#somewhat totk spoilers | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

rawliverandgoronspice · 11 months

Note

Okay so this has been on my mind for awhile and I wanted to get my thoughts out there. Regarding the topic of Rauru and Ganons relationship, I feel like rauru has kinda been bashed? people seem think that rauru in memory 6 (I believe) had a bit of a god complex, and that he was disrespectful. I feel as if rauru kinda had a right to act the way he did.

Rauru had wanted to become Allie’s with the gerudo. Not necessarily because he wants them to serve him but more for resources. Or more likely knowing Ganon he was attacking hyrule. The reason why I suspect this is because during the molduga incident rauru and Sonia seem to be very familiar with theses types of attacks. So it’s likely Ganon had ordered monster attacks on them before. Likely the attacks were getting to much for rauru and Sonia to handle; on top of establishing hyrule, rauru sent out messages for Ganon to join the kingdom in order to stop the attacks. Or another reasoning is that the gerudo were likely suffering. Ganon has been shown to not always prioritize his people. And knowing from past games the gerudo desert doesn’t have much resources. We can kinda see this in Totk they seem to only have hydromelon and voltfruit (I highly doubt that the gerudo had men at the time bringing them food from hyrules fields). If you’ve talked to rauru on the sky islands you’ll know that rauru is actually a very sweet and sympathetic guy, so I believe this could be a possibility.

Moving forward to raurus attitude during their meeting.Now rauru wasn’t exactly the nicest during the meeting, but I don’t really blame him. Rauru probably annoyed that ganon has been ignoring his letters and putting his people in danger. Also Ganon was very sketchy during that entire meeting and was rude in his tone.

Why did Ganon bow? Ganon and rauru are not equal, yes they are both kings but rauru has massive amounts of power and has a much larger land mass. (and zonia are kinda gods) but I don’t think the reasoning for Ganon bowing is because he less than or non equal to rauru. More like he was apologizing and giving rauru respect for the countless times he’s ignored him or tried to kill him.

More of raurus tone in the meeting Again I think he was really fed up with Ganon and rauru seems very non confrontational (he apologizes in the sky islands that the constructs attack link, and ask link not to be angry because they can’t understand) rauru likely wanted it to get into ganons mind not to attack the kingdom again because rauru had a lot of Allie’s and power and will attack Ganon if he pulls a stunt.

Ganon vs the gerudo. This part is a little off topic but, lots believe rauru is low key kinda racist towards the gerudo. But if this was true why was gerudo sage working with rauru? I don’t think that the way rauru acts is how he acts to all gerudo. The sage of lighting very obviously doesn’t like Ganon. The reasoning could be my first point. And later on after the imprisoning war the gerudo still stuck with hyrules side.

That’s all I have for right now, sorry if it’s all jumbled up I tried to make it coherent. Anyways I appreciate you for reading this :3

-🔺

Hi, thanks for the lengthy ask!! I'm sorry for the lengthy answer this beckoned, but I think this conversation is pretty important --even beyond Zelda and this specific case. We're talking themes and tropes and framing!!!!

I will try to reply to all of this in a way that kind of threads through several layers of why people have been bashing Rauru, me included. I will try my best to explain why I dislike this character, and try to parse out why I am this miffed by Tears of the Kingdom's storyline overall.

The long story short is: I don't dislike Rauru as a person (I mean, I also would tbh), I dislike him because of what he represents.

I think the waters did muddy a little in the "discourse" recently, and it's a good thing to take a step back and re-explain where I'm coming from (me personally, not going to speak for anyone but me here).

Also, before jumping in: this is not a condamnation on anyone who enjoys this story or these characters, nothing is unproblematic, it's fine, everybody does what they want, all of the things. I like the game and I keep playing the game in spite of being harshly critical of the ideas pushed forward. Also: it's fine to digest this and come back later (or not at all) if that feels like a lot, or if some of these ideas don't immediately click. But it's also partially why I think it's important: this game is aimed at a young audience, and one who might not have all of the keys to decipher what's going on, which is why I think it's quite irresponsible (which is the charitable interpretation) on Nintendo's part.

Anyway. Too many words underneath the cut.

The Story

So, first of all, I want to say that I believe you completely and fully read the situation as Nintendo intended it to be read. This is the text of the game (aka, the story taken at face value). You picked up on every single safeguard put into place to have Rauru and Sonia act in the most justifiable way possible, and have Ganondorf, on the other hand, act as a duplicitous, power-hungry and downright insane as they could have made him. In the reality of their universe, and only taking into account what is given to us through the narrative, trusting it comes from a neutral place and isn't influenced by anything, everything you said is 100% correct.

Rauru and Sonia WERE acting in self-defense, and were even kind not to turn their incommensurable power against the invading army.

The kingdom Rauru built as a demigod IS a paradise and they WERE very generous to invite neighboring nations to bask in their wealth and its technological and natural blessings (and the results of their extensive mining and why are there killer robots everywhere if this world was such a peaceful paradise uhh let's not ponder about this too much). That Ganondorf was too prideful and envious to accept IS a sin that rests solely with him.

Rauru IS a brave hero that sacrificed himself to seal the invader that killed his beloved wife.

Every single Sage IS extraordinarily devoted to protect both Rauru's lineage and their own lands, and gleefully pass down that duty to their ancestors --all thanks to Zelda, heir of that blessed royal line who returned to the past and made them promise to fight alongside Link to seal the Evil once more.

The gerudo WERE (apparently) oppressed, as they decided to fight under Rauru's authority freely (so against their own chief??) and, also, must make amends for having put Ganondorf in this world in the first place? ( I think we are already starting to see some contradictions --were you always victims or did you start this conflict in the first place? what is your place in all of this? why don't we ever get to know?)

This IS the story of Tears of the Kingdom. A story of a great sacrifice that happened in the golden mythical past (confirmed as unquestionable truth through the archeology motif), done by benevolent godly figures of royal blood and immense power they would never abuse, giving their everything to bring Light into a broken world corrupted by the degeneracy of Evil, echoed by the devotion of nations who swore fealty to that divine being and must now renew their vow in the present to defend their lands and Hyrule at any cost. Also, the impossible and magnificient suffering of the princess, whose tears lead to a trail of truth into the very land, informs the current population about why they're fighting now; she's at once a hero of the past and a martyr in the present, completely incapable of acting on her own, carrying with her the blade that will slay the crushing and violent sway of Evil for good and bring eternal peace into the land (Evil who uses her own appearance to cause chaos and violence against her own people --the blasphemy!!). The title of the game reflects this too: the Tears of the Kingdom are hers. Zelda is the kingdom here, and her pain/the pain of that mythical past is what is centered.

Also Ganondorf IS green so it's not racist okay let's stop right here and unpack all of this mess, because BOY oh boy oh boy oh boy.

oh boy.

The History

Now comes the time to point out the obvious, but that bears being repeated: this is a fictional story. It's a story crafted by a very powerful game company set in Japan. It's a story crafted by a huge number of people, who debated for years how to best tell it, why, and what for. Every single choice made in the narrative is purposeful, has been weighted against other options, and was picked over what could have been virtually anything else. Again, I want to state that I don't know if any single person took these decisions, probably not entirely, and it's even possible Nintendo didn't realize (I doubt it heavily tbh, but I'm sure there are people in the team that didn't get it or didn't see the issue), but a certain kind of story was crafted in the end, and it's the one we got.

One word that has been tossed around a lot as far as TotK's story goes is ✨ imperialism ✨, and I want to pause and take a second to analyse exactly what we mean by that and why I think it's painfully relevant here (and, honestly, I think another word would be very very relevant here also, but it's the kind of word you keep for after you're done with your argumentation not to scare off the unconvinced audience --but, to anyone who reads and might have picked it up already, yeah.)

In our real world of Earth 2023™, we have seen quite the number of extraordinarily powerful nations becoming gradually larger, engulfing neighbors, breaking apart, and leaving the buds of new future empires behind them. Hell, there's a number of them existing right now, even if they don't call themselves empires and don't have literal emperors at their head anymore (though Japan does, and it is important here). Of course, no nation, especially nations striving for expansion, worldwide legitimacy in culture and power, and their own understanding of "greatness", would ever call themselves anything but enlightened and justified. After all, the Roman Empire brings aqueducts and infrastructure to the lands they conquer, China unifies disparaging regions struggling under constant barbaric attacks, France and Spain converts local populations of the "New World" and save their souls from eternal damnation (wow thanks guysss), the British Empire brings industrial revolution uhhh everywhere please don't ask what was the cost, Africa sure loves everybody ripping their culture and lands apart and were so super glad to receive whatever "civilization" is supposed to mean when their literal people were being pillaged away to keep on building said empires using their blood as mortar, the URSS protects neighboring nations from the Evil Capital/West, fascists want to purge the world of anything they consider impure, the US brings freedom to the world and the whole world is grateful forever!!!

Everyone always has an excuse, and everyone is always kind of semi-mandated by God (in the largest possible sense; divine responsibility would perhaps be more appropriate, it's kind of the idea that with great power comes responsibility, while defining what responsibility means and inflicting their conclusions to conquered lands to squeeze even more value out of them) to do whatever the hell they want to others, claim their lands, their bodies, their minds, their culture --and demand gratefulness on top of it all to avoid having to feel bad.

There is a large body of fictional works that are dedicated to boister the image of the Empire. Every single empire has a number of them; their goal is often to mythologize, in some form or another, the story of their expansion. It often flattens every nuance, paints the actions of the empire as the natural order of the world and its opposition as morally malignant, their leaders are charismatic, benevolent, powerful and self-sacrificial. Often, it invokes previous empires to cast the current one as inheriting a grace that was tragically lost and must be restored through war, hard work, and healthy natality --I'll dip into the forbidden comparaison but Nazi Germany loved its greek myths of Sparta and Athens (and modern day fascists still do), or the Napoleon Wars so they could retell the story of their own empire by invoking a legacy of moral diligence and ethnical greatness being restored. But the pattern is often very similar: we used to be Great, a tragic event due to both external invasion and internal corruption precipitated our golden age into chaos and degeneracy, and now we must fight off current day corruption to restore the Glory of the old times we lost --all of this under the benevolent gaze of our leaders, whose mission is a direct or indirect intervention of divinity into mortal lives. It is righteous and glorious to fight/die for the nation (and its leaders) and protect it from the uncivilized, who are inhuman and exist solely to trick us, corrupt us, attack us and assimilate/destroy us.

Are we starting to notice some similarities here :) :) :)

The Narrative

There's two conversations running in parallel here.

The first one is the least important in my opinion, even though it's the one we tend to focus on a lot as theorists/enthusiasts/enjoyers of media: is Rauru oppressing the gerudos, and does that inform Ganondorf's actions?

Honestly? Textually? Probably not.

There are arguments to be made (and that deserve to be made) about the insane power imbalance, there are a lot of suspicious aspects that deserve to be picked apart like the address and deference of Ganondorf towards Rauru, the whole mining thing that I don't see being discussed much but could be a huge part of it --there are ancient mines in the gerudo region after all; since when? what's the history here?-- the strange masks the Sages are to wear when Zelda, as a direct descendant, isn't wearing any, etc etc. Lots of other posts have been made about the million tiny red flags that litter the game, but I think that if we take the game at face value, they barely matter. I would love them to have been placed with intent (and they maybe were as a desperate attempt by an employee trying to inject grayness back in the equation and if that's the case I SEE YOU random gamedev and I love you and you did the best you could <3), but to me that's more a case of wishful fan thinking (including mine tbh) that any concrete argument that the story is secretely about Rauru being imperialist and this costing him everything. There are some hints of a more nuanced world (the Horned God, the Bargainers, that some NPCs are invested in monsters are creatures worthy of study and awe --tho almost all of them ridiculed in some form), but these demand that you go out of your way to collect them and make the connection yourself. Can this even qualify as subtext? As in: the story under the story? As much as I wish this was the case, I don't think so. We can't make the case that it's a simple story for children that isn't trying to say anything grand while also demanding people to make insane mental gymnastics on their own, without any help on the game's part, for it not to be a blatant endorsement of imperialist thinking.

(especially not the kind of game that repeats 3 different times back to back that Sidon didn't talk to Yona because he was afraid to lose her like he lost Mipha --honestly what's up with this writing I don't get it, BotW didn't act like its players' brain was this unplugged, ANYWAY)

The story is about Ganondorf being duplicitous and monstrous and destroying the beautiful kingdom of the past, and us preserving our modern day kingdom from its corrupting influence by recruiting allies and friends in that fight. We are given a plethora of situations that paint him as inhumanely cruel and chaotic, and none that breath even the suggestion of a critique towards our heroes. He's evil: we must stop him.

Now comes the second conversation, and one I think is more important: is this entire storyline built off imperialist tropes that were created to oppress and exploit marginalized populations in real life while justifying the violence inflincted upon them?

In my opinion, yes. Undeniably so.

I am not so much invested in Rauru being racist towards Ganondorf; I am invested in the real life Nintendo videogame being racist towards the idea that Ganondorf represents: the scary foreigner that will lead to the fall of civilization if we let him in.

(and perhaps this was Rauru's hubris all along: to believe he could let a scary (male) foreigner in and then trust him to remain docile.... a little too much. And then he reaped what he sowed.

checkmate liberal.

This makes an uncomfortable amount of sense and I kinda hate having made the connection tbh)

This is especially true when it's the second time around that this exact storyline is represented, and I believe it to be much more insidious this time around --because now, gerudos are our friendssss and feel great shame and personal responsibility towards that aspect of them that once rebelled. Meanwhile in OoT, a majority of them were onboard with Ganondorf as their leader and explicitely did not want to be assimilated in the kindgom (Nabooru being specifically painted as one of the exceptions). I go more in depth about all of this in this pre-TotK post about gerudo culture. We had plenty of conversations about orientalism and islamophobic representation in videogames since; it was A Thing at the time, the turn of the century was particularly egregious in that regard. But It's not 1998 anymore, and I personally believe it's pretty inexcusable to rethread that same ground beat by beat without batting an eye at any of its implications (especially since they have done better since; even Twilight Princess, who gave him very little grace overall, dared to criticize hylians through Midna, Zelda and even Zant --and Wind Waker towed the line rather beautifully between the part of him that was human and the part that was monstrous, and the tragedy of these two cancelling each other out constantly). I was expecting much, much better than what we got --I didn't even dare to imagine they would just double-down on that aspect and make a worse version of Ocarina of Time to reintroduce the character.

This is also partially why I'm so uncomfortable with the green skin situation: can you imagine how this scene would have felt like, with the single brown-skinned guy having a central role in the game kneeling in front of a white old man with a droopy mustache (which was Rauru's first iteration in the series, and the one I always keep in mind when having these conversations) and his blonde wife, and Zelda being "hmmm he's evil for sure"? And then he 100% is, with no justification or reason beyond an urge to consume the entire world --even this, which is not uninteresting, remaining completely unexplored in a 150+ hour open-world game that decided to focus on everything under the sun EXCEPT Ganondorf's motivations and his relationship to his own people? Can you imagine how obvious of a racist caricature Ganondorf would have been just by keeping his skin a normal brown (not to pretend he's not already super coded as Foreign in every possible way)? The man is intimidating, uncomfortable to be around, he's greedy and power-hungry, he's insane, he comes for our lands and our women and oppresses his own and also corrupts everything through either infiltration or literal disease. Also he's uhhh the Devil, for good measure.

As much as we can rationalize and embrace these parts of who he is as fans, there's no ignoring how icky this entire situation really is.

So, to tie everything together.

There are three readings of this game competing in my head.

The first one is: the textual interpretation. Rauru is self-sacrificial and a victim, Zelda is deeply brave and an icon of the empire's longevity and deep-rooted history, Ganondorf is utterly inhuman and must be destroyed at all costs. What the game says it is --and what it is.

The second one is: the critical interpretation. That this story sounds awfully convenient for the prosperity of the Empire (here the empire being Hyrule), paints Zelda, the current leader, in a weird fanficky way by literally sending her back to the past with her super cool ancestors and allowing a military victory in the present while also being a martyr to the cause and being much more of a symbol than a person, and nobody even bats a fucking eye in the direction that Hyrule might have been questionable in any way --everyone is so happy to be a vassal, see? Let's not unpack why the king of the zoras prefered hiding himself than facing the consequences of what would happen if Zelda really did attack him out of the blue (this plot point is insane, but its potential is too good so therefore it's illegal and immediately dropped). Let's not unpack the absolute insane amount of abuse false Zelda gets away with by virtue of acting as the princess of a sacred bloodline (but she's nice, right? because that's how you want to make a sure a ruler won't hurt you: praying they will be nice). There are enough red flags to doubt this world, its reality, the complexity of these people's inner lives. The rejection of the notion that any sort of flaw or problem could exist within the system makes it borderline dystopian in my opinion (especially when compared with BotW's Hyrule, which had problems who led to its own downfall and were the fault of nobody but their own actions as Ganon is portrayed more as a natural event than an actual, malicious person), and this is the first reason why I don't like Rauru: the entire world revolves around this goat-kangaroo-furry man's chiseled navel. Everyone is, quite literally, a faceless tool in the glorious and tragic story of his lost empire (or they're women here to become sacrificial objects serving the fights of men; or they're Ganondorf, who's a non-person and an antagonistic object lacking any interiority or humanity, and the narrative being completely uninterested in that), and only his bloodline and his vision for the future really matters. Not that Rauru thinks like this --but the game does. And so, it's hard for me not to see him as either the most narcissistic person ever if we accept him as the narrator of this story, or a flat propaganda machine built for an even greater cause (Hyrule, the Empire).

And then, the third one: that Nintendo would put out a game that is so deeply embedded in imperialist and orientalist language and tropes, so invested in its traditional and patriarchal values, so uncurious about the Other and so critical of it while refusing to look inward, is not neutral (yes even if the game is super fun and has other great qualities, I do believe this game is a monumental achievement in game/level design and in optimization/tech art while also being a trainwreck in quest and narrative design). This rethoric is not neutral, especially when addressed at the West at large --especially right now, with such a global uptick in traditionalist values overall, and Japan not exactly being spared. I won't pretend to be knowledgeable enough about Japanese history and culture to pick up all the little nuances of what is going on here, but I know enough to recognize that such stories do play out a certain understanding of this country's history, its fears and its difficulties to reconcile with its own (very recent) past as a colonialist empire --both the terrors it unleashed on others and the terrors that were unleashed upon it as it was dismantled. Instead of exploring that subject, every potential for nuance and conversation and self-criticism is slammed shut immediately, often at the cost of their own characters and the depth of their quest design/writing. The unearthed past agrees with its current understanding of itself; there is nothing discovered that leads to being questioned and reconsidered. Everything wrong is the fault of a single, corrupting entity that can be identified as Foreign and Other. There is a literal Heaven (zonai and civilized, Rauru's) and Hell (monstrous and corroding, Ganon's). None of this is neutral. Especially when infused in a game targeted for a young audience lacking context.

So I hope this very verbose answer helped a little to parse out what is being criticized at which level! Thank you for giving your thoughts, and I hope mine were clarifying to a degree.

I understand it can get a little confusing; but a lot of the urge not to take this scene at face value is born from the knowledge that nothing is ever that simple in real life, that these sort of self-serving narratives often hide horrific amounts of systemic harm underneath its perfectly curated presentation, and that, well. Some Zelda fans, especially the older generations that were invested in these characters and their re-imagining, expected Nintendo to be less..... like this.

And the wake-up call stings a little more than we would have liked.

(again obligatory disclaimer that I'm not saying TotK is Bad or should be Cancelled or that you're Bad for liking it --but it's still important to explicitly talk about how themes like these are being utterly glossed over when I don't think they would have been if they'd come out of a new IP, and not with the huge nostalgia cloud that envelops The Legend of Zelda and has people being extremely uncomfortable at criticizing the ideas the series can sometimes champion --though the series never veered in that direction nearly as hard before in my opinion)

332 notes · View notes