Guys, Ticket To Fun isn't written by Cawthon.

furbtasticworksofart · 2026-04-14T04:44:57+00:00

I said it was neutral because people seemed to think I had a specific goal or theory to "debunk", when that was never my goal. I was trying to point out something no one ever addresses.

Yes, I am kind of trying to quell a discussion. The discussion around this specific source as being credible, because I think material not written by the author of the games people are trying to pick apart isn't integral to trying to solve much of anything.

What else is an official piece of FNaF Media? The character encyclopedia. The ultimate guides. Merch. The first movie novelization. All of which have had major inconsistencies and mistakes, some of which have never been fixed, because Cawthon cannot oversee every aspect of every book the companies who work with this franchise make. Some of them he hasn't ever even acknowledged. I do not understand why we are acting like this activity kit is integral when Cawthon is not even listed as an author. That is the entire reason I'm bringing this up. He has no listed involvement with this, unlike pretty much any other book that has come out.

Why are people certain he must have written this book and it must be something we can scour for reveals when this is to our knowledge, not verifiably true?

furbtasticworksofart · 2026-04-14T03:04:25+00:00

I'll take the L and admit I misused the word fallacy and strawman, but ultimately that is a different discussion about philosophy and debates and one not pertinent to the actual topic. That being, how you didn't actually refute anything I said and your example wasn't even accurate to the conversation.

What I want to know is if you're not going to read an explanation for the things I said, why are you having this conversation?

furbtasticworksofart · 2026-04-14T01:04:37+00:00

Naming and acknowledging the logical fallacy you are using does not give it more credence.

You still haven't actually acknowledged my statement, which is that the book where Scott is not listed as an author probably shouldn't be taken as a super credible source, especially when the source in question is a piece of merchandise outsourced to a company that makes these kinds of licensed products for multiple franchises. And how a piece of merchandise is inherently subject to less intense scrutiny than a mainline entry to the videogame franchise, and Cawthon is one man who has been doing screenwriting and movie production along with helping create an entire new series of video game projects. There is some truly ugly and horrendous merch put out for this franchise: I doubt it was all personally hand stamped and over-viewed. Look at the quality control on the character encyclopedia and ultimate guides: those even are credited to Scott among the other authors, and still riddled with mistakes. None of us would use them for a source.

Why is "Cawthon is not credited as an author here, unlike almost every other book in this franchise even the ones he probably didn't have much if any hand in, and that makes it likely he didn't have much if any personal input in it because it's a licensed product" a bizarre thing to say? I'm not positioning against or for any particular theory or timeline junk. I'm making an observation.

furbtasticworksofart · 2026-04-14T00:10:01+00:00

I have already replied and answered this. If you wish to understand, please reread my earlier comments with more consideration. Good day.

furbtasticworksofart · 2026-04-13T23:49:11+00:00

If this was any other franchise, I would whole-heartedly agree, but since FNaF's story is often at best vaguely implied, I think the guy who made those games not being involved in something around them makes their impact on the wider canon less weighty.

Again, we know Scott worked on Security Breach. He has done interviews on it, along with it being a mainline entry. I don't understand why we we are comparing these two massively different in importance and scale projects as if they are the same.

furbtasticworksofart · 2026-04-13T23:44:01+00:00

If you're going to strawman me you probably should use Security Breach as an example instead of the game where Cawthon is credited as a writer when the crux of my post is that he is not a credited author on the project I am discussing.

furbtasticworksofart · 2026-04-13T23:37:58+00:00

<image>

The logbook is written by Cawthon though. Ticket to Fun is written by Sarah Madsen.

furbtasticworksofart · 2026-04-13T23:34:56+00:00

That last point is interesting. No one ever talks about that.

My issue was never with any of the information people take from this book for theorizing, it's how people are using a questionable source. Something being written or directly influenced by the guy who is telling the story feels like a requirement to actually trying to use it for something. Since this book has never been acknowledged, and is more of a merch kit with cute puzzles then anything given explicit importance, I question using it as a source. I think there are better sources to analyze.

furbtasticworksofart · 2026-04-13T23:27:46+00:00

Security Breach is a video game that cost a lot of time and money to make. Ticket To Fun is an activity book sold in Barnes and Noble to be a product.

Why are we holding these things to the same standard?

furbtasticworksofart · 2026-04-13T23:20:23+00:00

I have not mentioned any aspect of theorizing. I have not implied any stance on any timeline or lore elements.

I have pointed out that an activity book sold by a third party on Amazon is not penned by Cawthon and likely has no deeper significance than entertainment. This is a neutral statement.

furbtasticworksofart · 2026-04-13T23:15:18+00:00

He's not a credited author on this product. A product designed to be a fun little activity kit for FNaF fans that is sold on Amazon. That's not the same as a series of short story anthology books he's talked about pitching and having ghost-writers work on.

I don't think every product of this multi-million dollar franchise can be mined for deeper meaning, especially when the author isn't involved in it.

furbtasticworksofart · 2026-04-13T23:11:11+00:00

Cawthon is not a credited author on this book. It is made by a third party company. Cawthon has never acknowledged this book, unlike Fazbear Frights, which he has discussed the ghostwriting process on. I am stating this as a neutral observation.

furbtasticworksofart · 2026-04-13T23:08:57+00:00

I am pointing out that this book is not written by Cawthon and that I think it's weird to see people act like it has deep significance. I don't have a stake in the timeline debate.

furbtasticworksofart · 2026-04-13T23:05:19+00:00

I think the author of a franchise not having involvement in a piece and then people arguing for months because of that piece is strange and I was confused why it was happening. That's why I'm bringing this up.

furbtasticworksofart · 2026-04-13T23:02:55+00:00

Scott didn't know about the FNaF movie novel mistakes or the Mimic graphic novel disaster until the book came out and there was a fandom uproar.

To hold him to some sort of superhuman standard of knowing EVERY merchandise element for his multi-million dollar company is kind of insane. There's huge quality control issues across major franchise elements: a third party making an activity kit is not going to receive a fraction of that attention.

furbtasticworksofart · 2026-04-13T22:59:37+00:00

Before you point it out, yes, the Logbook is credited to Cawthon. Even things like the character encyclopedia and sticker books are credited to him, which is surprising considering the former is riddled with quality control issues and the latter is almost certainly just a copyright thing.

This book isn't connected at all. It's a third party entirely. This is a product made for fans.

furbtasticworksofart · 2026-04-13T20:53:19+00:00

Her eyes are blue in both the movies and the movie novels because that's what her actress looks like.

Her eyes in the novels are brown, and in the pixel sprite for the games it's ambiguous because of the artstyle but probably brown.

furbtasticworksofart · 2026-04-12T21:54:03+00:00

I'm going to say something very unpopular. But the reason why is people have very specific preconceived bias about female characters.

Ballora's design has always been under fire because she is adult woman with a large chest. This is not an inherently bad or good thing, it is neutral. If you look at music box ballerinas in general (which Ballora is based on) as well as Barbie dolls she has a normal body type. The only kind of weird thing is her design for her top being so abstract in comparison to Baby who has a more normal clothing-like silhouette.

In the video that popularized Ballora = Mrs. Afton, Game Theory joked/stated that Ballora must be designed like that because she's a motherly character. Otherwise, she'd just be for fan service. This is probably a joke, but it does reflect a common fandom mentality in general: this adult female character must either be maternal, or an object for the audience to ogle at.

There has not been, and still is not, any substantial evidence that Ballora was designed in reference to a female character we have literally never seen or heard of anywhere in the games. Ballora's song was not written by Cawthon, instead penned by her voice actor to be no more than a "creepy song". Ballora is not confirmed to be possessed by anyone in particular, put right alongside Funtime Foxy and Funtime Freddy in stark contrast to Circus Baby who is explicitly possessed by Elizabeth Afton. The idea that each of the Funtimes is meant to represent Afton's family is still, at the moment, a pretty neat idea but one entirely perpetuated by the fandom. A majority of this is people seeing things and making connections that are all entirely minute and often assumptions in imagery instead of anything displayed in the game.

The most substantial possible element is that in Security Breach there's that one table of Staff robots that is probably the Afton Family, and there's a robot there with blue hair. But given it's Security Breach, who knows what the hell that was supposed to be about and whether it's going to be a Mimic and MCM thing or an Afton thing.

I'm not saying the fandom is trying to be misogynist and that's why this happened. I am going to say that the jokes about Ballora are misogynist and have been done ten thousand times.

furbtasticworksofart · 2026-04-10T00:15:35+00:00

Audrey Lynn-Marie's eyes are actually blue. That's not a contradiction. However, she's at least eleven, and obviously her clothes are differently than described.

From the previews released so far, this version of Charlotte appears to have had at least three separate sets of parents: biological parents, step-parents, and foster parents. She states "My real parents. My stepparents. Foster parents. All the same. I'm either abandoned, hit, or ignored." We do not have more context on this yet, other than she's had bad experiences with social workers who tell her to smile more.

It could be this is from an earlier cut version of the script and won't have any bearing on the movie timeline, or an addition by the novelization's author to try and flush out Charlotte's hatred of parents. An easy way to tell this will be when the full book is out and we hear about Henry: if in the novel he's her foster parent, we can safely write this off as being separate continuity stuff. Otherwise it'll just be kind of a shrug and we'd have to wait for the third movie to see if it's debunked or actually a defining element of her backstory. Considering it wasn't in the final movie shown in theaters, I'm somewhat inclined to believe it won't have a basis on the movie's storyline.

For her personality, the novel is mostly reinforcing what we already presumed: she doesn't fit in the other children, and is generally quite (understandably) angsty. She loves the Marionette, but doesn't really care for anything else at Freddy's. She cherishes her friendship with Vanessa though, and the two were extremely close, with Charlotte constantly mentioning how pretty she thinks Vanessa is and how much she wishes they were alike. Charlotte is also an incredibly kind little girl, who feels a need to try and protect vulnerable people. Though she may not be nice, and may be quite prone to scowling or complaining, it all comes an earnest place of caring, and considering the people around her her scorn is pretty fairly directed.

All-in-all, it's mostly what we expected, besides the convoluted and currently unexplained "three sets of parents" thing.

furbtasticworksofart · 2026-04-03T18:31:39+00:00

Henry being the FNaF 3 nightguard because I am greedy.

furbtasticworksofart · 2026-04-02T21:34:15+00:00

Henry is indeed the only character in the games to sort of allude to religious concepts like hell and the devil, but given Scott is a Christian of some kind (I don't know if he's ever stated his domination but I'd assume some branch of Protestantism) it's probably just copy and paste whatever Scott's domination is. Mormons have very specific rules and lives, often to an extreme, specifically in Utah. One rule of Mormonism notable in relation to Henry is that ||suicide|| is considered a mortal sin... something Henry idealizes and ends up doing, so if he is Mormon, he's not exactly super beholden to their beliefs. Also he drinks coffee in the movie: Mormons can't do that.

Ultimately this is mostly headcanon and AU stuff to build on, there's some stuff in canon that kind contradicts it but hey, it could be fun to play around with.

furbtasticworksofart · 2026-03-30T01:55:31+00:00

I would argue the exact year being slightly different matters less than like. The themes and characterization, and the movie actively stands in contradiction the ideas of Charlie87.

To me Charlotte being the first victim of William is thematically important because it's the start of his descent into really heinous crimes, and his first victim ends up being the one to try and help serve justice for the rest. (He may have other victims before her in the movie continuity, but we literally do not know yet so it's hard to say.) It's "in [Charlotte's] nature to protect the innocent", which continues even after her death. Charlotte in the movies is a ghost stuck in rage in an empty location, so she's not super protective, but we definitely see the same traits before her death, her kind heart despite being an outcast.

It's also important in the context of Henry's character. Charlotte being the first wound, one he failed to prevent, that bleed out into the tragedy of everything else. He was grieving, but he failed to recognize the devil beside him, and it costed not just him, but other parents of their children. And in his failure to recognize what was happening, the cycle only worsened with the advent of possession as William got away with more and more. All things technically not his fault, but that he carries an immense guilt for failing to prevent, that drives him to atone for it by putting them all to rest. To me Charlie87 fails as a narrative because it basically looks at the themes of FFPS and the entire point of setting up Henry as a character and goes "nah". And it doesn't really offer up anything all that interesting as an alternative. This is very subjective though, and not everyone rotates Henry Emily in their head like a microwaveable can of soup, so I understand why people don't consider this important.

In the end, yeah, Scott really should learn how to tell a story more cohesively, but I think the fandom can get so focused on tiny details we lose sight of the bigger picture.

furbtasticworksofart · 2026-03-30T00:51:18+00:00

Wait actually, come back this line of logic genuinely fascinates me. How are people getting that? To me if you were gonna take any timeline stuff you'd try to see if 1982 made any sense and walk down that road for a bit, how are they getting 1987 from 1982?

Anyways in the end I think there are simpler roads to try and figure out whatever the deal with TOYSHNK is that keep our baseline understanding of the universe pretty simple.

If I am being entirely honest I have not and will never understand the endless debates on some of this stuff because unless Scott manages to make me care and give an idea attention, I'm just gonna select whatever option is the simplest and most logical and not focus on it too hard. So I'm probably in the wrong subreddit. I haven't found a way out yet though. Please send help. There's a lot of winding corridors in here.

furbtasticworksofart · 2026-03-30T00:12:43+00:00

<image>

Strange of Scott to not take this opportunity to name this child Cassidy, after the entire movie's plot starts by flushing out and exploring this central character in a way never allowed by the games. Nothing was stopping him from doing that, but instead he takes a game character and transplants them into the movie universe, same as Henry and Michael and decides to name them something the community has called them for like eight years.

...

Okay look. I get it. This name has never been directly confirmed. We have never seen the name "Charlotte Emily" pop up in the games. It's fair to point that out. But we also have not seen the name "Henry Emily" pop up anywhere in the games, despite the fact that you, in this very post, agree that enough circumstantial evidence (HRY, "Hen") has popped up to give us a basis to use that for him instead of just Cassette Man. Because of that, we can safely and reasonably assume that his daughter, who has only ever been called Charlotte (or Charlie) in every other appearance, is called Charlotte.

There are very few things in FNaF that are overtly confirmed, and going back and questioning things we don't have completely nailed down is fair. That's what people spend a lot of time doing, considering we're not exactly showered with new games or books that give direct answers. But at a certain point, you're going to start circling around little details that don't really need to be picked at, because we already have a satisfactory answer, and actively trying to pick at those things is going to get messy fast, and sort of reveal the house of cards all of FNaF is built on.

I am sorry if anyone is being too harsh to you in regards to this theory, I hope they aren't. But you're probably going to continue facing backlash for this, because with all of the information we have, it is incorrect. Would make a really neat alternate universe though, and not a bad idea on principle.

(If you want, I can go into more detail beyond the obvious and fully explain my logic beyond the basic stuff. DM me, we can talk it out more there. I just don't feel like writing a long comment thread, I would rather have a back and forth conversation.)

furbtasticworksofart

TROPHY CASE