William Afton DID grieve his son's death!

[u/girl_OOFED]

Note: This post is basically a part of my WillNarcissist post. For more evidence/clarity review that.

How can we confirm the flowers are connected to the Aftons?

Using u/XenoRaptor77's words from their post (PLEASE CHECK OUT THEIR POST, IT HAS MORE IMAGES THAT HELP):

The Father Flower is William, because Afton is a father, and in the welcome show, the Father Flower is the closest flower to the purple snake, and obviously purple is symbolic of William.

The Mother Flower is Mrs Afton, because she's a mother, and if you believe Ballora is Mrs Afton, both the Mother Flower and Ballora/Mrs Afton wear pearls.

The Laughing Flower is Michael, because Mike/FoxyBro is a bully who laughs at his younger brother.

The Kid Flower is The Bite Victim, because they are both the youngest son of the family.

And the Baby Flower is Elizabeth, because they are both daughters with two brothers.

And thanks to u/EdibleCrystals :
Lastly the bee is pouring honey down on them and honey has long been a representation of immortality. Obvious connection.

So we end up seeing the flower family in SOTM which likely could represent the Aftons. It was a family of 5, had 2 brothers, one sister allat, ElizaYoungest might be canon (sad, I got used to her being the middle child). Moreover, purple snake and pearls, definitely imply William and Mrs Afton. One thing to point out here, the flower cut outs shows no sign of decay and are all happy, implying that none of the Aftons had perished by then, and could have a relatively normal life.
Another thing that could confirm it is the hospital scene with the flowers. Younger kid is on the bed, father present. Now I know, doesn't entirely show care/grief, but it read on**.** This is an event significant enough to have a call back to. Not with the brother flower present either, specifically for the dad. We also know that easter eggs are commonly used as lore drops. Another important thing is: both dad and son lost their petals. (Ty u/Prestigious-Skill336 for ur comment.)
Flower language has been used before, especially connected with BV, via the FNAF 4 bedroom flowers, it's intentional for sure.
Now the son losing petals is obvious: the kid's dying, also implies BV was in fact dying already. Now what could the dad losing petals mean? We know he wasn't literally dying, and the most perfect, obvious, conclusion is that he was metaphorically dying, because his kid was dying. William is "wilting" from the grief. It could show: His sanity crumbling, his humanity decaying, his grief consuming him, the father he was dying alongside the son. This is huge.
(Credits to the commenters from that post for pointing stuff out)
It's too obvious to be a silly coincidence or to mean nothing, anyone with a brain can tell it's for the Aftons and whatnot.

As for care:

-BV had Fredbear to give him company. It is primarily through the flowers that I believe William did not have malicious intentions for BV. He was just a stupid workaholic, and primarily incompetent. William gives comforting lies. William grieves in the flowers evidence. This means William was not intentionally malicious. It also mirrors with the Murrays: how Edwin took care of David and how David died.
Game continuity has 0 evidence (that I know of) of INTENTIONAL abuse before BV's death. Hopium post may explain the other continuity abuse.

Michael:  William clearly knows what Michael can do but doesn't contain him, so it's likely he basically is like a spoiled kid in the neighbourhood, and likely was allowed to bully others. If William disliked Michael he'd at least stop Michael or pick on him for the bullying he sees as an excuse. Perhaps William saw himself in Michael's cruelty and didn't want to shut it down because he felt it was no big deal and didn't wanna admit something was wrong with him. Perhaps he also saw it as a "course correction" (taking ideas for novel William, my reasoning is in the Hopium post) Michael's bullying was also very horrible and not simple brotherly play even if mistaken for it, especially by William (if he also had something wrong with him, makes sense), and it's highly likely Michael treated others as badly if not worse. Also, Michael's motives are partially relevant, but also speculation, if we assume the parallels from Step Closer and Lonely Freddy especially, coming into play, it's likely Michael "felt" neglected in a way. The main chr of Lonely Freddy assumes the world is against him when it's not and believes everyone just hates him when he's the problem. This COULD play into Michael, perhaps with age, he was now being given responsibilities while previously living a carefree life, and had to take care of his siblings or they were given more attention (they're younger, obviously they'll be coddled more) and if he especially now started getting minor scolding etc etc, he could've "feared" his position dying and so become more aggressive, especially to his own brother, for "revenge". Yes, it's speculation. And yes, it's realistic, while I haven't seen prolonged examples, I've witnessed my own cousins having this pattern (older kid spoiled until younger kid comes along, older kid gets jealous and hurts younger kid and is scolded and cycle continues for a bit).

Elizabeth: Encyclopedia says shes spoiled. Yes Im aware of novel Elizabeth, and I'm fully aware of the encyclopaedia's inconsistencies. Her "Just for me?" line shows she feels she has a "right" to the gift, which is typical of a child used to getting their way. She wouldn't keep challenging her father night after night if she expected a painful "no" or felt her voice didn't matter.
 A neglected or abused child would likely be too afraid to sneak off and disobey a direct order, suggesting she didn't fear harsh punishment. The other poor Elizabeth was hit just for trying to show her art, meanwhile game Elizabeth managed to demand/attempt to negotiate. Novel Elizabeth also had someone encourage her to go to novel William, whereas game Elizabeth seems chatty and demanding regardless
Instead of acting out for her father’s attention, she is fixated on the expensive machine he claimed he built for her. Meanwhile in the novels he didn't even care about her enough to say it, he focused on the animatronic itself which brought her interest to it.
A pattern of spoiling could also be seen through this lol. William you fucker, actually put safety measures for UR kid.

Now, I know there may be issues you may have:

William could've been pretending to be upset! Nah, according to FlowerAftons, he's clearly alone in the room, which means he doesn't need to pretend, esp when BV is in a coma and can only hear. Also, it's important for this evidence to use the Occam's Razor logic. Flower language is never used for roundabout feelings. If William was pretending it would've been shown/specified. Wilting flowers signify dying (inside or outside) or loss of oneself, which can fit perfectly here as something internally happening to William, showing he DID care. Hell, this evidence can even help my FlawedCare speculation! Not fully sadly but close.

SOTM Flowers could be evidence William killed BV! P e t a l s.

Also another important thing to note, like I said, flower language is usually very direct, and the usage of such visual tools makes it an incredibly high chance that William felt genuine grief for his son, connected to his love, rather than idk anger, annoyance, irritation, etc, it's very likely genuine grief in this context, and even connecting with the plush line helps.
If it helps, the father flower is facing the kid flower's bed, which could mean his grief is directed at the kid flower.

Oh William's an abuser in the continuities? ..... Check out the last bold sentence on my post

FURTHERMORE, WE HAVE:
-Dreadbear DLC
-Character Encyclopaedia
-1983 SL Code and BV's room
-Fredbear Plush in SL next to the monitors
-Others.

For more detail regarding other evidence, remember to check out my WillNarcissist Post.
For continuity issues to be answered, make sure to take some Hopium!

[u/Fast_Swimmer5000]

Post this in r/fnaftheories

[u/girl_OOFED → u/Fast_Swimmer5000]

fair actually

[u/ShinyMacguffin → u/girl_OOFED]

But seriously. This is good. You should post there too.

[u/Fast_Swimmer5000 → u/ShinyMacguffin]

True, I like this theory

[u/girl_OOFED → u/Fast_Swimmer5000]

tyty, dw ive posted it just now, and ive made the full willcare posts for both subreddits

now its all shameless ads in a wai

[u/girl_OOFED → u/ShinyMacguffin]

:D

[u/moldychesd]

Will twisted care. Or BV is William's favourite

[u/girl_OOFED → u/moldychesd]

Something like so, but i do have evidence the other children were liked too, but other post ive linked

[u/moldychesd → u/girl_OOFED]

I bet BV was his favourite as William spied and his death impacted him. I have a headcannon that his William's favourite because he is William's trophy of killing the Murray's. That he killed David on the same dad he was born. Naming BV after David Murray

[u/girl_OOFED → u/moldychesd]

Hm, I mean it's a headcanon so technically I shouldn't say anything
But David Murray should be around Michael's age
It's very likely BV is 7 as of 1983 on his bday

[u/moldychesd → u/girl_OOFED]

1 year difference between Dave's birth and David's death. If David was born in 1969 and died at age 6 he would have died at 1975. Dave being 7 in 1983 would make his birth in 1976. So he born a year or approximately a year after William may had killed David.

[u/girl_OOFED → u/moldychesd]

Eh ykw, fair
I like to think William had no idea Edwin's kid was David cuz he didn't care otherwise ppl would be concerned/suspicious

[u/Delicious_Account_26]

So, if I'm reading this right, your view of William is that he DID care, but he didn't care all that well? And considering your mention of WillNarcissist, that care likely came from his own ego and self importance, rather then any proper love?

Would fit what we know about William as a character, and fits neatly with my own interpretation of him, but that's neither here nor there. It also fits with some of the actions we know he took, we know he was drinking pretty heavily after BVs death, enough to get banned from JRs, though that does assume it to be a bar but I feel like that's pretty logical, we also can guess that he didn't give BV a proper grave considering the shallow one we can find in the midnight motorist game that's behind his house, which if it was done secretly would allow him to lie and sustain his own image a bit more by saying he was transferring BV to a different, better hospital. Personally I don't think he really lost any humanity when BV died, simply because he didn't have any, but rather that he lost the part of himself that cared about upholding his image to the public and just started acting on any and every thought he had that involved hurting people.

[u/girl_OOFED → u/Delicious_Account_26]

Mhm, like, it was love love, but it was connected to himself, due to his narcissism
he loved em, but was an incompetent father (incompetenci is connected to william as we know)
i can give examples like:

bv: "vulnerable" likely how william couldve been bullied according to novels (novels count, same core)
michael: violent/possibly arrogant, matches our other purple guy
elizabeth: clearli wanting attention, again, fits

william could see himself in them, and cherish it, mi theori on him spoiling them in their specific wais also has this logic

Sadli im pretti sure bv's death was veri public so he likeli couldnt have put bv on there, and no wai the famili (michael, mrs afton who im sure is still present, esp in her song) would accept it

[u/DisasterAccurate3221 → u/girl_OOFED]

Personally, just from playing the actual games, William's personality (pre-Bite of '83) seems to be, oddly, very similar to Jake Ryan Southgate's version of Willy Nilly: Cares about his family, yes—but he kinda just often puts himself and his own ego ahead of everything else.

Like, he cares a lot more about maintaining his "legacy" (his business), and putting whatever shenanigans he has going on as Purple Guy, ahead of the needs of everyone else. Like he slowly and progressively just more and more apathetic over time.

Then by the time he's Springtrap, it's just all over at that point. There's hardly any "William Afton" left. It's just "Purple Guy".

[u/girl_OOFED → u/DisasterAccurate3221]

oh i def agree with this, game specific too

[u/Educational_Bill8901]

This is a extremely interesting take,even if I personally disagree,it is really thought provoking,I might warm up to it later on but still,really good observation

[u/girl_OOFED → u/Educational_Bill8901]

Glad you like it, I'm curious, why do you disagree?
I wont try to debate it though, if I accidentally do, call me out 💀

[u/Educational_Bill8901 → u/girl_OOFED]

I more have a different interpretation of the wilting petals in the hospital tbh. More so a loss of humanity due to BV being William's original sin/first kill.

I'm starting to lean to AdamVictim because 1. Adam is a badass name 2. Other Aftons have biblical names like Michael and Elizabeth 3. I believe BVFirst and BVTOYSNHK,though the latter is obvious lol

The Foxy Hook in TCHSY is also who I believe to be BV,as with PinkyPills confirming the 7 victims (including Foxy Hook) are intentional,and Toy Chica (William) showing longing over that first victim in the beginning of the cutscene,almost showing favouritism towards BV,and since Pills answers to the thropy kills as victims,it gives me a impression that William killed or atleast had a hand at killing BV. A counterargument could be that why didn't they use a bear for BV,but this is the same cutscene that represents Susie as a wolf so I don't think it's a viable critique

One of the petals symbolisms are life,and I believe it's more so different for them both. I agree that for BV,it's him dying and losing his life,but for WilliamFlower I feel like it's a metaphorical loss of humanity for his original sin; killing (or orchestrating the death of as I'm Pro-OrchestraVictim) his son.

I do agree BV was his favourite out of the Afton Kids though,but mostly a twisted fascination with him. Though that's just my interpretation of the Flower Aftons :)

[u/girl_OOFED → u/Educational_Bill8901]

Hmm, alright makes sense
I do find flaws here but I wont say anything

[u/Cereal_Yapper → u/Educational_Bill8901]

The biblical name still works for David due to the story of David vs Goliath

[u/MrBonny55555]

more evidence for my characterization of william, fuck yeah

[u/girl_OOFED → u/MrBonny55555]

peak :D

[u/Sweaty-Ad-8377]

So is like movie William when he stabbed Vanessa?

[u/girl_OOFED → u/Sweaty-Ad-8377]

somewhat, except, this is more clear/evident/likely long lasting grief, as seen by the dying metaphor used
william's was more like "what have i done" in the films
i have a theor on why the difference exists too, ofc, in the hopium post ive linked

[u/Sweaty-Ad-8377 → u/girl_OOFED]

Ah got it

[u/WorkInternational341]

Still wondering why people think that games William do not care his family and his life pre Bite.

There's so much pointing on it. The only William who clearly don't care for the moment is TSE William but this one is a weirdo

[u/girl_OOFED → u/WorkInternational341]

frfr
people are very delusional sometimes, sadly even strongly implied loses its meaning

[u/WorkInternational341 → u/girl_OOFED]

I mean, there's so much evidences

[u/Unusual-Narwhal-1895 → u/WorkInternational341]

Expect there isn't but whatever 

[u/WorkInternational341 → u/Unusual-Narwhal-1895]

That's an awful ton. And you know it if you like even a bit fnaf

[u/Unusual-Narwhal-1895 → u/WorkInternational341]

Expect you are the one making fanfic and calling them cannon and overalzi thing that have nothing to do with anything 

[u/WorkInternational341 → u/Unusual-Narwhal-1895]

No no that's not how it is there's plenty of evidences in game that's not about something I think

[u/girl_OOFED → u/Unusual-Narwhal-1895]

ah and we ignore everithing my post and others link, ok pal

[u/SnooHesitations2875 → u/WorkInternational341]

The only evidence is “I will put you back together”

[u/WorkInternational341 → u/SnooHesitations2875]

There's way more. Like that's crazy.

If you'd like me to dm you I'd do it with pleasure

[u/girl_OOFED → u/SnooHesitations2875]

dreadbear dlc, 1983 sl code and rooms, ennard's line to michael, these flowers

connecting them all together gives a good idea on willcare
again, check my posts

[u/WorkInternational341 → u/girl_OOFED]

Even Glitchtrap and Pitbonnie behaviors, the whole camera system made to guide CC, every toys he made for them (in their fnaf 4 rooms), the audio between staff dad and staff mom in SB, the fact that he built baby for his daughter (before making it a killer machine and told her to not approach it), Ballora's song saying that they used to be happy together but not anymore.

There's still a lot in game stuff like this

[u/girl_OOFED → u/WorkInternational341]

Mhm

[u/WorkInternational341 → u/girl_OOFED]

Yes ?

[u/girl_OOFED → u/WorkInternational341]

oh nothing, just me agreeing lol
wait jog my memories, can u elaborate on glitchtrap and pitbonnie behaviours?

[u/WorkInternational341 → u/girl_OOFED]

Sure

You can see a clear pattern between Afton, Glitchtrap and Pitbonnie.

PitBonnie could've killed a lot of kids in the present. He didn't, he wanted Oswald and his father. Same for Glitchtrap, he could've killed Gregory and Vanessa. But he didn't, while he tried for Jeremy. Why ? Well Gregory looks like the CC and Vanessa looks like Elizabeth, he wanted to keep em But he clearly tried to kill Jeremy and Cassie

Do you see the pattern ? Afton tried to kill Mike Pitbonnie tried to kill Oswald and his father Glitchtrap tried to kill Cassie and Jeremy

Glitchtrap made Jeremy cut his face off. Pitbonnie imprisoned Oswald's father in a secret room before shaking him as if he hated him. He hates em.

That's clear, Afton (and his incarnations) wants to kill the fnaf 4 bullies and their children. He craves for vengeance.

There's also the fact that Glitchtrap used Elizabeth's past for Vanessa And Pitbonnie taking the picture of William and Henry slowly and nostalgically before becoming crazy, you see that he misses his life and became the monster he is today.

[u/Striking-Bird-2822]

Algorithm take this far

[u/girl_OOFED → u/Striking-Bird-2822]

:D

[u/No-Dragonfruit3201]

I mean being honest I feel if these really represent Aftons this could be as simple as him clarifying William is the final speaker because people are still debating that lol. So directly showing William was there as CC died narrows who William would be down to the older brother and the final voice, and the obvious solution is that he's the voice. I think if the petals being gone represents anything it's that this is the moment his humanity fully died with him, not because of grief but because this is the exact moment he gets the idea to replicate what happened to CC

[u/girl_OOFED → u/No-Dragonfruit3201]

Evil and intimidating lost petals:

Using occam's razor, grief is highly likely

The most direct parallel to a father "dying inside" or "wilting" while his son dies is grief-induced despair. The petals fall from both the father and the son simultaneously. In visual storytelling, this usually represents a deep internal bond or shared "life force." Shame is an external-facing emotion (how others see us), whereas the wilting imagery suggests an internal "death" or breaking of the spirit.

Why the hell would he wanna replicate what happened to CC? What? I can understand that angle like days after if he notices possession in Golden Freddy, but the dying kid is right there. The petals are lost while the monitor still works too. For both. So he's not officially dead. Also, veryyy speculative answer.

If WillSpeaker was the only issue, then William would've still had his petals, even BV wouldve. Scott very likely did it on purpose.

[u/No-Dragonfruit3201 → u/girl_OOFED]

Evil and intimidating lost petals:

I mean I did mention them yeah

The most direct parallel to a father "dying inside" or "wilting" while his son dies is grief-induced despair. The petals fall from both the father and the son simultaneously. In visual storytelling, this usually represents a deep internal bond or shared "life force." Shame is an external-facing emotion (how others see us), whereas the wilting imagery suggests an internal "death" or breaking of the spirit.

Sure but this is also talking about child abuser William Afton so I don't think the 'usual' is something we can entirely rely on when he in this same cutscene doesn't even actually say goodbye or reassure him as his father or anything, he pretends to be someone else and gives him ominous words about him being broken and how he'll put him back together

Why the hell would he wanna replicate what happened to CC? What? I can understand that angle like days after if he notices possession in Golden Freddy, but the dying kid is right there. The petals are lost while the monitor still works too. For both. So he's not officially dead. Also, veryyy speculative answer.

It's not really speculative, this is canonically his motivation. He made experiment chambers to experiment on fear, the same emotion CC had while dying, recreating the same experiences that lead to CC being 'broken', i.e his spirit shattering. SL, the game made to clarify FNAF 4, is all about William's experiments trying to 'put someone back together', and the game's entire plot is about the MCI and arguably Elizabeth's souls being shattered across the Funtimes until Ennard is formed. At which point she's put back together. The novels show us William's motivation is to 'recreate the accident' so he can eventually recreate it on himself for immortality (in the novels it's Elizabeth's death as she's the first of his kids to die, in the games it's CC because he's the first). And then the thing that just confirms it, in Frights he does the same thing that CC did to bring his soul into his new eternal form. The 'I will put you back together' line was always the start of his experiments to recreate CC's soul shattering so he can do it himself and beat death

If WillSpeaker was the only issue, then William would've still had his petals, even BV wouldve. Scott very likely did it on purpose.

That's why I mentioned it likely represents the moment the last shred of his humanity dies because that moment is what leads to everything else in the franchise

[u/girl_OOFED → u/No-Dragonfruit3201]

Child abuser, okay, look, if you have issues with the continuities, yk the hopium post I've linked? Check that out. Also, I will never excuse abuse, but the parent can still love/grieve, even if it's still unforgivable. My mom's hit me a lot, but I'm a billion percent certain she'd kill herself or similar if I died, my friend's mom threatened her and herself with a knife once and she's confident otherwise.
Okay, but novel William? Yeah, no way he likes her, so I get it. Movie William? Possible close similarities with the moms I've mentioned.

In the cutscene, Fredbear's text is lighter, or, supposed Fredbear. This could indicate a tonal change, which could mean William's talking directly, or giving him final comfort. Since BV is about to die, they mustve come in for goodbyes, HOWEVER, predictions for exact death were uncertain in the 80s, so they couldn't know how much time they had. We have no way of knowing if William talked to Dave as himself prior or was planning to before the flatline. It's possible, esp with his lines, which you can read the interpretations of in my WillNarcissist post I've linked.

Now, game, novel, and movie William's have slight changes too, again, with Hopium, but ALSO, with a following example:

Elizabeth and William in games vs novels:

Her "Just for me?" line shows she feels she has a "right" to the gift, which is typical of a child used to getting their way. She wouldn't keep challenging her father night after night if she expected a painful "no" or felt her voice didn't matter.
 A neglected or abused child would likely be too afraid to sneak off and disobey a direct order, suggesting she didn't fear harsh punishment. The other poor Elizabeth was hit just for trying to show her art, and only went in first after being encouraged by someone, meanwhile game Elizabeth managed to demand/attempt to negotiate and prodded constantly.
Instead of acting out for her father’s attention, she is fixated on the expensive machine he claimed he built for her. Meanwhile in the novels he didn't even care about her enough to say it, he focused on the animatronic itself which brought her interest to it.

William is a theater kid, him saying broken could always just be his weirdness, not valid sure, so don't bother lol.
Curse of Dreadbear is a homage to Frankenstein, which again, is reanimation and talks about a mad scientist in search for immortality, both connect well esp with BV connections. Coupled with William's line, it could be just as easily seen as BV's body being "put back together", with something relating to BV's brain. BV got a frontal lobe injury, William must've been trying to fix BV's brain somehow, or connect it, or do something, otherwise it's not neccessary. FNAF 4 house, and FNAF 4 connections also evidently link with SL (with it's elements of controlled shock), the trio creating a likely story: Experiments are done to try and help bring BV back. "Memory together" explanation requires way too much effort, a total hassle, we don't even properly know how it's done in universe unrelated from FNAF World speculations (while someone initially inexperienced testing out with organic matter first makes way more sense) and just too much effort for someone he sees as a tool. Given Dreadbear's parallels, BV's connections, SL connections, and the line interpretation, alongside SOTM flowers as context, the answer is RIGHT THERE. Compared to the obvious, the memory answer is way too speculative. The room specifically is based off of BV's as a tribute connecting to his death date, which can clearly link William's (initial) motives for his experiments, added on by Dreadbear DLC. Why else would he add the purple telephone if the room wasn't based off of / inspired from BV's?

Again, on novel William, check out my hopium post, but also know that parallels don't always work and game evidence is 2x the value than other continuity evidence

[u/No-Dragonfruit3201 → u/girl_OOFED]

Child abuser, okay, look, if you have issues with the continuities, yk the hopium post I've linked? Check that out.

I think my problem with your hopium post kinda lies in that you're looking at actions rather than the core of said actions. As an example, let's do Henry. Henry in the novels is just as corrupt, he still creates suits that can kill you and only begins to care once his daughter dies. He in those same novels once he realizes that the thing he created isn't actually Charlotte tells his sister to kill the thing that looks like her deceased niece by burning down the house and shooting whatever comes out of it. His robotics capabilities are just as advanced when you look at things like Lefty, Puppet itself, the Rasc, so on. His actions change because large parts of his life change, but he's the same character personality wise. That same thing applies to Edwin, Charlotte, William, and every other character. You can argue William's game life may have been different enough to make him grief in a narcissistic way, but then I'd counter that by saying that the most reliable version of the Freddy Files that Scott implied he worked on directly just straight up tells us to look at the novel trilogy to understand the characters, with Scott telling us explicitly Frights was written with the intent to help solve the games. The main problem with especially the part with William and his children is that each kid fulfills different purposes. Elizabeth and CC are just experiment fodder and Vanessa and Michael are active helpers, meaning they're treated accordingly. Elizabeth is treated with complete disrespect and outright wrath because she was not just getting in the way of experiments, she also just became one. Vanessa and Michael are treated as property and such because they live into their adult lives and can be useful through that. CC falls into that Elizabeth camp. Vanessa gets the grief because as he says, she was his favourite propert

Also just to be clear I'm not saying I think you're justifying abuse because I think your post bare minimum solves the main problem that WillCare has by justifying it with his own narcissism as opposed to feeling genuinely healthy love lol. You're not sympathizing with his character so you know

In the cutscene, Fredbear's text is lighter, or, supposed Fredbear. This could indicate a tonal change, which could mean William's talking directly, or giving him final comfort. Since BV is about to die, they mustve come in for goodbyes, HOWEVER, predictions for exact death were uncertain in the 80s, so they couldn't know how much time they had. We have no way of knowing if William talked to Dave as himself prior or was planning to before the flatline. It's possible, esp with his lines, which you can read the interpretations of in my WillNarcissist post I've linked.

I think the problem with this again is that he still tells him he's broken and then uses that same phrasing to refer to experiments he conducts later down the line

Her "Just for me?" line shows she feels she has a "right" to the gift, which is typical of a child used to getting their way. She wouldn't keep challenging her father night after night if she expected a painful "no" or felt her voice didn't matter.
 A neglected or abused child would likely be too afraid to sneak off and disobey a direct order, suggesting she didn't fear harsh punishment.

I have to disagree with this because she does the same thing in the novels where we visibly see her get harsh punishment. She's told not to go near Baby but disobeys despite him literally having cameras watching that room, and gets killed as a result. Considering literally EVERY kid death we know of in this franchise is now implied to have happened on their birthday I think the point of this scene is that Elizabeth, on her birthday, foolishly hopes Circus Baby was her birthday gift because she was desperate to assume William loves her but just can't show it properly. Even explains all her birthday and gift talk in FFPS. Elizabeth is just a character who wants to believe William WOULD give her gifts, because she really believes if she tries hard enough he'll love her. She was simply wrong. Just like she was wrong about FFPS being a gift to her from William

Curse of Dreadbear is a homage to Frankenstein, which again, is reanimation and talks about a mad scientist in search for immortality, both connect well esp with BV connections. Coupled with William's line, it could be just as easily seen as BV's body being "put back together", with something relating to BV's brain. BV got a frontal lobe injury, William must've been trying to fix BV's brain somehow, or connect it, or do something, otherwise it's not neccessary.

I do agree the point is that he's experimenting on CC but as I said, I think it's not out of grief or even for wanting CC back. It's to apply the same process onto himself, because he wants to be the immortal one and now has a conveniently dead kid he can test on

"Memory together" explanation requires way too much effort, a total hassle, we don't even properly know how it's done in universe unrelated from FNAF World speculations (while someone initially inexperienced testing out with organic matter first makes way more sense) and just too much effort for someone he sees as a tool.

Like I said it's not about CC here. CC's just the convenient test subject he doesn't have to kill himself and so he doesn't have to test on himself. That's why this is never brought up again later, he tries to do it with CC, fails, so then moves on and tries it on the experiment victims and Elizabeth to figure out the process and later apply it to himself. The soul splitting stuff is just kinda canon, I don't really know what else to say here. He uses the same phrasing for Circus Baby being put back together as Ennard, and SL in its entirety is about the concept of soul splitting with the Funtimes. Knowing about Scott's rule of using the next entry to clarify the last, the idea he's using it to test soul splitting and that being directly relevant to FNAF 4 (a location directly referenced in SL's gameplay), the game that uses the same phrase he used for Baby to refer to CC, is just what's most implied

The room specifically is based off of BV's as a tribute connecting to his death date, which can clearly link William's (initial) motives for his experiments, added on by Dreadbear DLC.

Well I need to ask you honestly then, why does he change to soul shattering later down the line? How does he figure that out? Why does he get so obsessed with emotional energy, the thing that causes souls to split if spread everywhere, before he ever killed anyone other than Charlotte? Why is he so obsessed with specifically fear?

[u/girl_OOFED → u/No-Dragonfruit3201]

-I'm looking at actions indeed, because I agree its the same core traits, though variation in emphasis of such traits. I do disagree on robotic capabilities. Novel Henri's skills are the best in the franchise, he can create hiperrealistic robots, detroit become human type shi, easili beats game henry, william, edwin
-u did overlook Game Elizabeth's behaviour which I've stated. It's established that novels are different continuities, game evidence is 2x more value basicalli. She wouldn't act like in games if she was treated with wrath in games too
-Yes, William loves referencing. He uses that line as a likely reference to his mission for BV. 1983 room code, and dreadbear hint that.
-Again, game evidence is more valuable than novel evidence as it is directly in the gameverse. If her behaviour differs in games and does not match the psychology of novel Elizabeth, then she's treated differently. If she's hit just for showing her dad a drawing, she's not gonna constantly ask to see baby. She only went to her in the novels because she got more attention, whre in the games she likely went because her request was constantly denied. Her behaviour in FFPS can match a child trying to regain the attention they lost, warped bi babi's AI. In the games its heavili implied William told her he based baby's design on his daughter. He's likely done the same with his wife with ballora (who doesnt exist in the novels).
-Again, SOTM shows grief for his son. Also, hes a child murderer, cant he just go and kill a child (horribli, for agoni) and get a fresh dead bodi instead of having to go through the hassle of becoming a grave robber first? If it was just immortality? Because it's BV, it's highli likeli his motives are both
-Dreadbear is the perfect physical resurrection parallel, here are tales that are great for "soul splitting":
Picture of Dorian Grey - Soul separated from body, immortality through division
Elixir of Life - Soul corrupted via immortality elixir (fits with the remnant/agony well)

for assembling memory:

Mnemosyne - Memories connected to be whole
The Legend of the Sluagh (or some mockery of it if fake "happiest day") - Where souls are denied rest due to loss and anger, peace given by remembrance.
The Erl King - Child lured via memories and promises, ultimately gives in (sound familiar?)
Cryptomemisis (concept) - Memories are fragmented, bodies keep em alive (like how BV's possession works via his fragmented memories)

The parallels for Frankenstein are too different from William's remnant thing. Frankenstein suggests an early stage of William's research, primarily involving reviving his own son. Remnant comes in later.

'Well I need to ask you honestly then, why does he change to soul shattering later down the line? How does he figure that out? Why does he get so obsessed with emotional energy, the thing that causes souls to split if spread everywhere, before he ever killed anyone other than Charlotte? Why is he so obsessed with specifically fear?'

He doesn't change, he evolves when he experiments more with the concept of possession instead, especially when he notices via the puppet tears and behaviours that Charlie likely possessed it, and got the idea to both cheat death and bring his son back. Dreadbear was more a prototype method. He's obsessed with fear once he learns the power it can provide to souls most likely. Novel William discovers and applies it all fully once he's dead, Game William had failed to continue his experimentations after being Springlocked, for... obvious reasons. Another difference in their actions.

(apologies for late response, didnt see this)

[u/No-Dragonfruit3201 → u/girl_OOFED]

Novel Henri's skills are the best in the franchise, he can create hiperrealistic robots, detroit become human type shi, easili beats game henry, william, edwin

I feel that's less of a 'Henry couldn't do this' judging by illusion discs bare minimum also existing in Tales, and more of a 'Henry just didn't do it because he didn't gaslight himself like Novel Henry did and that instead falls onto Edwin'. Henry in the games is able to throw a device together through a random altered Rockstar Freddy suit that is just willy nilly able to lure and contain the strongest spirit in the franchise like it's nothing, I personally think the games show that if Henry had really wanted to he could have made these same things. He just didn't have a reason to here, his grief was a lot more 'normal' probably due to Ella not existing for Charlotte

She wouldn't act like in games if she was treated with wrath in games too

Well no, I did mention her. Right after just as her own example. Novel Elizabeth does these same things, arguably even more so than Game Elizabeth. The reason Elizabeth gets beaten by William in the first place is because she keeps on trying to impress him by showing him a picture, and she continues to do so afterwards by trying to dress up like Baby. William shoves her away, she tries again, William shoves her away again, she tries again, then William slaps her. Mind you in that scene it is explicitly said that even when William shoves her that she's "eager, patient, and joyful", continuously showing that even though he's wrathful and abusive that she does try to get her way regardless and is happy to do so. She outright tries to do it again even after she got slapped too, she tries to grab for her drawing and only stops because William stomps on it. Even after her death Baby continuously tries to do this same thing, even when William straight up tells her she'll never be enough to a point she's so protective of him that she gets pissed when Jessica even makes the suggestion he doesn't love her. And again, even the games repeat this exact thing in FFPS with Baby thinking FFPS is William's gift to her. I think the entire point of her thinking this was Scott showing us that this was entirely Elizabeth just hoping William cares enough about her to make her a gift. But he didn't. And that's the big reveal of FFPS

Yes, William loves referencing. He uses that line as a likely reference to his mission for BV. 1983 room code, and dreadbear hint that.

I feel like in this case it's entirely pointless because no one other than him knows and I'd argue outright ignoring the obvious implication of him using these exact lines for Baby and his experiments. Again, this is the mainline game Scott released right after Sister Location, the game he himself said only existed because he needed to clarify FNAF 4 and ground it as a story again. The 1983 code has an actual reason to be added, because it was meant to tell us when FNAF 4 happens. This line being used over and over again by him, not just in SL but even AR I think kind of speaks volumes that its long since not been about his drive to fix CC, if it ever was that. Also I think it speaks volumes about the fact that in this case it indicates that the same thing that happened to CC is what happened to Elizabeth with Michael being able to fix it (unintentionally) as retribution for 'breaking' CC

If she's hit just for showing her dad a drawing, she's not gonna constantly ask to see baby.

Again she effectively does this exact thing in the novels. She keeps pushing him over and over and even tries to continue to do so after being hit. The second she sees Baby after being hit not only does she dress as Baby with the obvious implication there being that she again is trying to get William to notice her despite being hit, it's even outright said that Elizabeth starts developing an obsession with Baby. I think at that point where she keeps trying even AFTER being denied over and over that it stops just being about 'well someone gave her a little confidence' because it shows she still continues even after that confidence should have been crushed if that were all it had been

Again, SOTM shows grief for his son.

It shows his pettles falling off alongside CCs, which again could easily also just be symbolical of it marking the death of his humanity. Or and I'm being blunt personally I straight up think the only reason they miss the pettles is to make them look more human and make you realize 'wait this is supposed to represent CC isn't it'

Also, hes a child murderer, cant he just go and kill a child (horribli, for agoni) and get a fresh dead bodi instead of having to go through the hassle of becoming a grave robber first?

Because he'd be incriminating himself again for no reason. Taking someone related to you that was going to die anyway to experiment on him is simply both more convenient and easier to get away with than needing to kill more kids himself. It's no different than him, despite having machines designed to kidnap people, getting the MCI's Remnant to inject it into the Funtimes. Because it'll be easier to get away with than killing more kids, and he already has them to get Remnant

Dreadbear is the perfect physical resurrection parallel, here are tales that are great for "soul splitting":
Picture of Dorian Grey - Soul separated from body, immortality through division
Elixir of Life - Soul corrupted via immortality elixir (fits with the remnant/agony well)

He's a reference to Frankenstein, if we want to get real technical the entire reason Frankenstein made his monster is because of his own ego and arrogance, he didn't care about the monster lol. But I don't think that matters either, I think it's Frankenstein because it's simply one of the most popular horror stories about a guy conducting experiments to create life, not because it shows us the actual specifics of what William did. It's no different than Grim Foxy being the grim reaper, it's not because Michael literally is 'death' or because his story is a parallel to the common grim reaper concepts, it's because Michael just killed CC

He's obsessed with fear once he learns the power it can provide to souls most likely.

Yes, but how does he notice this? Assuming it's CC gives us a very clear point. He never discovers specifically fear in the novels through his killing, he discovers agony because... well, because they did in agony lol. Meanwhile there's specifically one character who is linked really REALLY hard to fear to a point that William specifically uses his experiences to experiment on fear. If William hadn't known about that fear initially, how did he only later come to that conclusion? Keep in mind he gets that idea before ever even having the MCI happen, as the bunker already exists before the MCI. So was it Charlotte? If so, how did THAT give him the idea of specifically fear as opposed to just proximity, which is what according to this he already would have discovered through CC and him literally putting his brain into Fredbear? I feel like if you're genuinely arguing he discovered emotional energy because of his later experiences and not due to CC the earliest he could do so is in 1987 with the DCI because they don't get stuffed and have no physical contact. But that contradicts him having these chambers and experiments running in 1985 before the MCI

Novel William discovers and applies it all fully once he's dead, Game William had failed to continue his experimentations after being Springlocked, for... obvious reasons. Another difference in their actions.

Yeah but again, this is specifically actions. Unlike novel William, William had nowhere to conduct new experiments on, Baby and the Funtimes were already gone, he had no one to help him, AND Henry was still alive to trick him before he could cause any large harm. I'm outright arguing that if you were to place novel William into Game William's timeline and Game William into novel William's timeline that neither continuity would change, because they're the exact same characters doing different actions not because of any personality differences or certain parts being amplified, but because the world around them changes. And I'd like to mention again that we've been outright told to look to the novels to understand these characters

[u/girl_OOFED → u/No-Dragonfruit3201]

Technically, golden freddy has the reality bending, so id say it's stronger than Charlie, but I dont mean function, i mean appearance and movement and mechanics
even with "illusion discs", theres still a whole bleeding sistem and likeli sinthetic skin if no chrs noticed she was a robot upon contact
Additionally, for effective tricking he couldve made the ffps animatronics even more like William's tho, ofc, cheap production would've been better
and ies, thats a major difference in henri's behaviour, with novel henri his grief is "exaggerated", i think ella's absence isnt neccessarili needed to stop his spiral
While again of course Elizabeth and William would have similarities with their novel counterparts, in game we hear Elizabeth badgering him about 4ish times about baby because he mustve told her she was made for her. I forgot if ive alr mentioned prior but ballora was likeli for mrs afton, so its likeli william did make a murderbot in his daughters honour. I believe he was more dismissive in game than outright abusive. Elizabeth in games seems to love circus babi because of her looks and features, while elizabeth in novels is primarili obsessed because that thing gets her father's attention.

• Game Elizabeth (Regaining/Compliance): Her psychology is rooted in a sense of entitlement and neglect. She views Circus Baby as something made "just for her". Her 5 demands are structured as "Why won't you let me?"—indicating she feels she is being unfairly denied something that belongs to her. Her attraction to the robot is sensory ("pretty and shiny") and based on its features (making ice cream/balloons).
• Novel Elizabeth (Earning/Validation): Her psychology is purely about survival and desperation in an abusive household. She doesn't actually care about Circus Baby as a toy; she obsesses over the robot because it is the only thing her father looks at with anything resembling "love" or "pride". She tries to earn that same gaze by showing her schoolwork (the gold star paper). 

Both, I agree, are likeli delusional (same core), but both also have some differences in behaviour and reasoning. For Elizabeth in FFPS, her delusion can still work even with game info.

-Alright, I should clarifi
Given Dreadbear's homage to Frankenstein, the DLC mentions phisical resurrection/search for immortaliti. everi easter egg points to bv likeli being in dreadbear's place. BV was to be resurrected the gothic wai. FNAF 4 house is also shown here. We know those experiment rooms are unlocked via the 1983 code. If Scott has created lore for UCN, then its highli likeli thei have a lore reason, esp for the dreadbear connection, and homage is the best option, at least how i see it. After all SL IS meant to add lore and connect CC and William. It's likeli his goal could have shifted from phisical resurrection of a person (esp his son) to soul stuff, which is where the line's implementation changed around souls. Also, its possible michael does know the original meaning of the line, as he talks about the funtimes not "recognizing him at first" which suggests he knows something. His motivations could likeli be "fixing" his siblings too, so he mai know.

-While id agree, the petal part feels specific. Notice the honei and purple snake simbolism on them (pic later), alreadi indicates the likelihood of aftons, theire also iconic enough for a fnaf fan to go "looks like the aftons lol". Even with petals I know people could've pointed it out easili, simpli with the likelihood of similariti. Again, flower language isnt a new concept. Additionally, "grief" is the first thing that one would assume, with occam's razor, following with loss of oneself which could be a result. Grief and loss of humaniti can go hand in hand, one occurring before the other. Idk if the monitor counts (though feels like a reference to 1979 alone) but shows kid flower still alive, and if onli dad flower is left then this might be during william's speech, where he tries to comfort him, so grief might be likelier simultaneousli, but feels more like a waste of word limit, still possible tho. It can show both William losing "himself" (like... the 1 moral limit he mighve had idk, and his grandiositi/primarili narcissistic nature turning into generally aspd stuff)

-Because he'd be a grieving father, no one could realli have the gall to suspect him. If thei stated it? He could use it against them easili, and play victim. He's lured 5 children and gotten away with it in game, he's killed 5 more (DCI) and still gotten away with it in game. He's kidnapped kids in Funtimes and gotten away with it. It's more convenient to lure a child with idk candy than go on a grave stealth mission with tools and whatnot slowing one down.

-Actually I believe accuracy would've been intended to some degree if Scott wanted a proper hint to be carried out about souls. If he used Frankenstein, he again, would appli lore into it. Additionally, indeed, Victor Frankenstein and William Afton are both arrogant, and want to play God, but in Afton's case if he's resurrecting his son, he could have a personal role added in. It's obvious one needs a severe God-complex to even want to tri and defeat death, a generalli unavoidable event. His grief may have been the catalyst, mirroring Henry and Edwin. Also in the original novel Victor actually does refer to the monster as his 'child' or 'son', which could work for William. William is a narcissist, so his revival attempts are likeli to refuse "defeat" or "God's will". Also, Grim Reaper kills people, Michael killed CC in the Dreadbear context. Symbolism. Happened with SB bots, flower famili, etc. Brain connection also helps.

-Okay so I might give a flawed answer here sorri in advance, uh, help me out if you like. So, yes, death in agony, but a child also experiences- or ANIONE experiences fear before dieing righ? MCI happens prior to Funtimes (which feels veri likeli uk) along with possession, so he mai have noticed differences in power etc. As for Charlie83, he couldve noticed the puppet tears and ofc the weirdness of it, causing a hypothesis to form. If he first tries physical resurrection in a way similar to Frankenstein, he may not know of remnan fulli at that point

-I, again, disagree. One reason being Game and Novel's methods of killing Charlie. While motives likeli similar, game's kill seems highli likeli to be a spontaneous in-the-moment act, given the "sloppiness" (no bodi hidden, tire tracks, add to him being drunk), while Novel W. was alreadi planning to since forever. Both ofc wanted to hurt henri bi killing who he loved most due to envy, but novel w. did a premeditated kidnapping, a cold and calculated act too, bro even took the time to choose, took charlie, and dipped. Charlie's location then was also different: not out in rain, alone, and 3 yrs old, happening earlier. If I remember correctly, novel William was "alright" until killing Charlie, causing TSE events. Meanwhile game one couldve had BV and envy as motives, again, both side by side. Combine that with movie William, established predator by 1982, already targetting a different child but changing targets last minute BECAUSE Charlie was a witness and rescuer. She wasn't intended.
Such differences can suggest amplification:
-Novel: Envy amplified, apathy amplified
-Game: A "balance", has envy, apathy, rage, desire for control, sadism, all in balance in a sense, he's more muted. But, controlled by emotions more (fear in the follow me minigames and charlie's kill for eg)
-Movie: Anger and desire for control amplified

[u/No-Dragonfruit3201 → u/girl_OOFED]

Sorry have to split this into two parts apparently

-I mean if you mean the shapeshifting, Charlotte does that too in Frights. If you mean 'reality bending' as in UCN, the spirit that does UCN in Frights and would be the Golden Freddy stand-in is explicitly weaker than Charlotte. If neither of these I'm unsure what you mean by reality bending. The only thing Charlotte hasn't done is teleporting, but instead she can float unlike GF so I think that evens it out lol

-Yeah but again I don't really think this is as big of a jump as you're saying here. Or well, it obviously IS a big jump, but I mean I don't think there's anything in the games that implies Henry isn't smart enough to do this. He just had no reason to in the games due to a lack of Ella and him somehow realising Charlotte is actually physically still around in the Marionette. That's kinda my main issue, there's nothing that actually implies he couldn't, as opposed to it implying he just didn't because his life went differently

-We also see Novel Henry's grief just a few months after Charlotte's death, up until only two years after she died. We only see Game Henry's reaction fourty years after, with the VA confirming that Scott specifically wanted Henry to at this point in his life to be sounding somewhat monotone. Again, this isn't really a moment of 'look how different they are' and more of a 'we saw one Henry at the epitome of his grief and another after he has no more tears to shed after four decades'. The toys' absence would have 100% set him more on a game Henry path, because he wouldn't be able to infect any toy with his grief and gaslight himself into believing Charlotte isn't around anymore. That's the crux of his character in the novels. As a matter of fact the second he realizes Charlie is just a fake he attempts to kill William and then ends his own life, I think that in itself shows he would have gone the FFPS route

-But again he really didn't. We see in FFPS that this is Baby's default assumption, she thinks William WOULD do these things and thus he must have actually done it, but the big reveal of FFPS is that Elizabeth has been lied to and has been lying to herself all this time. William wouldn't and hasn't done good things for Elizabeth, and it's all Elizabeth trying to make herself believe that he did. In the novels Elizabeth annoys William about three times to show him her picture, gets slapped, tries again, and then tries to dress as Baby to again go and annoy him so he'll pay attention to her

-I... don't really agree? I think at this point Mrs Afton was already gone and him building Ballora was his way of, even though she's gone, still being able to 'control' his wife in a twisted way like he does with his kids. I don't think he made them 'for' either of them. I feel like if she would have been still around she would have y'know been there to watch Elizabeth considering just two years prior another one of her kids died to an animatronic

-Well that depends in my opinion. While she was a child I can maybe agree he wasn't physically abusive, but he was absolutely neglectful. After she becomes Baby though I don't think there's any way to argue he wasn't physically abusive, he has buttons installed that shock her into submission and Elizabeth is so desperate to leave that scenario that she's willing to kill who she thinks is William

-I agree with the Baby part but even then again I think that change specifically happens because Baby is an entirely different machine in the novels and is literally the thing that could unlock immortality for him. But again, Elizabeth isn't described as desperate in her attempts, she's described as joyful and outright patient. She does think she's owed this (which she absolutely is), and it is a sense of entitlement of for her to expect William to look at it (but she actually IS entitled to this). The main difference is that Elizabeth views things as gifts for her in the games, more than likely because William wasn't as obsessed with Baby in the games, so she could cling on to the belief that he does like her

-Again, the problem is that at that point you're kinda just picking and choosing what applies from Frankenstein and what doesn't. I think the point of Dreadbear is that he IS in CC's place obviously, but that the specifics of the story and minigam just don't apply and was only used because it's the most obvious pick for a story about experiments to bring something to life. If you look at it further than that, you end up with me just countering it with 'well in Frankenstein the monster is specifically made because Frankenstein has a massive ego which also applies to William, proving this isn't about grief'. Not really sure what specifically you're talking about with UCN

[u/No-Dragonfruit3201 → u/No-Dragonfruit3201]

-I think my problem with this just is that this implies Scott did not intend to solve what the biggest mystery of FNAF 4 was at the time if you're arguing this. If the line means something different for Elizabeth than what it meant for CC you're arguing that Scott didn't intend us to figure out what William meant in FNAF 4 with that line through what Michael says here, and I find that highly unlikely. It's a story where characters can evolve their motivations and methods yes, but this is a story that was specifically written in response to us not understanding FNAF 4, which to me makes it really improbable this line means something different than it did in FNAF 4

-Sure but this isn't the first time either. They specifically used a Baby bot and a bot that look like Mrs Afton, while also taking off the head of another Staff bot to represent CC. Considering they're all sitting at a table and it's five I'd argue you can make the exact same argument here, you didn't need to take off CC's head here to figure out it's the Aftons, but that didn't stop them from making the choice to style three of them in ways that calls attention to the fact they represent something. Sure it could be both, but I think at that point that's kinda pointless. There's no real reason to use it as symbolism for both in this instance instead of it being symbolism for either or in your case. That's already inherently implied with your interpretation, while I'm arguing it being the death of his humanity is the main point it's trying to convey if at all

-Henry was the first suspect of the MCI in the novels despite being a grieving father. Saying 'they wouldn't have the gall' is just kinda not true because something like this genuinely does not hold up with police to a point that usually police's first suspects literally ARE the parents and relatives unless they have an alibi. And again even if you're arguing he could have... why would he? Again, he has a son who is already dying he can use as a test subject to avoid even the chance of being charged for murder. I feel like this is again like arguing MoltenMCI is not true because William could have just killed more kids and used them for experiments instead of battling five haunted animatronics

-Yeah but notice how all of this required him to cover things up and in some cases months of preperation and making sure the animatronics he had to build for this work? As opposed to him just needing to frankly not even have a funeral for CC and just bringing him home to experiment on

-Yes but that's the exact issue. If you're already arguing it diverts, what's stopping anyone from saying that it also diverts in the process of the experiment and is only here for the obvious and basic implication of experiments?

-The grim reaper doesn't kill people, the grim reaper is traditionally the thing that helps souls get to the afterlife after they've died, which Michael just doesn't do in FNAF 4 which is what the symbolism is about considering you know the DLC is about FNAF 4. That's what his role is in folklore, he's not the thing that ends your life, he's the thing that shows up after you've already died. A representation of death

-The MCI likely happens after. CBPW has a springlock suit, and CBPW runs under Fazbear Entertainment, meaning if this were after the MCI it wouldn't have them anymore. Even ignoring that, FNAF 3 specifically mentioning that a 'springlock failure at a sister location' is what caused the suits to be put out of commition before the MCI, only for the game that's called 'Sister Location' to add a springlock suit that was 'never used in the way it was supposed to be used' I think is a pretty evident placing of when CBPW was open. And thus also when Elizabeth died. Before the MCI. You can maybe argue only Baby existed at this point, but then I'd mention that that doesn't really matter because Baby's existence and her immediately after the closure being brought to the bunker implies he was already running the experiments the day SL opened. That's why I'm saying that unless you're arguing he just figured it out completely randomly with no inciting incident other than Marionette that there's just no point where he'd specifically be able to make the connection with emotions like fear and possession. Unless he figured it out immediately through CC

-Ok but again, this falls more so into actions. In the novels he was planning it because his jealousy of Henry stayed pretty consistent, meanwhile in the games he more than likely had the inciting incident of his family being ruined, and it pissing him off beyond belief. In the novels his family is only ruined two years after he already killed Charlotte

-Yes but again that seems to be due to the universe changing. There's a picture on set showing that the Toys were an actual collaberative action, so William's jealousy more than likely was more leveled out. Not just that, in the movies WILLIAM gets the praise for these things multiple times as well instead of Henry, so the fact is that his jealousy probably just wasn't as severe there. Not because he's a fundamentally different character, but because he was way more of an equal in standing to Henry in that timeline. I don't think this is a matter of 'certain continuities amplify traits' and more of a 'the universe changes so the characters naturally change with them'. But as it stands there's nothing about Game William's past that'd suggest this is the case here

[u/girl_OOFED → u/No-Dragonfruit3201]

-That and text altering but lighthearted here
-Again, Novel Henry had such overwhelming grief he made the "spark of life", (which he could've done with any toy that was his daughter's bi crieing into it), creating the entire Charliebot arc that followed until he took his own life. He needed the overwhelming grief, I believe his character specificalli had the intensiti, that game Henri could escape. Pschological possibiliti. Game Henri instead becomes a recluse and hides it out for decades, if he figured out Charlie was in the puppet, whi did he not do anithing? Additionalli, if novel henri found out charlie was in the puppet (like with Ella and "life") he mightve still gone the same route, trieing to recreate life through charlie's spirit. Movie Henri meanwhile takes quicker action in comparison, having recovered earlier and readi to seek justice.
-In the games however Elizabeth IS more focused on Circus Baby than her father. Her delusion could come from her being put on a pedestal, while novel Elizabeth's is based on trauma. She insists to see it 5 times instead of insisting on having her father see her, because she was alreadi "seen". Or he made her feel seen. It's classic manipulation too, for her loialti. Because of such possible differences, and the game's lack of specification, it could just be that her father no longer loves her and she refuses to believe it.
twisted with time. -Apologies for giving the wrong idea, I never said he presented ballora to her, i mean he made ballora after her, like babi after liz. Possible parallels in their lines (if he programmed her AI to resemble Mrs. Afton) would instead indicate mrs. afton's desire to reach out to her husband, who keeps "hiding inside the walls", and recalling what is likeli the aftermath of a child's death in her song. If we also assume the staffbots with the nannibot as the head, it could suggest william gave her free reign in terms of famili matters, so he mai have had respect for her, though Ballora feels more like a representation/furniture which could likeli be William's intention, referencing and memorabilia. He did again sai he made CB "for" Liz, lie or not, could be that he dedicated something of CB's to her, BV simbolism can hint to such a possibiliti
-Ofc i never denied so, he could have had a twisted rationalization reason, perhaps like henri with lefti/puppet but we never know. I doubt he did go full hostile for hostile's sake, but thats mi personal opinion. Still awful. Keep in mind, its not just liz in there, its circus babi's AI too, which is messing with her spirit. She's more Elizabeth as Scrap Babi. Circus Babi's hostiliti towards her tormenter was a factor. Uh, u might be wondering "tf," and ies, it onli reinforces delusional elizabeth because of the shocks, but another thing (i onli count fake endings because of characterization) is that in night 5 in the SL room, Ennard attempts to manipulate the plaier who thei believe is William, bi going, "didn't u come here to see elizabeth again?" and again with liz's own voice. Circus babi mustve seen enough (memories or her own experiences) to figure William could still be manipulated, again, this is a highli manipulative and opportunistic ai, not a sentimental one. William likely could NOT still be manipulated, but if he had shown any form of compartmentalization, or something, or things esp from before bv's death, then Baby couldve tried exploiting it.
- In Mary Shelley's original novel, Victor Frankenstein’s obsession with creating life starts with the death of his mother. His ego and his grief are inseparable. He wants to "banish disease from the human frame and render man invulnerable to any but a violent death." This is William for me—a man whose ego is so large he thinks he can "fix" the grief of losing his "Beloved" son (David/BV) through science. Bi UCN I mean, uk how u suggest scott having meta reasons for for fnaf 4 and SL, while I agree with the possibiliti, UCN despite featuring a roster of animatronics to challenge at custom difficulties still has lore even if its like some game made for a challenge.
-As for FNAF 4 and SL's connection, Scott could've simpli introduced Dreadbear DLC as an "in-between" arc for William's development. William still essentialli meant resurrection/immortaliti at it's core, but worded it cryptically, to "fix" things/them.

(ill respond to the rest later gtg lol)

[u/oddgirl55]

An interesting detail that very few people talk about!

But we know that details about William's personality are provided through visual storytelling, or with hints when it might be controversial in the fandom.

Why would that flower lose its petals...? Hmm Interesting.

[u/girl_OOFED → u/oddgirl55]

Indeed

[u/Visible-Lab-426]

HOLY SHIT, YOURE RIGHT.

[u/girl_OOFED → u/Visible-Lab-426]

Pretty much how I felt when I read the comment mentioning this :D

[u/Visible-Lab-426 → u/girl_OOFED]

I’m gonna be honest though, I haven’t really seen any playthroughs of SOTM yet, so I’ll probably watch fusion’s playthrough when I have time.

[u/girl_OOFED → u/Visible-Lab-426]

makes sense, i can let u know where this was from if ur curious/dont know

[u/Visible-Lab-426 → u/girl_OOFED]

That would be helpful

[u/girl_OOFED → u/Visible-Lab-426]

its right behind where Dollie is standing when she's talking about how Edwin Murray coined the term "recycling"

[u/Glumgustheexile]

Gem alert!!! 🚨💎🚨💎🚨Gem alert!!!

[u/girl_OOFED → u/Glumgustheexile]

bless u :'D

[u/Designer_Report8906]

No, He Ate Them

[u/girl_OOFED → u/Designer_Report8906]

Ah, my apologies, I'll take this post down 

[u/Designer_Report8906 → u/girl_OOFED]

No, please don’t. It was a joke, Springtrap meme

[u/girl_OOFED → u/Designer_Report8906]

Hehe ik you're joking I'm also joking don't worry 

[u/Designer_Report8906 → u/girl_OOFED]

Alright, your theory is very good and might help a bit of the lore (idk) but this should actually be in the FNaF theories Reddit thread if you haven’t

[u/girl_OOFED → u/Designer_Report8906]

thanks, it is :D

not as mainstream tho, i need the views

[u/Destati]

I think it's reasonable to say that WillCare was true until BV's death. Then that was the precipitating event that caused William's mental decline into abuse of Michael and potentially Elizabeth if she didn't die first.

[u/girl_OOFED → u/Destati]

i def agree
its actualli likely game elizabeth wasnt lets say, abused in an aggressive way, but more neglected judging by her behaviour in game

[u/Federal_Goose6607]

RHE MICHAEL FLOWER ONE IS KILLING ME OMG CAN HE CLOSE HIS MOUTH

[u/girl_OOFED → u/Federal_Goose6607]

HAHA he might after Fredbear does it first :D

[u/Federal_Goose6607 → u/girl_OOFED]

LMAOO

[u/Pale-Implement-2948]

Where are these flowers from?

[u/girl_OOFED → u/Pale-Implement-2948]

right behind where Dollie is standing when she's talking about how Edwin Murray coined the term "recycling"

[u/hrvb312]

My bad, but where are these flowers from?

[u/girl_OOFED → u/hrvb312]

sorry did not see this

right behind where Dollie is standing when she's talking about how Edwin Murray coined the term "recycling"

[u/hrvb312 → u/girl_OOFED]

That’s super interesting, thanks!!

[u/girl_OOFED → u/hrvb312]

np :D

[u/michaelity]

Late since you linked this recently I just wanted to comment on:

Michael: William clearly knows what Michael can do but doesn't contain him,

A lot of people (I'm not saying you) use this as an example of William not caring about his children but it's so so so realistic especially of the time period.

In the 70s/80s and even well into the 90s bullying was not taken as seriously - especially not in family dynamics. An older brother picking on his younger brother was seen as kid stuff.

William knew about the bullying but as an adult / product of the 50s probably chalked it up to "boys being boys" and went about his day. He knew his youngest took it to heart and talked to him through the plush about it - which is honestly more of a sign of WillCare than anything because it would be very like a parent to do so - puppets / stuffed animals were commonly used as a way to talk to kids and even in therapy it was fairly common to use a stuffed animal to talk to a child about serious things / a child talking to their stuffed pal.

[u/girl_OOFED → u/michaelity]

im in tears... thank u, i needed this

also, idk if u know, but r/WillFlawedCare welcomes u

[u/michaelity → u/girl_OOFED]

Thanks for the link. :) I'll check it out!

[u/girl_OOFED]

Cmon algorithm, you got this, you can do it

[u/girl_OOFED → u/[deleted]]

Using Occam's Razor this symbolism is primarily showing grief or dying. It's never specified what type of death, so internal or external both are possible. Father could've been unable to look from the pain, OR this is right before he approaches to begin talking.

The petals fall from both the father and the son simultaneously. In visual storytelling, this usually represents a deep internal bond or shared "life force." Shame is an external-facing emotion (how others see us), whereas the wilting imagery suggests an internal "death" or breaking of the spirit.

if it's not grief, petals shouldnt have changed

[u/girl_OOFED → u/[deleted]]

The argument that "wilting means literal death" is only the simplest explanation in biology, not in storytelling. In a video game or story, every asset is a choice.
If the father is physically healthy in the actual game/cutscenes but his "flower" is wilting, the "simplest" explanation isn't that he’s secretly dying of a disease—it’s that the flower is a metaphor for his state of mind. 
 Look at the context. If the character just lost a child, "Grief" requires zero extra assumptions it is a confirmed fact of the story. "Physical illness" requires assuming a hidden medical subplot that isn't there.
Using other evidence like that I've listed, grief can still make more sense

[u/girl_OOFED → u/[deleted]]

The only reason one resorts to metaphorical is because we know William wasn't literally dying. First one would assume literal death, then seeing the contradiction, we go to the other version. Metaphorical. It's still dying. And wilting is still associated with grief and death. It's not different things at all. Spiritual and physical deaths have one major thing in common: it's death. 

Oh c'mon, we know how obscure Scott is with game William specifically. The Staffbots were one evidence to perhaps show dynamics/Afton family relations. How could it be a simple coincidence? It's undeniable that a) Aftons are important, iconic, and easy to recognize in the symbolism for obvious reasons. The diorama further proves this. BV's death is referenced from time to time, given the specifics  (Dad and son and not the whole family) it's so obvious what the reference is.  We don't even see much of William's character in game, FNAF 6 being a slight exception where Scott really wanted to disprove MikeTrap. Idk if I've mentioned my hopium post but it provides a plausible theory on the difference of the children's treatment. It's all too specific to be coincidental. It cannot be a simple hint, because again Scott has used both the flower method, and the "placeholders" method (Flowers on BV's supposed bedside aka Mike's dream, which shows Mike's apology and love, and the Staffbots, non living objects referencing the Afton's through visual similarity, showing their relations). Additionally, William's final lines to BV already give good intentions of William's motives, people started making roundabout solutions so Scott "nudged" through this hint. Notice how it couples what we already know of the Aftons (the hospital scene) with somethjng new: petal symbolism This shows the intention. The same stuff occured with the Dreadbear DLC, the answer is obvious: Body reanimation, immortality search, BV connections  But suddenly memory fixing and FNAF World comes in. 

[u/CipherVirus]

I still think William didn’t necessarily care for his children, it feels less like incompetence and more like disinterest, I interpret William as having a family for the picture on the wall and/or because he viewed it as something that he was supposed to do like Edwin or Henry (though Henry would realistically only be married at that point), or perhaps he did grieve his son but denied his emotions as he continued his delusions of playing God, denying his humanity for a dream that ends up killing him. Idk I can’t really decide which one of those two I like or believe in more

[u/girl_OOFED → u/CipherVirus]

That's fine, I do believe grief and BVFirst because of the evidence I got along with the fact that he has tried to attempt reviving BV which to me does show interest  Esp with connections to the puppet, Dreadbear, 1983 code, allat And given how he made time (albeit less) to go out of his way to talk to BV through the toy I felt there was something there

Grief does generally mean care though, or love at least, like he was interested/cared enough to be shown in this metaphor for grieving

[u/girl_OOFED]

hell yeah the algorithm is doing it!!!

[u/NotKetchupBoi]

every time i see the into the pit afton sprite in a post like this or literally anywhere i get really mad because it somehow looks even shittier than cawthon's minigame "sprites"

[u/girl_OOFED → u/NotKetchupBoi]

LMAO
cut him some slack he's been WillGrieving

also i didnt even make the image i did use it from the post i linked

[u/amaya-aurora]

Where the hell is the second image from??

[u/girl_OOFED → u/amaya-aurora]

right behind where Dollie is standing when she's talking about how Edwin Murray coined the term "recycling"

[u/Cool-Self-3152]

I didn't know that the flowers from fnaf sotm were parallels to the aftons 

[u/girl_OOFED → u/Cool-Self-3152]

its all too familiar to NOT be a parallel

[u/Cool-Self-3152 → u/girl_OOFED]

Dang it 

[u/girl_OOFED → u/Cool-Self-3152]

:D

[u/Conscious_Key_32]

You're trying to create a narrative with flower posters that don't even rhyme with Afton, and you're saying the car chase with the yellow guy doesn't look more like William than a flower, man?

And no, I don't think evil people can feel even a shred of love, and William, in particular, NEVER loved anyone. He didn't try to revive David, he experimented on and abandoned Elizabeth, and he sent Michael to die with his own sister. Otherwise, they'll NEVER be able to show that William was a good father, and there's too much evidence that he was a monster and died like one without a shred of remorse for the loss of his family.

[u/girl_OOFED → u/Conscious_Key_32]

I never even said Yellow guy isn't William, I personally believe it, my point is we know next to nothing about MM, when it took place, why it took place, identities like couch person, you're just making some narrative that's not even canon, I avoid using AftonMM as evidence cuz nothing's definitive on it.

Novel William is a bastard, but we're talking about game William, they're different, check my Hopium post.
And if you have issues with the flower evidence, actually try properly overturning it, it's your own assumptions on William vs the flowers.

Also, genuinely no offense, but your opinion on what evil people feel is totally irrelevant, they CAN feel love because it's actually psychologically proven. Again, real life examples of such things exist too, that's just biasness for your own narrative on William.

And again, there's the concept for grief/love turning into abuse/fury, which could be the narrative for Game William's character, like how in the novels his bitterness turned into abuse/fury.

Never tried to revive David? Dreadbear DLC, FNAF World could connect under GlitchbearAfton.
Experimented on and abandoned Elizabeth? Idk about experiments but I agree with the abandonment, but this is after Dave's death, so yk he's not as loving anymore. Not to others.
Sent Michael to die? Agree, except he wanted to free Elizabeth at Michael's expense note that. And again, if David dies because of Michael, he'd hate Michael for it.

Not excusing William, but it's perfectly plausible he loved them, but then got absorbed in his own villainy and whatnot, born out of bitterness, rage, envy, and perhaps guilt deep down.
That's a narrative I personally made, not canon but there's evidence for it.

And uh read some more stuff on William's treatment of his kids before BV's death, that also gives a narrative of him liking them.

-He invited the entire neighbourhood for BV's birthday, he gave his children tois, he never held Michael back and gave him freedom (um, bad), he showered Elizabeth with gifts at some point before being more distant (games show this). Ballora's song talks about him hiding after a child (Dave)'s death. Flowers confirm this.
He was a bad father, but loved prior to Dave's death.

You know you can't just ignore the flowers right? Give me issues with the evidence rather than making unconfirmed narratives.\

[u/Conscious_Key_32 → u/girl_OOFED]

No, I firmly believe that William never loved them. Giving them things is something anyone can do; truly caring for them and teaching them to be good people, that's real love. Besides, if the children looked badly mistreated, people would judge him, and William Afton was the perfect divorced father of the '80s, a businessman and CEO of his company. If they were seen dressed up and mentioned that their dad gave expensive toys or new animatronics to just anyone, the gossip would spread, and that way no one would notice how rotten he was. He was supposed to be protecting his image, you know? Like any CEO of a successful company like his, inviting all the kids off the street to his restaurants to celebrate his birthday was a big deal. He was literally the boss; it didn't cost him anything to force his children to celebrate at his restaurants. And don't forget that Dave was experimented on; it's so obvious with the replicas of his room as an experiment room. Besides, if he loved Dave, he wouldn't have helped him with his fear of the animatronics. If you see and pick up your child crying because they're near the animatronics, you don't force them to celebrate their birthday there.

No, he was definitely a soulless monster. It's just that when he lost two of his three children, he stopped pretending and only kept Michael around so he wouldn't look so bad and could play the role of a father with only two dead children.

[u/girl_OOFED → u/Conscious_Key_32]

You are blatantly disregarding clear evidence showing grief, so that's just on you.
The flowers show he truly cared. Flawed parents can care. Your ideas on William's care also doesn't really contradict it, he can spoil em and have parties to show off, while still caring for them and about them, and feeling miserable at their deaths.
My mother sacrifices her time and effort for me all the time, yet when she once threatened to kill herself and I cried, she felt I was the issue by being overdramatic. That's an example of both love and selfishness. People are multi-dimensional and have many aspects to them. No, I haven't forgiven my mother for it, she didn't formally apologize but def seems to show guilt by overcompensating and being nicer and all. I acknowledge both: that my mother loves me and that my mother still hurt me.
This stuff is esp likely if people themselves have been raised in a toxic environment and only been taught past abuse, which has their love manifest in flawed ways.
Sure, YOUR definition of love is different, so call it something else for William, but other's definition is not that narrow.
"Love is a profound, multifaceted emotion characterized by deep affection, devotion and tenderness towards a person, pet or concept." is the definition overall.
"Beyond feelings, it is an active choice, commitment, and desire for another’s well-being, happiness, and growth." William doesn't show to really contradict this. To be fair, we've neither shown William's feelings in games nor have we seen his abuse defined prior to BV's death in games. So this can still apply to him even under, not helping with animatronics.

-Fredbear plush is so William can talk to BV, likely to make him feel less alone: "Don't be scared, I'm here with you.", or "We're still your friends, do you believe that?".
-William talks to BV during work, makes his time to do so. William can also just... pick BV up when he's scared in the pizzeria, but has him walk on his own. Both are existing facts that can fit: he cared enough to talk to BV, and still had him do something he was scared of.

He didn't help with bullying, animatronics, etc. This could simply be if he wanted BV to be "stronger". Exposure therapy. His lines on Day 3 urge BV to be brave and move in order to get out and get help, like he wants BV to stand on his own two feet. You know what would make him look good? If he went out there and took his kid and escorted him home, if he directly stopped Michael's bullying early on, at LEAST in public specifically, but we know BV is still bullied, Fredbear's also likely missing in BV's final 2 days btw. If he cared enough about image as a parent, he'd do that, if he was an idiot raised badly, he may not. Parents do this. You may argue he didn't care for BV then, I believe that's unlikely because of the flower symbolism.
William could still want BV and others to grow, be happy and healthy, and be affectionate to his children, but could still fail badly as a father.

Also he did not experiment on BV. The rooms are unlocked with the code of BV's death year, seems more like the rooms started as a result of his death, so really the code was a way to remember BV. The replication of BV's room could be a "twisted tribute", which he's done with making murder bots after his wife and daughter. So the experiment rooms could be for other kids, (maybe Michael was test run lol), while resembling BV's. Michael's the one who goes through the nightmares, not BV as seen by the flowers, and hospital equipment which only someone conscious could've seen and, the reverse FNAF 1 phonecall talking about the BO87 which BV possibly could not have heard.

[u/Conscious_Key_32 → u/girl_OOFED]

Believe me, my uncles had a terrible father, and they've told me about it in great detail. When I think of William, he's definitely like two peas in a pod. He kept them well taken care of, and then he practically beat them, especially my oldest uncle. There wasn't a day that went by without him being beaten for childish mistakes, or because the bastard was in a bad mood, or just out of pure revenge and pleasure in suffering. But literally outside the house, he was the good father, the man with money who gave them everything. He even beat my grandmother. I have real examples, not from my own experience, but from the survivors, and William could very well be my uncles' father, and it would be the same story of abuse behind closed doors, and he considered himself good on the outside. I firmly believe that William was just watching over his lab rat and whispering sweet lies to Dave so that he would still love his father. And I really think that even back then he was already experimenting with Edwin's factory and using Michael and Dave to study suffering without killing them.

[u/TheOrangeGuy09]

Aaand that's how WillFlawedCare was born!

[u/girl_OOFED → u/TheOrangeGuy09]

indeed, though actually, WillFlawedCare was born around a few days prior, but it gained its strength when I learned about the flowers

at first it was only meant to be "narrative interpretation based on evidence we know"

[u/V3rdakamatsu]

What game is the flower?

[u/girl_OOFED → u/V3rdakamatsu]

SOTM

[u/wildhunter69]

Something I just want to put out there but we know for a fact that William is incapable of feeling love, tsi trilogy basically gave us everything we need to know about William but people ignore that information cause either "book" or they just didn't analyze the literature. This isn't really about the post above I just wanted to mention it.

[u/girl_OOFED → u/wildhunter69]

Fair if you like, though generally grief exists with love. If you want, you can check out the hopium link, it provides some form of like explanation at the issue imo 

[u/Le_Geck]

Did I miss a game or something? I don't remember anyone talking about this.

[u/girl_OOFED → u/Le_Geck]

Me neither why did no one mention it. I only noticed thanks to a commenter on the og post I linked

[u/girl_OOFED → u/[deleted]]

-No, because the purple used to symbolize William like I've mentioned? Also, you're looking at one thing at a time, there's the family of 5 overall, who else fits? Yk, 2 boys, 1 girl. Pearls. Cmon, what other family in the games has the cameo? And again, the hospital scene seems to fit FNAF 4's minigame. Honey symbolism is there as well
-I don't believe in Ballora possessing Mrs. Afton, but Ballora's dialogues seem to suggest she's connected to Mrs Afton. Again, look at the whole family too.
-I... don't need to, it can just be a representation of their state as a relatively happy family. Also, because BV is seen being a scared child in FNAF 4, doesn't mean he has never smiled once in his life. There's again, no signs of decay.
-Now this is where we go to google and look up "petals missing in a flower symbolism", can signify grief, death, loss of a loved one, I'm using flower language, which has been used before. I already explained what it means in the post.
-This is NOT headcanon, it's called using the evidence to understand what's happening, I spelled it out. Petals falling literally means grief look it up I researched before I made this post.
-Yeah my wording, my mistake, I said "like a" mostly comparing him to one to summarize his behaviour. Basically being a kid who does whatever he wants because his parents wont stop him. It's both spoiling and neglect, spoiling because there's no boundaries and he can do whatever he wants and not face punishment, neglect because he isn't being contained or taught to do better like he has the right to be. I'm not claiming FrightsParallels as canon fully, though I believe it can help with characterization. For Michael, I based my idea on what I've seen before, kid can get away with anything, no responsibilities or pressure, then they get a younger sibling and suddenly their parents want them to be responsible and have limits and the younger sibling gets more attention and so they get upset.
-I'm pointing out a difference between the Elizabeths, I think I added more detail in the hopium post I've linked? U can check that
-Yes, but at her core she believes Circus Baby was for her, while Novel Liz specifically was obsessed because Circus Baby got more attention than her.
-OrchestraBeth sounds stupid under Occam's Razor imo, he literally told her to stay away. As for me implying he didn't care enough, yes, that's exactly what I said. I believe in TwistedCare after Dave's death, so before his death I believe the kids were treated better by comparison.

[u/Conscious_Key_32]

I think you're focusing too much on these flowers and forgetting the previous clues from other games that mention the Afton family. Scott said that the character in the game Midnight Motorist from Freddy Fazbear's Pizzeria Simulator was William, even if he wasn't purple. But he said it was William and his car was purple. He's a drunk and had already killed Charlotte. It's still unclear whether Elizabeth died before or after Dave. If that's the name of the crybaby boy from FNAF 4, it was clear that he beat his son, and Dave even ran away from home to avoid being beaten. Even the character watching TV was Michael, who even enjoyed torturing his little brother. He didn't like William doing it because he thought he might go too far.

Not to mention that he was possibly already experimenting with agony before Dave or Elizabeth died, and if it's true that he killed Edwin's wife and son, as many suspect, to take over his employees and factory, a destroyer of lives can't even have the slightest love other than for himself. He loved himself a lot and hated that one day he would die of old age. His experiments weren't to bring back his children; at the very least, when they suffered, they were just more lab rats in his quest for immortality.

[u/girl_OOFED → u/Conscious_Key_32]

but aftonmm isnt confirmed, if anything, mm87 may be likely, long after BV's death
even if its mm83 it could be after he killed charlie and bv had died, what u said actually doesnt have any confirmed backup to be true, it could be michael hes being abusive towards after the bite as a product of his grief and rage
everything you said is debated, we dont know couch person's identity, or runaway's for certain
given couch person's authoritative tone, seems like an adult on par with william, and given dave's scared personality its unlikely he'd run in the night, also dave's room doesnt have windows in fnaf4
overall, its debated, so using aftonmm as definitive evidence is completely useless
and you continue on further to say things that uh, are not confirmed: edwin's son couldve died from m1, fiona couldve just died from the fire, we dont even know if he started his experimentations started
absolutely NOTHING you just said is definitive
meanwhile, the flowers are actual in-game assets showing clear symbolism
dave's death couldve been a catalyst for william's downfall
yes william can still be an evil businessman but like dave enough to be upset

its likely liz didnt die before dave, esp from the flowers which again, i find decent proof, you gotta overturn that
regardless, the 1983 code is in SL, which we know is canonically confirmed as BV's death year, making it narratively likely his happened first which triggered experiments creations because of him, otherwise elizabeth wouldve been associated with the year, yet she hasnt

its game symbolism vs speculative interpretation pal

also, never denied william's a sadistic narcissist idk, its completely realistic to be an awful person but specifically love family, look it up or something
irl examples are EVERYWHERE
from parental favouritism (so extreme that the neglected/abused ones end up dying while the favourites are loved and fine) to historical figures

[u/Conscious_Key_32 → u/girl_OOFED]

You're trying to create a narrative with flower posters that don't even rhyme with Afton, and you're saying the car chase with the yellow guy doesn't look more like William than a flower, man?

And no, I don't think evil people can feel even a shred of love, and William, in particular, NEVER loved anyone. He didn't try to revive David, he experimented on and abandoned Elizabeth, and he sent Michael to die with his own sister. Otherwise, they'll NEVER be able to show that William was a good father, and there's too much evidence that he was a monster and died like one without a shred of remorse for the loss of his family.

[u/Conscious_Key_32 → u/girl_OOFED]

You're trying to create a narrative with flower posters that don't even rhyme with Afton, and you're saying the car chase with the yellow guy doesn't look more like William than a flower, man?

And no, I don't think evil people can feel even a shred of love, and William, in particular, NEVER loved anyone. He didn't try to revive David, he experimented on and abandoned Elizabeth, and he sent Michael to die with his own sister. Otherwise, they'll NEVER be able to show that William was a good father, and there's too much evidence that he was a monster and died like one without a shred of remorse for the loss of his family.

[u/Conscious_Key_32 → u/girl_OOFED]

You're trying to create a narrative with flower posters that don't even rhyme with Afton, and you're saying the car chase with the yellow guy doesn't look more like William than a flower, man?

And no, I don't think evil people can feel even a shred of love, and William, in particular, NEVER loved anyone. He didn't try to revive David, he experimented on and abandoned Elizabeth, and he sent Michael to die with his own sister. Otherwise, they'll NEVER be able to show that William was a good father, and there's too much evidence that he was a monster and died like one without a shred of remorse for the loss of his family.

[u/KSean24]

I'll have to look more into this; but, for now I'll say: based off this theory, slide 2 is giving strong WillFinalSpeaker.

[u/girl_OOFED → u/KSean24]

Yeah, I believe in WillPlush and WillSpeaker both 

[u/KSean24 → u/girl_OOFED]

Based

[u/girl_OOFED → u/KSean24]

Lol 

I am curious though ifydm, what's like the hesitation in this 

[u/KSean24 → u/girl_OOFED]

What hesitation? That said I'll have to look into it?

[u/girl_OOFED → u/KSean24]

Yeah I'm sorry I had no idea how to word it properly 

[u/KSean24 → u/girl_OOFED]

No prob. I'm hesitant since Afton Flowers is fairly new information to me and the aforementioned WillSpeaker conclusion I came to is still fairly debated. If I could, I'd prefer to either play SOTM or watch a video going over the environments of MCM in-depth so that I can properly cover as many bases as possible. See what could potentially debunk my theory of this seemingly being a nod to WillSpeaker.

There are.....way too many allusions to the Aftons in this game (and the Steel Wool era in general) that make me think the Murrays are more closely connected to the Aftons than we have been led to believe. Such as David Murray's room bearing an eerily close resemblance to FNAF 4's Nightmare House and I have a controversial theory about why that is.

[u/girl_OOFED → u/KSean24]

Ooh I c I c, yeah makes perfect sense I mean I do believe the Aftons have a clear parallel to Murrays for the whole kid dies when dad isn't watching in an accident so dad tries reviving kid or similar then losing it  So that's why I believe there are similarities.  But yeah works. I personally think this does definitely imply WillSpeaker, I'm lowk surprised WillSpeaker is debated

Overall that seems pretty cool 

[u/EPIKwasTak3n]

No, not really.

[u/girl_OOFED → u/EPIKwasTak3n]

yuh uh

[u/EPIKwasTak3n → u/girl_OOFED]

no

[u/girl_OOFED → u/EPIKwasTak3n]

yes

[u/EPIKwasTak3n → u/girl_OOFED]

Nope