• Choose a category
• All
• Classic-Fiction

With Zelda fans, the forms of argumentation and debate around timelines included complicated interpretations of texts, negotiations of evidence, and vigorous debate. Much like other intellectual pursuits, the construction of knowledge is social, contingent upon the specific uses of tools, interactions of participants, and even the ways that people use Internet discussion forums. Without a set of official Nintendo forums online, timeline debates would not have had the same character as they presently do (if they were to exist at all), and these examples show that, at the very least, the interplay between participants in these threads is often surprisingly constructive.

We don’t argue that the typical Zelda fan is interested in debating about chronologies because he or she is inherently interested in elaborating a theory of time, nor because he or she is consciously trying to emulate an academic. Comparing Zelda timeline debates to those in, say, neuroendocrinology, physics, or sociology, it’s clear that the game discussions do not rise to the level of broader significance that these established scientific fields often have. But, let’s not forget that there are strong similarities in form and practice between what goes on in science and what goes on within fan debates.

In the GAMEFAN#1/SGM2 excerpt alone, the path of the social knowledge construction should appear familiar:

• A theory was proposed, with evidence provided

• The evidence was critiqued and reinterpreted by another

• The proposer of the original theory defended the original evidence

• The original evidence was dismissed in favor of stronger evidence.

Stripping the discussion of its context, we can see argumentation which is similar to that in scientific debates and other academic arguments in general. Time and again, fan activities around games have been shown to embed serious intellectual practices (or, at least, mirror them), and we find that to be the case here as well. The content of the debate may be quite different from one in, say, geology, but the nature of the debate is one in which evidence is forwarded, critiqued, and evaluated in service of developing a theory.

If we are to take the proposal of Latour and his colleagues seriously, this has implications beyond science—knowledge in general is constructed within and is dependent upon networks of tools, agents, and social/cultural commitments. Within this view, there is no sense in debating what “counts” as science any more than there is in debating whether or not chemistry and economics are both “science”; what’s important for us to see are not the particular tools used in the construction of knowledge as much as the simple fact that this is how knowledge is constructed. Again, what science and Zelda fan debates share are common practices, and a common approach to discussing investigations of the world, though they differ in terms of application to real problems and the specific tools used to conduct those discussions.

Thus, we find ourselves returning to Latour and Woolgar’s rather bold claim about epistemology—the conception that knowledge is formed “intrinsic to the mind” simply cannot be reconciled with the practices of how knowledge is constructed in real scientific laboratories nor discussions in fan communities such as Zelda’s. The Zelda timeline debates show that the construction of knowledge is necessarily mediated and shaped by the use of tools, interaction with others, and the use of discourse practices. Like all knowledge, Zelda timeline knowledge is constructed socially.

9

Linking to the Past: Zelda Is a Communication Game

CARL MATTHEW JOHNSON

All of the games in the Legend of Zelda series share certain similarities. There are puzzles, monsters, and dungeons; there’s an evil to be vanquished. And most of all there’s the rich mythos of Hyrule and its hero in green.

It’s natural to think that these games are meant to be related to one another.