#especially if we're getting the little mermaid from Andersen

[mysunfreckle]

I've seen several people mention that Gerard's backstory of being turned into a frog by the fairy for being a disrespectful child when he was a little prince is a nice nod to Disney's Beauty and the Beast, in which the Beast was also cursed as a child. And I agree!

What I find extra delightful about that parallel is that Gerard clearly comes from a more romantic version of the Frog Prince (the one where he is kissed instead of thrown violently against the wall like the darker version he ended up in after coming back to life). And there actually is a more romantic Frog Prince story collected by the brothers Grimm that has more elements in common with Beauty and the Beast:

It was only included in their 1815 collection and then left out because it was so similar to The Frog King, but in this version (Der Froschprinz) three princesses go to drink from a well, but find it only gives them cloudy water. In the well there is a frog who promises each sister after the other to give her clear water if she agrees to be his sweetheart. The first two refuse, but the last one that goes agrees, because she thinks the frog can't possibly really become her sweetheart. The evening after however the frog comes to remind her of her promise and she lets him sleep in her bed for three nights. Then, on the third morning, she finds a handsome prince in her bed instead of a frog, who explains she has broken his enchantment. They get permission from her father the king to marry and her two sisters are both angry they did not take the frog as their sweetheart themselves.

The agreement to be a sweetheart is close to the agreement to get married from Beauty and the Beast, and there being two (jealous) sisters also fits with the older versions of that story. Interestingly the folklorist Ashliman points out that the first English translator of the Grimms' tales, Edgar Taylor, combined this story with the Grimms' The Frog King or Iron Heinrich. He kept the frog retrieving the golden ball, but changed the ending where the princess breaks the curse by chucking him against the wall into the ending where she lets him sleep in her bed. So still no kiss, but more romantic. And that is the version that English speakers got to know as The Frog Prince!

[rocketjo]

There is no such thing as "European culture"

There is no such thing as a unified European, Western or White culture. As there is no unified Eastern or Asian culture. I get what they meant - puritan protestant English culture, predominantly sexist, classist and racist. The kind of Europe that bred the modern US which is perceived as the "Western culture" today. But that's not European. It's industrial period English. There is also a point to make for Athenean culture (not Greek or Ancient Greek, as Athen was more or less it's on country back then, even if it had some influence over the rest of what's now Greek - similar to how protestant English and Dutch views shaped huge parts of middle and northern Europe and extremist-catholic views shaped the Southeast). But then there is a French tradition, a German one, a Swedish, a Swiss, a Polish, an Italian, a Spanish etc. Europe is and will be a hodgepodge and that's surely one of the reasons why the EU as a political system is pretty useless (as of now, who knows how it will evolve). We all learned our diffrent lessons from history, from somewhat diffrent histories even. Have a look at the middle ages or the early modern times, look at how extremly diffrent we've progressed (especially England, Austria and France, a little bit later Germany). And then look at how we in Europe almost collectivley scratch our head about the US. It's diffrent. In a lot of ways. And we're proudly diffrent from each other as well. That's why Europe is rife with racism, but in a diffrent form than rascism happening in the US. That's why some problems don't seem to concern us (as much). Because we have our own typical problems which we should take care of first. And my, we have A LOT of them, even if we exclude things like colonialism and the major World Wars from the list. Does America even know that there's a 3000-year history between diffrent European contries and their cultures? Also: Disney stole European fairytales and made them into distinctive US-versions. The dwarfs had neither names nor personality, but the huntsman was a major character. Cinderella is an amalgamation of diffrent similar tales from middle and eastern Europe. And what the heck is this Rapunzel-story? (Don't get me wrong, I like Tangled a lot. But it's not the German tale anymore. And Frozen is an abomination of the original Andersen-story, as is The little Mermaid). The white US entertainment industry "steals" from all of us and makes it their own. So maybe we should come together instead of trying to hate on each other. This only empowers the wrong people.

[starfallforest]

A story that is very directly referenced in Rafayel's narrative several times is The Little Mermaid (the fucked up Hans Christian Andersen one, not the happy ending Disney one). The princess gives all of herself to a love that betrays her and she is lost in the end. I don't think it's a coincidence. Rafayel, like the Little Mermaid, is punished for his naivete, for his impulsive love. Whether or not that's fair to him, he made a reckless decision that ended in the fall of his entire people and eternal punishment for himself. What's even more unfair is that all of Lemuria was punished for his one decision. He was an impudent god, like the ones you find in Greek mythology. A people suffers for the foolishness of their leader. This is the outcome of The Little Mermaid and many stories from Greek mythos.

Rafayel putting his entire race in danger for one cute girl is stupid as hell, selfish as hell, and not only was he punished for it, but his entire kingdom was as well, and why did they deserve that? Sure, they treated him differently. But he had a duty as their leader, a role only he could fulfill. Just as Rafayel maybe didn't ask for his role as god of the sea, the people of Lemuria didn't ask for their roles either. What evidence is there that his people treated him with anything but the respect and reverence of a god? They didn't deserve to die for that, they died for Rafayel's hubris and only for that. What is reasonable about that? In the real world, we all have roles in society assigned to us whether or not we want them, and us choosing to shirk those duties usually results in harming someone. Whether or not it's best for us individually, it's not always fair to those we leave behind. Above all, we all make important decisions in life, and ignorance isn't an excuse to harm someone, much less many people.

If we translated this into the real world, you can't cleanly justify Rafayel's actions actually. But this is fiction. Lemuria dying as punishment for Rafayel's decision to give up his heart is romantic, nuanced, interesting, tragic. Rafayel's narrative is interesting because the writers ask "what if the Little Mermaid was able to come back and exact her revenge?" and not only that, but they ask, "would she repeat the narrative?" which imo is a very Chinese mythology, xianxia fate-reincarnation spin on the original story. And from what it looks like in Abysswalker and also in limited banners where we're kissin in the modern timeline uwu, he does fall victim to repeating the cycle. This isn't real life. It's a story and boy is it captivating as fuck, especially when you start thinking about the underlying themes and storytelling devices and how they relate to things like fairytales and Greek mythology and even Shakespeare. Greek mythos and fairytales are only fucked up in real life. That's why it's a disservice to Rafayel's character, or any of the characters in this game, when people want to hand-wave their actions as always justified or morally sound. You can't have that and have a story as interesting, detailed, and well-written as the one in this innocuous-seeming mobile game.

Rafayel is immoral. He's selfish, he's petulant, he's reckless, he's emotive and indecisive, he's tragic, he doesn't understand his own hotheadedness or trauma, he doesn't take accountability for his actions, he abandons his people and his duties more than once, he lacks foresight even as history repeats itself. He is the Little Mermaid who gives up his kingdom and his soul for a single person who then betrays him. And even with the clarity of having hindsight, after all he's sacrificed to get to where he is, at the chance to redo everything, he's still the Little Mermaid who can't bring himself to put the dagger in MC's back.

https://www.tumblr.com/leaderincrows/761521790767038464/ending-a-whole-civilization-for-a-single-person-is?source=share

I mean I do agree with you that this was a selfish act. But I wanted to add something. Rafayel didn't ask to be the sea god or whatever he was. I think it's reasonable to assume before he gave his heart to mc he didn't get to listen to his heart or have much of autonomy. Similar to Xavier or just the typical prince trope. I think while a selfish and morally questionable act,him giving mc his heart was an important and necessary thing for him to do.

Rafayel reminds me of the concept of angels in myths/art. Made to serve and serve only,with no choice but to live on forever doing so without ever even thinking about their own desires. If they choose to not be mindless workers 24/7 who will do the gods work? Who will make people's wishes come true? Who will help them? These questions might seem mindless if you haven't consumed as much angel media as me but I find the dilemma very interesting. Even though I clearly lean more towards angels and gods having autonomy. The show miracle workers was the start of this pondering I think. Wings of desire is a good one too. Angels last mission love is a kdrama with similar concept. Just recommending stuff incase you get interested too.

I disagree with your comparison to angels. Angels serve an ultimate authority and Rafayel "served" mortal people he was able to wipe out completely, it's an entirely different dynamic. You seem pretty set on viewing him as a victim who shouldn't be blamed for his wrongdoings, which I'm sure he's a victim to an extent (manipulation) but that doesn't absolve him of what he did. My thing is that he still did it and I'm not convinced there was no other way. Babygirl was a whole ass ocean god.

The last few years I've noticed more and more people across many fandoms feel like they can only enjoy characters who are morally correct and without flaws, because they want to stay up high on their imaginary pedestal of moral superiority. So what happens is they twist canon to fit their view of the character, seemingly ignoring things like *cough* the way he seems to not give a shit if mc dies as a result of him abandoning her in the water, or in the nest.

And I don't get it lmfao. Rafayel has such a unique love hate relationship with mc and y'all wanna just. Look away. Like why?? Because this is a toxic relationship where mc has a very unfair and dangerous power over him and he's forced to navigate this all alone?? That's an interesting dynamic!! It makes the story juicy!!