Core of the Abyss and 'her' Children of "Misfortune"
(aka I can't stop thinking how the Core always welcomed and reached out to the Children of "Ill-Omen"— just some observations)
So, once again quoting Lacie's words from Retrace 101:
Yes, always alone and lonely...without even knowing what loneliness is. Still, 'she' kept yearning.. for someone to push through the cold darkness and reach her.
—'She' longed for 'someone' who could do that.
[Anyway I am ignoring everything the Glen(s) and the Jury ever said about the Core of the Abyss or the Children of Misfortune (because I don't trust them at all) —and taking only Lacie's theory here to be the truth,]
so, a few theories:
1] Break would have been drawn into the Core of the Abyss whether or not the Intention wanted his eyes
When his illegal seal finished a full turn, Break reached the Core of the Abyss unlike other illegal contractors who fall into the Abyss.
I had assumed this was possible only because the Intention of the Abyss herself summoned Break there so she could pluck out his red eyes for her blind Cheshire before he turns into a chain.
Even the other dolls mention this situation as unusual. The Intention never lets a human/illegal contractor into her room.
You don't usually bring humans here when they drop into the Abyss.
Meaning, the other illegal contractors on completing their contracts get dropped into the abyss and turn into chains without ever meeting the Intention for whatever they wished of her. So much for going through all this trouble lol
So, I imagined that only those whom the Intention permits could enter the Core of the Abyss (that is, her lovely toy room);
But.
Vincent does "waltz" into her "room" without any problem???
Now, I don't think Vince entered her room to purposely antagonize her as he usually did, because he was pretty shaken by all the bloodshed and massacre he just witnessed at Sablier. It was a coincidence and even he seemed shocked he was meeting White Alice in her "other" room when he was sure "Alice" had died in the real world. In fact, he wonders if there being another Alice and all the madness going on in the toy room was his fault as well...
Secondly, this is a feat none of the other older and more experienced Baskervilles could achieve, right?
All the surviving Baskervilles got swept into the Abyss during the Tragedy of Sablier. Yet not one of them came in contact with the Intention. They were only able to traverse the Abyss and come out at various points of time. They did not know what the Intention looked like; neither do any of them talk about actually having met her. They merely repeat what Xai or Glen told them that it was the sudden appearance of the Intention that changed the very configuration of the Abyss as they knew it before.
That's why I think the Intention's words are only partially true (but I don't think she realized this either).
That is, she does have complete control over who enters the Core of the Abyss/her room—
Except for the Children of Ill-Omen.
Because the Children of Ill-Omen are specifically birthed by the Core and are very precious to 'her', the Core wants them to reach out to 'her' at the very depth. So that whenever a Child of Ill-Omen falls into the Abyss willingly*, they are directly led to the Core that used to be a dark shapeless form during Lacie's time, but took on the form of a toy room after the Intention became its vessel.
Lacie insisted that she could see "someone" at the depth of the Abyss and that the "someone" couldn't answer her—
but of course, the Glens and Jury only regard the Core as something not to be touched or approached unless "a serious crisis occurs"
and every time the Core produces another Child of Ill-Omen, hoping, waiting, over and over again that they will reach out to 'her' at the very abyssal depth... instead, they are meted out the punishment of being dragged down by Black Chains and left to die in the very Abyss that wanted to cherish their company. They are being "returned" to the Core because of the misinformation/falsehood that the presence of a Red-Eyed child is an accidental distortion created by the Core and pose danger to the integrity of the world
whereas the actual reason is that Core just wants someone to help her not be lonely anymore.
See:
How sweet is it that the Core loved her toy so much that 'she' gave it a tiny spark of life and trembled in grief when 'she' hears that Lacie will never visit her again? ;_;
The Core never asked for the "ill-omened" children to be punished for being born; on the contrary, they are the ones most precious to her.
That's why I think they inevitably end up in the Core to keep 'her' company, whatever be the reason they fell into the Abyss in the first place, whether the completion of an illegal contract or being swept into the Abyss.
(willingly*: I mean, when the Child of Ill-Omen falls into the Abyss by any other means than being held down by the Black Winged Chains. Because Lacie could descend into the Core by herself but held down by the Black Chains, she could only wait out her permanent death.)
(Since Gil was with Vince, he too winded up in the Core, but he was not cognizant of his surroundings so that's a moot point anyway.)
2] That Break listens and commits himself to the one and only request of the Intention of the Abyss
This is in continuation to the first point; hence, kind of a paradoxical situation—
Because only a Child of Ill-Omen could have ever reached to the depth of the Abyss; and so, only a Child of Ill-Omen could have ever got to listen to her request at all.
But by the end of the story, (thanks to Lady Shelly, by the way, because if not for her, would Break have lived on to pass the Intention's desire to the kids? I don't think so), everyone came to know what the Intention really wanted and worked towards the goal.
So that, knowingly or otherwise, Break did fulfill his role as the bridge between the living world and the Core of the Abyss before his death.
I’m not here to argue that the temple of the ocean king is the best dungeon in Phantom Hourglass but it is a good one in terms of how it’s used. You do have to return to it often but I actually like how you go through the same rooms over and over again at different points in the story; the temple feels like it’s used to let you test out what you’ve learned in the other dungeons with new items and stuff. You start out with practically nothing and only about ten minutes and then collect more and more items and are given more time. The temple of the ocean king slowly becomes less imposing as you find more ways around it and more tools to simplify the tasks you’re given within it, and you’re given more time to work out the increasingly challenging rooms, so while the difficultly within the temple scales so does your ability to handle it to the point where, by the end, you have every tool at your disposal to speed through the temple and even the phantoms become less of a threat as once you get the Phantom Sword you can kill them and you’re properly prepared to finish off the game. Sure it can be grating and annoying to frequently return to but it honestly feels like a sort of test of your abilities and in that the repetitive nature of it makes it feel more like a long puzzle than a chore. It starts off threatening and dangerous and then becomes a sort of playground for you to use all of your items to find new chests and shortcuts. Idk I just thing that all things considered the temple of the ocean king is a solid and well-utilized dungeon it’s a good one as a way for the player to get more use out of their new and old items, like a sort of progression tracker.
Glens, Children of Misfortune and the Baskervilles
[When I say Glens, I am referring all Glens- past and present: Levi, Oswald, Gil and Leo. Hella lot of lore is here that I wanna write about ;-; so I might divide this into different posts let's see. Also fair warning: I might criticize Oswald's actions-past and present- a bit, since I love looking at characters from an unbiased pov. Also, maybe some characters' past actions in order to point to their character development so that too.]
[ Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 ]
1] Glen, Jury and the knowledge of the Abyss
Starting off with this panel, although it is passed off for gags, I realized something very important here (and got me to love Leo even more lol droopy eyed jerk yeah!!) (Retrace 103:)
Only after reading Retrace 93 onwards and actually visiting the Sablier from hundred years ago do we get the real, undistorted lore of why Children of Misfortune exist, what exactly is Glen, where the Juries come to play into this whole scheme and so on. But before I elaborate on the above panel, let's go back to go back to these ill-fated panels—the literal start of everything going wrong—Oswald casting Lacie into the Abyss for her sin of being born as a Child of Misfortune. (Retrace 69)
Two things to remember here:
i.) Oswald can't go against the Glen's orders until after the succession ceremony. He is bound to his master, the then Glen, Levi by the oath on his left hand so the only way to break free of it is by cutting off his hand like Gil did.
ii.) Immediately after the last chain, the fifth one- Jabberwocky is transferred to his body, Oswald becomes the next Glen.
Now, if I think about it, with Jabberwock having been transferred into his body, Oswald had already become Glen when he was saying these words to Lacie. He was Glen when he cast her into the Abyss. He was Glen, the absolute head of the Baskervilles, whose orders can't be disobeyed by any of his people.
Maybe, this doesn't seem much significant. It didn't, to me, while I was reading this chapter,, because I was still under the impression that 'Glen' was a spirit passed down from one host to another as the Will of the Abyss said here to Vincent (Retrace 39)—
If that were the case, then, well, nothing. Oswald's body would have been taken over by 'Glen' at the Succession Ceremony. Nothing of Oswald's soul would remain,, so, it won't be Oswald, but 'Glen' that's casting Lacie into the Abyss— Lacie who is not the younger sister but a sinner bearing the Eyes of Ill-Omen as far as the spirit of Glen is concerned.
But... later, we get the reveal it's quite not the case. (Retrace 91)
It was because the tale would be boring otherwise.
Everything was a story for the Juries who have been collecting and preserving these for centuries. In their stories, worlds exist where humans never walked the earth at all. Or, stories where the world ended within a century of its beginning. Or even, stories where the world ran identical to this one but decisively different. The main point is the Juries decide whether the tale is interesting enough to continue or to be brought to an end so it can be 'shelved in their library'. There comes the significance of Glen. The Juries are present in every story and use a turning point (here, the Abyss and the Glen) to try and bring the tale to a climax. In this case, they were probably pinning their hopes on Oswald.
Anyway, back to the night of the Succession Ceremony. Glen, now we know is just the title given to the head of the Baskervilles who is a potential candidate for generating a main turning point for the Juries, the reason why they keep an eye of them. It's no spirit hosted in Oswald's body or some such but Oswald himself that cast Lacie into the Abyss.
Why I stress this again is because—Oswald could have stopped her execution. Just like that, he could have given the command: 'As the new Glen, I have decided that we are no longer executing Lacie, does anyone have a problem with it?' Yeah. Just like that. Like, who'd dare challenge his decision? The previous Glen? Levi? A guy left with a broken body and no chain? The rest of the Baskervilles? The same people who obey his every order without a question?
No, the only ones who could and would veto his decision are the Juries. Because they know that only a Child of Misfortune has the power to affect their tales in an unpredictable way since this child was birthed directly by the Abyss (Retrace 91)
However, this aside, I want to point out that Levi, who was the Glen at least three generations before Leo, did not know the actual reason for casting a Child of Misfortune back into the Abyss up until this moment. I am honestly appalled.
So, my first point of this section: i.) severe lack of knowledge about the Abyss/little knowledge is dangerous—
—since even the Glen, who is supposed to be the protector of the Abyss, the origin of all Life, does not know the exact reasons for why things happen as they do; they simply take things for granted. Levi does speculate that the chains are what hold up the world from being swallowed up by the Abyss. Although proven wrong in Retrace 91/92, ig there is some truth to his speculations after all—Jack, believing his words, goes about cancelling the chains and succeeds in sinking Sablier into the Abyss before Oswald and Alice manage to stop him.
The reason for this practice of taking things for granted is my second point. ii.): Every Glen was raised as a valet to the previous Glen.
The Glens are valets before they become the next head; they are practically raised to be good servants, not good leaders. They don't even think of questioning anything their master/Jury tells them.
Truth be told, they are probably programmed from a young age to be subservient to their Master, to kill all of their Master's enemies etc. etc., by either brainwashing, intensive training or torture. See here, Retrace 38:
Think of only your master. Serve only your master.
In fact, as early as Retrace 13, Break questions this extreme devotion of Gilbert's, bordering on obsession.... and wonders if it is not abnormal (although he, as well as Gilbert, think his loyalty is for Oz):
Since Gil had lost all his memories of his past, there was no way for them to know that he had been brainwashed into absolute obedience and this was not natural. (more on this in part 2)
Plus, we don't know what else they have been conditioned to accept as the indisputable truth.
As I said earlier, Oswald was already Glen at the point. Why did he not deliberate if he really wanted to cast Lacie into the Abyss? He had become the sole absolute command there; he had all the powers of the Abyss. Why did he not question the whole point of it? Why did he not even make an attempt to save Lacie?
Well, this is the reason. The Glens were never meant to be someone strong enough to decisively change the story. The Juries needed someone to make wrong decisions so that the 'tale' can be brought to an end. They were waiting for the Glens to mess up. And it was passed down from Glen to Glen, and taken for granted that if they were to become the next head, they had to take in five chains and cast their red-eyed sibling into the Abyss.
In fact, what Levi says about the Children of the Ill-Omen born with the to-be Glen isn't the truth either, just some hearsay (Retrace 69)—
Because you're supposed to properly dispose of what you have created.
I don't think any of this is necessarily true. Because Kevin Legnard (Break), a Child of Misfortune, lived in an age around 10+ years since the Tragedy of Sablier. He served in the Sinclair family since a young age where, yes, a massive tragedy did occur, but it was only in his adulthood and due to political complications, more or less. So really, I wonder if the whole story of Children of Misfortune —the only threat to the Juries—attracting "misfortune" is not one cooked up by the Juries themselves, then accepted as such by generations of Glen? And even spread to the locals because both Lacie and Vince were bullied for their red eyes. Perhaps, so that such children, even if they might not become Baskervilles, will be tortured and eventually killed/take their own lives, and the tales of the Juries will not be interrupted.
This is why the first panel of Leo ordering Levi is so important to me. It's about the choice of your free will (which Oswald never had, he simply went with whatever was asked of him,, more on this in part 3). Leo started to actively fight for what he felt was right and even commands the previous Glen to obey his orders because "I am the current Glen! When I tell you to do something, you shut up and do it, you droopy eyed jerk!"
Oswald could have done this at the Succession Ceremony. I am pretty sure Levi would be more amused than angry at the rebellion against the status quo.
Because, even here, amused by Leo's words, Levi spurs into action only after this exchange: (Retrace 103)
Finally, it's Leo who puts an end to the ostracism of the Children of Ill-Omen—
—and discussed the problem of the Core of the Abyss learning and knowing what it is like to be lonely instead of merely looking upon her as something dangerous and to be untouched by anyone including the Glens.
I don't think he could have brought about such a major change without facing some kind of major uproar from the Juries, yes? In spite of that, Leo (with the rest of the Baskervilles) decided to stand by what he thought was the right thing to do and not condemn his first true follower, Vincent, for no reason but for being born with a red eye.
I haven't really written anything about Noise but Retrace 97 compelled me to write something about her because, by god, of all characters, Noise died the loneliest death ;-;
Break died surrounded by his friends and family. Oscar died after seeing off his kids. Even Fang got a chance to apologize to his family as he was dying. (Elliot's is another matter--but at the least, he got a conclusive death. He wanted to be the one to crack the mystery of his family's serial killing which he did and he died next to his best friend and his big brother. His death continued to be grieved by people who cared about him up until the end.)
But Noise? Yes, Oz was there while her body was breaking apart but..... he was not there for Noise--he was there for Echo. And, Ada came all the way into the Past Sablier to be there for Vincent.
But... Noise.....??
to be honest, isn't that how it's always been? Right from the beginning, nobody was ever there for Noise... this poor girl who became an anomaly because she couldn't control her chain properly, who became a Baskerville but could neither fully become one nor return to being a human either, who couldn't even sleep because her chain might take control of her body and go on a rampage, who was locked up in an underground cellar, this girl who forgot her own name because her mind was so Noisy...
In spite of all her suffering, she still used to have a kind heart before she lost all sense of self. She still looked out for Vincent in whatever way she could:
You can actually feel the loneliness radiating off her in this panel; she doesn't feel included anywhere--she is still in the dark while Vincent has been pulled out into the light by his new friends.
Yes, it is toxic of her wanting to keep Vincent to herself and trying to kill him as soon as he finds new friends in a if-I-can't-have-you-then-no-one-can way.... but both her heart as well as her mind were already completely broken at this point. All she remembers is that slight feeling of protectiveness that got twisted to being possessive over him; she wanted to continue taking care of him in her own way even if she forgot what their original relationship was like.
I actually wanted to talk about this panel too (Retrace 91):
(Let me just set aside the context that Noise is actively trying to kill Ada and Ada is trying to buy time by talking because I want to talk about their words.)
Noise says Ada shouldn't pretend like she knows everything about Vincent and Noise, which is true in a way.... Because, you see, and as much as I love Ada, I still have to admit Ada is selective in what she is trying to figure out. She wants to know more about Vincent, not Noise. She doesn't know (and probably never will) that Noise was once a good onee-san to Vincent and his only true friend when he was surrounded by manipulative adults. So, I don't think Ada is the best person to give an opinion about Noise and Vincent's history when she hardly knows anything about them?
Again, I agree with what she says. Not knowing everything is not a crime, you can always learn things later on; yes, it's true but this line:
You're being criminal by being judgemental without even trying to understand!!
--honestly, applies to Ada too? Because Ada is also being judgemental about Noise without understanding her at all. Ada (and Oz and others too, for that matter) believe that Echo is the 'kind' personality while Noise is the mindless killer personality that takes over Echo.
When, in fact, it's the other way round. It's because of the power of the Abyss (and so, indirectly her chain) that Noise started losing her mind in the first place. Her mind was filled with so much noise that she feared and had dreams of turning into a monster (idk if her mental deterioration was already present before her contract) but I do know Doldum/Duldee (Echos) was only making the matter worse. Yes, all the Echos tried to protect her heart by preserving some of her memories bit by bit but.... wasn't it also because of the chain from the Abyss that she has been suffering all along?
See, again, Ada doesn't grasp the full essence of Noise's words. Of course, she has no way of knowing unless Noise tells her but...
Noise doesn't mean here that Vincent and Noise are different because they are Baskervilles. No, she means they are different because they are the only ones who are not 'proper' Baskervilles, who are cast out from being both human and Baskerville, who are not included anywhere.
Noise was an anomaly because of her weakness to the Abyss and her inability to control her own chain. Vincent was an anomaly because he was a child of ill-omen (something that doesn't exist in Ada's timeline). And those are his words Noise repeats that since both of them were aberrations, it won't be wrong if they stayed together because then, for each other, they can be 'normal'.
Ada is really missing a huge chunk of context here. I agree wholeheartedly that Ada will accept him even if he is a Baskerville and a Child of Misfortune because she is a kind soul, she is gonna accept and forgive Vincent no matter what.
But I am not talking about Ada and Vincent here, but about Noise. The point here is that Ada doesn't understand where Noise is coming from. For Noise, Vincent was the only way she could feel 'normal', among humans or Baskervilles. She heavily related to him, she latched onto him as the only one who could understand her, she did everything, became everything Vincent asked of her; at her heart, Noise, like every character in this story, just does not want to be lonely anymore.
This panel actually made me feel so bad for Noise. Time and again, Ada stands up for Vincent, Oz stands up for Echo, but who stands up for Noise?
(btw, please don't take this in a wrong way. I love Oz and Ada, and I am genuinely amazed and touched at that they can still distinguish Echo from Noise, sympathize with Echo for being an unwilling accomplice and bear no grudge against her in spite of Noise having a major hand in Uncle Oscar's death.
I am just trying to look at the story from Noise's perspective and doing that makes me realize that most of the major characters have no idea what Noise really was like. heck, even Noise didn't know at the time of Retrace 91; she remembers the truth only at the time of her death (Retrace 97).
Because Noise, too, once was a sweet, caring soul just like the present and last Echo (Eko-chan, I will refer to her as that to differentiate her from other Echos). Bit-by-bit, Noise lost all she knew about herself the longer she used her chain and created more Echos. As I said, both Oz and Ada are judging her from what they see before their eyes, not knowing how shattered and sick her mind is at the moment. I can't blame them ofc because that's what I too might have to do when the person before me is actively trying to kill me,, but knowing the context and her backstory, her presence in the story exudes so much loneliness.)
See, you can feel the despair and tiredness already seeping into her. She starts to lash out and reject people around her, even those who care about her to some extent; she doesn't even know what she wants anymore.
She wants to meet Vincent to, she believes, kill him because he is not hers anymore. But what I think is she subconsciously still possesses the protectiveness of a big sister and knows Vincent is in trouble, that's why she wants to go after him to make sure he is okay.
She says the same here (Retrace 97):
...I've had enough. I'm already so tired...
You know, what's even sadder? Eko is not a different person. Taking away the context of a chain and the fantasy surrounding it, she is simply a personality created by the weak-minded Noise to take on her unbearable suffering (like Split Personality (DID) patients do). So when Eko says:
--and asks her to remember herself, Noise is, in fact, in a way, talking to herself. It's the last sane part of her mind that's realized that her body can't hold out longer, and talks to the shattered, tired and lonely part of her, tries to recoup some of her memories so she doesn't end up doing something she'd regret, like killing her only friend and so that she gets a proper closure in death.
To say, Noise has no one but her imaginary self to console and hold her during her final moments. She died as lonely as she lived. I am happy Echo dies in Oz's arms, but....Noise? ;_;
Annnnd, even in the Happy Ending that the author gave us--the Everyone lives/No one dies one from Retrace 104-- where is the original personality of Noise? 😭
(how I wanted to see a normal interaction between Zwei, Gil and Oz; her teasing Oz, "Echo is shy to come out and meet you, so you just have to deal with me today 😈")
Further, about Vincent and Noise--
Something Noise says about Ada (Retrace 91):
Vincent got close to you only to take advantage of you....
You were so carefree…so stupid!
Actually, her words apply to herself as well. Vincent was only using Noise as a tool to his cause because he thought she was a stupid girl who would listen to his every word.
But my question is: does he even remember Noise as that onee-san who used to look out for him? Did he know it and choose to forget? Or, did he really forget? He was even the one who gave her the nickname after she forgot her own. Is it possible he forgot who Noise was to him whereas he remembers even the traumatic events of Sablier (something Gil misplaced his memories of)? Or, did he purposely suppress his good memories so he can recall his days as a Baskerville as being full of pain so that it makes his planned death easier for him?
I don't know but there is an equal chance of him genuinely forgetting who Noise was to him and him knowing everything yet acting like he didn't. If the latter, it's totally messed up on his part. Because Noise forgetting herself doesn't mean Vincent can distort their original relationship? How could he cross the boundary and do what he pleases to a broken, amnesiac girl who used to be his big-sister-like figure once?
This is the reason I am kind of skeptical about Ada saying she would forgive Vincent for everything. Offering him forgiveness for his past mistakes that he committed as a misguided, manipulated child is perfectly alright; but his deeds as an adult? Sorry but Ada doesn't even know half the picture of what Vincent really is like.
Either way, her last thoughts for Ada and Vincent were so sweet and makes me wish she was around, at least, in the Alternate Ending as the cool big sister for the kids.
Another heart-breaking line:
I never wanted to hurt him. Not even if there was no place for me at his side
Why does everything have to be a love triangle? Why can't everyone be a huge fun found family so that nobody feels left out and lonely? I wonder what Noise would be like when she is not in captivity or despair-fuelled-killing-spree. I feel like she would be feisty and sharp-witted, a complete opposite of the shy Echo, and would be going around trolling and teasing the kids lol
Ending this with the panel here, because in spite of their rocky relationship, chatting with Vincent were the few times Noise genuinely smiled ;-;
Glen, Children of Misfortune, Juries and the Baskervilles
[When I say Glen, I am referring all Glens- past and present: Levi, Oswald, Gil and Leo. Hella lot of lore is here that I wanna write about ;-; so I might divide this into different posts let's see. Also fair warning: I might criticize Oswald's actions-past and present- a bit, since I love looking at characters from an unbiased pov. Also, maybe some characters' past actions in order to point to their character development so that too.]
[ Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 ]
4] Oswald and Lacie
Truth be told, Oswald has always been “passive”. He doesn’t know what he really wants. He had already been training to become the next Glen (ref: Part 1) and it was drilled into his mind that he was to cast Lacie into the Abyss right from the beginning. He doesn’t question this rule.
Not even when Lacie hints that the purpose of the existence of a Child of Ill-Omen might not be what it is said to be (Retrace 101):
And his answer to this theory of hers is:
You are not crazy. If that’s the answer you came to, it is doubtlessly the truth for you.
That’s… that’s not the right response to it!!!
“The truth for you,” he says, basically responding: “Oh if what you say makes you happy, then so be it. But the truth is different.” (No! It is not!)
Why won’t he grasp at straws to save her if he loved her and cared about her? Why won’t he even try to research the possible truth of her words? Why won’t he at least make an attempt to stop the needless execution of his dear sister? Lacie has grown up beside him; what great ‘threat’ did she cause to the condition of the Abyss in all those years she was alive? But he doesn’t dare question any of it; he simply, quietly, “passively” goes ahead with what was asked of him.
[Whereas, in Retrace 91/92, it’s proven Lacie had been right all along. Nothing like Child of “Ill-Omen” exists and all of those lies had been set down as “rules” for the Juries’ selfish purposes.]
Again, I’d also, well not exactly excuse him, but, as Oz and Break say, there is always the chance that he couldn’t have known the truth about the Child of Ill-Omen. Not until after Lacie had died and perhaps, during his short stint as Glen, he must have come to realize that the Jury had more to do with this affair than met the eye, the reason why he brought along Vincent to the final Gate in the last Arc.
.
Okay, but this aside, his response to her every word is always so... resigned?
See, Retrace 72:
Why does Lacie have to be the one to do this? She is the sinner here, your prisoner due to be executed in five days; why would you ask something like this of her? If Oswald truly wanted Lacie to survive, he should have been the one to tell Jack everything and ask him to take her away with him if he can't protect her anymore. But he keeps quiet.
(He does regret this, in Retrace 101.)
I chose being the head of Baskervilles over being Lacie's older brother. And yet I did not drive Jack away, even after I realized how twisted he had become.
He is ruthless in some places, soft in some. Like if he was ruthless to Lacie, he'd have been the same to Jack as well. The reason he was not, because that was the only way he could be soft on himself and lessen his own guilt.
Continuing from there, (Retrace 73), Lacie is the one to apologize for being "too harsh on him" and then goes on to tell how she has never regretted being born with red eyes or living in this world. "I love this world," she says.
Okay, this is a panel of so many contradictions, you know. Oswald says Lacie is strong, but she disagrees and says she is "ten times more cynical than other people."
Both of them are wrong.
Lacie was neither strong nor cynical. She was scared. Yes, scared. Terrified. Lacie was terrified of dying, of being cast into the Abyss, so terrified that she woke herself up from nightmares of their first day at the Baskerville estate, of learning her fate from the Jury and Glen...
....just mere days before her execution: (Retrace 67/68)
I am going off a tangent to do a quick character analysis of Lacie (I will do a longer one later, but just this one aspect of her characterization) that both Oswald and Jack had the wrong impression of Lacie. Oswald assumed her to be so strong that she could shoulder the burden of loneliness and death all by herself. He assumed she didn't want to live any longer, that she had already seen so much and experienced all that the world has to offer that she no longer had any more worldly desires. In short, he saw her as some sort of motherly saint.
As for Jack, she is his Dream Girl to put it simply. At the most depressing and most vulnerable point of his life, when he chanced to meet such a vibrant girl like Lacie, he latched onto her for his life, absorbed every word she uttered, learnt the song she sang once on a whim and sang nothing but that for the next eight years. The casual advice she gave him as a turbulent, rebellious and frivolous teenager... okay, but, let's be real here. Lacie was simply spouting whatever came to her mouth atm in the name of 'advice'. She was passing time till her brother apologized to her and she'd be brought back home. She most probably didn't think Jack, being one of a kind, would accept her words so literally that he obeys them verbatim, even if he was disgusted by what he was forcing himself to do. He put her on a sky high pedestal that he was scared to even touch her lest she loses her "magic" in his mind. That's also the reason why he never questions her lie (her lie about the Succession Ceremony) because he was scared whatever image he had of her might shatter if he pressed on. (Yeah, I gotta write a longer post about Jack's and Lacie's relationship, bc it's one of the most fucked-up yet tragic, most hollow yet sincere relationships if ever there was one)
I guess, of all people, as sad as it is, only Levi got to see her at her most vulnerable? (Retrace 68):
Neither Oswald nor Jack have seen her like this—a scared girl, full of loneliness and regrets of not being able to live longer. And yet, when Levi casually mentions about her death in another five days, she grins as if she's looking forward to it. Which, in reality, is just a mask to cover her terror.
Why I am saying this is—as context for Oswald's line "I shall be lonely if you disappear" and her midnight walk later to the tree where the three of them used to hang out. Lacie says big things like I love this world, I love the Abyss, even when Levi asked her to assist his 'experiment', her only query was if the Abyss won't be lonely anymore,,, but she doesn't let her own loneliness or regrets to surface. She bottles up all of it. Why? Because she has to be strong for Oswald and pretend like she is taking all of this in stride to lessen his guilt.
Whereas Oswald does not ask her if she is alright. If she is lonely. If she is scared of being cast into the Abyss. If she wants to run away.
(In fact, if you see the hug, it's Lacie who is hugging Oswald in a comforting, motherly hug as if he's in greater need of comfort than her, because, of course, she must be completely, totally at terms with her Fate, right?)
In that regard, I am sure Jack would definitely have inquired after her if only he didn't place her on an otherworldly pedestal and realized things might go wrong with his Dream Girl too. Moreover and most importantly, Jack was kept in dark about most things connected to the Baskervilles and he had also promised not to dig too much if he was only allowed to meet Lacie. So I won't blame him for not pressing when she lied. He must have assumed it's Something Baskerville Ritual, not that it'd be something that'd directly affect his Lacie.
But Oswald is her big brother. Oswald knows everything about the Baskervilles. He is going to become the next Glen. Yet... he does nothing, asks nothing. Almost like Oswald had long given her up for dead. Like he can't do anything for her anymore whereas she is still alive and chatting right there with him.
He is always thinking of the days after she'd be gone, and never ever gives any thought to their present.
Remember Rufus Barma's words from Retrace 86 and I must agree:
You speak as if you've already given up.
Exactly. As I said in Part 1 of this long essay, Oswald was the full-fledged Glen when he cast Lacie into the Abyss. With the title of Glen, even if he simply brushes aside the rules and sets new ones for his reign, who could possibly question him? He had five black-winged chains of the Abyss in his possession. The Juries might protest,, but if Lacie is there, they can't do anything. They are scared of the Child of Misfortune.
Even Leo points this out correctly:
He is always waiting for someone with a stronger will to come help him out of problems he needs to solve on his own.
In his penultimate appearance, he finally, finally, takes a decision and drops his sword. He decides to not kill his sister a second time. And, immediately, people who have always cared for him (if only he ever gave them a chance) gather around him to assure him that he had done well, done enough.
Well, tl;dr, what I am trying to say is that Oswald should have stuck firmly to his decision whatever it was. If he had cast Lacie into the Abyss, then he should have dealt with the consequences appropriately. If he had stopped her execution, then he should have been strong enough to face off the Juries. Whatever his decision, he should have been thorough with it instead of being half-hearted, passive and resigned about everything.
Ending this loooong essay (;_;) on a funny yet interesting note (this omake from Vol. 19) which presents the kind of Oswald I actually wanted to see. The premise might be absurd but he, for once, drops his air of resignation and faces off the Glen himself for his sister, going to the extent of dropping formality and addressing him by his name lol
[this is mostly a repost of this chain of reblogs bc I had a few more things to add after rt.93+, wanted to have all of it in one place easy to read instead of adding one more rb to that chain, nobody talks about Lottie in general :( etc. etc.]
1] Lottie's real character
—is not the whole 'bloodlusty-sadistic-femme-fatale' persona she puts up but something close to this—
—the moment she sees a strange ragged child, a newcomer to her house on top of that, her first instinct is to go: "oh no, you are so dirty... come over here I will clean you all up."
then she goes on to console Lily for everything that happened in her life and explains why none of it was her fault—
Everyone here's gone through similar trials...
but at the same time, it warps 'something' in people around you.
I am so curious about Lottie's past (on one hand, I am sad I won't ever have an answer; on the other I am happy bc I can make up whatever backstory I want for her!) because she says this as a matter-of-fact, like she (and everyone there) has experienced her share of trauma and abuse so can easily relate to Lily (also, please look at Lily's cute little adoring this-lady-is-so-cool face and her round, neatly combed mop of hair lol)
Lottie is a caring, motherly, nurturing person from her heart. This isn't even big-sisterly; she just straight up adopts a child that appeared at her doorsteps. At first, I thought her sweet character got warped after her traumatic experiences from the Tragedy of Sablier, but actually no. She still is the same, she simply suppresses it for the sake of her persona.
Because, here in Retrace 34, her first instinct on seeing Vincent beat up Echo was to confront him about it:
and she gets angry too when Vincent very coolly replies that he was taking out his pent up frustration on Echo.
However, then, she slowly relents, probably making up her mind not to interfere any more in his personal business because it was doubtless more important to keep Vincent on their side than making an enemy out of him.
annnd yet, she still voluntarily offers to accompany Zwei on her assigned mission to Sablier. because she is worried about her running off somewhere by herself. Practically a mom, I am telling you
.
and yeah, something else to add on here: the reason I say her Sadistic Sexy Girl persona is fake,, because she doesn't seem to enjoy the attention men 'give' her at all. two times iirc: when Vincent and Break grope at her without her proper consent, she appears highly uncomfortable. (or, it could only be dubcon at the best ig (also see: Lacie who was requested for her 'permission' in Glen's 'experiment' by the Glen himself. It is mentioned time and again that Baskervilles' can't go against the Glen's wishes,, implying her 'permission' was merely a formality))
See this, her first instinct is to irritably slap away Vincent's hand when he so much as touches her hair (Retrace 34):
But Vincent ignores her and continues to grope at her body.... with her finally giving in. Or rather, she was shown to be very shocked and annoyed all of those three panels before she abruptly switches to her 'sadist' persona.
With Break, I don't know how she would have reacted if he pressed on but since he pulled away, she went from being annoyed and uncomfortable to ending up more confused about what was going on (Retrace 41)
on the whole, I feel like on returning from the Abyss after a hundred years and finding that the Baskervilles had been replaced in the society and condemned to being barbarians and mass murderers, the survivors had to obviously collect more information about what really had happened. They had to find their master Glen as well. Hence, she assumed this persona to achieve her objectives—using her face and body to lure in possible informants. Also, when she needs to interrogate 'weaker' men, she simply uses it to scare them and get what she wants (sorry Oz, don't mean to dunk on you but you are the example here lmao). Like how Break clowns around so that people don't take him seriously. but.... that's not what she is, nowhere near what she is, and that's why she is so uncomfortable when men voluntarily make advances at her.
2] Lottie's smart observations
—because, many a time, it's because of her observations I started to think in an entirely new track.
in fact, the first time I started to pay closer attention to Jack's words is because of this panel (Retrace 27)—
Till then, I simply took it for granted that Jack Vessalius was a celebrated war hero, that Glen Baskerville was the one that caused the massacre which Jack put a stop to by killing his friend etc. etc.
But when Lottie pointed this out, I started to wonder if there was indeed something more to the whole Tragedy than that meets the eye. Well, honestly, calling a war hero a hero is in itself not all right but now when I realize what Jack was actually up to, it doesn't surprise me that he had no proper answer to Lottie's accusation here. He simply scares her off saying the Baskervilles won't be any match to B-Rabbit, to which, at the time I was reading this chapter, I went— okaaay? and what's that to do anything with anything?
He doesn't answer anything with regards to Glen because, apparently, he was trying to protect his dear friend's honor (bullshit); he says this to Glen's loyal followers as if they are gonna desert Glen or something. They stayed and still searched for him even after he gave the orders to kill everyone in Sablier so Jack, what's your point?
Next is here (Retrace 46)—
the first time I read this statement, do you know my mind directly went: oh, does this mean Vincent is the Head Hunter? Because if the Baskervilles don't know who the Head Hunter is but she is helping them out (in other words, in league with them), won't this narrow it down to Vincent? plus, he did kill Phillipe's dad (within the excuse of not wanting him to be dragged into the Abyss) with the chain which had connections to the Head Hunter case they were investigating.
But then, Vincent went on to say the Head Hunter attacked Gil too (which he couldn't have possibly done), and that he would be the one to slay her, and.... I entirely dropped that line of thought. Afterward, we went through the whole seesaw of whether or not Elliot is the Head Hunter to finally getting revealed Vincent was the true Head Hunter after all and I was like: ah, my first hunch was right after all... (ノへ￣、)
In the same chapter, here too:
Vincent (who is one of the smartest characters in the story) commends her on picking up things super fast. So does Break when she directly questions him about his words from the other day (Retrace 52):
Next, this one might be a bit of a weak argument but I think, of all people, it was only Charlotte who never fell for Jack's charms. In her past memories, it is shown that she didn't trust him at all. He enraged her, in fact. Yes, this whole scene is played off for gags but.... tl;dr, is that she questions him every time he enters their mansion without any particular permission or intention (Retrace 27)
and see here too:
She is shocked when she comes to know that Glen had let in Jack, an outsider, on to their secrets. Well, we have Jack here denying that he was at all interested in Glen's affairs but we later on realize that was not the case. That Jack was very much interested in Glen's affairs. So, Lottie's instincts ring true every time,,
(I was wondering why Lottie didn't know Jack at all since that guy has been loitering around the Baskerville Mansion since forever but that too was explained. she became a Baskerville after Lacie was cast into the Abyss, Oswald became Glen and Jack fell into his depression.)
but here, here (Retrace 87) can we talk about how smart Lottie is in this scene? (I love you, Break! but this post is about Lottie so I am gonna leave you out; I have made a separate post for you and your badass ways so there, there,)
Had it not been for Shirley, Break might have lost here, died even,, because what she says is right. He is fighting but he has not at all healed from his previous injuries (which, thanks to Vincent, got aggravated, seriously what's the sewer rat's problem?!),, so he is fighting for and with his life. Using his chain only adds to burden that his body can't take. lol, and so what a simple logic she uses-- just stay away from him by a certain distance, out of Mad Hatter's range and don't throw your chains against it either. He would self-destruct by himself ;-; Break looks so annoyed here, he must have realized that her logic would work.
3] Lottie is NOT a blind, stupid Glen fangirl/follower
As I mentioned in the 2 section, she is the only one that questions the intentions of Glen-sama's 'one and only friend' Jack who loiters about the Baskerville grounds for a lot of no reason;
similarly, she is the one who first hesitates at Oswald/Glen's actions after his taking over Leo's body and on a regret-fuelled warpath of probably more disastrous outcomes from changing the past than the Tragedy of Sablier.
Look at her, she is horrified at the way Glen killed that man, even skewering a sword through his mouth in his last moments (Retrace 81):
Yes, it is true that Pandora can not be easily cleansed of their brainwashing by Jack and misunderstanding of the Tragedy of Sablier but.... this was too ruthless and too cruel a murder of an innocent person. I think this is the first time she starts to question if Glen was really doing the right thing. (Even, I wonder if she gets flashbacks to the Tragedy of Sablier like Vincent bc she looks visibly shaken here)
Also, back in Retrace 79, she is right by Glen's side and even comically annoyed at Gil and Oz's escape and at Rufus for hiding while Raven attacked the place, so it didn't seem like she was questioning Glen at the time. Maybe, her first instance of hesitation was at Glen's immediate decision to get Gil killed, Gil who is one of them and was once Glen's valet. I don't know but she did seem to me to be a lot shaken there as well.
And not only now, back then, too. A 100 years ago. Yes, in front of Glen, it was Fang who openly questioned Glen's decision to kill all humans in and around Sablier but Lottie too was equally shocked to hear it (Retrace 27)
(Well, back then, it is true Oswald had no choice but to go ahead with killing all humans to save them from breaking away from the 100-years cycle or getting turned into chains (although I am writing a post on how a lot of the tragedy could have been avoided had he not been so passive; when I finish, I will link it here) but not in the present.)
Back to Lottie--
In the previous chapter (Retrace 26), she tells Oz that Glen's orders are absolute and the Baskervilles are 'built' to obey them. Her mannerisms show us (and Oz) that she has no remorse in killing all those people and is, in fact, super gleeful about the massacre and the role she played in it ("Aah, it feels like only yesterday", she says, as if she is nostalgic and thirsty for more bloodshed.)
However, this.... is all a huge lie.
Maybe, she thinks it will be easier to get an answer out of a hostage if she behaves cruel and threatening. Maybe, she is trying to hide her own regrets and guilt by putting up the mask of a psychopathic killer. Maybe, she feels there is no point in trying to justify their actions from a 100-years ago (something the Baskervilles themselves don't understand properly) to the citizens in the present, because, no matter what, they won't understand their stance and look upon them as barbarians and murderers, so it'd be as well to accept it.
Whatever be the case, the truth is: (Retrace 98)
What is this...?
What exactly have we gotten ourselves into....?!
Lottie scolds Fang for even harboring a thought like one of their family has turned traitor, ultimately breaks down and cries in his arms. Plus, the Baskervilles themselves were scared of Jack and his chain-killing-chain (they didn't know it was Jack at the time) but they knew that someone, a human contractor or maybe one among themselves, had turned on them. Fang was so relieved to see Lottie alive. He feared she too might have fallen at the hands of the traitor, who had killed off many of the almost immortal Baskervilles assigned to be the messengers to and from Glen. I suppose had those messengers managed to reach Lottie and co., they would have known the real reason behind Glen's orders to kill the humans (if you see Retrace 74-pg. 29 (not adding that panel too) Glen does explain his decision to a red-hooded Baskerville, who I presume was killed by Jack on their way to the others)
Having said all this, I can't not add this panel bc this too is canon *face palm*
4] Lottie's views on living and death
This is a bit difficult to explain but there's a lot of stuff about this in spite of her few appearances (gotta read between the lines), so let's start with this panel:
while reading this for the first time, I thought she is talking about the Tragedy of Sablier. I am not so sure now. Because, although they killed lots of people, it was not for their own gain at all. It was to save those people from a fate worse than death. But, in this chapter (Retrace 25), Lottie doesn't yet know why Glen had asked them to commit the massacre so.... she must have bought the common (Jack-fed) tale that Glen wanted the Intention of the Abyss for his own gain. In a way, she is still trying to convince herself that their crimes on that fateful day were justified.
It's impossible to keep on living without hurting anybody, okay?
What I mean is this should be her own idea of life—that living is cut-throat and unfair. If we simply do nothing, then others will trample all over us and use us to achieve their own goals. Even if we try to live a life without hurting others, the same need not always be reciprocated. (which is exactly what went down between Jack and Glen jkjkgsjk but Lottie doesn't know lol)
I feel like the whole conversation hints more at her past than her days with the Baskervilles, because, even prior to that, the topic she was discussing with Oz... had nothing to do with the Baskervilles or the Tragedy. She was merely curious why Oz surrendered so fast when Ada was with him and why he wasn't fighting back right now. Thinking about it, Oz underwent a tremendous character development from a This-is-Fine, If-I-do-Nothing-I-will-be-Fine attitude to actively fighting back for his friends and family. Retrace 82, when he finally wrestles the control out of Jack's hands in spite of his constant taunting that nothing could belong to someone like Oz. In a way, he did take Lottie's advice and act upon it.
Lottie has the right hunch about most things. Remember this scene (Retrace 75):
I wonder what her life before joining the Baskervilles was like because she sure has tons of worldly experience and can easily see through people. Just like that, she offers words and advice that people (here, Oz) needed to hear.
.
I believe this is also the reason why her reaction to Break was quite... different compared to little Lily's outburst whenever she spotted him that they gotta kill him and get revenge for Fang.
For one, yes, she knows Fang passed with a smile on his face and was freed from his burden. She was relieved for him. But I also think she doesn't want revenge on Break because of this very principle of life. Fang died protecting Lily. It was a fair fight, a fight for life where if one even slightly falters, they are gonna get killed. It was not like Break had an advantage there; it was not like Fang was gonna go easy on Break had he given in or something,, (compared to Glen's killing of those Pandora men, where he had an overwhelming powerful chain, ig those men were mostly unarmed too idk)
And of all people, it was Lottie who finally ended that cycle of vengeance that started with Reim and Lily. Remember how it went?
Lily kills two of Reim's companions -> Reim seeks revenge and shoots Lily in the head -> Lily didn't die instead she attacks Reim -> Break arrives at the spot (coz of Vincent), jumps to conclusion that Reim is dead and seeks revenge -> in the fight that ensues Fang dies and Break gets grievously injured -> Lily wants revenge for Fang (in the meantime, Vincent reopens Break's half-healed wound from then) -> in the fight between Break and the Baskervilles, he gets even more exhausted bc of his chain (the reason he went all out was for Sharon getting slightly hit in the head btw) -> finally, Break dies but Lily isn't satisfied, she wants to cut up his body -> Reim offers her to shoot him instead bc he was the one that started it in the first place
Had Lily killed Reim here, this cycle could have gone on forever (maybe, Sharon might seek revenge next lol)
side note: from this, I realize that Break acts a lot more out of emotion than Lottie; Fang was equally important to Lottie like Reim or Sharon were to Break. Yet, she decided to put an end to the cycle of vengeance and accept Reim's offered hand of friendship. Supposing if Reim and Fang were the ones that died back then and Break lived in the end, would he have agreed to ally with the Baskervilles? I doubt...? (Another thought with no real proof is that she'd already been thinking of working with the protagonists ever since Break asked of her (remember, she was the one curious about his words) but that's a topic for another post ghjshgjs I promise it won't be shippy lol)
Back to the topic, I am genuinely surprised that she didn't hold the slightest grudge against Break. I understand allying with the protagonists for they are pursuing the same goal but she really didn't have to stop and say such a sweet prayer for his soul, a man who killed her friend after all:
May your soul return to this Earth.... once it has completed its hundred years cycle.
She is promising him to see Oz and the others through to the end in his place! Something he was regretting at the very brink of death, that he didn't have it in him anymore to continue on the path with them,, so whether he can or not hear her, this sure was a reassurance he needed to hear. (As I said before, she just..... knows what to say, she can easily see through people but I don't think it is appreciated enough ;_;)
And here comes in her views of death and the Hundred Years cycle (reincarnation) of the soul, something she takes very seriously (she should, considering they are the servants of the Abyss) and I believe she is of the view that demise needs to be respected, no matter friend or enemy. Now, do you see why she was so horrified at Glen stabbing a sword through the man's throat while he lay there dying? A close example I can give is that of Chuuya from BSD rebuking Dazai for shooting bullets at a corpse. They might have killed lots but they still know to respect the dead/dying.
This went so long--and I will go on and on about Lottie lol (I even reached the 30 image limit ig idk) so I will end here with Charlotte reconciling with her master and assuring him that she will support Leo in his place. This is the first time she has visible tears in her eyes:
Glen, Children of Misfortune, Juries and the Baskervilles
[When I say Glen, I am referring all Glens- past and present: Levi, Oswald, Gil and Leo. Hella lot of lore is here that I wanna write about ;-; so I might divide this into different posts let's see. Also fair warning: I might criticize Oswald's actions-past and present- a bit, since I love looking at characters from an unbiased pov. Also, maybe some characters' past actions in order to point to their character development so that too.]
[ Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4]
3] Oswald and his sin of passivity
Coming back to Oswald—just like Gil and Leo, Oswald too had to choose between being a big brother or being the Glen and he chooses the latter. (honestly, he had the choice of being both as I said in Part 1, I will elaborate here)
And, he decides to become the Glen and casts Lacie into the Abyss.
Well, if he has chosen a side, he should stick to it, right? Just like in Leo’s case, no matter how painful your choice is, you should stick to it, right? He should put all of himself into his duties as Glen, right?
But he doesn’t.
See, this scene is played off for giggles— (Retrace 69)
—however, it is very telling of something: Oswald doesn’t even know who the rest of his people are. He wonders if Charlotte arrived after he became Glen,, but seeing how she raised her voice at him before realizing who it was, she must hold a senior position among the Baskervilles. True she arrived after he became Glen (mainly because she didn’t know Jack at the time); even in that case, does it mean the new Glen is not getting acquainted with the people that walk into the Baskerville estate?
Yeah. Because Oswald never moved on from the day of Lacie’s execution. He continued to exist “passively” and waited for time to pass. After Alice arrived at the Baskerville estate, he added one duty to his otherwise empty schedule: to bring up food for her. Otherwise, most of the time, during the past memories, whether they be Jack’s or actual, Oswald is simply… sleeping. Closing his eyes to his mistakes he doesn’t want to relive or regret. If he sleeps, he doesn’t have to take responsibility for his actions or his duties as Glen that he never wanted from the beginning.
You might think he was more “active” when he returned and took over Leo’s body,, actually no…. (Retrace 94)
This is what he says to Vincent. How exactly did his “stop thinking, do nothing,” attitude help him? Jack took advantage of it to the max, yeah. Now, here, Vincent, who has been self-destructive all throughout this story, gains a spark of desire to live, because of Break (again!); he saves him from the consequence of his own “inaction” (when he surrendered to Glen and would have got killed at his hands) and scolded him to stop looking into the past for salvation.
Those words coming from someone he least expected (see here: how antagonist Vince has always been to Break for no reason) “wrap around him like a coil”;—in other words, Vince had subconsciously been seeking to hear “it’s okay to live” from someone. Even though those words came from someone as unlikely as Break, his mind immediately grasped onto it, shaking to the core what he had imagined was a sincerely firm decision on his behalf.
I don’t even know... what I want anymore. But... there was no deceit in the vow I took then.
Vincent is in a sensitive situation here, a sort of make-or-break. He doesn't know what he wants because what he thought he wanted all along was not what he really wanted. His mind is in complete turmoil; that's why he keeps asking others (Leo, Oswald etc.) what he should do. Break already gave his answer and confirmed what he had been scared of all along—that he did want to live on and... be forgiven for his past sins. Whereas Oswald... continues to cling onto his passivity. Do nothing, stop thinking, go to sleep.
.
In fact, once Jack took charge of Alice (Retrace 70):
—I believe, Oswald dropped visiting Alice as well. Perhaps, she reminded him too much of Lacie (and so, his mistakes) or he so unconditionally trusted Jack to watch over Lacie's child or what,, but see, the only memories Alice has of Oswald are from pre-Jack-re-appearance period. That'd also explain why Oswald was so utterly caught off-guard and didn't suspect any foul play from Jack till the very eve of the Tragedy of Sablier.
Had Oswald been regularly talking to Alice, he'd have known the Core of the Abyss could visit their world through the shared body too and had he realized how dangerous it is to let an outsider (a human) deal with the Core, he would have curbed Jack's visits to Alice.
He had been neglecting his duties as the Glen after he picked the choice to become Glen.
As I said, it's this exact passivity that helped Jack to take full advantage of his cracks and his weakness. Because Jack was the only person who remembered Lacie, Oswald wanted to continue being his “friend”. For him, Jack was the sole anchor for him to cling onto a lost past. Once again, in Break’s words, Oswald was trying to “look for a future in his past,” and it'll never work. Once you have decided on a course of action, you gotta pick up your pieces and move on, not stay stuck in the past of your mistakes and regrets.
Also, about Jack and Oswald. Jack was never his friend, to begin with. Jack came over to see Lacie and befriended Oswald in the process. Later, on his return after Lacie’s death, he was there, already with all plans of backstabbing him. Oswald, who could see through people so well that he compared Jack to water on their very first meeting, decided to close his eyes to Jack's intentions and hoped that if he does nothing, everything will return to normal.
Unfortunately, life doesn't go that way. Remember Lottie's words: It's impossible to keep living without hurting anybody? Yeah. It works the other way round too; if you stay still and do nothing, others will hurt you to keep living.
.
The sad thing here is that Oswald was so desperately trying to befriend Jack while he had actual good and loyal people around him, whom he ignored (just like he ignored his duties of Glen) for the sake of Jack (to continue sharing memories of Lacie who didn't exist anywhere because of his own fault.)
Charlotte of course (I have written an entire post about her here) and Fang and the other Baskervilles who could have been loyal and caring retainers to him
but also..... the then Duke Nightray. (Retrace 73)
See? This guy warned Oswald to not invite Jack and Miranda to their residence anymore. He was looking out for Oswald; he had the right hunch about Jack and if only Oswald had listened to him and not invited Jack on the day of Gil's ceremony?
But, Oswald is so desperate to cling on to his past, to Lacie, to Jack and of all the good memories they shared (and which will never return because the magic was gone with Lacie) that he values the words of a young, impressionable, gullible child over an experienced well-wisher.
In the end, his passivity not only caused the Tragedy of Sablier, but also tarnished the reputation of the Baskervilles as well as the Nightray Dukedom while the families of those who he considered 'friends' moved way up in the world.
Glen, Children of Misfortune, Juries and the Baskervilles
[When I say Glen, I am referring all Glens- past and present: Levi, Oswald, Gil and Leo. hella lot of lore is here that I wanna write about ;-; so I might divide this into different posts let’s see. Also fair warning: I might criticize Oswald’s actions-past and present- a bit, since I love looking at characters from an unbiased pov. Also, maybe some characters’ past actions in order to point to their character development so that too.]
[ Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 ]
2] Choosing a side
I remember treating Oswald as a victim of circumstances while reading the Past Arc/Jack’s Intention Arc and blaming only Jack and Levi for everything that went down,,, but now that I consider on the whole, I have to confess Oswald was also responsible for a major part in the Tragedy. His sin is… (as the catchphrase of this series goes lol) His sin is his passivity. But before Oswald, I want to talk about his successors, Gil and Leo first.
As the story goes, each one of the Glens have faced a point where they must choose a side.
For Gil, it was between Oz and Oswald, whether he wanted to continue as Oswald’s valet (to return to his past) or as Oz’s valet (to live in the present). In fact, this clash between his two sides of loyalty, one drilled into him (Retrace 38) and the other nurtured in him in a healthy manner, already came to a head in the Sablier Arc (Retrace 40).
In the beginning of the same arc, he tried to kill Alice because she was trying to “kill” his “master” and with great difficulty did he stop himself before he ended up doing something drastic. Break, though, thankfully and perhaps due to the power of his Eye of Misfortune, sees through Gil, spots the overlapping thoughts clouding his judgment and goads him into a fight.
“I am the one who seeks to use Oz Vessalius. I am doing harm to your master. Now then, will you try your hand at killing me as well?”
And… Gil actually almost goes ahead with it! He is so overwhelmed by the thoughts the Jury had fed into his mind that he can’t distinguish between friends and foes; all he could think is he had to “kill his master’s enemies.”, no free will of action in him at all. Break snaps him out of him and…. says something so significant I didn’t even realize at the time:
Is the one you need really Oz Vessalius?
(…)
Isn’t it time you got over being such a spoiled child?
[The “hand” here is his left hand which signifies Gil’s oath to his old Master, Raven and consequently, his past.]
Isn’t it time you got over being such a spoiled child… (Retrace 87)
Or else, you really will end up hurting what’s precious to you by your own hand. (Retrace 69)
(His left hand. Oswald uses his left hand to cast Lacie into the Abyss. I just…. *screams*)
Like I explained in Part 1, if Gil was continued to be raised in the Baskerville household, when he comes of age and becomes the next Glen, in spite of feeling massively guilty, he’d end up casting Vincent into the Abyss because that’s the rule, because he won’t think for himself if that’s indeed what he wanted, because he'd still be obedient to the previous Glen and Jury even after becoming the most powerful head of the household. That’s just how the Glens are.
However, this changed in Retrace 78, when Gil goes up against Oswald and the Baskervilles for Oz.
Gil quite literally cuts off his left arm to NOT “hurt what’s precious to him by his own hand"—he cuts off his connection to his past and his old master and refuses to side with him anymore. He stops being an obedient valet and stands up for Oz, as a friend, of his own accord because that’s what he really wants. He even freely calls him Oz, something he’d been struggling all along as he’d been raised to address his master as such.
His entire character development stemmed from Oz’s positive influence on him. From the beginning, Oz didn’t want a valet or a servant, but a friend by his side. He wanted Gil to be his equal. He always asked Gil to call him by his name and not address him as Master.
[And, ofc, a special mention to Break who had been continually warning him against his obsessive loyalty and pushing him to think for himself.
(He advises him here in Retrace 40; yes, but also he's been doing that since long ago, even before Oz resurfaced from the Abyss (Retrace 13.)):
Believe whatever you want.
Regardless of what people say, I—
Let me give you a piece of advice. A loyalty that holds fast will become a blade and will someday pierce those you hold dear.
And, Gil, the edgy rebellious teenager that he was at the time, doesn't understand Break at all lol]
Well, all of this contributes to Gil switching sides to save Oz from getting executed and not blindly following Glen on, or rather, in spite of regaining all his misplaced memories. He decides to cut off his left hand, erase the binding oath and make another, this time, legal contract with Raven—and this is so important—all of his own volition.
That ends his passivity and lack of free will. (And Break, like a proud dad, “has stopped fretting about him.” LOL)
.
For Leo, it was this point (Retrace 63):
Yes, chances are that Elliot won’t have believed what Leo said since neither he nor any of the kids at Fianna's house remembers any of the incidents involving Humpty-Dumpty or its contract thanks to its nature of memory deletion/alteration. Still, the fact that Leo didn’t tell him the truth about what had been done to him (Leo feeding him the chain’s blood and unwittingly making him an illegal contractor) or about Isla Yura (Selfishness is a recurring theme in the story; I wanna go into that later but here too—) could be taken as Leo’s “selfishness” to keep his friend alive in spite of him getting fatally injured. Even that aside, it was really his “inaction at the time of crisis” that eventually led Elliot to suffer from an even more painful death.
Yet, he blames the Intention of the Abyss for his actions.
(At this point of the story, Leo is still “an immature brat”; on a side note: remember Break who realized it was his own fault, and not the Intention’s, for forcing her to change the past and bringing a more horrifying fate on the Sinclair family? Yeah, Break is one of the most mature characters in the story and having regretted and learnt from his mistakes, he tries to pass on his experience to the kids so that they won’t repeat his mistakes.)
Before long, Leo does get over being “a spoiled child” and realizes that he had to accept his mistakes and take responsibility before things went from bad to worse. In Retrace 99, he faces the dilemma of choosing a side: stay a bystander and let Oswald go on to his end or stand up and act for what he wants.
And then, for what might be the most selfless reasons of all, Leo decides to not change the past.
Just like Oz-Gil—Leo, who always tried to dig into the world of books because his own real world was unbearable for him, was pulled out of it by Elliot by wanting to be his friend and not his master. Elliot didn’t want an obedient, servile yes-man but a friend who could stand by him yet scold him for his mistakes. “It’s the duty of a valet to correct his master’s actions.”
And so, for Elliot and for the sake of those memories where they met albeit for a short while, those memories being so precious to him that he doesn’t want them to be erased with the alteration of the past, he finally decides to stop being a bystander and confronts Oswald.
[Special shoutout to Break!— because once again it were his last words that helped influence his decision:
…That you’ll never find your future in the past… try as you might to reach back into it!!
Break just keeps tossing around good advice for everyone, even people whom he was not even addressing. Those words were meant for Vince, not Leo; yet Leo too benefits from them agfhsjhahaha]
I know Levi calls his reason “selfish” as well (considering he chooses this for fulfilling a personal desire) but to me, it’s not so. Had he stayed quiet and “passive”, and let Oswald change the past for his split second of thought process—"If I were not Glen, Elliot won’t have to die"—that'd be pretty selfish of him.
And, with that, Leo chooses a side he wants to fight for, no matter how painful his choice is and ends his “passivity”.
.
On the other hand, in Break's and Rufus Barma's words, Oswald never stopped being "a spoiled child" and over and over, keeps "hurting what's precious to him by his own hand". Even after his return to the world in Leo's body, his immediate decision is to kill Lacie to "set things right." Again.
Plus, Oswald did not have such a friend who cared about him unconditionally and wanted to be on equal footing.
Or, well, he did but he cast her into the Abyss and that’s where everything started to go wrong for him....
