Updates & Additions

• Mak makes a good point about how the one-Ganon interpretation is vital to understanding the conflicts in Hyrule's history. I wanted to say something in the article about how the games all make sense if you think there's one Ganon, but I don't I made that clear enough. Here's what Mak says:

  If there's more than one "Ganon", then theres no real conflict in the Zelda games. Since Ocarina showed how the story started and Ganon's origins, if there were other people that took the name Ganon, it just wouldn't make sense and there would be no conflict, nothing to start the evil events and ambition that Ganon has in the Zelda games. You also never see anything like "My father, Ganon the great, was a great and powerful king. He was killed by a boy just like you, now, I, Ganon, will have my revenge and conquer the Light World!". Ganon also lives due to the kind of character he is I guess, much like Dracula in the Castlevania games who gets revived every 100 years and has to face a descendant of the Belmont clan. Besides dealing with A Link to the Past's story, by sealing Ganon away at the end instead of just killing him like the past few games, they had the boss defeated but saved for another time. And I suppose now that's true with The Wind Waker's ending when Ganon gets petrified and stone forms around him.

• Masa the Gamehiker comments on how TWW contributes to the story the creators are trying to tell about one Ganon:

  On the note on the reason I abandoned the MGT is simply the matter of Ganondorf's speech at the end of TWW. We never really got to hear his true ambitions in other games. In TWW it was clearly the evil intents of Ganondorf the Gerudo Thief, not some evil that possessed him before then.

  Prior to then, Ganon always wanted to grab the Triforce to dominate(destroy?) Hyrule and nothing else. Seeing him in TWW more fleshed out than in any other game was nice, because you can then sort of trace his fall into his more ambitious pig-self as the timeline (no matter which it is) continues.

• Lord-of-Shadow asks: "Is it just me, or is this article a bit more... opinionated then usual? ;-)"

  The answer is "yes." You will find that in earlier articles I am uncertain about what the final answer should be, so I am very fair in considering all possible theories. However, since then, I have done much studying and come to the conclusion that most theories are a waste of time. In fact, any theory that deviates from the intention of the creators is a waste of time. I have also seen much evidence giving direct insight into the intention of the creators, yet some fans continue to debate uselessly about issues which ought to be common sense. So, in an effort to cut through the morass of useless theories, I state my viewpoint very strongly. If this offends anyone, sorry, but I'm only trying to help. ;;;

• King of Fools adds to that: "I do have to agree with Masa the Gamehiker, though. I think the article was biased, but to be honest, it was biased to the idea that makes the most sense."

  Yup, I suppose that was the idea. Usually bias is not a good thing. However, if a storyline point is supported by the creators themselves, and is the most sensible solution, then hey, why not? It almost deserves bias in favor of it if it's that well supported.

• TSA made a comment that really struck home:

  "I think this whole point stems from the first few Zelda games being underdeveloped due to restrictions on technology and other elements. If given a chance, I think Nintendo would like to clarify some of the details from the first few games to make the series flow better. I don't think it's such a wise thing to use the older materials as basis for such profound arguments."

Objections/Questions

• Masamune's objection:
  There is more evidence for the multiple Ganon viewpoint than you mentioned. I feel you were biased because you didn't give a good enough case for the multiple Ganon theory.
  
  I am biased, because I think that any theory which deviates from the intention of the creators is a waste of time. Allow me to explain. The point of this article was not to examine all the canon facts and come to some conclusion based on them. Like I said in the article, if you restrict yourself to canon facts, there are many possible theories. I am not going to waste my time making a case for each and every theory, and then trying to disprove them with canon facts. Instead, in this article I pointed out what I thought was the intention of the creators. I used non-canon evidence to do this (interview quotes and NOA material). My main point is summed up in this one sentence: "If the creators intended for something to be true in their world, then it is a waste of time to speculate otherwise." I gave quotes straight from the creators which say that OoT is the Imprisoning War, and which imply that there is one Ganon. Thus, if you accept my statement above, and you accept my evidence for one Ganon, then it is a waste of time speculating otherwise. Perhaps you think that the canon facts don't fit the statements made by the creators. My reply is that they probably fit better than you think. In fact, once the Japanese comparisons are done, the Japanese text will undoubtedly clear up a lot of questions.

• Hylian Diety's objection:
  Your assumption that the "Tribe of Evil" is Ganon's army is too strong. I don't think your interpretation is stronger than any other, so I wouldn't count your assumptions against it.

  I am the first to admit that you can make any assumption you want about the Tribe of Evil. In fact, you can make nearly any assumption you want about any given Zelda fact. However, my only point here was not that my viewpoint is right, but that it's just as likely as the assumption made by multiple-Ganon theorists. I also said that I think it's more plausible, but that was just my opinion. In any case, I would be very interested to look at the original Japanese quote, because I'm willing to bet it doesn't make the "Tribe of Evil" out to be anything special. But as far as this article goes, that's just speculation. The main point is that multiple Ganon theories rely on certain interpreations of canon facts, and interpretations based only on canon facts are not infallible. The real test of whether a theory is right is not whether the facts fit, but whether the theory conforms to what the creators intended to be true.

• Mak's objection:
  You stated: "I am the first to admit that, in the early days at least, NOA was not very careful when they communicated the story of Zelda to us." However, the early days for me are when they actually did do a decent job with Zelda's history, then they really started to screw up around 1998 with the OoT guide stories and Zelda.com's butchering of Zelda's history.

  Okay, okay, so they still aren't doing a good job. ;-) What I was trying to say is that more recent games are translated better than older games. And the recent guides don't have so much made-up info. However, Zelda.com is a fair point. I was thinking of this quote from an NOA employee when I wrote that:

  Regretfully, the Japanese versions and North American versions are independent. The game is made first to be in Japanese by EAD staff, and then turned over to NOA staff for translation into English. There is always a supervisor who will oversee the process, ensuring the essence is preserved, but by no account are both identical. However, it should be noted in recent years, efforts have been made to make as little as difference as possible.

• King of Fools asks:
  Since Ganon has that annoying ability to be continually resurrested (even when it is thought that he is killed completely) then why is it even necessary to have a multiple Ganon theory? I mean, if your timeline theory has him die in one game, and then a later game still has him in it.....doesn't it make more sense to theorize that he was resurrected somehow than to believe that a different guy came along with the same name?

  Like I said, most multi-Ganon theories either exist because people want to be different, or because it supports their crazy timeline theories. Many crazy timeline theories exist because people cannot resolve the inconsistencies between OoT and ALttP, and therefore conclude that the Imprisoning War does NOT happen during OoT. If, for example, you put the Imprisoning War BEFORE OoT, then you cannot say that Ganondorf became Ganon, because now you have two Ganondorfs becoming Ganon in different times. So you can't simply say Ganon is revived; you can perhaps say he possesses different hosts.

• Hylian Diety's observation:
  The multi-Ganon theory isn't necessarily pointless. Its fun to think about, and there is not enough direct canon to prove it can't happen. But its almost fanficing, because there is also not enough canon to support it. So its not wrong, just.....different. Like thinking the world was round, and not the center of the universe, in a world that believed otherwise.

  I was trying to argue in my article that the multi-Ganon theory IS a completely pointless waste of time. Sure, I'll agree that it might be fun for some people. I agree that, if you only restrict yourself to canon facts from the games and manuals, there isn't enough evidence to disprove it. However, I do not agree that the theory is not "wrong." If the creators intend for something to be true in their world, then it is true. Any other interpretation is false. I argued in this article that the creators intended for there to be one Ganon. If you accept these arguments, then you accept that the one Ganon interpretation is true, and any theory that supposes more than one person of Ganon is false. Furthermore, if I am not mistaken, the goal of those Zelda fans who debate about Zelda is to get final, complete, true answers to their questions. The goal of Zelda scholars should not be to debate simply for the sake of debating. I believe that I have here an answer to the question of whether there is one Ganon or many. If you accept this answer, then further speculation is pointless.

• Could we say that Ganon "possesses" different hosts, much like Veran possesses people and controls them? Then, there is still one Ganon, and this still leaves room for quasi-multiple Ganon theories.

  It depends. I think the evidence says that Ganondorf and Ganon are the same person, so I don't believe any theory that says otherwise. Some theories say that Ganondorf was just one host for Ganon, and that Ganon has used other hosts over the centuries. This means that Ganondorf and Ganon are not the same person. However, I think this flies in the face of what the creators intended. If you look at the ALttP manual, it says that Ganondorf became Ganon after he got the Triforce. Assuming that the Imprisoning War happens during OoT (the evidence is given in the article), we see that Ganondorf got the Triforce, and was also called Ganon. (See Ganon's Tower.) He also changes into the monster Ganon at the end of the game, but we see him change back into a human again. And of course, he is in human form again in TWW. And Ganon is in monster form in ALttP, and yet he still seems to have the same motivations as the human form of Ganondorf. The creators have talked about Ganondorf and Ganon in interviews as though they were the same person. You could still try to argue that Ganondorf is one person, but that he becomes Ganon at times, and Ganon is a different person. Like, they switch off or something. "Okay Ganon, it's your turn to act. I'll take a nap while you beat up Link." "Sure thing, Ganondorf." But you run into the problem of Ganondorf and Ganon seeming to have the exact same motivations. I think it's more plausible, and a simpler explanation, to assume that Ganon is just the monster form of Ganondorf, and that Ganon is the same person as Ganondorf.

• TSA thinks there is a stronger case than I think for something more evil than Ganon existing.

  "I do believe the Tribe of Evil in ALttP is Ganon's Army, but you can't deny the allusions to previous evils in Ocarina of Time. The "symbol" that is on Sheik...in front of Hyrule Castle...on Veran's clothing...it alludes to some former "dark race" or something, possibly. Even the Shadow Temple, an ancient relic long before Ganondorf's time, speaks of greed and blood among the people of Hyrule. Perhaps it is not a "being" that controls everyone, but a curse of Greed? I've always argued that greed is the driving force of evil in the Zelda series. There is just too much "time" before the existing Zelda series and too much unknowns to rule out a greater evil. In the scheme of things, the 10 official games now could be the minority in 50 years...you never know."

  "The two "sorceress sisters" instructed him in the dark arts. This must mean that Ganondorf was "taught". By this alone, Ganondorf is influenced by another being. We dont' know enough about Koume and Kotake to say anything definate, but they, too, were created or learned from another. This must mean there is or was an "origin", which usually in these situations, is the "supreme force". Now, this is all speculation, but there is evidence in Ocarina of Time Ganondorf is not the end all, be all of the evil in the world."

  It was not my intention to say there has never been anyone more powerful or evil than Ganondorf. My points were thus: there is not enough evidence to suppose (1) that Ganon is a pawn in somebody's ploy to rule the world, and (2) Ganondorf appears to be the most powerful and evil man to use the Triforce. Certainly, Twinrova influenced Ganondorf by raising him, and was his devoted servant in the Oracle games. But this does not make Ganon her pawn. Ganon makes his own choices; he wants to rule the world for himself. If you want to speculate about what Zelda will be like 50 years down the line, fine; but for the past 20 years, Ganondorf has been top dog in Hyrule, and there is little evidence to suggest otherwise. Second, Majora may be more powerful than Ganondorf; he's probably more evil. But this is irrelevant, since Majora exists in Termina, and since Majora does not control Ganondorf. And besides, I'm sure Ganondorf could have brought the moon down on Hyrule. But he sort of wanted to RULE the world, not destroy it. ;-)