It bothers me when people say Elizabeth's character in the novels was bad and that it ruined her character in the games. I acknowledge the differences. She has an agency in the books that she doesn't in the games. Circus Baby seems more like Elizabeth herself in the novels rather than a separate personality. In the games Elizabeth views William as good and her first instincts are to go to him. In the novels she knows that he is evil and works with him anyways because she can't let go of her love. But the reason I don't think that ruins her is because her life circumstances differed in the novels. I think a huge part of this has to do with her being an only child. Also the fact that Circus Baby is also the fourth Charlie who is angry from Henry.
Then I realized, does that make me look like a hypocrite for hating movie Michael's character so much? It's the same thing right? Differing life circumstances lead to a difference in motivation and worldview. Okay, but here's the thing. Elizabeth was taken seriously in the novels. She had a purpose. Her thoughts were explored. Even as a villain she was complex, being portrayed as a victim. None of this is true with movie Michael. He has not been taken seriously at all, not explored, nothing. I won't say that if he had been taken seriously I'd be a-okay with it, because the massive shift of who he is for such a huge movie meant to represent the franchise would still not sit right with me, but I admit it wouldn't be nearly as bothersome, because at least they cared enough to not treat him like a joke. Maybe they're gonna do something in the third movie, but that just begs the question, why would they even put him in the second movie if they weren't going to anything meaningful?
Also, I feel like the differences between game Elizabeth and novel Elizabeth aren't nearly as drastic as game Michael and movie Michael. I think the core of Elizabeth's character remains the same. Like I said, even though she knows William is a horrible and evil person, she still loves him and works for him, and gets extremely angry and defensive when he is insulted. In the games, post Sister Location, she has the same role of loyalty to him. She is the willingly loyal child either way. That's her role in the story.
You could argue that Circus Baby specifically is the problem, because Circus Baby clearly does not care for William in Sister Location seeing as she killed who she thought was him without a second thought. And I do see people complain that the way she acts in FNAF 6 ruined her character from Sister Location, so maybe they're consistent with that complaint and the novels at least, but there was a reason for that shift in behavior in the games. Michael is responsible for it. He gave that control back to her. But again, Circus Baby in the novels feels like she is Elizabeth herself. And the reason for that difference is largely because the two of them come from entirely different origins. The circumstances of their creation were drastically different.
Might I add that there are some pretty stark differences between game Henry and novel Henry too. You can say the same thing: different universe. Different life. But just like Elizabeth, his role in the story has not changed. He's the co-creater of Freddy's. William's business partner. The creative mind behind the restaurant franchise and animations that meant so much to many people. A quiet and reclusive person who struggled to be present in his daughter's life but nonetheless loved her, so much that her death completely destroyed him. The biggest differences are how they viewed themselves when it comes to accountability in what happened, and how they coped with Charlotte's death. Interesting differences but it does not change Henry's place in the narrative. And novel Henry's character is the most explored any version of Henry has ever gotten. He's a compelling character.