Having read most of this thread I can say there is very little to be taken away from the past posts. To the extent of it being difficult to believe that these posts are actually responses to each other and not simply lists of non-sequiturs.Treblaine said:If you'd just read a few of the posts before posting...Lethos said:Forgive me for intruding on what looks like one hell of a quotathon up there, but I'm just going to quickly add my thoughts. Changing the gender of a character just for the sake of changing the gender, or trying to be progressive seems to me to be a stupid move. If you can establish a decent reason for why Link is suddenly female, and how her new story will be different then fine. But by that point, why not just create a new character entirely?
Captcha: public good. What are you saying? -.-
We have discussed all this so much, you can gain so much more by reading before posting and could probably post some more relevant of your insight.
I mean you talks as if there is only one character of Link that would have to be changed, rather than the actual case where almost every Zelda game released the Link is a completely new character.
And the idea that this is trying to be "progressive" (hasn't Fox News made that a dirty word) rather than how the Link Mythos inevitably leads to a hero rising from the population who is courageous enough, 50% of the pool is female, it's becoming increasingly likely that the next Hero of Hyrule will be female.
But that's for the opportunity to summarise.
To the meat of your post:
It seems odd to me that people who aren't Zelda fans are expected to know the 'multi link theory', or indeed have an investment in it. People have pitched the same idea to me with regards to James Bond, but I can't help but not really care. I'm watching the movie to see an Englishman of varying age, temperament and hair colour kill people and fight megalomaniacs. Expecting me to worry how the films lead into one another is akin to expecting me to wonder about the true place of the baked snack I'm eating in the hierarchy of our social structure. When I play Zelda games, I'm playing to solve simple puzzles and experience acceptable combat, not to sweat the order or interactions between games.
Assuming then that I accept the multi-link theory, now you're asking me which particular sect of Hindu-Buddhist reincarnation I believe in. There are some that readily assert that a male remains male life to life, while others assert that cross-gender reincarnation is possible. Having said that, there are yet further groups that feel the best explanation for homosexual desires is that the soul itself has a gender regardless of, and if necessary in spite of, the body that it comes to inhabit incarnation to incarnation.
The statement that the incarnation of Link as female is inevitable implies to me that not only do cross-gender reincarnations occur in this universe, but they are mandatory (tossing aside those groups that feel an enlightened soul is capable of influencing their next existence) and follow statistical systems.
You're asking me to swallow a lot here, with little to back it up. As an average legend of zelda fan, if I turn on the next game and link is female with no explanation? I'm just going to assume I'm playing as zelda.