#not trying to hate on totk its just that looking back on it the introduction to the zonai was very sudden

[that-one-loz-nerd]

Hot take: Totk's story would've been 1000% better if the zonai were introduced more slowly

[oocca]

1 and 16

VIOLENCE!!!

going to answer 16 first because 1 is going to go into a long rant

16. you can't understand why so many people like this thing (characterization, trope, headcanon, etc)

i don't understand why Linked Universe is so popular. i'm sorry LU fans. all the love but you guys are tumblr tag terrorists for those of us into loz who don't care about it. also i hate that fuckass bob one of the links in it has

1. the character everyone gets wrong

ganondorf. buckle up

i feel like seldom anyone really gets ganondorf truly right, from the bland merciless villain angle and the more sympathetic takes, coming from someone who does have a very soft-hearted view and interpretation of ganondorf. but the latter — i feel like nobody really understands why exactly ganondorf is portrayed the way he is in canon, the implications certain canon AND fanon has, etc. and that's not to say that my interpretation alone is the correct one or anything

ganondorf interpretations tend to come from two angles: one that presents him as an evil-for-evil's sake villain, and one that essentially defangs him, both of which are problematic in their own right. analyzing both those angles first requires acknowledging that the legend of zelda is very orientalist and imperialist in its themes.

these themes start with the decision to take the antagonist, originally portrayed as a monster, as a man from the desert, with every caricaturized trait one would expect. and, the storytelling of loz is influenced heavily by japanese myth and medieval europe, particularly the idea of a "divine right" to rule — which, of course, belongs to zelda, or rather the hylian monarchy as a whole. and ganondorf is the evil who is not divinely ordained to rule and thus would dismantle good society as we know it

and then there's wind waker, where a popular interpretation of ganondorf's monologue is that he desired better for his people... well, not quite! him and daphnes are essentially parallels of each other. nor is it ever really said by the gan man himself, as he never really says anything about his people in that monologue. it could be determined from subtext, but as far as authorial intent goes —

see. loz is my favorite franchise, but in it's current state since the introduction of ganondorf, functions more as propaganda at times in it's narrative setup, rather than any sort of fairy tale. not saying it IS propaganda, though — there is a distinction

so, that is to say, looking at JUST the origin material itself, you can't really "know" him as a character, or understand any coherent moral statement. any sort of analysis that tries to determine ganondorf's goals, what he has or has not done, and why, will eventually hit a dead end. because that isn't the purpose of propaganda. ganondorf as portrayed in canon is whatever he needs to be in order to justify the fantasy of killing him

which, as he is portrayed in canon, is a merciless villain with no coherent moral backing to his actions. he is greedy and desires power. but, of course, it's perfectly reasonable to want more from his character than just "evil desert guy wants our grass"

(although one thing i find super funny with the way ganondorf is portrayed in particularly oot and totk with nintendo doing that is the duality of him being called manipulative, but also very obviously and openly evil at the same time. so you get the rather funny canonical reality that everyone who meets him becomes incapable of doing anything about their gut instincts and just lets themselves get fucked despite being spitefully demeaning about it the entire time)

and this is where my issue comes in with most interpretations that try to "fix" ganondorf

most attempts at "fixing" ganondorf will

1. focus on him trying to break demise's curse

which, aside from being a misinterpretation of demise's curse, i feel robs ganondorf of any actual agency and boils all his actions down to "he has a demon in his head."

as for the misinterpretation of canon, it somehow got into the minds of many that ganondorf is a reincarnation of demise. this is not the case. reincarnation gets talked about a lot in loz fandom for some reason, but there's only one canon instance of it — being hylia's reincarnation into sksw zelda. and, essentially implying that the guy from the desert is basically the antichrist is.......lol. the actual manifestation of demise's curse is basically every villain ever

and 2. will have him ally with link and/or zelda and eventually hyrule as a whole

my biggest issue with especially that part, is this idea that ganondorf would recognize hyrule as rightful if not for the above mentioned demon in his head. he is bad, or at the very least morally gray, because he rejects hyrule's authority. and in this angle of interpretation and fanon, hyrule stays static. throughout the series, we get bits and pieces of hyrule's wrongdoings through subtext, but rarely is this actually ever presented as something wrong. only as the reason certain circumstances are present in the current hyrule. and this approach woefully ignores link and zelda as agents of hyrule who uphold the status quo. and i think maybe a lot of people are even hesitant to acknowledge that, because they're the main characters that everyone loves

and tbh. sometimes it feels the two popular interpretations of ganondorf end up being over-corrections of each other. the ones who prefer him mercilessly evil for the sake of it feel like they're trying to over-correct the sympathetic "woobifying" interpretations, but then end up playing right into the orientalist tropes that nintendo set up. and the more sympathetic interpretations try to over-correct that but then end up robbing him of all agency and making him only a victim to a higher force