The PH season seven trailer dropped on Watcher TV today and I'm going to try to break it down New Rockstars style - so settle in because this is a long one!
disclaimer: I am an oxymoron of a human who notices lots of details and misses other clues - so I might not have caught everything but I tried!
[s7 trailer easter eggs and spoiler-y thoughts under the cut]
The trailer opens with the Professor looking at the billboard for Phorgedytol, the tagline of which reads "(something) WITH YOUR BRAIN"
[note: this is different to the Phorgedytol billboard we see at the end of the trailer that reads "FRENCH THE VOID!"]
the first shot of Ryan in the trailer is from the episode with Aria Inthavong
behind them on the bookshelf you can see what I think is a brachiosaurus (from the late Jurassic era), a pair of alpacas, and the Genie lamp very prominently displayed!
then we cut to this interaction
Ryan: How long has it been since we've been in class?
to which the Professor gives a very non-committal "Uhhhh...."
[Interesting, no? Possible side-effect of the Professor taking Phorgedytol maybe?]
then we cut to guest Alex Song-Xia with a possibly foreboding comment
[this probably has no lore implications but I like that there's a framed copy of this photo that Ryan tweeted in 2021 on the set]
the trailer continues with the Professor talking to the guests
then the trailer cuts to what could be a major lore drop with Ryan saying, "You keep my wife's name out of your god damn mouth!" as he marches to the theater to slap the Professor
[notice how this is in black and white -that's the trailer edit not mine- so perhaps this is a flashback of some kind? Maybe to something that happened to make the Professor want to take Phorgedytol?]
Remember in s6 Ryan and the Professor were friends (see: the JC Penney photoshoot) so seeing a moment like this in the trailer is, for lack of a better phrase, a slap in the face
Based on what all the guests are wearing in the trailer it looks like The Slap will happen in Claudia's episode, based on the shot right before Ryan gets out of the chair (their reaction face is gorgeous btw)
we get a great out of context line from Sara Rubin
and the Professor talking about his anatomy with Brennan
Then the Lore Drop Hits
[yeah the rest of this was just a drop in the bucket in this trailer tbh]
The cuts happen fairly fast with overlapping VO - I posted most of the main shots earlier and there are some shots of the history skits that I skipped to focus on the Lore. These shots also have some alt descriptions in this post of things I noticed on the rewatch
VO Script
Mysterious Puppet: No, you louse. You sops. You absolute men.
Ryan: Well, this is collusion. They clearly-
Professor: That's not collusion.
Ryan: It's collusion! You guys fucking figured it out before this.
Brennan: Just get on his wavelength, man.
Professor: Get on my level!
Ryan: You're just not ready for the truth!
[First reactions: The Professor is wearing a party hat for a lot of this trailer, and so is the new puppet. So they must have been at the same party. Also, the Professor is standing in front of a sign that reads "Six Nasty Seasons" even though this is the trailer for season seven. Is that from the season six wrap party? Could it also point to Phorgedytol symptoms that we're 'missing' a season?
The horse puppet looking through the door has a moustache, so is very likely not Dorothy Ruth or Stanley Melvin Murphy. Maybe DR's fiancé? This same moustachio'd horse is in the pasta scene
Hard to say which horse is walking towards The Brown Derby but fun to note that was a real chain of restaurants in LA starting in 1926]
Then the Professor meets with the new Shane character - shall we call them Patch for now?
and that's the trailer in a nutshell!
*Roll End Credits*
Other reactions:
Delighted that we get canon confirmation that the Professor goes by Connie McNasty, at least some of the time
Love that Joyce and Garrett are back this season!
The noir, old Hollywood vibes of this trailer are gorgeous and overall it looks really well-made!
I hope we get some explanation for the slap that's not Ryan and the Professor becoming enemies again
the Liza Minelli* of it all
Not too sure on many theories at this point, but I'm sure it's going to be a great (but maybe nail-biting) season!
One thing about Lacie is that she's often portrayed through the eyes of other characters and that creates some unreliable characterization for her. I think the dialogue in the scene above is an interesting example.
There's a fascinating contrast between the way Levi describes Lacie as this “fickle girl” vs Jack describing her as a “free spirit”. They both seem to be describing similar aspects of her personality in a totally opposite manner and both are wrong in their own way.
Levi's words (not just here but in other scenes where he speaks of her supposed fickleness) come across as rather cynical and also sinister, even a little cruel in full context - he's fully aware of the circumstances that shaped Lacie into the person she is (as well as very much contributing to those circumstances), but still chooses to speak of her “fickleness” in a generally unsympathetic way that could easily paint her as a shallow, cruel and selfish girl.
Meanwhile, Jack's description comes across as one of fondness and is almost romantic. He is obviously not aware of Lacie’s circumstances - you can't fault him for it, but he's also not questioning them so there's that. He's already created his image of Lacie, based on their first meeting and his own complicated feelings for her, hence his words making her seem like this dreamy and carefree girl.
Frankly, the dialogue reveals less about Lacie's real character than it reveals about the two men, their perception and treatment of her.
Lacie is obviously a much more complex person than simply being capricious or free-spirited. It’s not that those descriptions don’t have shades of truth, as much as they are very deceptive aspects of her personality, obviously shaped by her life circumstances and also a way to deal with those circumstances to some degree. This context is always important when discussing her character and other characters' unreliable descriptions really shouldn't be taken at face value.
[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:
Hey link can you write an analysis on Jack’s relationship with Lacie and her feelings for him, too??
Sure, Non!
I’ve done a meta on Jack and Lacie’s relationship from Jack’s perspective so this meta is going to be focusing exclusively on Lacie’s perspective. I think one thing a lot of fans miss out on is Jack and Lacie are both incredibly selfish people. The reason the past trio, Oswald, Jack and Lacie all had a falling out was because all three of them were flawed.
Jack and Lacie both had a selfish love for each other, but they did love each other. It wasn’t even necessarily romantic love, but Lacie's time with Jack was the closest either of them came to loving another person.
1. The Lonely One
Lacie and Jack are actually two people who have a lot in common, in fact they probably have too much in common to be close to noe another. The strongest link between them is that they’re both incredibly lonely people. This monologue in chapter “Lacie” is as much about Lacie as it is herself.
Jack and Lacie are two children who have been dehumanized throughout their entire lives. They were never once treated as children. They were instead defined and othered as something else. Jack was treated as a bastard of the Vessalius household. Lacie was treated as a Child of Misfortune. They were treated as anything but children.
This follows them into adulthood as neither of them are capable of seeing themselves as people. They both play up their otherness. Lacie is someone who deliberately plays up her pixie-like qualities. She pretends to be a carefree girl in love with the whole world. She basically wants to be seen the way Jack sees her, as a special, magical girl, who just descended into his life.
Lacie plays up her fickleness, her childishness. What she did with Jack wasn’t even a one time thing, she escapes from the mansion a lot, finds a person to dote on for the day, Glen even calls them “Her Pets.” Lacie wants to experience love, but she doesn’t want to love a person, and she doesn’t want to be loved as a person so she just sort of plays up this childish, fickle, version of herself to get people to fall in love with, dote on, and obsess over the fake version of herself.
Lacie pretends to be free spirited when she’s actually the opposite. She’s a child who has been raised all of her life knowing she’s going to die. That weighs heavily on her every single moment of her life. She can never experience the normalcy of life, or be a person, because she’s going to be killed, and killed by her own brother at that. She spends every moment of her life chained down by those heavy thoughts, and her only way of dealing with it is pretending to be carefree. If she pretends that she doesn’t truly care about anything, she’s detached from everything and everyone she detaches herself from the pain too.
2. Two Lonely Children
Jack didn’t really want to love Lacie as a person. He just wanted a reason to keep going. Lacie didn’t really want to be loved as a person. She just wanted to play pretend.
Lacie plays up the dreamlike qualities of herself to get someone to obsess over her and uses that as a substitute for real affection, and Jack wants to obsess over someone. As I said Lacie and Jack are incredibly similiar in some of the worst ways possible. They both craved that closeness with one another, but also were both completely unable to provide that closeness for each other because of the circumstances they were unable to break free of. Jack was unable to overcome his trauma, and Lacie didn’t try to shake free of her destiny of being killed one day.
Their feelings for each other are constantly held in parallel to one another. Jack and Lacie at the same time deny having any affection for each other as people.
They are both using each other selfishly to an extent. Lacie is going to die one day so there’s no point in her getting attached to anybody but she wants to experience a relationship and being in love so she gets Jack to obsess over her. Jack wants someone to obsess over, so he tries not to get too close because he’s afraid of losing her if the real Lacie is someone he doesn’t quite like.
Lacie and Jack humanize each other, because they were the closest thing each other came to a real human relationship. They also dehumanize each other, because both of them can’t really handle the real thing.
Glen even says so: If Lacie had asked him too, Jack probably would have charged into the Baskerville mansion to save her, and taken her away from everything. Lacie was too scared to ask, and Jack was too scared to step over his boundaries. Their relationship failed because of failures on both parts. However, there was a genuine affection there.
All of Lacie’s talk about knowing about the whole world, and loving the whole world is basically just babble. Manic pixie dream girl nonsense. What Lacie wanted wasn’t the whole world, but rather the small connection to save her from her loneliness. That’s why she projects that loneliness on the will of the abyss.
Lacie’s happiest memory was the time she spent together with Jack and Oswald, because those were the times she came closest to being a normal person. It’s not that she loved the whole world necessarily (though she was definitely in love with life and wanted to live) she wanted to show it to them. It’s togetherness and closeness especially with the two boys closest to her that Lacie wanted, but she couldn’t have because as much as she longed for it she was also afraid of that closeness because it required her to be a person and that would make dying eventually all the more painful. Lacie and Jack’s relationship is stunted and tragic, but they did mean something to each other, and they did give something to one another. Even if all they could give was a few short, beautiful memories. The time they spent together was the closest either of them came to loving and being loved. They each wanted to show each other the world. The closest they could both come was showing each other a few happy memories of a normal friendship between three people.
One of the reasons why I adore Jun Mochizuki's works is because her villains create very great conflicts. In Pandora Hearts, I couldn't bring myself to hate Jack because he was such a well-written sociopath. Manipulative and ruthless, but also charming in an odd way. The greatest twist villain I have ever seen in media too. As for you, what do you think of Jun Mochizuki's villains and which are your favorites?
I could never bring myself to hate Jack either. He is … an atrocious person, but I can’t help but pity him to a certain degree. He was charming, mad, and a complete mystery to himself. Everyone else may have wondered why Jack did what he did, but I think the most confused person was Jack himself. Sure, he said it was for Lacie, but I think deep down even he knew that was an excuse.
Anyhoo, I generally like Mochizuki’s villains. Isla Yura was kind of… yeah. I don’t know what I’m supposed to make of that one. I have a feeling he is some kind of stereotype, but words are failing me at the moment. My feelings toward Isla Yura are similar to my feelings for Dr. Moreau, although I have a much more visceral reaction to Moreau. I kind of hate that guy. XD
But hating a villain is sort of the point a lot of times, so let’s talk a bit more about the obvious villains Mochizuki has written (excluding Jack since we just did), starting with Pandora Hearts.
Leo was pretty great because he was sort of more of an antihero and that only happened later in the series after a long list of bad things happened. He was in mourning and he felt he was out of options and he ultimately came around. So, he’s not really a “proper” villain because he never had genuine villainous intentions and he redeemed himself.
A better example of a villain in PH is Vincent and you can still make a solid argument for him being more of an antihero. Everything he did was for his brother, the one person he cared about to the point where you could easily argue his feelings were probably a bit incestuous based off his behavior alone, but he did bucketloads of awful things even ignoring his unhealthy attachment to Gilbert. Sure, it was largely stemming from trauma caused by Miranda (which probably explains some of the misogyny), but still. He somewhat redeems himself later on with both Gilbert and Ada, thus giving him a full arc. Vincent is perfectly balanced between being likeable and absolutely despicable and is therefore a good villain.
Both of these characters have a lot of depth; you can’t quite hate them, but you can’t fully agree with what they’re doing either. I think Mochizuki did a good job in PH.
Now let’s get to VNC. Ruthven is the most obvious villain at the moment, although I wouldn’t be surprised if he becomes something of an antihero…
I’ll be honest, though. I’m not sure I want to see Ruthven be an antihero. He’s committed some genuine atrocities, and I would very much like to see him answer for those crimes. To date, he seems to be attempting to reignite a war, he’s working with Charlatan and the Church, tried to kill Chloé to cover up a conspiracy, he assaulted Noé, and he holds both Noé and Jeanne under his sway (they’re both basically sleeper agents at this point…). We’re only seven volumes in and this guy is wracking up quite an evil count.
Still, he also took Jeanne in when no one else would, he spared Noé when he didn’t have to, and he was the one who stopped the vampire/human war in the first place. He also seems to be under the sway of Charlatan, so he might be a curse bearer that’s had his will stripped away, thus making him a victim like everyone else. None of that excuses the bad he’s done even remotely, but it does add way more nuance.
In short, Ruthven is a good villain.
So, how about Teacher? We don’t know nearly enough about him to make a good assessment, but I’ll give you my current interpretation of the character: Teacher is a chess master, and quite possibly the ultimate big bad in this series. He has no real attachment to anyone; he’s the definitive Yagami Light: he’s doing everything because he’s bored and curious and he wants to see what will happen if he pushes variables just right.
To date, he took Louis in when his family didn’t want him and then proceeded to use him as an experiment for the kid’s entire life to see “how he would react.” He also killed him in front of Noé when the experiment reached its conclusion.
He went to the black market, bought Noé off of it, told him to call him “Teacher” instead of “Master” and then raised him as his own. That almost sounds like a good deed until you then remember he has also kept a great deal of knowledge away from Noé, thus keeping him ignorant of many basic things in society that really would have come in handy. He spent all his time training him to fight and use the world formula, was apparently a difficult trainer, and then sent him off into the world on his own without any really useful knowledge to investigate The Book of Vanitas.
As if all of that wasn’t suspicious enough, he appears to be watching Noé through Murr, so he knows all of the heinous things happening to Noé and has literally done nothing to prevent any of it; he’s just watching.
Noé is Teacher’s puppet and he doesn’t even know it. He’s genuinely fond of him as a mentor and would do anything for him without question. It’s truly insidious.
So, yeah, Teacher is a great villain, but I think we’re all going to be furious with him by the end of the series. The real question is whether we’ll see any redeeming features to the guy. Does he have any good reasons for doing any of this? Who knows! The fact that we can’t see his facial features reminds me of Xai Vessalius, and I don’t think that guy did anything to redeem himself whatsoever, so, you know.
Uh, but as far as who my favorite villains in Mochizuki’s works are? Probably Jack. XD He’s such a scumbag, but a sympathetic one, and the twists surrounding him were both a lot of fun and utterly devastating. Still, VNC isn’t over yet, so there’s plenty of time to see if that opinion changes!
Gilbert and Vincent's fate is so interesting and ironic.
They were doomed. Their relationship was doomed in the same way Oswald and Lacie's was. Gil was supposed to become Glen and execute Vincent, they were going to become yet another victim of the whole cruel cycle of the Glens and the Children of Misfortune.
And then they escaped that fate solely because of the Tragedy. Something so awful and devastating that almost destroyed the world and yet, in a horribly ironic way, removed two children from that cycle and resulted in them getting a second chance at living and being together.
Of course, I'm not saying the Tragedy was somehow a good thing for anyone. And of course, it's not like getting that second chance was enough to save Gil and Vincent - in fact, they only ended up even more messed up (especially Vincent with how he was manipulated in the events of the Tragedy and how much he wanted to destroy himself). And their relationship suffered because of it too - boy, was it unhealthy at times! But having the chance to both live, they also had the chance to save themselves and save their relationship. Which they eventually did.
It's just all so messed up and ironic, and such a fascinating take on what it means to be doomed by the narrative and to escape the narrative.
This might sound like quite a reach, because they never even met in canon, but I feel like there's such an interesting contrast between certain aspects of Lottie and Lacie's characters. They are two Baskerville women, whose very different status in the family shapes them into almost complete opposites in terms of self-expression, beliefs, experiences and relationships.
It's just interesting to think about some of the themes reflected in their characters and what they reveal about the Baskerville family. Some messy, self-indulgent analysis ahead.
Different personas and the subversion of archetypes
It's obvious even from their character designs that Lottie and Lacie present themselves very differently - and their personas seem dangerously close to some...problematic archetypes.
They could have easily been a shallow embodiment of harmful tropes - Lacie The Manic Pixie Dream Girl vs Lottie The Femme Fatale - but that's thankfully not the case. Even with somewhat limited screen time, both are given enough depth to be complex women who defy those archetypes.
What's more, I think it's safe to say that their outward personas are also kind of an "armor" - something that helped them protect themselves and deal with their respective circumstances.
Lottie comes across as this vicious Femme Fatale with cynical views of the world and its necessity for cruelty. It makes sense that she presents herself this way. After helping carry out the Sablier massacre, having to live with the blood on her hands, having to survive in a present where her family has been brought to ruin and missing a leader...she'd definitely need to become (or at least adopt the persona of) someone a little tougher, sharper and even a little more cruel.
But she's ultimately not just some dangerous Femme Fatale and a cynic who only sees the ugly in the world - deep down, she's much more warm and caring than she seems. And by the end of the manga, it's clear that she does have love for the world too, proven by her promise to Glen.
Lacie, on the other hand, appears to be this wild and free-spirited girl, who loves the world despite its cruelty. Lacie is someone who has been branded a cursed existence and is fated to die for it - she's also someone who refuses to be defined by victimhood. She needs to be this dreamy and free-spirited girl, needs to look for meaning in her tragic life and find beauty in the cruel world around her - otherwise she'd be swallowed by despair and loneliness.
She's also much more complicated than a Dream Girl archetype and despite her love for the world, she's not really some idealist either. She bottles up her painful feelings until almost the very end, but when we do get a glimpse into them, it becomes clear that she's a lot more human and vulnerable than she seems.
The two sides of the same family
The most obvious connection between Lacie and Lottie is the fact they are both part of the Baskerville family...only their experience and understanding of "family" couldn't be more different.
For Lottie being a Baskerville is what allows her to find and create a loving family for herself, to form meaningful bonds with other people like her - the former outcasts, lost children wronged by the world, who have now found a new beginning and a place to belong. It's certainly not a perfect family, but you can tell the love, respect and loyalty between Lottie and her little group is genuine.
But for Lacie, due to her position as a Child of Misfortune, being a Baskerville could never become a salvation from being a mistreated child - it only elevates her mistreatment to a different level.
In reality, being a Baskerville is what shatters her ability to have a normal family and leaves her with a twisted version of it: a cruel father figure who willingly corrupts their relationship in a despicable way (I'll go back to this later) and a loving brother who is bound by his "duty" to become his little sister's executioner. There is no doubt Oswald loved Lacie more than anything in the world, but it's clear that her impending death at his hands weighed heavily between them and denied them the happy sibling relationship they deserved.
Loyalty, rebelliousness and who is truly free
Lacie and Lottie's personal sense of freedom and ability to think for themselves is a major theme for both characters and is (seemingly) established from their first appearance.
Again, Lacie is quite clearly characterized as someone rebellious and free-spirited. She has her unique beliefs, displaying that she is capable of thinking for herself. She doesn't simply accept things - she questions everything. Not only is this the impression you get from her, but she's directly described like this by Jack.
Meanwhile, Lottie is positioned as being extremely devoted to her Master Glen. It's not that she's portrayed as "submissive", as much as she can easily come across as something of a brainwashed cultist. She helped carry out a massacre on her Master's orders without even understanding the reason why - and when confronted about it, her response is simply that the Baskervilles are "built" to obey Glen, that's just how it is.
This sounds like a far cry from Lacie who questions everything.
But the reality is a little more complicated.
The key thing here is how Lacie and Lottie's different circumstances and status shape their personal freedom. They both exist within a system that reinforces Glen's absolute power, but Lottie is Glen's valued subordinate, while Lacie is Glen's glorified prisoner sentenced to death.
Lottie's freedom isn't being limited in a traumatizing way like Lacie's freedom has been. Like I said, Lottie found home and purpose with the Baskervilles, she wasn't being mistreated in that family, so of course she's fiercely loyal to it. Unlike Lacie, whose little acts of rebellion serve as a coping mechanism for her bleak circumstances, Lottie has little to no reason to rebel against her Master and family.
And yet, even in her first appearance (despite pretending that she doesn't mind committing any kind of violence for her Master) Lottie is clearly looking to understand the events of 100 years ago - and that already shows that she's capable of questioning things. What's more, despite the claim that the Baskervilles obey Glen by nature and can't defy him, despite Lottie's own established loyalty to Glen, she does have the agency and the ability to defy her Master.
It takes her some time to overcome her Baskerville beliefs and make the decision, but once she realizes she can't support Glen's current path, she ultimately follows her own morals and does the right thing.
And as for Lacie...for all her free spirit and rebelliousness, she has been physically and emotionally trapped by her fate, conditioned to accept it and that makes it very difficult for her to actually rebel against it. She doesn't want to die and is terrified by that fate, but she bottles it up - and it's debatable if she ever genuinely considered the possibility of running away. She seems to find the idea of running away with Jack almost laughable.
Maybe at that point it's understandable, considering her pregnancy which...made her fate even more inescapable in a way. But even outside of that, I don't think she could even begin to imagine a future where she's allowed to live her life.
Which is not to say Lacie's personal beliefs are somehow fake and should be dismissed, let alone looking down on her for not saving herself - she was a victim of a violent cycle and her personality only highlights that violent cycles are incredibly difficult to escape, regardless of how strong and free-spirited someone is.
Power dynamics, unhealthy relationships and Glen
This kind of echoes the previous point, but let's also take a look at it through the lens of Lacie and Lottie's relationships with (their respective) Glen.
Lottie's loyalty to Glen isn't something unique - it's a part of the Baskerville identity - however, she’s arguably the Baskerville whose loyalty is the most heavily emphasized during the story.
What’s more, she's implied to have some romantic feelings for her Master, which adds a unique layer. On paper, the combination of her absolute loyalty and her feelings for him sounds like it could develop into something pretty toxic. It raises several red flags - being infatuated with a man who has power over her, believing said power is absolute and cannot be questioned, remaining devoted to him even after he orders her to kill innocent people.
Meanwhile, Lacie's relationship with her own Glen is established as something very different. Lacie doesn't seem to hold much respect for his position, being comfortable addressing him informally and talking back to him in a teasing manner - and this almost creates the illusion of some kind of equality and "normalness" between them, despite their power imbalance. (To be fair, it wouldn't be completely unfathomable considering they are supposed to be family.)
But it's no surprise Lacie isn't worshiping at Glen's feet. It fits with Lacie's notorious free spirit and beliefs, already shown during her encounter with Jack as a teenager.
And what's really interesting, we see that her unique philosophy about questioning everything is the opposite of what she was told by Glen when she was a child.
At the very least she wasn't brainwashed by him - in fact, she seems pretty disconnected by the whole notion of Glen's absolute power and the need for absolute obedience, something Lottie claims is a core part of a Baskerville's identity.
The juxtaposition is so interesting, because those dynamics are rather deceptive - while Lacie's relationship with Glen/Levi is revealed to be a lot more sinister than it seems, Lottie's relationship with Glen/Oswald ends up a lot less toxic than expected.
Lacie's relationship with Levi ultimately adds another layer to her tragic fate. No, he didn't manage to brainwash her or break her spirit, but he most definitely groomed, manipulated and conditioned her to think of her death as something inevitable - and this grooming and conditioning also make it very questionable if she could actually defy him, despite her sharp and seemingly unafraid attitude.
Sadly, I think Lacie really internalized the idea that her death is inescapable, hence why she never considered actually running away. Instead, she clung to the "silver lining" of saving the Core from loneliness and while this might have brought some comfort to her, it doesn't change the horrific nature of the way Levi manipulated and exploited her. The rhetoric that she's going to die anyway, so it's fine for her body to be exploited is just so inherently dehumanizing. And it's very important to note here...the fact she probably didn't see herself as a victim in this situation and didn't behave as a "perfect victim" doesn't make it any less horrible and doesn't make her complicit in her own abuse. None of it is her fault.
On the other hand, Lottie's relationship with Oswald not only doesn't really turn into something toxic, but becomes a vehicle for her positive growth. Lottie proves that she isn't actually a cultist, a puppet, a foolish follower - or at least can choose not to be any of these things and be an individual with her own morals.
There's a lot to say about the cult-like nature of the Baskerville family and how everyone was a victim of it - that's why Lacie seems like such a unique person, but in the end, her beliefs couldn't really protect her from being victimized as a part of the cycle and on personal level. Lottie might have not held Lacie's unique beliefs, but she's able to unlearn harmful Baskerville ideas about absolute obedience and she's able to defy Glen - it helps that she was not subjected to grooming, raised as a human sacrifice or abused by Glen in some way.
I think this is a good place to note - because I know it can come across this way - that my goal here isn't to pit two female characters against each other, let alone demean either of them. The point also isn't to portray Lacie as nothing but a victim, while praising Lottie's character at her expense.
Of course, Lacie isn't "just" a victim. She remained her own person and did her best to create some power for herself within bleak circumstances. She had a lot of impact on those close to her and the world around her - and that's beautiful and important, but it doesn't make her life (and death) any less tragic.
The comparison to Lottie is very intriguing to me, because Lottie is the clearest example of a Baskerville woman who is a regular member of the family. It's not that Lottie's life is a fairy tale, but my focus is that Lottie was not treated like an anomaly, a cursed existence or a prisoner in the family. And when you look at a woman who actually found a home and purpose with the Baskervilles, who wasn't abused and oppressed in a dehumanizing manner, who had a proper support system and was treated with respect, who had actual freedom - it really highlights how much was being denied to Lacie and the horror of her fate becomes even more impactful.
Thinking about Gil's relationship with Oswald and it's making me sad, particularly looking at their interactions during Gil's childhood pre-Tragedy... Because I do think that Oswald cared for Gil and was trying to be a decent father/mentor figure to him, but I also feel like maintaining a healthy familial or master-servant relationship was not fully possible in the Glen succession system as it was in the past, aka based around continuing a cruel cycle and imposing harmful beliefs.
No matter how much Oswald cared or was doing his best, as long as the status quo of the Baskervilles remained unchanged, his relationship with Gil would have never been able to stay purely healthy once Gil grew up and began to realize what is expected of him as Oswald's successor, particularly regarding his brother's fate.
And when you look at the events of the actual, present-day story, where their relationship does become pretty toxic and Oswald does end up hurting Gil...it's a bit complicated, because obviously, Oswald's actions come following extreme, tragic circumstances and he had lost himself for a while on his quest to change the past, so that behavior is not necessarily reflective of his real character - and I'm absolutely not arguing that he's some kind of a monster...but that's the point, he doesn't need to be a horrible person and a monster in order to continue a harmful cycle and cause damage.
Because even with extraordinary circumstances at hand, even taking into account Oswald's (mostly) sympathetic motives and qualities, the fact remains that he was quite willing to use and control Gil for his goals (not to mention he was doing all that by actively controlling Leo's body) - and I'd argue this is all very much rooted in ideas and values that had been passed down to Oswald through the Baskerville cycle (where "duty" comes first, even at the cost of sacrificing your own family) and is definitely telling of the kind of inherently toxic and exploitative power dynamic (that could very easily escalate into control and abuse) that existed within the Glen succession system.
Which is also why it's such a great and important moment for Gil when he disobeys Oswald and chooses Oz as his master - while Oz and Gil's relationship wasn't necessarily without some issues from time to time, it was most certainly not based around a violent cycle and was ultimately defined by mutual friendship, respect and a loyalty that came from Gil's own free will. Something that could have never been fully possible with him and Oswald no matter how much they might have genuinely cared for each other.
