Suduiko, A. (2014, December 3). “Majora’s Mask” addresses marginalized groups in a way you might miss—and that’s the point. With A Terrible Fate. https://withaterriblefate.com/2014/12/03/majoras-mask-addresses-marginalized-groups-in-a-way-you-might-miss-and-thats-the-point/

Summary

The eighth entry in Suduiko's "A Comprehensive Theory of Majora's Mask" ([[Comprehensive Theory Majora's Mask]]).

Notes

In a time where cultural marginalization of groups is an extremely prevalent topic, it's interesting to look into the hidden prejudices that help support that marginalization.

The Garo are referred to as “merely shells that are empty on the inside. They’re the shells of spies from an enemy nation sent to investigate Ikana. They have been unable to forget their living days. Even now their spirits–emptiness cloaked in darkness–continue to spy… [They] are still ninja and they will not show themselves in front of people.”

But what evidence do we have to support that they are this aside from potentially biased vocal accounts? It turns out, not much.

What we know:

• The Garo are invisible until you actively enter their world wearing a mask to pose as one of their own
• You trick them and they attack you
• As you slaughter them, they compliment you on your fighting skills

If you hadn't already been prepped to view them as enemy spies, would you have viewed them the same way? In fact, they are a people that you cannot save - you must kill them to progress through the game. Why aren't they offered the same affordances of peace as other races in Termina? Should we see them as "monsters?"

"it seems that the Garo only have agency because Link goes out of his way to see them — and Link only goes out of his way to see them in order to assault them."

Suduiko posits that biases skew our thinking so fully that we don't even imagine them not being monsters as a possibility. For example, as talked about in a previous post, nearly all other [Zelda games][?] have a moral compass that would make it clear where the fate of the Garo stand. But in the case of Majora, it's not clear cut.

The implications raised are poignant:

1. Though Link is innocent like a child, he's also ignorant like a child. With Mikau's death, his innocence was useful in that his preconceived notions of death did not manipulate the situation. But in tha case of the Garo, his skewed perception turns into ignorance.
2. Majora purposefully creates a tension between the mechanics and the narrative similar to how books can use an unreliable narrator to tell stories that couldn't be told otherwise. A sort of unreliable mechanics, if you will. Majora is using a similar narrative device as Catcher in the Rye: the player in Majora - as with the reader of Catcher - trusts that what they are being told is true. It's only on deeper reflection that the meta unreliable narration/mechanics additional meaning. This is also done with the Fierce Deity mask as discussed in an earleir post.
3. Because we, as the player, expect Zelda games to be "Rated E for Everyone" and that themes such as racial marginalization are not expected, we come into the game with a bias. That bias means we don't see what we would otherwise see if we were paying attention.

Citations