Vincent Nightray is one of my favorite characters ever. My interpretation of him irrevocably conflicts with that of nearly everyone else I have seen, even among those who like him. I've written a lot of meta on him. This is a collection of it. In summary: I truly, genuinely believe that Vincent Nightray was one of the most kind, selfless, and moral characters in Pandora Hearts. I also don't find him attractive in the slightest. If you are interested in my personal interpretation of him, see this blog post.
Note that NONE of this blog entry is to be used as justification for any information present on the Wiki, except perhaps in case of proof of concept. Most of what's written here has been uploaded to other sites before, but this will be the most "refined" version, put through further editing and sorted more coherently. This blog post may update as I write more about him. There is no coherent "theme" to this post, aside from all articles explaining my interpretation of Vincent.
This blog entry may contain severe content as is relevant to the discussion of his character. No details will be gone into, and no content that was not already explicitly canon or accepted as canon by virtue of being strongly implied will be referenced. However, be warned for potential upsetting content, including suicide, abuse, animal cruelty/death, and unhealthy family dynamics.
A General Summary of My Thoughts on Vincent Nightray[]
For the purpose of argument, let's assume that human suffering is ethically wrong. I will not be justifying this viewpoint, by virtue of it being (most likely) something you already believe, or at least understand a belief in. Once we accept that human suffering is ethically wrong, let us assume, for the sake of argument, that choosing not to prevent human suffering when doing so would not inflict further suffering is morally wrong. That is, if it is within your power to do as much, you are morally obligated to help others, given helping would not somehow cause other, more significant harm. Again, I will not be justifying this viewpoint. I am simply establishing a moral framework. This, by the way, is called moral utilitarianism. In summary, it is a moral framework which says the ethical course of action is that which brings the greatest amount of happiness, or allows for the least amount of suffering to occur. Moral utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism, a word which describes ethical systems in which the morality is determined not by the inherent "rightness" or "wrongness" of an action, but by its outcomes.
Assuming, for the sake of argument, all of what I stated was true, I want you to consider the following circumstances: if you continue to exist, many people will suffer and die. This degree of suffering is extensive to the point where it is incredibly unlikely anything you do during your lifetime will counteract the suffering brought about by your existence. There is no way to prevent this suffering, so long as you exist. It then follows: if you cannot survive without inflicting tremendous human suffering, but it is within your power to prevent this suffering through your death, you are morally obligated to die.
But suicide itself presents a problem. Perhaps if humans were not moral creatures, your death would not affect them. Yet you believe them to be, or, at least, you believe a sufficient number of humans are capable of compassion sufficient to feel sorrow at the death of another human. Sorrow is, of course, a form of suffering, and by committing suicide you would be knowingly and willingly inflicting suffering onto others, which is immoral. How, then, does one commit an ethical suicide? While most humans will feel compassion for those who have died to suicide, or even attempt to stop them, humans are not endlessly patient creatures. They have their limits, and most, if not all humans will not mourn the death of one they perceive as detestably immoral. It then follows: the only way to ethically commit suicide is to present oneself as detestably immoral.
Suppose, further, that upon your death, all actions you took during life (excluding that which directly led to your death) were undone. They had no consequences. Since we have, up until this point, followed a consequentialist viewpoint, this is an important factor to consider. This would mean no possible amount of suffering you could inflict would ever outweigh the suffering you would prevent, and you are in fact morally obligated to inflict suffering (to an extent) in order to prevent the mourning of or any attempts to hinder your suicide. It then follows: all actions which would be perceived as immoral by your observers ultimately serve a moral end, and you are, to an extent, morally obligated to commit these actions.
In Retrace XCVI: Disagree, Vincent tells Gilbert directly- in showing kindness to him, Gilbert had undone all the work Vincent had devoted his entire life to. I've lived these fifteen years only to eliminate my existence. I have to eliminate myself to undo everything I've done- I've always lived my life in such a way that nothing of me would remain.
We know Vincent admired morality. It was what fueled his earnest love for Elliot, his genuine admiration for Break (despite their rivalry). It was what spurred his hatred for his father, who he saw as selfish, cruel, a reflection for himself. We know Vincent lied about his true character- both to society as a whole, playing the role of a gentle bachelor, yes, but also to the readers themselves. For all his insistence he only cared for his brother, it becomes plainly obvious this is simply not the case. He loved Jack, he loved Elliot, he loved Ada, he loved Leo, and even those with the most vehement hatred for Vincent could not deny his feelings in each of these cases were earnest. However, Vincent had something to gain from claiming to love only his brother, a love he could frame as twisted and in itself immoral- it allowed him to further play the role of the villain, put him in a position in which everyone would want him dead.
While I will not claim Vincent was morally perfect (in fact, he was quite wrong! he was, at the end of the day, still a villain!) his ethical system is not the warped, sadistic, libertine thing it is often made out to be (as he wanted us to make it out to be.) It was, in fact, an incredibly reasonable series of decisions made on the basis of preserving as much human life as possible given the information he had. Vincent had deliberately destroyed his own life, spent every waking moment on it, in the hope he would be able to save someone else. There is no possible way to frame this such that what he did was anything but utterly selfless.
Where the Blame Lies[]
Who was it that caused the Tragedy of Sablier? No, really, who was it?
Let's see. Had Lacie not befriended the Core, the Tragedy of Sablier likely would not have happened. Oz would not have been created, meaning there was no Chain by which the "chains" could be destroyed. The Core would not have realized her personhood, and thus likely would not have bothered to be the surrogate mother to Lacie's children. Similarly, the Core would not be driven into the depths of despair that facilitated the corruption of Abyss, circumstances that likely contributed to the Tragedy. Yet all of that is uncertain- just because those means would not be available does not mean the Tragedy would not have occurred. Besides, it's not like any singular item of that list was meant to bring about disaster- all I just said were acts of love, meant to bring happiness to the Core, and thus the world. So that's a bit unfair.
If it's not Lacie and the Core, then it might be Lacie and Jack. Had Lacie not saved Jack, he would not have survived to suffer the abuse he did, to rise in society as he did, to develop the awful obsession with her he did. If Lacie had not left a fragment of her memories behind for Jack, he wouldn't have thought to drag the material world into Abyss at all. Yet again, there are a few problems with that. There was no cruelty to Lacie's behavior. Her choice to save Jack was one made out of compassion, if a rather capricious show of it. To place the blame on her for saving a boy instead of leaving him to die when she could not have possibly understood the consequences of this seems unfair. Ignoring Lacie entirely, there's an important issue being overlooked- Jack would have no reason to cause the Tragedy of Sablier had Lacie not died.
So the Tragedy must be the fault of Lacie's murderer, Oswald, for doing what he did. Had he refused to kill Lacie, the Tragedy would not have happened. Maybe that's true. Yet there is a reason Oswald did what he did- a reason so profound many Pandora Hearts fans don't understand what he did was wrong. Oswald was not aware there was a choice. Or- maybe a better way to say it- Oswald did not understand he had the right to make a choice. Since early childhood, Oswald had been taught to value his life only insofar as he could serve Glen Baskerville and the Jurors. Since early childhood, Oswald had been taught to see Lacie as expendable, as someone that must be eliminated for his personal advancement. This was done through abuse, it was done through brainwashing, and the story does an excellent job of putting you in Oswald's headspace as he kills Lacie. He begs her to run away. She refuses. It never crosses his mind that she may have meant it was his choice to make. Oswald was not born that way, and he did not act out of malice. It can be said he earnestly believed what he was doing was right, even necessary. So it seems strange to say it is his fault.
That leaves us with the person who put those thoughts in Oswald's head- the one to abuse him and his sister, to order her death to begin with. Levi is a joke of a character. He's nothing. His name is an anagram of "evil," a label which he openly identifies with and relishes. There's no humanity to him at all- life is a comedy, the world is a travesty, and he couldn't give a damn who lived or died or suffered within it, so long as it entertained him. What he did to Lacie and Oswald he did of his own free will, knowing exactly the outcome that would result for both children and himself. Yet it is important to remember that, whatever Levi did to Oswald, Levi had the same done to him. Levi never acted of his own will, though he did not believe he acted under coercion. His "experiment" had been conceived by generations of Glens before him, his training of Oswald the way it had been since the dawn of time. Levi had been given a role, and he played it out, just as much as Oswald had. So who is there to blame?
The true answer, is, of course, no one specifically. It was inevitability, not fate, which brought about Tragedy. Had it not been the particular actors we saw, it would have been another set- different appearances, different personalities, different wills, yet all still serving the same purpose and bringing about the same ends. That is the nature of the Tale, of the Hundred Cycles. Institutional designs were what wrought the Tragedy, designs which no single person could be blamed for nor be expected to reject. The events of the story were not doomed to happen from the start- this is a distinct process from destiny. In the same sense it is inevitable that a child left with nothing but knives will eventually cut herself, it was inevitable that the Tragedy would come about. The issue lies not in the child, nor can it be said that he was destined for self injury. Fault lies in those who left her no other option.
You'll notice how I have not mentioned Vincent in all this time. Wasn't the Tragedy his fault, though? He seemed so concerned with saying it wasn't. Why take all that time to show the desperation with which he denied wrongdoing- why the villainous framing of it all? Surely, the blame must lie with him, as he was there, and all signs post to him. Consider, logically, then: I command a child to touch a hot plate. The child follows my command, and is burnt. Is this the child's fault? Of course not. Children lack the experience to know the danger of a hot plate, and, furthermore, are taught to trust the words of adults before their own intuition and urges. As an adult, I would've purposefully deceived the child into doing something that would harm them, and though the child did hurt himself of his own volition, she knew not of what he did. To deceive children into harming themselves is cruel. It's downright inhuman. To then blame the child would only add insult to injury. Now, a similar scenario: I tell a child to submerge a land animal in water. I tell her to hold it there. The animal dies. Who is to blame? I am, of course, for deliberately deceiving the child. Yet the child will not see it this way- the child understands it was his actions that led to the animal's death, and feels grief for this.
We all saw Vincent insist it was not his fault- that it was her, that he did it for Gil, that he couldn't be blamed- and the thing is, that's completely correct. That is the true nature of things. It was not Vincent's fault. It simply wasn't. Yet Vincent says it over and over, shouting, as if he doesn't really believe it. It is worth noting: another person finding record of you having said something is not the same as having said it to them. When Vincent insists that the Tragedy of Sablier is not his fault, he is always completely alone. There is no one to convince of his innocence but himself. It is immensely obvious from Vincent's actions that he considers himself responsible for the Tragedy- his motivation simply does not make sense unless he thinks his death would fix things! The purpose, then, in showing Vincent's hysteria in denying blame is not to communicate that Vincent is dishonest or cowardly. It is to communicate the dissonance between reality and Vincent's perception of it- Vincent recognizes his lack of fault, attempts to convince himself of it, and fails. In Retrace XXXI, Vincent outright says he believes it was all his fault.
There are two people Vincent directly accuses of having caused the Tragedy in his stead- Miranda Barma and the Intention of the Abyss. I will not deny that. However, even this carries implications regarding Vincent's perception of reality. The issue here lies in Vincent's relationship with both Miranda and the Intention- specifically, that he perceives both of these people as extensions of himself.
On Vincent and Gil (How History Repeats)[]
It was rereading Retrace LXXIX that got me to finally realize Vincent's true nature after a year of vehement hatred for him. I, like many, had interpreted Vincent's anger during Gilbert's confrontation with him as jealousy- supposedly, it was Gil's devotion to Oz that Vincent found sickening, his horror being Gil's choosing of Oz over him. Yet rereading, I looked more closely, and realized Vincent's despair was in being apologized to. The only words to leave Gilbert's mouth are "Vince, I'm sorry," before Vincent's expression twists and he slaps him away. Vincent insists, over and over, that Gil not touch him, that what's happening is sick, that he can't possibly go with him. All the while, Gil only talks about Vincent. Oz does not come up in the conversation a single time. What is horrifying to Vincent is that Gilbert has recognized him as a victim, is now stating an unselfish desire to protect him, is now admitting responsibility over his place in the world. And in Retrace XCVI, Vincent tells him as such. This was what made me realize Vincent had desired rejection all along- that his actions were, truly, out of a selfless desire to save others.
This fear of intimacy, of affection- particularly from Gilbert- was actually consistently characterized across Pandora Hearts. Despite Vincent begging for attention from his older brother, the only actual "affection" shown between them after the Tragedy of Sablier and before Retrace LXXIX was when Vincent and Gil first reunited in the Nightray Manor in Retrace XIII. Gil slaps Vincent away (in a manner eerily reminiscent to how Oz's father slapped Oz away in Retrace X) before breaking down, prompting Vincent to embrace him. Remembering Break's command to "take advantage of everything [he] can," Gil reluctantly touches Vincent's back before he asked him to show him the Raven. There's no affection in the gesture, no warmth- it comes immediately after a blatant display of disgust, and just before what Gil himself narrates as taking advantage of Vincent. The only other times Gil shows affection for Vincent following their adoption (excluding their interaction at the end of the hundred year timeskip) is in Retrace LXXIX- which I just explained caused Vincent extreme distress- and in Retrace CIII, when Gil absentmindedly pats Vincent's head. Vincent, at that point, had undergone considerable character development. He had accepted Ada's forgiveness, overcome Miranda's influence, and no longer sought to end his life. Yet he still showed discomfort with as simple and meaningless a gesture as being pat on the head. While it's my intention to stick to sources mostly from the original comic, the canonical Caucus Race story "Lucky Day" explicitly states that Vincent found Gilbert's touch repulsive, to the point of nausea and panic at the thought of it.
It took me a bit longer to realize for what Gil apologized, though. Gil is sympathetic, very much so, especially given he's one of the central perspective characters. While hardly flawless, it's easy to empathize with his treatment of Vincent. That he would distrust him seemed natural- in fact, I was astounded he had the patience to never punish him more. It seemed Gil was always quite sorry over having hated Vincent, and given he believed he was sacrificing his own life for Vincent's sake in Retrace LXV, I thought he had more than made up for it. Why, then, is Retrace LXXIX treated as the single biggest moment of character development for Gilbert in the entire series? Why is it the major upturn in an arc that had been, up until that point, wave up on wave of despair? Why would so much gravity be given to an apology if it truly only amounted to "sorry for not noticing the feelings you deliberately hid from me"? Another reread made me realize what it was: specifically, it was one line from Retrace LXXIII:
"It was because... Vincent had a crimson eye like Lacie's... [...] The older brother, who would eventually inherit the Glen name... and the younger brother, who was born as a Child of Ill Omen. It was... like I was seeing those two again-"
Here, Jack draws an unambiguous, direct parallel between Oswald/Lacie's relationship and Gil/Vincent's- or, perhaps more accurately, he acknowledged the nature of the relationship between Glen and the Child of Ill Omen. What drove Jack to save Gil and Vincent, to turn them over to Glen, to start the Tragedy to begin with, was his obsession with Lacie. As a Child of Ill Omen, Vincent's relationship to Lacie- specifically, that he was her successor, in the way that Gil was Oswald's- cannot be denied. Thus, we are forced to look at Vincent and Gil's relationship not through the lens of their being self-contained, isolated individuals, but through the lens of their being a continuation of a dynamic that has existed since the beginning of time. A dynamic which had, up until Vincent and Gil, invariably resulted in the continual exploitation of the person in Vincent's role by the person in Gil's role, ending in the murder of the former by the latter, who would then go on to perpetuate the cycle.
Vincent and Gil's relationship is not simply an unhealthy dynamic between two brothers. It is a manifestation of institutional oppression and violence, one which has existed since the beginning of time. Their existences and their roles in the narrative are defined by their power dynamic- specifically, that Gil was always the one with power over Vincent. This is reflected in the timing of Gil's apology. The moment Gil decides he's had enough, that he realizes to unquestioningly play his role is to commit unspeakable evil, the moment he finally affirms his love for Vincent and acknowledges his role in his abuse comes just after the relationship between Lacie and Oswald is fully explained and we learn how it ended. The two dynamics are not separable. Oswald, who was at best indifferent to his sister's suffering, who in the end chose to actively facilitate it, who refused to admit that his actions were wrong and continued to blame his sister for her own abuse and murder, is a reflection of Gil. And Lacie, who suffered in silence, who made herself out to be cruel despite possessing a deep kindness, who in her last moments wanted to console her murderer, is a reflection of Vincent.
Now, this may sound extreme. I want you to understand, I like Gil. I actually think he's the best written male character in Pandora Hearts, even if I prefer Vincent for personal reasons, and his character development is beyond fantastic. He serves his purpose extremely well! I have a lot of respect for him as a character. To claim that he may have been complacent in his brother's abuse seems harsh, much less to assert that he actively facilitated it. It's especially severe given Vincent's awful behavior, how I myself asserted he deliberately incited hatred by others towards himself. Isn't it more likely that Gil is the victim? Gil is gentle, and emotional, and repulsed by violence- which cannot be said of his younger brother. Gil is a protagonist, after all. It's natural that we'd sympathize with him more than Vincent.
Please reread Retrace XXXIII, and pay special attention to who is asserting power over whom, and how exactly this happens. Who is it that assumes malice in the other, despite limited evidence at best? Who is it that approaches violently? Who says he does not care whom the other hurts, so long as it does not affect him personally? And then, who is it, who is hit and thrown against the wall? Who is it that is grabbed by the neck and yelled at, completely unarmed? Who is it that refuses to resist, even as this happens? Of course, that's not to say that Vincent is a saint during this chapter- he is manipulative, he is degrading, and his language borders on abusive. Yet abuse is not simply a matter of who did what wrong- it is a matter of power dynamics, of the humiliation of one by the other. Vincent at no point threatens consequences if Gil does not take his "advice." He had no power to establish them. He is manipulative, yes, but all he does is restate information Gil already knew. Gil's reaction was, ultimately, a reflection of desires and character traits Gil already had. Vincent actually seemed surprised by his degree of anger- and it is only after Gil already openly, loudly professed a willingness to kill all that stood in his way that Vincent called him cruel. Even then, there's a certain sadness to Vincent's phrasing- oh, elder brother is as weak and cruel as ever. (As he always had been, to me, when we were children.)
Gilbert is not loving towards his brother. He is not affectionate. In Retrace XXXVIII, he confessed to wanting him dead- to abandoning him repeatedly, to blaming him for their suffering. He himself characterized this as cruel. Yet he refused to truly leave Vincent, not out of love for him, nor because he considered leaving him to die to be morally wrong, but because Vincent was useful. As children, he was fuel for Gil's ego. No matter what happened, Vincent would always love Gil, would always need him, and Gil did not have that same guarantee with anyone else. As adults, he was a potential tool for Gil's political advancement. It was Vincent who facilitated Gil's adoption, his subsequent contracting of Raven. And how convenient it was, to have to protect something as horrible as his little brother. Could Gil be truly faulted for who he was, given he had to put up with Vincent? His violence, his anger, his selfishness- wasn't it all Vincent's fault? Retrace XXXVIII is the first time Gilbert goes in depth about his feelings on Vincent. Its title is "Scapegoat."
That's how it's always been, isn't it? The Child of Ill Omen is violent, she is grating, she is unsettling in her manner and apparent morality. Glen may be eccentric, but he is calm, easy to get along with, lacking in apparent malice or confrontation. It's easy to assume, then, that it is the Ill Omened at fault. It's easy to believe someone that hard to be around is really going to bring about the end of the world- that they really deserve to die. It's easy to empathize with their killer, who did such a good job putting up with them for so long. In Retrace XCI, Oswald is told what Glen is. He is told that it was always his purpose to end the world, that the execution of the Children of Ill Omen was to make sure there was no one to save it. There's no ambiguity as to whether Oswald understood this statement- he acknowledges it, even correctly expands on its implications. He understood that continuing to blame Lacie would, at most, postpone the Tragedy. That was enough, though, wasn't it? Because so long as the Tragedy didn't happen while Oswald was in power, it wasn't Oswald's fault. If Lacie's dying in infancy prevented the Tragedy, then all the blame could be put on her.
Thus Gil's apology is not simply, "sorry for not understanding that you've suffered all this time." It's not even "sorry for ignoring you when you needed help." It's Gil acknowledging that, for their entire lives, Vincent's existence had been reduced to something for Gil to exploit. It's Gil acknowledging his own role in that, his deliberate taking advantage of him, his vested interest in keeping Vincent vulnerable so that he would remain useful to him. It's Gil acknowledging that this is something that had been designed an unknowable number of generations before them, that everyone had been OK with it until that moment. That is the reason his apology is given so much gravity. In that moment, for the first time, a Child of Ill Omen had been acknowledged as a person, with as much right to life and happiness as any other. For the first time, an incarnation of Glen had broken away from the role history had left him.
On Vincent and Miranda (Hyperempathy pt. 1)[]
There's a line from Retrace XCV, Vincent's titular chapter, that Tomo Kimura translated in a way that always struck me as odd. The original line is “このような形になってしまうのか” (kono you na katachi ni natteshimau no ka), spoken by Oswald to Vincent as he explained the origin of Demios. This is translated as "This is how she was transformed." My issue here is with that pronoun over there- that "she." While Tomo Kimura's translation is not inaccurate, and the line certainly included Miranda as an object, the original line is "literally" closer to "this is the kind of form that has come to be taken." No pronoun nor specific object is mentioned until the following line, said by a young Vincent- “あの女だ…悪いのはぜんぶあの女なんだ…” (ano onna da… warui no wa zenbu ano onna nanda…).
Oswald’s lack of specificity regarding subject in Japanese was, based on framing, probably intentional. Maybe not from Oswald's perspective, but certainly from the perspective of the story itself. Neither Demios nor Vincent's vision of Miranda is visible for either Oswald's line or the young Vincent's follow-up. The only character to be shown on screen for those two lines was Vincent, an adult for Oswald's line, a child for his own. If you were to show a Japanese speaker that panel out of context, they’d immediately assume the person being talked about was Vincent. Why juxtapose a line with no specified object with the image of someone it was distinctly not about? Why write a line about someone "becoming" something else and associate it with the image of Vincent as an adult and as a child, unless the line meant to imply Vincent had himself changed forms?
This single line sheds the most light on the thesis of this entry. It distinctly conflates Vincent's character and development with Miranda's, such a dramatic line not caring to differentiate between the two. From here, we can discern how Vincent truly thought of Miranda, and what role Miranda served in the overarching narrative. Here I describe how the two are meant to be perceived- not as two, completely separate, narratively distinct characters, but with Miranda as a reflection of Vincent’s own character.
Now, Miranda is certainly “real,” in the most literal sense of the word, within the context of the story. Multiple characters interact with her, her existence repeatedly acknowledged, even by those who presumably had no idea who Vincent was. Nonetheless, I must argue that her narrative role cannot be separated from Vincent’s, her arc intended as a supplement to his. There is substantial evidence in favor of this interpretation. A good part comes from how Vincent refers to her- in Retrace XXXIX, Vincent asserts that Miranda must be "... the Devil whispering in [his] ear." There is one other instance of a character claiming to have been spoken to by the Devil- in Retrace XXXII, when Break says "... the Devil... came whispering to [him]..." Break, in reference to his illegally contracted Chain, claims to have been spoken to by the Devil. Break and Vincent’s characters parallel one another in a number of ways- both are manipulative, deliberately offputting, living in anticipation of their death. Both, out of a hope to save their loved ones, begin to sacrifice others, believing their actions would eventually be undone. Their relationship as foils is especially obvious in Retrace XCI, when their narration begins to overlap with the same lines.
This line is important for precisely who Break’s illegal Chain was, and what that Chain represented– that is, the White Knight. Just for absolute clarity, Psychology Today defines “white knights” as "men and women who enter into romantic relationships with damaged and vulnerable partners, hoping that love will transform their partner's behavior or life. Though most white knights feel that they are selfless and sacrificing, their rescuing behavior is often misguided. Problems arise when white knights care for their partners at the expense of their own needs, encounter destructive behavior, or try to control their partners." Isn't that fitting.
Immediately following the aforementioned conversation from Retrace XXXII, Break says “So people become stronger by living ‘for somebody else.’ Then how to go about it rightly? What should one keep in mind…? It must be… Never using ‘for somebody else’ as an ‘excuse.’ I hope he too… comes to realize that sooner rather than later, hmm?” This line ends with a flashback to Break's first meeting with Vincent following their escape from Abyss, where Vincent asks for help to retrieve his brother. Break's line, then, is pretty unambiguously about Vincent. This ties into Vincent’s encounters with Miranda in the specific phrasing she uses to convince him to open the Door to Abyss. Vincent immediately recognizes Miranda as something hostile. He’s always afraid of her, believing the moment he sees her that she is something that seeks to harm him.
In Retrace XXXIX, Miranda convinces Vincent with the following lines: "You understand, don't you? This will be a very lonely battle. Can you still... be the gallant warrior, who, if necessary, can fight all alone?" This is what drives Vincent to believe her- because Vincent does not only want Gil to be safe for Gil’s sake. He wants to save Gil to be the one to save him. This isn’t to say Vincent was selfish for wanting Gil safe- I know there’s a massive discourse about how selfish Vincent is or isn’t. I've spent plenty of time already establishing Vincent's selflessness following the Tragedy of Sablier, the circumstances leading up to it, the lack of fault on a single person for its occurrence. Vincent was an abused, isolated child, desperate for validation, terrified his guardian would kill his brother. Yes his subsequent course of action cannot be divorced from the concept of the white knight.
Aside from Miranda as a representation of Vincent’s desire to white knight, Vincent's placing the blame on her is in itself evidence of narrative conflation of their respective identities. Vincent thinks what happened is his fault. He does. He insists it isn’t, because he wants to believe that, the same way you might insist it couldn’t have been you who ran over your cat when you find her body crushed in your driveway. No one wants to believe they’re responsible for suffering, especially not on the scale Vincent believed he was. It’s evident in every single one of Vincent’s actions that he blames himself. Why is it, when Vincent laments the disaster at Sablier, he chooses to represent her as an abstract monster, while Vincent goes at length about his own weaknesses? Why connect the color of blood and his eye? If he truly blamed Miranda, why not kill her instead of himself?
Finally, the most obvious reason for my belief in Miranda as an extension of Vincent: Demios is a representation of mental illness. I’m sure other people have gone far more in depth about this in the past, so I will not be taking the time to explain a frankly very obvious PTSD metaphor. The Chain Demios, and Vincent’s relationship to her, is strongly tied to Vincent’s character and feelings towards his own death. She kills those he loathes, attacks those he loves (but is never able to kill them), manifests at his worst to destroy his mind and is kept in submission when he finally accepts support. Miranda's final, ultimate form is a representation of Vincent's internal narrative: she has haunted him since the Tragedy, and he will likely never be rid of her. His arc reaches its climax as he realizes he can learn to control her.
So, going back to my issues with the official translation: in translating Oswald’s line as “This is how she was transformed,” Kimura’s localization specifies a subject that was likely deliberately ambiguous. In the chapter titled Vincent, where Vincent as an adult and child appear in the same space, his line about having changed into something different (something regrettable, as the しまう conjugation implies) is juxtaposed with an image of an adult Vincent. In the original text, the line highlights Miranda’s role as an extension of Vincent’s own character, while the translation erases this. This line is the key to understanding Vincent's relationship to Miranda as a character. It is what makes clear the two are the same.
On Vincent and the Intention of the Abyss (Hyperempathy pt. 2)[]
Something went wrong when you were born. There was some kind of mistake, some earth-shattering cosmic screwup that resulted in your creation. Nothing can be done about it- that mistake is who you are, something inseparable from the core of your being. Humans must scorn you, or else be made to suffer. You know that. No one will let you forget it. Supposedly, you’re surrounded by people like you. They find camaraderie in each other, share each other’s pain so no individual is given too much to bear. Supposedly they’ve all been tossed aside, declared too sinful to be tolerated by humans, and supposedly, that means you’re all family, you’re all friends. They don’t like you, though. You’re a step further.
Who’s there to care for you? Your sibling, in a sense, but also not- they know what you are and can’t ever really forgive you for it. They love you, in their way, and then also love the one who put you there, who tells you your life is forfeit and approaches you intending to one day have you killed. Nothing can be done about it. To go against him would doom you all.There’s one person, though, just one person who seems to care for you. He’s not like the others- he’s from the outside, where he says he’ll take you someday, away from the family that scorns you. This person is gentle and warm to you in a way no human has ever been, says you’re pretty, says you’re kind, says he loves you. You love him religiously, of course, since it’d be a saint that could love something as hateful as you.
There's someone just like you out there. You hate them.
The first bit of information we’re given about Alice and Vincent’s relationship is delivered in the most shocking way possible- Alice, fawned on by Jack and caught in the sort of innocent infatuation one would expect a young girl to have, is approached by Vincent. Immediately, he is identified as an enemy- Alice went on to narrate of how she hated him, how he bullied her. It was then we saw her cat, presumably Alice’s only real friend, whose eyes he’d gouged out.
It’s something I see PH fans talk about a lot, often with the perspective that it’s proof of how Vincent had always been evil. That’s understandable. "Cat murder" is a common trope in Japanese fiction, due to the overabundance of stray cats in the country (and thus fewer laws regarding their killing.) A character, usually the narrator, is shown to be bullied for whatever reasons there may be. The nature of their bullying is such that they have no friends, excluding, of course, the stray cat they've taken to raising. In come the bullies, who brutalize the cat and thus kill the character's only companion. It’s a very easy way to garner sympathy, a good show of a given character's helplessness. In many cases, it's also a means of villainizing the character who commits the act- take, for example, its usage in Revolutionary Girl Utena, where it's used to cement Nanami as a villain. What Vincent had done seemed, when it was first shown, to be an act of needless cruelty.
What Vincent had done was wrong. In no way do I attempt to argue that there’s any justification for animal cruelty, especially to the degree that he had committed. My issue is not that anyone show disgust for his actions or condemn them, but treat them as a unique act of immorality within the series. Much of Pandora Hearts's narrative is built around the depiction of a scene through one perspective, followed by its recontextualization through another. Cheshire's death is the same. In Retrace XXXIX, Vincent gives his own thoughts on Alice. It is there we see what happened not as an act of cruelty from one child unto another, as Alice's perspective suggested, but a very obvious, escalating chain of events.
Here’s the thing about children- they only know what’s been shown to them. A child that’s been violently abused will not understand the immorality of violence. A child that’s only been shown cruelty will not understand the problem with being cruel. Here’s Alice, told from birth she was dangerous, that she was to be held in isolation and abused, ostensibly for the greater good. Here’s Vincent, told the same thing. Here’s Gil, who wants to kill Alice now, because Vincent needs Gil, needs Gil to protect him from Alice who’s being cruel to him now, and if Gil can’t make Vincent need him, what point is there in Gil being alive? Vincent's narration specifies- "She makes Gil wear that expression again because of me." It’s worth noting, Alice is gleeful to hear Gil was going to be murdered after Gil threatens and physically assaults her. Vincent was the only child in that scenario who seemed to have no interest in the death of another. Yes, Vincent killed Alice's cat, and that was horrible- but we cannot divorce that from the context of Vincent's bullying, targeted and malicious, specifically mocking him for that which was used to justify his own beating. We cannot divorce what he did from how it was not his own anguish that incited retaliation, but his elder brother's. Yet with all that said- we cannot divorce either Vincent or Alice's actions from their having been abused, groomed children, whose isolation and antagonism served the ends of malicious adults.
From the beginning of their relationship, Alice and Vincent had a mutual understanding of each being, in some way, interchangeable with the other. It’s why Alice mocked Vincent to begin with- a defensive anger for the belief that Vincent intended to steal Jack away, when Jack was all Alice had. Vincent felt anger towards Alice not for the things she said to him, but Gil’s for reaction to them- he recognized his anger at her as being a product of Gil’s emotions towards Vincent. The thing about hating yourself is you start to hate anything that looks like you, too. Alice and Vincent’s respective cruelties were that of children, meaning, ultimately, they were that of adults. Both had been abused and dehumanized by their family. Both had been groomed by Jack, who encouraged conflict between them, knowing it would drive them further into helplessness and isolation. I have no intention of debating whether either deserved it (neither did) nor if one traumatized the other more thoroughly (does it even matter?) I will not humor arguments that Vincent should have found another outlet. He was an abused and dehumanized eight year old who fully believed his guardian intended to kill his brother. If Vincent had a healthy outlet, he would not have any conflict with Alice to begin with. I am stating plainly: Alice and Vincent, who were abused children, both treated each other horribly, because they were abused children.
There’s something very important to consider when discussing both Alice and Vincent’s abuse- the fundamental reason as to both why they connected with one another in the way they did and why they were abused in the first place. In fact, it’s the common factor in their connection to Jack, why he had been interested in them in the first place, as they would both eventually find out.
It’s Lacie. Their connection is Lacie. The reason for their abuse, the reason for their grooming, their reason for their subsequent empathy and hatred for one another is their shared connection to Lacie. Both were isolated and dehumanized in accordance to the circumstances of their birth- those circumstances being their resemblance to her. Remember, had that tower not been occupied by Alice, it would’ve gone to the next Child of Ill Omen. It should have been Vincent’s. There are quite a few symbolic parallels between the two, especially in the context of their siblings.
Two pairs of siblings, a pair of sisters, a pair of brothers. These siblings are color-coded for our convenience- from each pair there is a black-themed sibling and a white-themed sibling. This is the main way of distinguishing between the Alices, and is very much present with Gilbert as the dark sibling and Vincent as the pale sibling- in earlier designs this was even more obvious, with Mochizuki stating she wanted to make Gilbert associated with black and Vincent with white. The dark sibling favored Oswald, but the pale sibling held him in contempt, favoring Jack. The dark sibling is, comparatively, masculine. Compare Gil and Vincent's designs- Vincent is clearly meant to be more androgynous. Black Alice is criticized for her excessively masculine speech pattern, and is repeatedly commented to be tomboyish. Et cetera. The dark sibling is more closely associated with the material world- with Black Alice and White Alice, that manifests in Black Alice's home body being in the world while White Alice's is in the Abyss. With Gil and Vincent, this is more symbolic- Gilbert is inclined towards the menial, the grounded, the concrete and the tactile. His honesty is representative of the world more familiar to us. Vincent is physically diminutive, but has a better grasp on the intellectual and spiritual, associated with sleep and lies. Black Alice and Gil are protagonists, White Alice and Vincent are antagonists. Gil and Alice are repeatedly shown and commented on as being similar, often sharing lines or copying one another. It then follows, Vincent and White Alice...
The other important piece of knowledge to understanding Alice’s hostility towards Vincent would not be revealed until long after their confrontation is first shown. It further cements that their aggression towards one another was from their shared connection to Lacie, a sort of self harm by proxy between two children with no other means of expressing themselves. In Retrace LXXI, the Core takes possession of Alice's body and talks at length about Lacie. While White Alice is shown to not have memories of what she says or does while possessed by the Core, the two commune, and her awareness of Oz strongly suggests she knew of what happened to him. This being the case, it becomes reasonable to assume she knew who her mother was, what had happened to her- someone told her, Core of Abyss or someone else. That Alice would know what happened to her mother and know the stigma surrounding the Child of Ill Omen but not understand what the two meant together is unlikely. Alice definitely understood the connotations of what she had said to Vincent- mocking him for being marginalized in a way that had caused him to suffer continuous, extreme abuse- and it’s likely she understood what those connotations meant in relation to herself. If we assume she knew what happened to her mother, and assume she knew her mother being a Child of Ill Omen was the cause, which is likely, then her mockery of Vincent for being a Child of Ill Omen takes on a new meaning. Not only is it the recognition that she and Vincent were of the same cloth, similarly regarded as unwanted. It is the recognition that Vincent is the same as that which had birthed Alice to begin with. She implicitly blamed him for her creation.
Vincent hated Alice. He hated Alice for hurting Gil. He hated Alice for upsetting Jack. He hated Alice for having caused the Tragedy of Sablier, for have created the circumstances which led to Jack’s death. In the second to last chapter, Vincent says he is sure that he and Alice are the same.
On Vincent's "Narrative" Gender (the Nature of Fiction)[]
It is important to understand my purpose in writing the following entry: I am not suggesting Vincent was written as anything but a cis man. He wasn't. There is no indication that his gender identity conflicts with his gender assigned at birth in any way. I don’t headcanon Vincent as transfem. He’s a fictional character who exists to explain a concept and deliver a message, and all that I write here is with that in mind. I'm not blind to the extremely transmisogynistic implications of headcanoning a violent misogynist and implied serial femicider as a trans woman. I'm not doing that. What is important to keep in mind here is that ones gender identity and expression is based on one's own personal comfort- while gender identity is not a "choice," as such, one cannot be made to identify one way or another except through their own will. Vincent is fictional. He does not "choose" or "will" anything. All that I explain coming up is in the context of his not having made the choice to present a certain way, but presenting that way nonetheless, for the purpose of outside observers to reach conscious or unconscious conclusions on him, and to supplement a greater narrative.
Nearly every immediately obvious aspect of Vincent’s character- his archetype, his aesthetics, what exaggerated traits exist within his characterization etc. are all strongly associated with female characters. He’s thin and diminutive. He's physically inactive. He's interpersonally submissive (particularly around other men). He's characterized as using his sexuality as a means of manipulating people, even more than outright deceit. He is given an extremely androgynous design, up to and including his default outfit being a literal dress. The entire yandere brocon schtick (regardless of how “true” an example he is of this) is a nearly exclusively female trope, especially within shounen manga. His alias is literally “the Queen of Hearts,” something Mochizuki made the deliberate choice to name him after specifically deciding against a proper male title. MochiJun isn’t exactly known for making her male characters the height of masculinity, but the degree to which Vincent is specifically associated with femininity is exceptional among her characters. That doesn’t really mean much on its own, though- ok, yeah, the morally gray anime boy is androgynous, what else is new.
There are other aspects to it, though. The characters Vincent identified most with while alive (Noise, Miranda, and White Alice) are all women, and Miranda is outright a representation of Vincent’s own internal process. The people Vincent hates the most are all people he sees as in some way a reflection of himself (Noise, Miranda, and White Alice again, but also his father, and Break) and the people he holds in high regard are those he sees as different from him (Elliot.) So not only is he made out to be uniquely androgynous and effeminate, he also specifically identifies with and projects onto women, and his misogyny has strong ties to his hatred for himself.
So… Why? Why do all that? It’s sort of an insane thing to do, even not taking into account anything else happening to him, but it’s too subtle to be hate speech. Vincent being androgynous really doesn’t have anything to do with what makes him villainous, and it’s not like PH specifically codes gender nonconformity onto antagonistic characters. Was it just to drive home the point about Vincent’s violence ultimately being centered around self harm, not legitimate hatred for anyone else?
Vincent is a continuation of Lacie’s arc.
Nearly every symbol associated with Vincent was originally associated with Lacie, and that includes his weird fem-coding. Scissors? Lacie. Dolls? Lacie. Crosses? Lacie. The nature of the Hundred Cycles facilitates the recreation of events, along with individual persons, and Vincent takes Lacie’s role- hence why they are both Ill Omened. Hence, Vincent can, in many ways, be considered "narratively" or "symbolically" a woman, though he does not consciously identify as one.