Okay someone explain to me the exact meaning of “retcon” and where it applies and even if retcons are a bad thing innately. Because the way I hear Fnaf fans complain about new lore being “retcons” confuses and frustrates me. Fnaf is a franchise that keeps its lore very close to its chest, barely ever revealing exact or extraneous information. For the longest time, several KEY AND IMPORTANT characters have gone without names, we just knew they were major players and could connect who might be who based on logical inferences (i.e. deducing out that the CEO mentioned in the Fnaf 1 newspapers detailing a conviction is actually William Afton—the killer—and that they caught the wrong guy. Because William Afton is A CEO of Fazbear’s, AND a not convicted one at that).
Fnaf is all about dropping hints to something, or even just outright giving us a something but without its full context, and elaborating/expanding on it later. It’s impossible to exactly quantify (except in extreme cases like the nightmare chambers introduced in Sister Location which are so out of left field for Fnaf 4 and so self contained to Sister Location and onward that it’s difficult to say Scott had them in mind the whole time) which of these things were intended or not, or to be able to perfectly define a distinction between things that are simply new information that was withheld prior (things like which yellow suit was used as mentioned in Fnaf 2, then later elaborated on in Fnaf 3 with the introduction of the Golden Bonnie suit. Things like the name of the killer. So on and so forth) vs things that are actually straight up retroactive continuity.
I’m not saying this to glaze Scott as some perfect writer who never makes mistakes, retcons, or poor writing choices, and that actually the fans are at fault for not understanding and enjoying everything. No Scott definitely does do those things and even if a fan were to perfectly understand things and still be disappointed with the story that’s valid. I’m just angry with how “retcons” are used to say something is bad by default, without trying to actually understand the new context or even if it was actually a retcon. But also confused because of how liberally “retcon” is used to describe new information that at this point I can’t make heads or tails of what does or does not count as a retcon. And as someone who is personally a “authorial intent is cool for analysis, but also Death of the Author is so important for analysis just as well”: does a retcon rely solely on the intent of the author? And if so, how in the fresh hell are we supposed to know what is and is not a retcon? Does authorial intent even fucking matter for this???
God, please, tell me, what is the difference between Edwin Murray’s company MCM having been the manufacturer for Fazbear’s this whole time (an identity we’ve never known before, only a name drop to said title “manufacturer” in Fnaf 3), and a “Mr. Afton” name drop? Or of the existence of the Springlock animatronics? Where does the withholding of information/new but not contradictory information begin and straight up retcon ends? (I picked these specific examples because depending on the level of Fnaf puritan you’re talking to, this would address all of them. Fnaf 1-3 puritans, explain how the Springlocks aren’t retcons but everything else is? Fnaf ClickTeam era puritans, explain how an Edwin Murray lore drop as the manufacturer is different from a “Mr. Afton” name drop?).
This is coming from someone who absolutely loves Secret of the Mimic and everything it brings to the Fnaf lore including Edwin Murray, MCM, and FazPlot, and so much more.
