I want to preface this discussion/rambling/word dump by saying that I believe that the vast majority of people who subscribe to the Lacenet ship are completely fine. Go nuts with your ship, do what you want with it. I do not want this to give off the impression that wanting two fictional characters that do not conform to the human notions of whatever results in you being a filthy heretic that deserves a thousand sentences of some terminally online loser making alt accounts to yell at you, or whatever. In fact, that is the OPPOSITE belief that I feel; This sort of deal should be treated with an actual sense of rationality and sensibility, and should not boil down to two parties calling each other names. I want to give my thoughts on Lace's character, and how I feel that dismissing her in a binary way is undermining her potential.

This is also long. I am going to type a lot of words out. I am doing so because I want to talk about this topic in depth, and I want to be specific and try to prevent any miscommunications, confusions, or edge cases for the subject. I would kindly like to request that, should you engage with this, to please at least read or skim over it. I totally get the feeling of not wanting to read a 2,000 word document about a random character in a video game, but given how much impact that character has had on the subreddit as of recently, I feel like trying to put a lot of attention on it is at least fitting for context. Just please don't assume that this whole thing is one giant hate letter, or I'm a reincarnation of that terminally online loser that would harass people for making fanart, or something. My feelings will get hurt if I write all this out and the first thing I read is "how dare you call me a sinner for wanting to ship Lace and Hornet!", I absolutely understand that it is of nobody's intention to actually have the mindset of Lace being a child when pairing her with Hornet.

"Child"?

Lace is a creation of Grand Mother Silk, being designated as her... child. Let's define this word (and similar ones such as daughter for a bit of ease), shall we? For the sake of this post, I want to give two definitions of it, that I will be referring to for further context;

1. Child^(1), an descendant of another being, in reference to their heritage rather than maturity. This can either be via biology, creation, or adoption (Examples: Hornet is the child of Herrah as she is her biological mother; the Weavers are (referred to as) daughters of GMS (yes I know "they lied"); the Runt is the child of the Huntress, as referred to by Hornet ("I had promised organs for your mother, child."); Traitor's Child is the child of the Traitor Lord). Furthermore, I also want to express that this can be used for cultures in addition to individuals (Examples: Hornet is a daughter of Hallownest, Steel Seer Zi is a steel child of the Steel Society).

2. Child^(2)****, a youth, adolescent, immature, or otherwise non-adult being. (Examples: Nuu, as shown by Hornet's dialogue ("Certainly I am no child, young one.") contrasting Hornet's adulthood to Nuu's youth; the Runt is also a child, which is made abundantly clear during their quest (but just in case, "Usss's wantss grow sssstrong... much..."); the Kindanir are children, or young Verdanians (These are children to be proud of.) )

These definitions can be used separately, and they can also be used in conjunction. Hornet was a child^(1,2) of Herrah, but after growing up, is now the child^(1) of Herrah.

So, without further ado...

When does the game define Lace as "Child"?

Lace is defined as a child primarily in three different ways;

1. Lace is referred to as a child^(1) of Grand Mother Silk ("Child of the monarch") from various sources

2. Lace is referred to as having, "Look of a child^(2) and a mind to match, but her's been up wanderin' this Citadel longer'n most." by the Caretaker. Yes I see the second half of the quote I will get to that.

3. Lace is referred to as a child^(2) by Hornet for the entirety of the game. (Your threats are worthless, child.; Pale child, you return only to mock?; But always, child,)

These are more or less the quintessential examples that people tend to use and (dis)regard for this discussion. Primarily, people will agree with Lace being a child^(1) of GMS, but disagree on Lace being a child^(2) , typically in contexts where it could pose as problematic. I want to argue for and against some examples I've seen regarding the latter, and once more clarify that my conclusions should not correlate to Lacenet discourse. Frankly, at the end of the day, shipping is inherently a non-canon/headcanon action, so it is already far outside of the realm of "canon". I could say, "Man, I love pairing the Pale King and Grimm together, they're such a good couple!", and even though that is WILDLY MISCHARACTERIZING them, it ultimately does not conform to the notion of the story, because it doesn't HAVE to, it's just a piece of fan interpretation that serves as a light-hearted piece of fun, rather than something to be held in court for whether or not it violates holy scripture.

Caretaker.

The status of Caretaker's comment is something that some people use as absolute defining evidence that Lace is a child^(2), and that some people immediately throw in the gutter for even proposing. Let's break this down;

• "Caretaker is a self-centered liar that is responsible for the release of the Void upon Pharloom, they should not be trusted".
  • I argue that, while Caretaker makes an effort to lie to Hornet for certain aspects of the game, this is not one of them. The reason why is that Caretaker does not benefit from this. Caretaker lies to Hornet regarding the true nature of the Shaman in Pharloom and the Soul Snare, because it would be beneficial to hide the Void properties of the two due to its wildly destructive nature. Comparatively, I believe that Caretaker does not benefit from making a false claim on Lace's status as a child^(2) because it would not alter the outcome of the Shamans' plan.
  • Furthermore, if Hornet also followed this train of thought, to not believe the Shaman after lying, then it's my belief that it wouldn't then make sense for Hornet to put her faith in them during Act 3. If Hornet had dismissed the Shaman after lying, she certainly would not proceed to kill off multiple leaders of Pharloom and entrust her memories and own life into another Shaman plan.
• "Both Caretaker and Lace keep to themselves, it is hard to say that Caretaker is correct in his description of Lace."
  • I can understand the thought process of this claim, that Caretaker's description of Lace could very well just be another improper estimate of Lace being a child^(2). Caretaker is not a stranger to making poor assumptions of others (ex; "A bell-ringing lout! A weirdo!"; this once-peaceful sanctuary is now crawling with all sorts; Poor fools..."), but I want to propose that the context of this statement does not make sense to be not factual.
  • Consider this: We (/Hornet) learn of the true nature of Lace; a being woven entirely of Silk, a child^(1) of GMS, and one that resents their life and way of being. (Life? You're too generous! This weak, wasting existence. This was not life, just a husk shaped to act as a child.) We then proceed down to the Caretaker, to which we discuss further about Lace. From a story perspective, Lace's true nature has been revealed, so it would not make sense to then feed the viewer false information.
  • If Caretaker's statement about Lace is true, it would give us another massive aspect to Lace's character; If she is, indeed, a child^(2), then her creation as an artificial being would further our thoughts on her. She would be a being forever cursed as a weak and frail child, forced into a mindset to please her creator, and furthermore only to serve as the one to awaken GMS and nothing else (...Better a child spun frail... than none... ...Better a child spun pure... than them... ...One to wish our waking... ...From our Silk... A child born loyal... "). It would confirm the countless mentions of Hornet to Lace as a child^(2) , as opposed to Hornet referring to Lace as a child^(1) which would either be redundant (presumably, EVERY bug is a "child^(1)" to someone, why refer to someone in that regard) or absurd (in the notion of Hornet somehow knowing of Lace's heritage to GMS.)
    • To clarify, we know Hornet knew of Lace being a Pale being (Choral Chambers, Pale child), GMS being a Pale being (Choral Chambers, You still think me blind to the form of your liege? Having come this far?), and Lace's artificiality (Cradle, You always had the scent, child. You are no bug.), but it would simply not make sense for Hornet to refer to her as "child^(1)****" before GMS's reveal.** I'll go over this further down.
  • If Caretaker's statement about Lace is false... then what's the point of mentioning it in the first place? It would just be silly to throw in a false segment of information during a period of truth, it'd be as if in Revenge of the Jedi, when Darth Vader was revealed to be Luke's father, and the notion of "there is another"... it wasn't actually referring to Leia, and was just Yoda and Obi-Wan being wrong. It would be especially frustrating because of the latter half of the quote, of which is comparatively, universally seen as correct, as THAT would be something MUCH harder to gauge;
• "Caretaker also claims that Lace is older than most bugs, this contradicts and falsifies the claim of Lace being a child^(2)****"
  • It does not. Frankly, it does not. Honestly? It does not. We should not use human notions of age or biology to determine the status of a child^(2)****, we should primarily use the information that the game provides us with for how the character grows. Lace is a fictional being, described as a bug, shown to be artificial in life, and all in all does not coincide with the human notions of maturity. For all we actually know, Lace could have been created with the mentality of a 50-year old human, or Lace could have been created with the mentality of an infant. Lace could take a millenia to mature, or Lace could take all of 3 weeks to mature. The only thing that determines if Lace or frankly any character is a child^(2) is either if if the game is very obvious with it (example: Obviously, the Runt is a child^(2) because Huntress' entire quest is based around "if I don't feed my children, they'll eat me", and Huntress' is then replaced by an NPC much less mature than Huntress that refers to Huntress as their mother") or flatout tells us, "this character is a child^(2)". So for the usage of age, we should not use it as a determinant of if a character is or is not mature, or if they are or are not more or less mature than another.

Hornet.

Hornet, as a character, works as a good comparison to Lace for the status of, "child^(2)****" in that both have similarities and differences, and interactions where Hornet shows characterizations that should confirm her mannerisms;

• Hornet makes it a point to correct or clarify if characters refer to her as "child^(2)****". (With Shakra: "You have keen sight for my skill, bug, but my childhood has long since passed"; with Nuu: "Certainly I am no child, young one." Do note that, for any other reference to Hornet as "child", it serves to the definition of "child^(1)" (With White Lady: "...Alas... spider's child..."; with Mister Mushroom: "...Oh. Wyrm child".
  • Therefore, I feel as if, should Hornet refer to Lace as a child^(2), she should be pretty certain of her opinion, lest she be a hypocrite and fall into the same mannerisms that she corrects.
• Hornet should not have enough information to immediately refer to Lace as "child^(1)****". The earliest that Hornet encounters Lace is in Deep Docks, which is very early into the game with very little influence from the Citadel (i.e. all of Moss Grotto, The Marrow, both of which being savage lands with little sentient life, potentially Hunter's March, a land explicitly barren of Citadel influence, and Deep Docks, which has minor religious influence. By the time Hornet begins to use wordage that implies more descriptors of GMS, she has gone through the entirety of Act 1, seen the influence of religion with Bellhart, either Blasted Steps or Sinner's Road (both dramatically Citadel-influenced), and has witnessed the beginnings of the Citadel with the infrastructure of the Underworks. Comparing the two segments of area, Hornet has dramatically less information on her whereabouts, the influence of any higher beings, and their relations to bugs Hornet has met.
  1. At the very least, I want to make a point to analyze the actual first interaction of Lace and Hornet.
  2. **"**How sad. A little spider has fallen from its cage. So lost. So weak. Poor little morsel. I can save you, little spider. All the trouble you'd face above. All the suffering. It's so simple. I'll just skewer you here and now, pluck that flickering life right out of you."
  3. For Hornet to hear an overwhelming amount of immature, mocking behavior, then reply, "Your threats are worthless, child.", it should be apparent that the usage of child^(2) should derive more from reactionary behavior against mockery ("Your threats are worthless, you childish bug"), rather than Hornet arbitrarily mentioning Lace as a child^(1) ("Your threats are worthless, you...descendant?")
• In other words, for Hornet to call Lace a "child^(2)", it would make more sense for her to do so with the intent of, at the very least, calling her child-like, be it in her mannerisms or stature as perceived by characters in-game (which also builds into the notion of Caretaker's description of Lace).

Appearance.

This aspect of Lace's character is honestly the most important part of the "Lacenet" drama in regards to if Lace is a child^(2) , since Lace is depicted in fan-pieces similarly to how she appears in-game, so I'll just give you the good news and say that Lace's appearance is not a factor in her status as a child^(2)****. In no way should the world of Hollow Knight have humans judge a character's status based on their appearance, size, or height. If this were the case:

• Sly would be a child^(2), since clearly he's a very small character.
• Shakra would be older than Hornet, since clearly Shakra is taller than Hornet.
• Blue Child Joni would be comparable to Hornet, since clearly they're both the same size.
• Elderbug would be older than Hornet, since clearly he's older due to his appearance.
  • Furthermore, I also want to address that not all bugs are equal. Hollow Knight tends to make it a point that the species of bugs in the game are vastly different, and can range in their capabilities, sizes, maximum ages, growth speeds, etc etc etc. Once more, attempting to say that one character is older than another by comparing two different species or genetics is just plainly wrong.

Generally speaking, in this case, Lace's appearance shouldn't necessarily be used for discussion one way or another. At best, Phantom's frailing appearance could imply that they could be an example of Lace's physiology should it be older (Though grey with age, their frayed form suggested a being strung from Silk), but to be fair (and also not to make this any longer), Phantom has been portrayed as neglected and cast off ("Discarded... Silk stretched thin... Shell stiffened...") , while Lace was able to freely roam the Citadel and last in a much better state.

Mentality.

I've already partially touched on this, in that for the context of fan-pieces, Lace's mentality should not matter, since ships in general tend to not abide by how the characters actually think. However, I would like to address Lace's mentality without the worry of conflict for fan-pieces in mind, as I feel that it is a genuinely interesting topic.

• Lace sees herself as a child. I am not going to add a numeral to that reference, as I honestly do not feel certain either way for how Lace views herself (for now).
  • Clearly, Lace sees herself as a child^(1) of Grand Mother Silk, that much is certain.
  • However, for Lace to see herself as a child^(2), we would need to fall on prior topics to confirm as such:
  • We assume that Lace is physically a child^(2) or child-like, in the eyes of the bugs of Pharloom, if not GMS.
  • We assume that Lace was created to be a child^(2) for GMS, in a manner of stunting Lace to ensure she stay committed to reawakening GMS.
  • We assume that Lace's distain on her body, and of GMS, is because she is a child^(2) or child-like in stature ("This was not life, just a husk shaped to act as a child")
• Lace's mannerisms are very child^(2)****-like. I say this with a grain of salt, as there are obviously certain objections that I would like to address;
  • "Lace speaks in a very sophisticated manner, which should serve as reason for her not being a child^(2)****".
  • I argue that, for Lace's more elequent speaking patterns (LONG example: "Tch... Hahahaa. Marvellous! So the spider knows something of fathomless beings, and still it hopes to stand against one, a god... Where do you hide this boundless strength you claim, spider? I've watched your struggle towards us. Yours was a painful, broken trek. One needs grace to stand before the divine."), this is something to indicate royalty, not maturity. Simply, I argue that Lace's eloquent speech is due to her upbringing as a higher class in the Citadel, but not an indicator of how mature she may be. If anything, I'd personally wager that Lace emphasizes more drawn out, descriptive speeches to belittle her foes, specifically DUE to her immaturity, as to build off of only that what she knows rather than allowing experience to guide her speech. With that in mind, that's just a personal take, so I don't want to stress that as a set-in-stone analysis.

Growth.

Finally, I want to discuss the growth and potential unveiling of Lace, should we go down the line of believing she is, in some capacity, a child^(2). This is in reference to Lace's mannerisms in Act 3, and furthermore Hornet's reactions to them.

• "During Act 3, Lace drops her act and acts more maturely in speech. This shows that Lace's immaturity was just for appeasing GMS."
  • I use this train of thought for this aspect of discussion because I feel it is encapsulates Lace's growth, or lack thereof.

I believe that Lace does not mature in Act 3, merely because she is still shackled. If anything, she bolsters her immature characteristics and self-identification.

Let me share some examples that I feel highlight this:

• "Letting you live was my rebellion, spider. I've denied my mother your silken strength. I've won. She can thrash, and waste, and know her pathetic, broken child caused the mortal wound. Rejoice! And let it all come down."
  • This line expresses how Lace believes that her act of severing GMS's hand and saving Hornet was an act of "winning", and how GMS's "child" (still no numeral) had won over her. I feel that this is not a mature line, rather one purely driven by emotion and arrogance.
• "Hahahhaa! Spider. Spider. What a marvellous specimen you are! You fight and fight, heedless as the world crumbles around you. Pharloom and her bugs will be crushed to dust, and still you'll be vainly swinging your blade."
  • This line vehemently illustrates a rash emotional mindset by Lace, someone who previously stood tall with and to protect Pharloom ("I've watched your struggle towards us.; our startling Citadel.; and if Caretaker's word is to be taken: "Might'a seen herself this place's protector, keepin' it clean and quiet as she did. Course quiet meant most crossin' her path found a painful end from her pin."). For Lace to show such a patriotic stance for Pharloom, only to act indifferent for its fate, reeks of immaturity to me.
• ***"***Who are you hoping you'll find down there, spider? An ailing child and a Silk starved beast?"
  • I emphasize this line, because I believe that the context of its usage does actually serve as Lace referring to herself as a child^(2)****. The usage of "Silk starved beast" rather than, say "Silk starved mother", has Lace further distancing herself from GMS, to the point of not even calling her mother as she has many times before. ("Face the holy mother; Why her... Mother...; I've denied my mother your silken strength."). I draw attention especially to the last quote, as it is the final time Lace uses the word, in the same breath as declaring victory over GMS and therefore abandoning loyalty to her. With that in mind, I feel confident in saying that Lace is very much identifying as a child^(2) in this quote, rather than a child^(1) as she is entirely forgoing her relationship.

At the same time, Hornet remains in her position of referring to Lace as a "child" (no numeral).

• While I do admit that, for the definitions in place, it is possible for Hornet to be employing a double meaning to referring to Lace as a child^(1,2), I feel that other usages of wordage chould imply otherwise.
• On one hand,
  • Quotes ("I will return, child, when I bear the strength to dive below, and cut this land finally free of your mother's grasp.; to release your mother's grip; Oblivion may take you, child), with the events of Silksong, take a new meaning; While Lace rejects GMS and identifies as a child^(2), Hornet stays sturdy and reinforces Lace's identity as a child^(1)****. I honestly really like this perspective, as it builds into Hornet's motive to right the wrongs of Act 3, and GMS's final act of allowing both her child of artificiality and a royal Weaver descendant to live in her stead.
• On the other hand,
  • for Hornet, once more a character who has corrected others in their terminology, to continue using the same term of "child^(2)", rather than emphasizing a new term to distinguish (in parallel to how Shakra and Nuu change as such; "Poshanka, Hornet Wielding Needle. For that is your name, is it not? I have heard it spoken in this land with reverence; Ooh ma ma! Look here, miss grown-up!"), has me believe that Hornet is then continuing a belief that Lace is a child^(2) and has not shown evidence otherwise, lest Hornet make amends as is her focus in Act 3.
  • Hornet's main goal in Act 3 is to repair Pharloom, and to not leave until she has secured a hopeful future for it. Paralleling this, I feel that, if Lace has expressed reason for Hornet to adjust her mannerisms, Hornet would then do as such, referring to her as another term to signify this. However, in the very last line of dialogue spoken in Silksong (as of now lol), in the very last conversation between Hornet and Lace, Hornet says, "But always, child, I remain a daughter of Hallownest. And the void below all things, that darkness I will fear no longer...". Hornet's insistence of "child^(2)****" in the very last line of dialogue is what has me believe that she does not feel that, through the entirety of the game's events, Lace has still not yet shown maturity.

Conclusion.

I have now typed a lot of words. I hope that the words are of a compelling manner, and that they are not provocative, rude, or otherwise in risk of removal due to the subject they focus on. I genuinely find that Lace's character, and how she acts as a.... """"""child^(1234578)"""""... is a compelling discussion for her character. I truthfully hope that this jumble of wordage can properly serve as a fair piece to talk about the depth of how Lace is or is not identified as a child.

Honestly, it's actually pretty late for me, so I've probably missed one or two things. In the event that this post somehow doesn't die admist the storm of Silkposts and shitposts, I hope this falls on good eyes to give constructive criticism for the inevitable something that I might've screwed up on. I want to expand my opinion, this post honestly serves to give people a chance to give their thoughts on why Lace could or could not be a child. Admittedly, I feel a bit lacking on how people justify certain parts of the discussion in general (for example, I want to know how people see Lace maturing or dropping a childish act in Act 3, as I find it hard to see a difference in her mannerisms compared to Acts 1 and 2).

All in all, love each other, I hope you have a great time of day, and godspeed to whatever may await you.