, in some instances, is worn down by trauma and miscommunication. They remind us that we come from somewhere, but we can also change them to suit our individual situations. Even if the entire text is rewritten, the melody remains, and isn't that something beautiful to remember?

[vagueandominousvibes]

As far as I recall (at work rn, and don't have the manga for reference), Vio and Shadow want to attempt to do away with Vaati and rule Hyrule together. I think they briefly talk about using Zelda to get rid of Vaati and/or Ganon (this is the conversation where Ganon is brought up, while they're hanging out on the balcony I think), so maybe it would go something like this:

Vio pretends to return to the Heroes, they get Zelda's help in defeating Vaati and Ganon, and Vio then reveals his colours (bad pun not intended) and helps Shadow either re-capture Zelda or do away with her — they would still have Red, Green, and Blue to deal with, which could go in many directions;

or Vio slowly converts Red, Blue, and Green to his and Shadow's cause (maybe Zelda too? would that even be possible?) — this could lead into the whole thing that is the Four Swords Temple in one of the Downfall games, where a Link has to battle the corrupted versions of the Colours.

question for someone who paid more attention to the manga than i currently can: what would evil prevailing have looked like? like if there was no betrayal, shadow went on doing his thing, vaati and/or ganon won... what would have happened? i could probably figure it out later but i don't the book on me right now. i forget the nuances of the whole shadow-vaati-ganon triangle of villainy lol

[vagueandominousvibes]

Four Swords: Acknowledging the Subconscious

The other day @hey-adora​ wrote a small piece on Vio to discuss his relations to fate/Hylia (these two having been conflated) from a queer perspective, and I may have gone off on a tangent in the tags due to a clinical case of Thoughts™. There were some extremely savoury ideas in Sam’s post, and I absolutely encourage y’all to check it out. The gist of it is that Vio and Shadow ‘feel like they were placed into a world and plot that’s not quite meant for them’, and that Vio’s ‘entire arc [is] so damn queer, gay, whatever’, irrelevant of whether he’s shipped with Shadow or not.

I became invested and decided to tease it out further and look closer at the psychological metaphors in the manga, so this mini-essay was born. I don’t think it’s saying anything that hasn’t been said before, but it’s been a good exercise for me to figure out my own thoughts.

Words: 972

As I mentioned in the tags of Sam’s post, I’m particularly fascinated by the Links’ implied relation to the elements through the Four Sword. The Four Sword was originally gifted to the Hero of Men by the picori. Following the official timeline, it would then have been broken by Vaati in Legend of Zelda: The Minish Cap, whereupon Link in MC was sent off to reforge it. Reforging it included a process of collecting the Four Elements, jewels imbued with the elemental power of earth, air, fire, and water. Coincidentally, the colours of these jewels correspond to the colours of the Links’ tunics in the Legend of Zelda: The Four Sword games and manga. There therefore seems to be an implied relation between Vio and the element of earth, Green and the element of air, Red and the element of fire, and Blue and the element of water. Here, I’m focusing on Vio and Green’s elements.

Writer and podcaster Brandon Chin has, very helpfully, provided a basic overview of what the elements represent in Japanese culture.* According to Chin, earth represents ‘foundation, being acted upon, stability and stubbornness’, while wind represents ‘growth, open-minded[ness], wisdom and freedom’ (source). In the Legendary Edition of the FS manga, a sketch of Vio notes that he is ‘[c]ool, contrary, brainy, sarcastic’ (68), whereas Green is a ‘[l]eader’ and ‘[t]he classic Link’ (36). If Green most resembles the original Link, then Vio, having been defined as ‘contrary’ (to be opposite), seems to have been sketched as the one least resembling the original Link of the four Links. There seems to be seem opposition in their elements also (earth represents stubbornness, air represents open-mindedness), but what I find interesting is that it’s earth — meaning Vio — that represents stability. Where wind grows, develops wisdom, and is free, earth is the stable immoveable bedrock that all else is built upon.

If we do, as Sam suggests, view Vio’s arc as a fundamentally queer one that defies fate/Hylia, what does that say about the original Link? What does that say about the Hero overall?

This is mostly semi-grounded speculation on my part, but maybe it ties into the idea of accepting all parts of oneself that seems to be promoted throughout the manga? Shadow’s arc ends with his sacrifice, and Vio points out that, ‘[Shadow] only made trouble … so that we’d notice him. He was tired of being ignored’ (334). Even the fan translation is at this point in close agreement: ‘The reason why Shadow Link did all these evil things was probably because he wanted to be acknowledged, have us turn around and face him …’ (Fig 1). Shadow represents the dark and hidden parts of the original Link — is, literally and figuratively, the Hero’s shadow — and the Links come to realise that, rather than being vilified, forgotten, and ignored, Shadow wanted to be part of them — part of Link. Through Shadow, the dark and hidden parts of Link came to life and literally expressed a wish to be acknowledged and included.

This is a particularly metaphorical view of the story, and can be viewed in psychological terms as an individual (the Hero) familiarising themselves with the fears and traumas in their subconsciousness by acknowledging these fears and traumas, and thereby learning to live with them. It is a narrative of healing, and in this story, Link takes the role of the Hero and reenacts the narrative for the readers to see and experience. I believe it is also combined with a healthy dose of bildung (meaning self-cultivation, growth, and maturation), due to the Hero being divided into four. The bildung is, however, tightly interwoven with the psychological narrative, because Vio — the part of Link associated with earth and stability — goes out of his way to befriend and gain the trust of Shadow — the subconscious elements of Link. It is, in other words, a story about maturing through subconscious fears and traumas, acknowledging them, and learning to live with them.

Returning to my previous question: What does this say about the Hero overall? I’m not going to begin to guess at authorial intent. “Is Link queer?” is not a question I’m trying to answer. Rather, I want to ask what it would mean, narratively, if Vio, the part of Link associated with foundations and stability, was queer, and that queerness showed in his arc. What does queerness mean, culturally?

As someone who identifies as queer, this is what I would associate it with: being erased; being rewritten; being twisted to fit the picture; hiding a part of myself from those I most would have wanted to share it with; forgetting that part; pretending; masquerading as someone I’m not. There is trauma in this. There is fear in this. There are, of course, many good and wonderful aspects of queerness, but I doubt any of us can forget that fear and trauma are unfortunate parts of the queer experience.

Reading Vio, specifically, as queer implies that Link’s arc is, in part, a rediscovery of an erased and forgotten part of himself. It implies his reconciliation of the person he presents as (the classic hero) and the person he is deep down (the erased, rewritten, and forgotten). It implies the revelation of a masquerade — but the masquerade is wholly internal. 

Again: What does this imply about the Hero overall? If we take one step back and look at Link — if we see in him both Green and Vio, and Shadow also — what is revealed? I say, “Greyness.” This is not a moral greyness, but a cultural greyness. The Hero has accepted the part erased and forgotten by society, and has become comfortable with it. He no longer strives for extremes, but acknowledges that he can hold multitudes. He has permitted himself to be complex.

*Chin also, interestingly, included a fifth element, which I wasn’t aware of! This one is called ‘void’, and represents ‘the source of human spirit, everything, nothing, absence and death’ (source). I feel like there’s definitely space to do some thinking there in relation to Shadow, but that’s a topic for a different post.

Bibliography

Akira Himekawa, The Legend of Zelda: Four Swords - Legendary Edition, translated by John Werry (VIZ Media, 2017).

Brandon Chin, ‘The 5 Elements in Japanese: What They Mean and Where to Find Them’, FluentU, 3rd February 2022. URL: https://www.fluentu.com/blog/japanese/elements-in-japanese/ (accessed 7th November, 2022).

Images

Fig 1

[vagueandominousvibes]

A couple of days ago, in a seminar on Franz Kafka, our lecturer said something that stuck with me: "We didn't have a choice in being born, so we have to learn to deal with the world"

Seeing the world in its current state, our lecturer's words don't seem all that optimistic. And yet I found them oddly comforting

I've thought about it, and I think this is why I found them so comforting:

My parents chose to have a child, and that child turned out to be me

They decided to shelter me, to make sure I didn't have to deal with the world — with politics, with activist movements, with everything that requires critical thinking — they were always supposed to be my wall of defence, and chew and digest the world for me

As a young adult, I've struggled to deal with the world. I hide. I'm scared and anxious and terrified of making mistakes and disappointing the people around me

I don't know how to "deal with the world"

But if this is something that can be learned — a skill, like knitting or drawing or skiing — then there's still hope

There's still a chance for me to learn — to write that book, to open that online bookshop, to get that apartment with that little kitchen and those green plants, to get that Norwegian Forest Cat and that Bernese Mountain Dog, to learn to bake red velvet cake, to make my own holiday traditions closer aligned with my own beliefs and values, to host exchange students, to create a home where nobody has to hide parts of themselves for fear of losing love and respect

There's still a chance for me to build a life I love

.

Kafka's The Trial is a pre-existential text. There's many ways to read it, but I'd like to emphasise this: the topic of change and resultant confusion

Most readings assume that Josef K, the protagonist, is in the right, and that the society around him is in the wrong — that Josef K is an anchor point of normalcy in a text of absurdity

But an existential reading does away with this assumption. An existential reading focuses on the difference — on Josef K's confusion, on his refusing to understand the people around him, on his refusing to accept the social laws

My partner suggested this could be read as neurodivergence, and I did also consider it. However, while it would be immensely meaningful to neurodivergent people to have that kind of representation, I'm hesitant to apply such a reading for two reasons:

I don't know enough about Kafka as a person, or his other works, to write that analysis;

and it would limit the understanding we gain of general life in Kafka's time period, if we assume that Josef K's confusion only represents neurodivergent confusion (I'm saying this as someone who's probably also somewhere on the scale of neurodivergence)

What we do know, is that Kafka was writing into the modernist tradition, in the early 20th century, between WWI and WWII. Modernist literature is confusing. It's absurd. Just look at James Joyce's Ulysses, Virginia Woolf's Mrs Dalloway, or Samuel Beckett's plays. Kafka might not be writing stream-of-consciousness, but he's still firmly grounded in Josef K's experience of reality, and that reality is as confusing and absurd as Joyce and Woolf's texts sometimes are

It's generally accepted that this is a reflection of the political and economical changes in the early 20th century. The world was changing quickly and radically from what it had been in the late 19th century. Social structures and social laws had to change to accommodate the new normalcy that was emerging, and to those who were used to what was before, this may very well have been a challenge. They may very well have been confused and refused to accept or understand that the world worked differently to how they had been told it would

.

I've seen people jokingly (and not so jokingly) compare 2016 and onwards to the early 20th century, but I don't think it's too far off

If we understand Kafka's time period to be one of quick and radical change, and of confusion, then I think we see some of that in our own time — at least for those of us in our mid-twenties or older. We were born into a world that promised us something different, and now we have to learn to deal with what we actually got

It's not necessarily pleasant. It's not necessarily straight-forward. Like Josef K struggles to accept the world around him, we might struggle to accept the world around us. Maybe "accept" isn't the right word in this context, because there are things we shouldn't have to accept. But acceptance of the situation as it is is the first step towards healing. When we know what we're dealing with, we can make the changes we want and need

And maybe that's the key to The Trial, to a world in upheaval: to learn to deal with the world, to get where we want, we have to first accept that this is how it is right now

[vagueandominousvibes]

Y'know what I find really interesting, as a creation exercise, when working on LoZ and LU AUs?

Developing cultures based on characters, histories, etc.

So many centuries pass between each Link, and just looking at our own world, 300 years is going to create a big cultural change to even a single region

And I've seen things vaguely related to this floating around in the LU tag (Swedish Sky Agenda comes to mind, not to mention Saxon Sky and Legend, and Viking Wind), wherein either the characters are placed in a different setting, or a particular culture is applied to a certain character, but what if we treated that a little more seriously? What if we looked at what's in the games/comics/source material, and then found historical periods and cultures we could let ourselves be inspired by for that particular character or that particular time in Hyrule's history? Or even other places in the LoZ universe? How would the small things differ? How would something as basic as embroideries change over time? What about general cultural awareness? How does their culture treat strangers? Their elderly? Their children? What are their cultural values? How strictly enforced are their laws? Family dynamics? Sexualities and gender expressions? Religion?

What would that all look like?

[vagueandominousvibes]

Ok, so I came across this in the tags, and I love talking about Sky, so I hope you don't mind me taking the invitation OP!

I don't remember all that much about Sun, but I have Thoughts™️ on Sky —

The major point a lot of people seem to pick up on for LU Sky is that he's kind and caring. Which, yes, he is, but the game complicates this with dialogue options that are downright sassy. Sure, like every other Hero he does stuff for people (aka. side quests), but in Skyward Sword you do also get the option to romance a girl (Peatrice) on Skyloft while on a heroic journey to save Sun (Fi even points out that you shouldn't mention Peatrice to Zelda) which is ... y'know

The Hello Hyrule podcast also points out that Sky does seem to be a ladies man, when compared to a lot of other characters in Skyward Sword

Another point worth mentioning is that Sky breaks a chandelier in a tavern (to get to a heart piece, if I recall correctly), and has to essentially do community service to repay it

We know he plays the harp

We know he's close friends with Fi

We know that, despite Groose's attitude, Sky smiles and explains everything about the Surface and Sun when Groose follows him there — and then Sky ans Groose become friends

Sky also befriends (?) Groose's allies (or at least helps them out a few times, and seems to be on semi-agreeable terms with them), so it seems like he has a habit of just sort of befriending grumpy people

(On this note, remember that post going around about how Sky and Legend are best friends? Yeah. That)

I don't think I can emphasise enough that, yes, Sky is sweet and soft and kind and loving, but he's also a punk. And maybe the adultier adults in his life don't notice this, but his fellow students and a tavern owner sure do

I've talked at length about how he seems to change throughout his adventure here and answered an ask about it here

With regards to Sun:

The first thing I can think of is that she's headstrong and resourceful. She fell to the Surface and set out to do what needed to be done, all alone until Impa found her

She loves the Surface. She's the one who decides to stay there and resettle it, and Sky just sort of joins her

She has an interesting relationship with Hylia, which I don't feel qualified to talk about at length yet, but at one point she specifically apologises to Sky for the way she/Hylia used him to help her cause (admittedly, Sun herself was also a pawn in this — it's complicated)

Sky seems to forgive her, and tears up when she locks herself away for some thousand years to keep Demise at bay (our boy runs up and pounds ok the crystal encasing her, before his face breaks — it's a heartbreaking cut scene)

Sun seems to be an important motivator for Sky. What he does, he does for her — to get to her, to keep her safe, to save her, to be good enough for her. She is so important to him that he's willing to risk his life to get her back, travelling through time and defeating a god to finally save her

I don't know if any of this is directly helpful to you, and maybe others know more, but this is just off the top of my head!

question for Sky fans:

so for the past few weeks i’ve been writing up a modern-with-magic au for linked universe (on chapter 5 of 8 currently) and have run into a roadblock: i do not know much at all about Sky and Sun. so, is there anything in particular you think is good to keep in mind for writing them both? obviously they’re very sweet and cute with each other, but i still am a bit worried i’m going to oversimplify their personalities because i haven’t seen them outside of the comic itself, which i haven’t gone back to in a while.

(if you want more details about the au then feel free to ask! this is something i was thinking of specifically asking/inviting other people to write for once the setting is down, so I am happy to share my thoughts about sky’s role in the au and the setting itself if anyone wants to know)

thanks!!

[vagueandominousvibes]

@astrolabe-blade Hope you don't mind me picking up on these tags (and treating them vaguely seriously, oops)!

I did consider a "mini split" for the timeline, but honestly? with all the time shenanigans, regressed character arcs, and knowledge that should not exist yet (within each temporal bubble), there would be no "mini" split. There would be multiple major splits

Let's take Skyloft as an example: HW Link goes there, finds it overrun by enemies and half destroyed, and Fi and the Master Sword still up there. There's some knights and soldiers around, but that's all we hear about in terms of humans/Hylians. When they get to the Sealed Grounds, Girahim is already there trying to summon the Imprisoned (aka. Demise in demon form), and Girahim succeeds! And then the player has to stop the Imprisoned. It's admittedly not Demise revived, but it's still the Imprisoned freed from its prison. Oh, and there's at least one Groosenator present

Let's look at the SS timeline, point by point:

Fi and the Master Sword

SS Link draws the Master Sword, with Fi, on Skyloft at the start of his journey, and puts her to rest in the temple by the Sealed Grounds on the Surface at the end of his journey

This means HW Link would have to arrive to Skyloft before SS takes place

The Imprisoned

A point in SS is that, when SS Link comes to the Surface, he has to prove himself by repairing the seal of the Imprisoned, because the seal has breaks shortly after he arrives. He does this a number of times throughout SS. At the end of SS, the Imprisoned becomes Demise, who's then defeated and killed by SS Link, the only thing surviving being his curse on the Hero's Spirit

If Girahim is to summon the Imprisoned, the HW scenario has to happen before or in the early stages of SS, which would work out fine with the previous point about Fi and the Master Sword, but the last point breaks it

The Groosenator

This is a catapult device created by Groose in SS to aid SS Link in defeating and re-sealing the Imprisoned

For the Groosenator to exist at all, SS Link has to have gone on his journey already, but why are Fi and the Master Sword on Skyloft then? why is the Imprisoned still there?

Either the Groosenator breaks the timeline, or Fi, the Master Sword, and the Imprisoned break the timeline, and these would all be pretty significant breaks (at least the latter three — the Groosenator is up for debate)

Of course, if we look at it from a purely commercial view, the game developers wanted to have a little bit of everything and leave Easter eggs for LoZ fans

But if we're looking at the internal mechanics? If we're trying to explain it within the lore? It would create a timeline where either Groose has somehow made it to the Surface long before SS Link, and been living down there long enough to build the Groosenator, or a timeline where SS Link failed (or at least only had a partial success, and managed to return Demise to the Sealed Grounds and bring Fi and the Master Sword back to Skyloft)

These are, if course, fun theories to explore, but could ultimately lead to pretty significant time shenanigans — even removing the portals and returning everyone to their respective timelines wouldn't repair the type of break we're considering here, because the break isn't caused by Cia messing with time, but would have to have happened beforehand, in preparation for her messing with it

We could, of course, have a discussion about alternate realities, and what if every time we make a choice, a new reality is created in which we made a different choice, but then we're getting into the philosophical realm and an adjacent debate

.

In response to these posts about HW: part 1, part 2

[vagueandominousvibes]

Since the previous post got kind of long, I'll summarise my final thoughts on Hyrule Warriors here (still with the goal of worldbuilding and fitting it into canon LoZ lore, which I think allows for some creative interpretation and questioning):

Something I noticed in the ending scene is that, while both HW Link and HW Zelda have their respective Triforce pieces on their bodies, Lana keeps hers in a protective bubble. Does this have anything to do with Lana being a protector/keeper of the Triforce of Power, rather than an active user of it? Or is it because Link and Zelda are born to carry the Triforce of Courage and the Triforce of Wisdom, respectively? Is it simply a safety measure? Or something to do with Link and Zelda embodying Courage and Wisdom, but Lana not embodying Power?

With regards to what I mentioned about time and space in a previous post, I still stand by the "pocket dimension" theory. Whether or not the characters themselves are aware of it, is an entirely different question, but from the outside it seems like they're trapped in specific sections of Hyrule through time, and everything that happens in those times is stuffed into that section.

At one point, someone mentions that Skyloft is just as they'd heard in stories of old. It therefore wouldn't be surprising if these "pocket dimensions" are simulations of those stories, with all the facts and figures compiled together into one mini-adventure per "pocket dimension".

If we don't want to call these historical characters "simulations", then "dreams" might be a better word (in the final scene in HW they literally fade away into thin air, rather than going through portals). By "dreams" I don't mean that the HW characters are dreaming them up, but that the historical figures are the ones dreaming, and through their dreams populate the "pocket dimensions" (something along the lines of Wind Fish magic? It's never specified exactly what Cia and Lana's powers can and can't do). If we call the historical figures "dreams", then there's also a chance they might remember what happened when they wake up, which I personally like.

I think that's all I had about it? I'll be watching a walkthrough of the WW bit in HW at some point, but from what I've heard, I don't think it's going to undermine any of my speculations here

If anyone wants to pick up on the suggested lore and worldbuilding elements in this one or in the previous post, feel free to! I'm definitely going to be working with some of this in my own LU-adjacent AU, so I did have that in mind when making these notes!

[vagueandominousvibes]

Picked up Common Bonds: A Speculative Aromanthic Anthology (Ed. Claudie Arsenault et. al) last week, and over the last couple of days I've read through the first eight entries (twenty total), and I've got to say:

I love romance, both as a reader and a writer, but it's so relaxing and refreshing to not have that "and then they kiss" conclusion.

[vagueandominousvibes]

Skyward Sword: A Fun Theory About Deity-Like Link

@guardedchild​ enabled me to post this, so here goes nothing!

Fair warning: This essay is about 3,000 words long. It’s not quite “scholarly” and “personal” in style and language, and doesn’t have a “proper” introduction or conclusion (I might come back and sort that out one day, who knows). I did this for fun, so I don’t feel constrained by scholarly conventions. 

If you want to skip past the literary theory I’m framing this through, I recommend going straight to the subheading “Groose and the Normative”. If you want to skip straight to Link, go to the subheading “Link and the Other”.

This is about Skyward Sword, so any time I refer to Link or Zelda, assume that, unless otherwise stated, it’s SS Link and SS Zelda I’m talking about. My primary focus here will be the change Link undergoes throughout SS, and how he’s Othered and made to appear deity-like. In order to show this, I’ll be comparing him to Groose first, under the assumption that Groose is a stand-in for the quintessential human, then briefly to a couple of general cultural ideas, and finally to Demise. Online sources are linked throughout, with literary sources listed at the bottom.

Othering

Let me first define what I mean by “Othering”: Othering (verb: to Other) is a term often used in Postcolonial Theory to describe the act of foreignising a person, a society, a culture, etc. Gayatri Spivak, known for his exploration of postcolonial theories, uses it in his A Critique of Postcoloinal Reason (1999) as a summarising term to offer an explanation for how one particular “narrative of reality was established as the normative one” (Spivak, 2115). “Othering” is a term that lets us think about the non-normative — whatever isn’t what you would expect from the majority of people around you. In a more familiar setting, cliques function through Othering: if you don’t tick the boxes for the clique, the clique can’t understand you. From their perspective, you become a foreign object, explained through stereotypes and rumours.

This all means that there’s a long colonial history that comes with the verb “to Other”. We shouldn’t forget this history. In the context of Link, however, I’d like to draw our attention to the act of division that comes with the idea of Othering. It becomes a case of “us” and “you”. This is a division that isn’t inherently negative — if we think in terms of cultural preservation, it can be good to consider “you”, the cultural minority, and “us”, the cultural majority, as two distinct groups. There can be overlap and exchange, and respectful learning and understanding, but by defining “you” and “us” we know what it is that we want to preserve. We can then work with multiple bodies of culture or bodies of understanding, which will be useful when we consider Groose to represent the quintessential human— the “us” — and Link to represent something/someone not human— the “you”.

Othering also suggests a process. Spivak says that the “narrative of reality was established” (my emphasis). To establish something means that steps must have been taken in order to make that something a reality. It didn’t happen overnight. Nobody got up one morning and said: “This is how it is now”. It happened slowly, over time, until it became the way in which reality was perceived.

Finally, I’ve always considered Othering to have an inherent fairytale quality. Maybe I’ve somehow overlapped it with Orientalism and Exoticism (big cultural no-nos today, guys!), but it’s not only in Postcolonial Theory that we talk about Othering. Literary criticism of medieval literature is littered with it, because medieval Europeans had a habit of looking at everything non-Christian as marvellous — also known as the Marvellous Other (“marvellous” here specifically meaning to evoke a sense of wonder, as in a wunderkammer). If you want to see a good example of the Marvellous Other, I recommend checking out the Hereford Mappa Mundi (the next four screenshots are from their website). The focus of the map — the centre — is Jerusalem, the heart of the Christian world.

The further out you go, the more fantastical the illustrations become. These are from edges of the map, and represent the humans and beasts supposed to live in those regions:

The Marvellous Other was, in other words, not only something culturally different to the normal Christian world, but something that looked and acted differently, and if you went close enough to it, you might be in danger of becoming absorbed by it. You could become the Other.

Groose and the Normative

Let’s establish Groose first.

When we encounter Groose, he is a bully who has a crush on Zelda and wants to undermine Link to get her attention. He has his allies, Cawlin and Strich, and a clear placement in the social hierarchy of the Knight Academy. From our everyday lives, many of us will probably have recognised the very specific archetype (school bully) Groose plays into. This recognition helps us establish the norms of the Knight Academy and Skyloft, and while it is still very much a fictional world, this little piece of everyday life creates an illusion of familiarity — it makes the implausible plausible, and tells us that it’s safe to assume that many of the social aspects of Skyloft are the same as our own. Our normal is therefore Skyloft’s normal, and Groose is one of the core characters in this sense of normality.

I think it’s also very telling that, like any other LoZ game, SS has a somewhat medieval aesthetic, and remember what I said about the Hereford Mappa Mundi and normality being at the centre of it? This is the map of SS:

(Source)

Skyloft is in the very centre. Of course, this could just be an easy way for the game developers to set it all up, but for the sake of the argument, let’s choose to think that it has some significance. As soon as we move away from Skyloft, whatever normality existed disappears. There are no clearly delineated social rules and guidelines on the Surface, and the deeper into each region you go, the more challenging and fantastical your surroundings become. The Surface therefore seems to be set up as a juxtaposition to Skyloft, and it doesn’t seem like too much of a stretch to say that where Skyloft is normal, the Surface is abnormal.

When Groose follows Link to the Surface, he is abandoning normality. Link’s sailcloth isn’t enough to properly carry them both, so they hit the ground hard. Groose then expresses wonder at what he sees: “WHOA! B-birds? TINY birds?! Wh-what … ARE they?! And what is that thing?!” (0:33–0:43). The final clause is said when he sees Gorko the Goron wander past. Groose then yells, “Where am I?!” (0:59) before getting up and shaking Link by the shoulders. Groose’s encounter with the Surface, and subsequent shock-fuelled wonder, all go towards showing that the Surface doesn’t fit his standards of normality. It breaks all of his expectations, and he has a difficult time believing what he sees.

Once he gets over his shock, however, he is off to attempt to save Zelda, but as we know from the game, he remains with the Old Lady at the Sealed Grounds and starts altering the area to suit his purpose. Rather than wander further away from normality, he stays with the only other nearly-human he has encountered so far (who isn’t Link), starts to create new social bonds (with the Old Lady), and builds man-made structures (the Groosenator). Rather than delve into abnormality — into the Other — like Link does, Groose starts to recreate a sense of normality right where he is.

Groose’s reactions to the Surface further strengthens the juxtaposition between the Surface and Skyloft, and the idea of Skyloft being the in-game standard of normality. We very get a sense of what’s considered normal to someone from Skyloft, and much like Skyloft itself sets the standard of normality, Groose becomes our frame of reference when we consider the general expectations and behavioural patterns of your normal human/Hylian. Keep this in mind as we proceed.

Link and the Other

Link and Groose

Although Link starts out as the victim of Groose’s bullying, and therefore also starts in the centre of the normality established on Skyloft, we very quickly find Link taking actions that don’t quite fit within the frame of reference established by Skyloft and Groose (and I’m not talking about throwing remlits off of Skyloft, or sleeping in strangers’ beds). If we consider the dialogue options Link gets, alongside his main quest and side quest, it becomes clear that Link is being driven away from Skyloft. He is destined to be Hylia’s Chosen Hero, and in order to accomplish this, he must leave behind the normality Skyloft provides.

Link’s first solid break with normality are the visions that lead him to the Master Sword and Fi. I’m not considering the tornado a break with normality for Link, because beyond Zelda missing, very little actually changed for him. With the Master Sword and Fi, however, he is immediately thrown into the fabled destiny of the Chosen Hero. The article here is important: the Chosen Hero. There are no other Chosen Heroes in his time. Maybe there once was, and maybe there will be later, but right then and there, Link is the only one. This creates a significant division between Link and the rest of Skyloft. He is still welcome there and can still live there, but he the process of Othering has started, because he now must leave the normality behind.

When Link arrives to the Surface, Fi warns him to be cautious: “Please proceed with caution, Master” (1:47:20). He doesn’t scream, he doesn’t shout, and he doesn’t start to panic. This is significantly different to Groose’s first reaction. Groose was thrown into the non-normative, but Link has been eased into it by Fi, and doesn’t appear as to experience the same shocked wonder that Groose will experience later. He pulls out his sailcloth, lands, and takes stock of his situation. And then he moves forward, deeper into the Other, guided by Fi and pushed by his quest to save Zelda.

The time Link spends on the Surface accustoms him to it. Much like the player learns what works and what doesn’t work down there, Link learns. The more time Link spends there, the more used to it he becomes. It becomes his normal. This is emphasised when Groose arrives. While Groose is experiencing shocked marvel and shakes Link for answers, Link pats his arm and smiles (1:31), and then explains the situation to him.

As mentioned previously, Groose then intends to save Zelda. What changes his mind is the awakening of the Imprisoned. Link seals it back into the Sealed Grounds, but Groose then admits to the Old Lady: “Me, well, there’s nothin’ I can do to help Zelda. I’m useless” (I couldn’t find the timestamp for it, but it’s note 64 on the Zelda Wiki). In the world of Otherness, the normative is “useless”. Groose can’t help Zelda, because Groose doesn’t have the skills or experience to do so. Link, however, does. In that one “I’m useless” Groose admits that someone as firmly bound to normality as himself can’t do what Link can. He thereby suggests that Link isn’t within the realm of normality anymore. Because Link is now the only one who can save Zelda, Link has become Othered.

Link and the Wilderness

If we want to see more examples of Link’s Otherness, look at the beings he surrounds himself by: Gorons, Kikwis, Mogmas, and monsters. Yes, some of these are humanoid. But the same can be said of some of the beings along the edges of the Hereford Mappa Mundi. When placed next to the people from the centre of the map, they still aren’t entirely human (or, as in the game, human/Hylian). By association, Link isn’t entirely human.

I want to talk a little bit about woodlands here, and the historical associations with woods, because I published an article on it a couple of years ago and therefore have some sources on woods hiding on my laptop. It’s mostly Anglo-centric sources, because that’s the perspective I’m approaching this from. I’m aware that, for a better analysis, I should have looked into the Japanese cultural associations with woods and woodlands, but so be it.

Discussions about woodlands will only really be applicable to Faron Woods and Deep Woods, but I think we can extrapolate some interesting bits from it, because Groose calls the Surface a “rugged, adventurous wilderness” (2:37, my emphasis). According to Groose’s standards of normality, the entirety of the Surface is a wilderness, and in the entry for ‘Wildwood’ in Man, Myth & Magic, Richard Cavendish brings up the woodwouse, a “wild man of the woods” (Cavendish, 3025, my emphasis). It might be a somewhat tenuous link (awful pun intended, please deduct psychic damage), but we know that other cultures have their own versions of the “wild man” (e.g. Icelanders in Old Norse times had their own outlaws and wild men, despite their lack of woodlands).

The wild man, Cavendish goes on to say, has a “closeness to Nature [that] connects him with two other figures, the Green Man […] and the unearthly woodman who is the keeper of the forest and its creatures (Tom Bombadil in The Lord of the Rings)” (3028). Both the Green Man is an old pre-Christian nature spirit or deity still found carved into pubs and churches in the United Kingdom. He’s considered a “symbol of rebirth and resurrection” that ties ancient beliefs to modern beliefs (source). The unearthly woodman, if we use Tom Bombadil as the example, is an unexplained deity-like figure with unknown powers who wanders the wilderness and keeps it safe.

Personally, I highly doubt that the developers of SS read Man, Myth & Magic, so any similarity is likely to be coincidental. That said, cultural consciousness (a form of awareness of cultural symbols through interaction with that culture) might give us some leeway to consider this, because Link is the Hero reborn. Link is a symbol of rebirth. Link is also a figure of constantly growing powers  and divine gifts who wanders the wilderness of the Surface to find Zelda, and in the process keeps it safe. Perhaps by coincidence, Link walks among these highly cultural mythological powerful deity-like figures who live in our cultural consciousness.

Link and Divinity

Link’s association with the Other, with these cultural symbols, seems strengthened through his trials in the Spirit Realm. These are trials made for the Chosen Hero to prove himself to the Goddesses. He’s not allowed any weapons or tools, but gains gifts when he finishes each trial. In addition, each trial gives him what he needs to access Sacred Flames to temper the Master Sword. 

Comics aren’t considered canonical material, but I think it’s worth noting that in SS’ comic a point is made about the Sword having to be broken and reforged to be of use to the Hero. The Hero himself has to alter the Sword, a weapon of divine make and divine power, in order to become attuned to it. The accompanying panels suggest that it’s not only the Sword that must be broken and reforged, but the Hero also. (Source, 20–22.) It seems that a similar thing is occurring in SS: the Master Sword must be tempered to exert its powers on the Surface, but Link must also be tempered to be able to wield the divine powers within. By undertaking the trials in the Spirit Realm, Link comes closer to the divine powers that made the Sword available to humans/Hylians, while the Sword comes closer to humans/Hylians.

My final point is about the astounding similarity between Link and Demise. Demise, once more Others Link. He describes the humans/Hylians he knew: “[They] were weak things. Hardly more than insects, shivering under rocks and ready to flee at a mere glimpse of me” (1:06:33:16). Link neither shivers nor flees. In fact, this is how Link faces Demise (the following screenshots are from the last 30 minutes of this walkthrough):

His expression, his stance, and the way he holds the Master Sword all signal that he’s not going to back down. Link might be afraid, but if he is, his fury at Zelda’s treatment overrides his fear. While Groose, the paragon of normality, holds Zelda and makes sure she’s safe, Link faces Demise, and although there is a difference in stature and appearance, their major abilities and skills in the duel are the same: they both wield each their sword spirit (Link has Fi, Demise has Girahim); they both use lightning to their advantage; and their stances and the way they handle their weapons are very similar.

They duel on even ground, even when Demise is fighting for his life, and Link wins.

What we see here is then a character who has repeatedly been Othered by those who represent normality, or by what is assumed to be normality. His animations suggest that he is comfortable with abnormality, in the world of Otherness. The people he surrounds himself by are Othered, and on a cultural level, he has some similarities to deity-like figures in both pre-Christian beliefs and contemporary popular culture. He undergoes trials that strengthen his spirits and powers, and make him able to wield the full powers of a divine weapon.

Finally, his set of skills and abilities are remarkably similar to the only other fighting deity (discounting Zelda due to her being unconscious), and I personally don’t think that this is a coincidence. I think the player is meant to feel like they can defeat Demise — like they are on some even ground — and in order to accomplish this, the player needs to feel that Link is a powerful character with the ability to defeat a deity. This is done through graphics and animation — similar body language, similar stances, similar attacks. To some extent, Link and Demise mirror each other in the final duel, much like how the ground beneath them also mirrors them (another detail that I don't think is entirely insignificant).

Do I think that Link is a deity in his own right? No.

What I’m trying to suggest here is that Link gains skills, powers, and abilities that make him deity-like — enough to defeat an almost-formed Demise, enough to even the ground, but not literally deified. This is an important distinction, because in the end, although Othered, Link is still human/Hylian. There is a division between him and normality — one that I’m not sure he will ever be able to completely remove — but not a harsh final division. There is still room for communication and friendliness, and we see him becoming friends with Groose.

.

The aim of this has been to air my thoughts and reasonings behind my theory of a deity-like SS Link. I’m not trying to persuade anyone one way or the other, but rather show how I came to perceive him the way I do.

Literary Sources:

Cavendish, Richard, ed. Man, Myth & Magic: The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Mythology, Religion and the Unknown. New York: Marshall Cavendish Corporation, 1983.

Spivak, Gayatri. “From A Critique of Postcolonial Reason”. In The Norton Anthology of Theory & Criticism, edited by Vincent B. Leitch, 2114–26. London: W. W. Norton & Company, 2010.

[vagueandominousvibes]

Skyward Sword: In Response to Questions About Deity-Like Link

@guardedchild​ raised some excellent questions in connection with this post about SS Link. For context, in the previous post (essay, really) I explained my thoughts about why I felt like Link, to some extent, was Othered throughout Skyward Sword, as well as semi-deified. I explained this as a division between Link (the Othered) and Groose (the normative).

To answer your questions, I went back and watched the last twenty-or-so (or however long it took me to eat dinner) minutes of this walkthrough of SS, took way too many screenshots (28, total, though I’m not using all of them), and I may have enough to come up with some answers? 

Q1: And with that division by the end of SS, is there any notable difference in people’s interactions with [SS Link]?

Short answer: Beyond an improved relationship with Groose and, presumably, Cawlin and Strich, no.

Long answer: No, but —

We see Link get on exceedingly well with the people he interacts with in the wrap-up of the game. His first interaction with Groose after defeating Demise consists of Groose making a joke about his own importance to the story, pointing out that it’s a joke, and Link looking at him with a smile:

This is very different compared to the beginning, where Groose was being purposefully antagonistic towards Link, so it seems safe to say that Groose has learned to respect him. I also think we can assume that this respect is directly related to the journey Link has undergone, meaning it’s directly related to Link’s Othering. Maybe Link needed to be Othered in order to be respected?

Note that when I say “in order to be respected”, I’m going off of the argument from the previous post about Groose being a stand-in for the normative society. What I’m essentially suggesting here, is therefore that maybe Link needed to be Othered in order to be respected by the general society. Of course, we see him interact with a number of senior (and not-so-senior) citizens of Skyloft, who all seem to have some semblance of respect for him, but most of these interactions are directly related to him either travelling to the Surface, being on a journey to save Zelda, or being a student at the Academy. 

Previous to the start of his journey, we only really get a sense of his relationship with Skyloft through his interactions with Zelda, Groose, and Gaepora — meaning through his interactions with his best friend (who stands up for him when he’s being bullied), with his bully, and with an authority figure of the Academy. I’m not saying he was generally disliked before his journey, because I highly doubt that to be the case, but it’s clear that, to the right people, he was an easy target.

Once his journey starts, that “easy target” is slowly eliminated, but would that have happened if he hadn’t gone on his journey? I don’t know. Personally, I don’t think so. I think he needed that journey to not only be not-disliked, but gain the respect of the general population.

We then get some more general shots of Link standing together with other people (Groose, Zelda, and Impa):

And even one that includes Gaepora and Link and Zelda’s loftwings:

Then we see Cawlin and Strich make a trip down to the Surface to hang out with Groose and the small birds:

It’s almost like we’re getting the first little steps towards an erasure of the divide I talked about in the previous post; the Surface is no longer exclusively associated with Link and Zelda, but also with other people of Skyloft. 

Where this gets muddled, however, is in Link’s interaction with Fi, and in Link and Zelda’s very final scene on the Goddess Statue. 

Fi tells Link: “Master, you have achieved the purpose you were chosen to fulfill. Please, set the sword in the pedestal and bring the goddess’s mission to an end” (1:06:51:11). I think this can be read as an attempt to send Link back to his own existence among the people on Skyloft. He has “achieved the purpose [he was] chosen to fulfill”, and all he has left to do is to “bring the goddess’s mission to an end”. He has to conclude the journey by giving up everything he has gained through the Master Sword and his friendship with Fi — everything he did to gain the respect he now has, including his Othering, because without the Master Sword, who is he? What will he be to the people around him?

But then Fi calls out to him just as he’s about to leave, and she doesn’t call him “Master”, but “Link”. She does it twice in a row, first to catch his attention, and then to address him. And then we get this lovely shot:

I know I like to talk about mirroring, but if there’s one thing my professors taught me, it’s that in visual medias angles are important. The fact that we see Link and Fi’s profiles as they face each other, both looking directly at one another, heads raised, bodies cropped so that the arms (or where the arms should be) and the legs aren’t shown — so that we essentially get “profile style” views of both of them — is important. I think we’re meant to see a little bit of a similarity here, and I think it’s a way of acknowledging that, even though Link’s journey has ended, everything he went through and all the beings he met still will be a part of him. He has been Othered, and that’s not going away.

As a final adieu, Fi says: “Thank you, Master Link. May we meet again in another life ...” (1:06:54:09). I think it’s significant that she combines “Master” and “Link”, because she essentially combines both aspects of Link — the Othered Hero who is the Master of the Master Sword, and the boy at Skyloft who got bullied — and combines them into one. It’s another attempt at erasing the divide between Link and Skyloft, by saying that Link can be both at the same time. 

Unfortunately (or fortunately?) we then see it undermined in Link’s scene with Zelda, where Link and Zelda are literally standing on the Goddess Statue, with the Triforce behind them, while Link plays the Goddess Harp:

Followed by Groose, Cawlin, and Strich flying away from them (it’s not very clear in the screenshot, but I assure you, they’re sitting on top of the loftwings):

And I personally find this scene very decisive, because it’s the very last one in the game, and it’s the one where Zelda says that she’s always dreamed about living on the Surface, that she’d like to stay, and then asks: “What about you, Link? What will you do now?” (1:07:09:25). Zelda, the Goddess reborn, has made her decision. She’s staying on the Surface, alongside the Triforce and everything else associated with the deities, while Groose, the person so strongly associated with Skyloft, and his two friends, appear to be leaving the Surface to return to Skyloft.

Right afterward Zelda has asked Link what he’s going to do, we see Link smile at her, and then both their loftwings fly away, following Groose, Cawlin, and Strich:

It’s not expressed verbally, but I think the loftwings also leaving signals that Link has made his decision to stay with Zelda, the Goddess Statue, the Triforce, the Temple, and the Master Sword. He’s staying on the Surface, right where he was Othered. I feel like any previous attempts at reconciling his two existences — as Skyloftian and as Othered — fall short here. Sure, he’s on good terms with both parties, but in the end, he makes the decision to remain Othered, and that’s important. Yes, it’s the result of a long process, but it’s also a conscious choice he has made.

We could, of course, theorise that the people who left come back, and that a proper settlement is built, because knowing the timeline, we can assume that something like that happens. But within the context of Skyward Sword itself, I think the division stands.

So, to get back to your question, beyond the gained respect, there isn’t any notable difference in people’s interactions with Link. The difference lies in the choice Link makes to remain Othered on the Surface, alongside Zelda, rather than return to Skyloft.

Q2: Can they all feel this power he’s been forging or are there subtler differences that separate Link from the normalcy of Skyloft?

This seems like much more of an “oh, that would be fun to speculate about in fan content and headcanons!” kind of question, but to the extent that it can be answered by the game, I think I’ve already partially covered it. Still, for all our benefits, I’ll go (briefly) through it.

I don’t know if Link’s powers are palpable. I don’t think they are. I think the respect he gains rests very heavily on the things he’s accomplished — on saving Zelda, and on defeating Demise. 

As outlined above, I do think there are more subtle differences that separate Link from the normalcy of Skyloft. His final interaction with Fi, for one, reminds us that he’s still part of that same Otherworldly Otherness that Fi’s part of, and his standing on the Goddess Statue, with the Goddess reborn, the Triforce, and the Goddess Harp, further reinforces that. By these exchanges and visual cues, we’re reminded that he’s no longer “purely” Skyloftian the way Groose, Cawlin, and Strich are. In this sense, he’s more akin to Zelda, who herself is a deity reborn.

I think his decision to stay on the Surface also says something about this subtler difference, because he has a choice — he can get on the back of his loftwing and fly back to Skyloft. But he doesn’t. And I think there’s something in that — something that indicates that he himself doesn’t feel like he belongs up there anymore, or that he feels that he should remain by Zelda’s side. Regardless of which option we go with, we’re still left with this: that Link seems more comfortable with remaining in an Othered world than with returning to the normalcy of Skyloft.

.

Apologies for how long it took me to get back to you about this, but I hope I’ve answered your questions satisfactorily!

[vagueandominousvibes]

I've seen a number of posts the last couple of days about Tumblr etiquette. One of them talked about how you can add tags for organisational purposes, or even write out your thoughts in a small informal essay in the tags

And while this is all well and good, I haven't seen anyone really talk about how reblogs — especially reblogs with tags — could make someone's day, even if you're literally just yelling that you love something or agree with something in the tags? how it helps create the community we have? how it literally makes us feel less isolated because there's a social interaction taking place?

I just ...

Maybe it's just me, but give me a moment to talk about my experience here (the next paragraph is context, and it's rough, so please heed the content warnings — if you want to skip the entire section about my own experiences, scroll down to the next paragraph break marked by one dot)

.

A couple of months before Christmas last year, my mum yelled at me when I came out to her. She told me I'm not mature enough to make that decision (I'll be 24 this year, and haven't lived at home in almost eight years). She started suggesting corrective therapy. I spent a little over a week so ill I couldn't leave my bed for more than a few minutes, and only had food because one of my flatmates offered to get me a bag of crisps and some crackers. Then my back gave in. I didn't have the brain power to get properly involved in my D&D group, much less work on my written projects. None of my friends live in the area, and I don't want to always talk about the negative stuff in my life when I talk to them online, so I don't bring it up unless they ask. Twice my thoughts spiralled into a black hole of "I don't want to do any of this anymore". When I reached out to my therapist, they told me they were on leave and couldn't help me. I felt so very alone, and I was having an awful time

But I could draw stuff

I've always wanted to create something that could bring other people joy, and because drawing was one of the few things keeping me afloat, I shared it. I didn't expect a lot of people to enjoy it. I didn't even expect people to find it. But a few did, and they reblogged with tags — tags that I re-read several times a day, because they showed I'd made someone happy with what made me happy

They weren't necessarily substantial or deep, but they responded. They interacted. None of the people who reblogged with tags had any idea what was going on behind the scenes, but those few lines — those little comments pointing out something they like or how it made them feel — they brought me so much joy

I just ... look at these:

Maybe it's weird, but I read every single tag. The longer ones — the ones that remind me that there's a random stranger out there that I gave a little joy, simply by doing something I enjoy — those, I print and stick up on a board over my bed, because they got me through a rough patch and mean so very much to me

.

Maybe I'm being sentimental, but my point about all of this is that there's a community here. A vibrant one, made up of people with ridiculously niche interests who want to share those interests — who want to find joy in those interests

I explained the appeal of it to my partner over text a while ago, and said: "[...] we're aware that we're playing up to social expectations most of the time in everyday life situations, and Tumblr becomes a space where we can strip those expectations away (or at least acknowledge that we're being shaped by them) and engage with each other on different terms to how we would engage elsewhere"

It's a space built on support, self-expression, and sharing joy, and this is so important to keep in mind

The way we maintain this is through reblogs and tags. Of course, we can send asks and messages too, but many of us feel too shy or awkward to talk to a stranger directly — especially if it's someone whose content we look at and think something along the lines of, "Wow, they must be such an accomplished human being and I kneel in the dust before them". I know I often feel that way about some of the people I follow

Tags become the next viable option for communication and appreciation, and, at least to me, it's like receiving little love notes under the door

I don't know if it's the same for all content creators (or rebloggers), but your tags could literally make a random person online stupidly happy and less isolated, and give them the strength they need to hold on just a little longer

.

NOTE: I'm not saying you have to tag. I'm not saying you have to reblog. Half the time, I myself only use organisational tags. Occasionally, I forget to tag. I'm still figuring out how to organise my blog. And that's ok — I'm not trying to make a point about whether there's any moral or ethical duty involved here. What I am trying to say, is that the way social interactions work here is so important to the way this space functions as a community, and that it can and does affect our everyday lives