#am i being obnoxious by continually posting about ph and flooding the main tags? ಥ_ಥ

[fivekrystalpetals]

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.

[ Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4]