Customer Reviews

The Legend of Zelda and Philosophy: I Link Therefore I Am (Popular Culture and Philosophy)

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

This book is lame and embarrassing. It's a collection of banal undergraduate-quality essays that shoehorns entry-level philosophy into the Legend of Zelda universe, often with no justification. Worse, many of the essays take concepts of video games in general and make their points, using only the Legend of Zelda as a tangential example, which makes them irrelevant in this book, i.e. a whole essay devoted to basic logical fallacies (ch. 3). Gee thanks for that. I didn't know what a slippery slope was and decided to consult this very book in order to learn about it.

The typographical errors that saturate this book are just appalling, and deserve no further remark. Well, some are hilarious though, like "Zeldac universe" (p. 76).

I'm paging through this looking for egregious examples of what makes this book such a disappointment; there are so many. Here's the opening to one of the essays: "I have a confession to make. I don't finish what I start. Specifically, the Zelda games I start" (p. 45). I'm sorry? What then exactly makes you qualified to write about them?!

There's a section on the "controversial" chronology of the Zelda games that I found particularly ridiculous. Sorry, I did not pay to read some 13-year-old's half-baked theory lifted straight from a random online forum, every mangled word faithfully replicated.

There's a lot to complain about here, but ultimately there's no real need even to consider this forgettable volume. All I wanted in this book was a collection of essays written by die hard Zelda fans first, philosophy enthusiasts second. There's more than enough compelling material in the games themselves to warrant valid philosophical topics; forcing inapplicable Western philosophy into this universe just comes across as pretentious and frustrating. The writers simply do not appear to have a transcendent passion for The Legend of Zelda any more than they do for video games in general, which begs the question: why were they chosen to contribute to this volume? To be fair, there are a few grains of ideas here that are fascinating, but ask yourself this question: is it worth opening your wallet to read in a book what you can find for free in the 'essay' section of any Zelda fansite?

Seeing as how I like to read in my spare time, I thought I'd post some short reviews of the books I complete.

Just last night I finally got around to finishing Luke Cuddy's The Legend of Zelda and Philosophy. This was my first foray into the "Popular Culture and Philosophy" series, which also includes the likes of The Simpsons, Star Trek, Star Wars, Buffy, House, and plenty others.

The general format of these books are sections organized by topic. The authors explore basic ideas such as the general mythology, timeline, and free will, while tackling some more complex ones including the link between reality and Hyrule, Zelda's feminism, and the existence of God & evil. Within each section are chapters, each consisting of an essay published by a professor at an American university (so you can presume they're not just BSing you). The essays themselves are well-organized, and the content of certain ones were more appealing than others.

In general, the concepts were accessible and well-explained. Yes, there were ideas that seemed a bit far-fetched, as if the authors were looking too much into it, but that's to be expected when you philosophize about playing video games. However, as a whole it does make a valid case about the presence and prevalence of role-playing games in modern society, and I did get something out of it.

In terms of representation of the series, I'd say most of them were addressed, especially in the chapter that focuses on the timeline. I'm not sure I agree with focusing on The Wind Waker so much in the opening chapter was the right decision, since the author made it seem like the quintessential Zelda game (when A Link to the Past and The Ocarina of Time have set more of a precedent and are more widely known). You'll probably find some gaming discussion appeals more to you than others, and it might be worth reading sections out of order rather than cover-to-cover as I did. Or you could use the handy index as a starting point.

Given my familiarity and background with many of the topics (both the philosophy and the games), I found it a comfortable read. But for those who are unfamiliar or simply not interested in philosophy (but at least interested in the franchise or gaming in general), the book still presents some thought-provoking questions. The inclusion of great philosophers and their ideas was a nice touch, and the discussion won't go over your head. I'd say the book takes itself seriously but not too seriously.

That said, as it is a collection of essays, I found it lacking flow since the dynamic varied between authors. Also, the is a forceful open-endedness, since conclusions were never really reached (though I suppose that's to be expected when you're discussing philosophy). In going back and forth between ideas (playing devil's advocate with itself) and not really favoring a side, it can leave you hanging, should you look for any real "answer".

But maybe that's not the purpose of the book. It makes you think and gives supporting arguments for and against an idea. Overall, it presents an intellectual discussion about topics most people wouldn't dare to approach (either diminishing the credibility of video games or exaggerating the complexity behind philosophy). If you're a fan of the series or role-playing games, it's a definite must-read. But even as a gamer, if the idea of philosophizing about a game doesn't strike your fancy, then this might be worth passing over.

I was considering buying this book, but when I read the "Look Inside" preview, I became a little wary of it. In the very first chapter, the author incorrectly calls "Outset Island" by the name "Outcast Island". And since it's used repeatedly, I know it's not a typo. If you're going to write a book on the philosophical aspects of a well-loved video game series, you should at least get the names correct. I gave it two stars for poor fact checking and editing, but I'm a huge Zelda fan, so I still may end up buying it anyway, if only to see how many more errors the authors make!

I am an avid Zelda fan and this book just appalled me. So many mistakes both grammatical as well as content wise. Its as if the editor just fixed some but not all spelling and grammar errors but just thought the author knew what he was speaking about when in many cases it is not true. It ranges from making things plural when there is only one to consistently calling things by their wrong name.

As an old teacher of mine would say in English class "You need to strive for a watermelon seed type story, not a watermelon with many seeds in it", a lots of these stories had so many subjects and jumped around a lot with no apparent connection, one minuet they'er talking about Zelda, then he quoted and talked about ancient philosophers and then returned to list the Zelda games in order of release.

In short this book is nothing much more than the weaker side of the many Zelda forums out their, if you're really interested, the forums are about 12 dollars cheaper.

I was very pleased that this book provided what I had expected it to provide, but was very upset that this book also provided many things I did not expect (or want). I expected philosophy on Zelda, and it provided that. I did not expect so many typographical errors, subtle political comments, or unnecessary lessons on racism, and it provided that.

I can only feel right in giving this book it's three stars, because as I said, it DID give what it said it would give, and offered some interesting thoughts. But now let me focus on the frustrating aspects.

The typographical errors were atrocious, and there's no excuse for them on a professional level. End of story.

Politics are ever-so-subtly brought into focus, which is just unpleasant. On p.39, the War in Iraq is brought to the attention of the reader. On p.158, the author states that war propaganda is intended to be coercive. I didn't quite understand how Uncle Sam posters are any more invasive than anti-war posters. But, whether or not I understood the meaning isn't even my point, anyway. My point is that the mere words "War in Iraq" being on paper and saying that war propaganda is coercive without balancing it by stating the same about anti-war propaganda is biased and simply unpleasant. There are a million and one examples that could've been used, but instead the author insisted on using examples that are loaded with heavy emotions, and it's simply unnecessary. Whether or not I agree or ever agreed with the War in Iraq, or any war for that matter, is besides the point. It's unnecessary to bring out people's emotions on an otherwise emotionless subject. It detracts what the author is trying to say.

Chapter 3 annoyed me more than any other chapter. Yes, we all get it, racism is bad. It's okay to use racism as an example, but the chapter went a step further and made a statement with the content provided. Though I may agree with what the author had to say on the subject, that's besides the point. I don't read Tom Clancy to hear one's opinion on the right to bear arms, and I don't read the Philosophy of Zelda to hear why the author thinks racism is bad.

Another frustration was the constant insistance of using the pronoun "she" to describe a gamer, rather than "he." It is largely accepted through many studies that males play video games much, much more than females. And I wasn't offended that the female pronoun was brought in to describe something that has a largely male fanbase; I was simply annoyed because it seemed way out of left field and random. I understand sexism exists, and I understand the desire to more openly include females in language. At the same time, if I was describing an animal that plays in the mud, I wouldn't use cats instead of pigs. Can cats play in the mud? Yes. Do some cats play in mud? Yes. But it is largely pigs that can and do play in the mud. In fact, there are many more cats who DON'T play in the mud than there are that do. It seems to me that the only reason I would describe a cat playing in the mud instead of a pig is because I wanted to be different; a deviation from the norm. It's just unnecessary and adds further confusion. It also ignores the fact that "he" is generally accepted as a neutral pronoun already, while "she" is specific to gender. So, it's my opinion in fact that using "she" is much more sexist than using "he." Again, a simple and small annoyance, but it made me roll my eyes every time I came across it.

Again, I reiterate that the book delivered what it promised, and if you are a Zelda fan, it's worth a glance. However, I recommend going in with the understanding that it is an amateurish book written by unprofessional professionals.

The Legend of Zelda and Philosophy: I Link Therefore I Am is a most unusual collection of philosophical essays in that their theme is drawn from popular culture - specifically, the widely beloved series of "Legend of Zelda" action-fantasy video games. Those who grew up playing the Zelda games know them for their minimalist stories, epic quests, exploratory journeys, and Link, the silent everyman fantasy hero. Individual essays include "Why Do We Care Whether Link Saves the Princess?", "The Hero with a Thousand Hearts: Death in Zelda", "Zelda as Art", "How Can There Be Evil in Hyrule?", "The Legend of Feminism", and many more. The Legend of Zelda and Philosophy is a quite serious and substantial philosophical treatise, that applies full force of the discipline to the long-treasured Zelda series of interactive media. "An important fact of 'The Legend of Zelda' is that there are no directions or divine laws... Many ancient cultures and the philosophies they produced did not express linear time; like the seasons, the tides, the rising and setting of the sun, time was understood a circle of life and death, abundance and death. With the inception of Christianity, which plotted a beginning (God created the world in six days) an end (Armageddon and Judgment), a different understanding of time and history flared forth.

The book was a pretty good idea, but I believe that these essays should have been checked for correctness before they were put in a book. I think the earliest example of this would be calling Outset Island "Outcast Island". Reading that mistake alone was like masturbating with sandpaper. I suggest buying a wolf shirt instead.

This was a fantastic read. If you're a Legend of Zelda fan, or a gamer of any sort, this is a great book to get. Even if you aren't interested in philosophy, this book poses some thought-provoking questions and links a lot of famous philosophers work to the land of Hyrule making it more interesting to those who may not have considered philosophy a topic of interest. If you're already interested in philosophy, this book helps give you a great foundation to a variety of work, touching on numerous subjects and providing information on the works referenced for further reading.

Overall, I like it so far. I haven't had time to finish it yet, but to put it lightly: This book is VERY interesting - I like the variety of ideas they bring into it. Matters such as discussing the destinies of the video game characters and why it matters to us, why we can almost seem to relate to or act like the character is real when in fact they are not, etc are subjects I have never really delved too deeply in. Fascinating and worth the buy.

I bought this book as a christmas gift a couple weeks ago, and I took a peek inside before I shipped it off. It definitely contains awesome, intuitive content worth reading, and from what I heard, the recipient of the gift loved it quite a lot. Definitely a must-read for zelda fans that are deep thinkers.