I think if anything, Pittrap is meant to evoke the Mimic, a fellow murderous and almost feral creature thats pretending to be William Afton after witnessing the MCI
I've not been a fan of the idea of a copy cat. The new game will give us direction to whether Pittrap is a serious character or just trying to copy William.
@@FazbearsMenagerieOfMadness Into the Pit actually leans into the copycat idea. Glitchtrap and Pittrap both have a tendency to stare and watch, as if learning. Pittrap once leaving, PERFECTLY replicates Oswald's dad, and nobody notices. Which almost sounds...familiar. As well, Pittrap collects 6 bodies into a backroom set up like a party, rather than the 5 bodies he stuffs into Animatronics in the games.
The current level of theorizing requires either limiting us to talk about a single event with only one source of information or the need to be well versed in all material and complicate it. I find it difficult to draw the line when saying I've gone too far.
The immediate reaction from some people to just throw this all away because it doesn’t match their preconceived notions of the series is a little disheartening. This is a fun theory. Spring Bonnie and Afton being completely separate is something I never thought of before and with the game version of in to the pit coming I think that’s a sign that we do need to be looking at these books for more answers. I never even thought of Afton not being in the suit during the foxy minigame as important until you pointed it out.
We're talking about the Dec 2015 Reddit post "Is the book canon"? Reading that post is a theory itself. "The games are what they are, and as I stated before, that story is finished" - based on the Dawko interview; FNAF was only three games long. "...sometimes the lore of something can become so crowded that you can't tell an original story anymore" therefore a separate continuity is produced. Where Phone Guy was in the first trilogy, Charlie the second, FNAF 4 went on to FNAF World, then Sister location went on to Pizzeria Simulator. "So yes, the book is canon, just as the games are. That doesn't mean that they are intended to fit together..." - when I compose my theories I'll use a single clue from a story, even if the clue is minor. "The book is a re-imagining of the FNAF story..." because Scott was able to make more games, books and movies from his original idea. The books are the telling of Charlie's story, the games are Phone Guy, Mike Afton, etc... Have you ever wondered why that Reddit post never made it to the Ultimate Guide? If it's that important why wasn't it on the first page?
Absolutely it says that. The novel came out after FNAF 4 and the post mentions "some of the reviews in Amazon chastise the book for not matching the games" because "the book is NOT intended to solve anything". Scott doesn't solve previous games with new games or books, but the reviewers expected him to. Charlie's story was not intended to solve FNAF 4, or Phone Guy's story. "So yes, the book is canon, just as the games are".
@@FazbearsMenagerieOfMadness Except The Silver Eyes isn't canon. It's an AU where William only had Elizabeth and became jealous of Henry. An AU where Charlie isn't the Puppet but a robot girl. An AU where Freddy's closed for good in 1985. Stitchline and Talesline are canon, but the original trilogy are not, even if they do have some connections to the future (see: Henry's love for the circus). Want Canon books? Read the Stitchwraith stingers and their associated stories....or the Tales from the Pizzaplex... Or wait until The Week Before which will give us Phone Guys story.
@@FazbearsMenagerieOfMadness Except he does? Sister Location explained FNaF 4 was a set of experiments, FFPS explained William was Springtrap and the fate of Henry and Charlie in the games... Actually, Scott specifically has a clarification rule for this stuff. Like...Ruin for example revealing the Mimic was behind everything because people still thought it was William...or HW2 explaining what happened to Cassie's dad.
I don't have the name for the person; as Oswald thought it was "someone in a rabbit suit" (page 30 Into the Pit) I couldn't say the springlock in animatronic mode. I'm reminded of the newspaper articles saying "while video surveillance identified the man responsible and led to his capture the following morning" to which the community thought it's William. But what if it was an employee controlled by the costume? With no memory they couldn't defend themselves when caught. So perhaps random employee? What if the name isn't important at all? The greater mystery isn't who wore the costume but who haunts the costume.
