#i said i wasnt gonna revise it and i probably should have but. meh

[hearts401]

I understand your frustration with the fandom mischaracterizing Michael, but there are some things I have to point out. Michael was abusive, yeah, but I don't think he intentionally killed his brother, i think what he did was techincally manslaughter? The accident was partly/mostly his fault, in the sense he shouldn't have treated his brother like that, ever, much less on his birthday, (i had an older brother figure just like him, lol. Havent seen him in over a decade. Miss that redneck motherfucker.) but why the hell did the animatronic itself even have the capacity to crush bone? Both/either william and henry are responsible for that, depending on who built fredbear. And I don't think Michael, at that age, would have known it had that ability, that it was truly that dangerous. Also, with the whole 'sl takes place after fnaf 1 and 2, why didn't Mike burn down those pizzarias to free the souls' thing, fnaf 1 was supposed to be a standalone game, with a nobody protagonist that is pretty much just an insert for the player. Fnaf 2 as well. The whole lore about remnant and souls and stuff wasn't even thought of yet. That's why mike didn't burn down those locations. Because he didn't exist lorewise yet. The idea that he's used the names mike schmidt and fritz smith as sudonyms is a retcon. (This is in good faith, I like your interpretation of mike, he's such an ass and it's great, but I wish you wouldn't phrase it like your version of him is the closest-to-canon interpretation to exist, despite using circumstantial evidence and incorrect assumptions to justify your characterization of him, tbh. Just say that you like a heavily-deviated-from-canon-to-the-point-that-they-are-an-oc version of a popular character like everyone else, lol.)

Idc if he did it intentionally lol ive talked about how it was a stupid move and he was old enough to know better. thats heavy machinery. the most fault u can put on will and henry is that they didnt have adequate warnings on it. and i never said he did it intentionally. i just think he was dumb for it

Also I literally always say I oc-ify michael im allowed to ramble about my interpritation im just saying i dont like most fanon and giving reasons i pulled from canon. im not trying to say hes closest to canon and sorry if i came off that way im just passionate about how i characterize him. also its boring to discredit things bc they were retconned so im not gonna do that lol /nm

#i dont mean to sound rude or angry /gen i just like talking about him and i literally wrote that in one go without rlly thinking #i said i wasnt gonna revise it and i probably should have but. meh #literally any interpritation of michael is basically an oc bc in canon hes literally just. there. he has hardly any canon material #i love him and im autistic and emotionally attached to him so i get rlly worked up abt it sorry > <" #tzu asks #tzu rambles