Due to a little to no evidence of anypony else being the author, I am forced to conclude that Twilight Velvet, who is Twilight's mom by the way, is the author of the Daring Do books.

It's known that she is an author, but that's not the end of it there. She writes adventure novels, almost exclusively.

Twilight Sparkle has even said that she owns all of the books. She never said she read them from her library, but physically owned them, as in gifts, purchased, etc.

Again that leads me to believe that Twilight Sparkle's mother is the author of the Daring Do books.

It makes sense, right? Writer of adventure novels. Her daughter owning all of the books.

I could always be wrong though.

1810786

Due to a little to no evidence of anypony else being the author, I am forced to conclude that Twilight Velvet, who is Twilight's mom by the way, is the author of the Daring Do books.

That's the worst sort of reasoning, no offense. Just because there is no evidence to the contrary does not support any one individual claim. The exact opposite is true.

It's known that she is an author

Now, it has been a while since I watched the episodes. Remind me, where is this established?

She writes adventure novels, almost exclusively.

Furthermore, this. I don't know where you're getting this.

I wouldn't bat an eye if someone wrote a story crediting the Daring Do series to Twilight's mom. I also wouldn't care if you made up a different author. If anything, I'd imagine that this sort of thing would come up in "Read It and Weep". Granted, Twilight DID seem to randomly get a brother when it was convenient, so I won't write it off, but...

1810891 I thought her being a writer was common knowledge, sorry. It comes up in a few things, but I first noticed it in the Gameloft game. It's in her bio.

Evidence is still evidence. If there is no proof of anything otherwise, then I could assume that I am correct in my assumptions, but I have said that I could be wrong.

Until there is evidence that contradicts my theory, then I'll stand by it.

However it is still only a theory.

1810936

I don't think the gameloft game or the comics are actually canon. They exist in the same twilight-zone as Word of God—they can be accepted or rejected at the author's leisure without warranting the [Alternate Universe] tag.

1810964

The comics I can understand, but the game? Obviously not canon due to the fact that you have to rebuild Ponyville and Canterlot.

I'm talking about the bios. Why would Hasbro/Gameloft insert fake bios for characters? It wouldn't make sense and that train of thought can immediately be derailed.

Her bio was made by Hasbro, like how they gave Bon-Bon her name. Unless that isn't canon either, which is what you're basically saying.

You're telling me that just because it's in the game, it isn't canon to the world of MLP at all.

I think it is. The character bios are there for a reason, and if they say that Twilight Velvet is a writer of adventure novels, then I'm inclined to believe so.

The author has yet to be named in any part of the MLP universe, so we have to rely upon head-canon until then.

In my personal head canon, Daring Do herself writes the books based on her own experiences. She'd of course use a pen name. I came up with Quillan Ink. (See what I did there?)

1811020

I'm talking about the bios. Why would Hasbro/Gameloft insert fake bios for characters?

Just because it's not canon does NOT make it "fake". Just in the same way that Word of God isn't "wrong", so much as "not canon". All that means is that it's not official universe stuff. The only thing "canon" in MLP is the show.

1811479

And the film EG according to Meghan;

1811457 I love your icon! Btw, Daring Do is one of my top 3 favorite MLP characters.

This also makes sense. It's not uncommon for people to write books based on their own experiences. The Mummy is a prime example of this as... whatever her name was, wrote a couple books on her adventures.

1811061

Excellent point, but I am seeing some connections here. Though, as I have said before, I could be wrong.

1811479

Isn't that a contradiction?

Her bio states it plainly that she is an author and writer of adventure novels.

Also, what do you mean by "The Word of God?"

1811537

"Word of God" refers to an authority on the story/movie/etc commenting on what they wrote/shot/etc in an attempt to give more insight into their thoughts on it than they perhaps managed in the actual subject matter. In MLP this often happens in tweets by the people who make the show. For instance in a Tweet one of the makers of the show (you'll have to pardon me, I don't remember who it was) said that the two stars on the side of the Apple's barn are meant to represent Big Mac's, AJ's, and Applebloom's parents who passed away. This isn't canon, though, until they actually say that in the show.

And if her bio isn't canon, then it's not FACT. It's just one possible idea among all others. Basically, you're wrong to tell someone they're wrong for ignoring it. It can "plainly state that she is an author and writer", but that's no more true OR false than believing Lyra is obsessed with hands—or even named Lyra at all.

Hope that clears it up.

1811735

So, what you're saying is if it's not said in the show then it isn't canon? That's kind of a very narrow minded way to look at it.

The people who made the show would know more about it than we do. If they said the two stars was meant to symbolize their parents who passed away, then I'm pretty sure it would mean that.

You're really fighting this. Isn't it easier to accept? I have very little to go on, but it's more than what others have to go on.

We could even agree to disagree. I keep saying that I could be wrong, but until it's stated otherwise then I'm standing by what I'm saying here.

1811819

So, what you're saying is if it's not said in the show then it isn't canon? That's kind of a very narrow minded way to look at it.

Everything else is "headcanon". You can argue as long as you want that your headcanon is superior to anyone elses, but then you're just being pigheaded.

The people who made the show would know more about it than we do. If they said the two stars was meant to symbolize their parents who passed away, then I'm pretty sure it would mean that.

Yes, that was probably what went through their mind when they designed the barn. The tweet explains that. But at what point was that established? What if I wrote a story about how the two stars represented an obscure family prophecy? Can you tell me I'm wrong? That tweet does not invalidate that idea. Both are equally supported by canon.

You're really fighting this. Isn't it easier to accept? I have very little to go on, but it's more than what others have to go on.

I'm not fighting squat. I'm just stating that your idea is not canonical, and at times it read as though you believed that to be the case. I think your idea is fine, and I think it lends itself well to a number of story ideas.

We could even agree to disagree. I keep saying that I could be wrong, but until it's stated otherwise then I'm standing by what I'm saying here.

That's the nature of "headcanon". It's fine to think whatever you want, and to write whatever you want. It might come up later in the show and be something else, but you can deal with that later. For now, there is nothing wrong with believing anything you want about Daring Do's author.

1810936

That's not a theory, its just a hypothesis.

The only thing that evidence supports is that Twilight owns all the books, but no evidence her mother wrote them, or even purchased them for her.

It supports that (supposedly) her mother is a writer of adventure novels, but does not support she writes a specific adventure novel. I wrote a game cross over, that doesn't mean I wrote fall out equestria.

This evidence does not in anyway bring it close to a "theory" status. This doesn't really shift it strongly one way or another. You even say that you stick with it because there isn't really anything to strongly go against it, which is true, but also nothing to strongly go with it either, so its not a theory yet. It's still just a hypothesis.

There is nothing wrong with saying she is in your story of course. The whole thing is up in the air, but it's no more right or wrong than saying Cheerilee wrote it to encourage her students to read more often.

1811061

No, you never have to rely on head cannon. Head cannon doesn't mean anything. If there is no real cannon, you can pretty much say whatever you want. Hell, you could say a demon writes the thing to get kids to run away from home to go on their own adventures in dangerous places, only to be abducted by said demon. There is absolutely no merit to relying on head cannon. Nothing really wrong with it, but it doesn't hold up either.

1811020

Why would Hasbro do that? Because they're selling products! They're in the business of making money. The main shows own lore isn't even very well structured, which just comes to show they have little to no care at all as to the state of the cannon.

Also, writers of a show rarely know more about their own show than fans. I've seen plenty of conventions where writers get bombard by questions from die hard fans they can't answer, usually over retcon that they didn't even know existed.

Its fun to try to make a solid universe, but don't let things get out of perspective. This series wasn't built with strong lore or a solid universe in mind. The target audience is still children, who really don't notice or care about it the same way you do. And they have multiple authors who can't even seem to agree with one another from episode to episode. Sorry, but there are very few absolutes in this series.

Even with thing with the two stars doesn't add up. Look at the animations, it changes from slot to slot. One sec its there, the next it isn't and the two fillies have unicorn horns. The writers can't even agree on that, so no, Tweets aren't cannon. Tweets are one writers hopes for cannon, that may or may not get shot down in the final product.

1812384

That was rather abrasive.

I already said I could be wrong, but I'm seeing a few connections here that make sense.

I wouldn't be bringing this up unless I was absolutely sure about it. If there was more information that I could dig up, then I'd be doing that, but this is all there is and it's more than what most have.

I understand what you're saying, but you're also taking what I say out of context.

Ugh, how can I explain this? It's hard explaining things to other people, because people will never see it the way you do and will always misinterpret what you are trying to tell them.

Daring Do is an adventure novel. Twilight Velvet writes adventure novels. Twilight Sparkle says that she owns all of them; not read or have the series in her library. Own, she said. It implies that she either purchased them, which wouldn't be the case, because she can order them for her library, or got them as a gift from her mother who just so happens to write adventure novels.

That's all I have to go on, but even a little information is a lot.

1811941

I could be right, or I could be wrong. I don't want to sound arrogant, but I'm usually right about things. To be honest though, I don't even care if I'm wrong. It just means I've been given more knowledge than I had previously, and knowledge is something I love to have.

1812462

Was I just insulted? Huh. You speak to me as if I'm some stupid guy who is ignorant of the show.

I know it's a business, but that has nothing to do with a bio Just...

I know it's a kids show, and I should expect nothing more out of it. I know who the target audience is. It's a good show, but it's still for children. It's obvious that the show won't have any deep meaning or a solid universe.

If this is what I get for sharing an idea, then I may just stop entirely.

You even insulted people's head-canon by saying it's worthless.

1812477

You succeed, once again, in missing the point. There is no right and wrong. It's just another idea on the wall, no more special than any other.

1812512 Nope, I got your point. And what you say is something I live by. I am no more or no less than anyone. We are equal and we are all human. We all live and die. My idea isn't better than anyone else's, but I just feel it holds a tad more weight due to the evidence I have gathered.

But who knows now! Faust is no longer leading the show.

1810786 Actually, I think it's Daring Do herself.

1810786
this came out in the newest comic
http://i.imgur.com/iSZShu9.png
top left

1812477
Okay, the biggest flaw in your reasoning is that Twilight never mentioned this to Rainbow Dash, even if it would have been a good reason to convince her to give the novels a try, or a good reason not to steal books at the end of Read it and Weep.

Twilight Sparkle says that she owns all of them; not read or have the series in her library. Own, she said. It implies that she either purchased them, which wouldn't be the case, because she can order them for her library, or got them as a gift from her mother who just so happens to write adventure novels.

Um... I own all of the Harry Potter books, even though I could get them from the library, but my mom isn't J. K. Rowling.

In fact, I write fantasy novels, and I could give the Harry Potter books to you and I still wouldn't be J. K. Rowling! But if you can figure out a way that me writing fantasy novels makes me J. K. Rowling, I would love to hear it.

To the original question, I always name Daring Do's author as "Wordsmith," and make her an orphan who was rescued by the real Daring Do (think Short-Round from the Indiana Jones movies.)

1822728
In the Rainbow Dash comic, the Apples have never seen zap apples until Rainbow Dash does a sonic rainboom over Ponyville... Yeah, the comics have problems with canon.

1822768
Well, as far as the comics are concerned, it's pretty strong evidence

1822988
Right, and according to the comics there's also strong evidence that the Apples never knew zap apples existed before Rainbow Dash came along... so, not very strong evidence for overall canon.

1822728

Sweet! Another small victory for me!

1822989

[Sighs] You won't quit until I say that I'm stupid and that I was wrong the whole time and that you're right and deserve all attention and praise, will you?

Look, Twilight runs a library. It would be pretty stupid to spend personal money on books she could just order. Didn't I cover this up above?

Comics have a problem with canon? True, but that still means it can be right. However, you'll continue to think that everything in the comics is wrong, even if it's right. I think there's a word for this. You say the comic's canon can be wrong, sometimes. Even though you say that, anything in the comic is seen as non-canon to you.

That image is from an official MLP comic. Twilight Velvet's bio is from an official game and it states that she writes adventure novels. Twilight owns the books, which I have deduced that they'd have to have been gifts and gifts come from people close to you. Therefore her mom gifted her the books.

It makes sense! I'm not trying to establish headcanon. I'm trying to establish something canon to the world of MLP.

1827206
First, I don't care what your headcanon is, I just found the idea that owning all of the books makes your mother the author to be humorous. More on that in a minute.

It makes sense! I'm not trying to establish headcanon. I'm trying to establish something canon to the world of MLP.

This is your problem. Right there. Maybe this will help clear it up.

Here's a blog post where I discuss the difference between canon, fanon (or headcanon) and Word of God.

The important part is:

1) Canon is what everyone interested in the show is expected to know. Because they are facts in the universe of the show, and because we all claim to be fans of this universe, not knowing canon in fanfiction is like making a historical or scientific error.
2) Canon is verifiable. If someone doesn't know canon, you can point to the source in the show that says or shows that it's true.
3) We expect canon to be consistent. This might not always be the case, the show is written by a lot of writers, some of whom are far less interested in it than we are, but for the most part we don't expect future episodes to contradict things we learned in past episodes. If that happens, it's a mistake and someone messed up.

Now, you have evidence in the comics that Twilight Velvet is the author of Daring Do. The problem with this is that (at least) the comics have contradicted actual canon. Therefore, they are not valid canon. Got that? The writers of the comics (and, possibly, the game) are not even versed in episodes that have actually aired, let alone privy to the plans of the show writers (who make things canon.)

There is no canon answer for this yet. You can not deduce canon. You can guess at canon, and I would say you have a fairly good guess, but that does not make it canon.

That's on the subject of the stuff from the game and the comic. On the idea that Twilight does not own her own books, unless they are gifts, just no.

For one thing, Twilight moved at the beginning of the show. So, all those books in her room in Canterlot? She either owned those, or for some reason her room in a tower was connected to the Canterlot Library. Which it probably wasn't. Most likely, she was a student, and like many students who like to read, she owned a lot of books. And those books did not disappear when she moved to Ponyville. She probably brought her favorite ones with her.

Why? Because at a library, people take out books. Books get stolen, or ruined. Because if a chance to get on autographed came up, she would want to have a copy. Because they're first editions. Because they have the covers from when she was in a foal. I own multiple copies of my favorite books, and I don't even live in a library!

So, your points about the games and comics make a very good guess at canon, but are not yet canon. The idea that because she owns the books, she's related to the author, is just crazy.

1827312 It's an educated guess. I wouldn't just suddenly start telling people that Velvet was the author without even a hint of proof, however little there may be.

1827360
That's perfectly valid.

1827412

Didn't someone say that some of the MLP comics aren't canon, but some are? And people are saying this new comic is canon. If so... then I was right.

1827503
As far as I know, no one said that the comics are canon. At least, not in the sense that they'll ever be referenced on the show (which is the canon that people around here tend to use.)

So, unless you know who said it and they're Meghan McCarthy, then I'd go with no.

So I've been asking people in real life about this logic. This is the scenario I present them with.

Let's say I give you a book series as a gift. Lets say its an action adventures series. Now lets say my mother is an author of action adventure series, and I'm librarian. I tell you I own every book in that series. So logically because I'm a librarian, I wouldn't buy those books, because I could just order them, so naturally they were a gift. Because my mother is an author of an action adventure series, she had to be the one who gifted me those books, and she is mostly likely the same author of the book series I just gave you. Does this logic hold up?

Some responses I've received.

"So is this guy double retarded or something?"
"Sure if you're one dimensional and she's the only author in the world who does action adventure stories. Otherwise your friend here needs to take basic logic."
"And this idiot is living proof way people need to take philosophy."
"Wow... that guy just justified the $600 I paid for that critical thinking course."
"How stupid do you have to be to think just because someone runs a library they would never buy a book?"
"I think you're just getting trolled."
"My brain just fell out of my ear" (that person was actually just very confused).
"No... just no."
"Umm...." followed by a disconnect.
"That's a lot of assumptions. There isn't enough information"
"I don't think it's enough. Too many variables."

Not one person is stupid enough to not see your lapse in logic.

Just so we're clear, I don't think you're an idiot. I just think you're a little too stubborn here to the point where you can't seem to see what someone from an outside perspective sees.

Also the comics don't count. The writers don't even seem to have a good grasp on the source material. The most you've been able to say with them is, "well sometimes they're right, so for all you know they're right this time as well." True, but for all you know they're wrong this time as well. Because they aren't reliable source of lore, they don't count for anything. They're either always right, or they're not reliable