so, if the princess represents a relationship that is reciprocal and shaped by your actions, then the narrator represents a relationship that is one-sided wherein you have little effect. this can occur in any relationship, but where you see it happen the most is in parent-child relationships. of course, the narrator will mean different things to different people, and i am in NO WAY bashing on the narrator. i like him because he is very human and very easy to understand and connect with. this is just an analysis of the relationship tlq has with the narrator.
many parents view their children as an extension of themselves. a means to an end. a way to get something that they could not get within their own lives. money. fame. love. thus, their children are not people to them, and this is reflected in their treatment of their children. they are dismissive and callous, never listening to their children and often berating them for having thoughts, feelings, desires, and experiences that differ from the parent's. this results in a heavily one-sided relationship, wherein only the parent's opinions and feelings are considered, while the child is left to carry the weight of the responsibility within the relationship. love and affection are earned, not freely given.
once the child gets older, old enough that they no longer need to rely solely on their parent for survival, they begin to grow into their own person. they begin to recognize the ways in which their parent failed them -- even subconsciously, people know that they deserved better during their childhoods, regardless of whether or not they're willing to confront that fact. it's hard to admit when your parents failed you, because you feel like it's your fault that they never loved you. but it is never the child's fault, because the parent's responsibility is to unconditionally love and support their child, and provide them with a positive environment to grow and devlop within. but i digress.
even as the child, now with ego, reaches out to their parent and tries to connect with them and earn their love, their parents pulls back. the parent is not responsive to the attempts at connection. no matter what the child does, they earn only ire and disappointment. "you are not what i wanted you to be." children, even well into adulthood, yearn for their parents' love and try to continue to carry the responsibility of the relationship on their back, and they find that it gets harder and harder as they move forward in life, as new relationships and responsibilities come into their lives. but alas, the relationship stays open-ended, because the hope that the parent will reciprocate is always there.
and that's where the mirror scene comes in. the shattering of the mirror is the death of the parent. in the end, the parent could never love the child in a way that reciprocated the child's love. the expectations and dehumanization and disappointment remain. the death of a parent often fills their children with immense grief -- often referred to as regret ("if only i had done more" and yet there was nothing more you could do for someone who refused to give you the love and compassion you deserved). the mirror shattering leaves many with a bitter taste in their mouths, a sense of hollowness, of grief. the narrator was a person. he could have loved you. and now he's gone. and he never did.
and if you tell him that you're not going to slay the shifting mound, he just sighs and says, "well, there's no accounting for free will, i suppose." that line always stuck out to me. when creating life, there is no accounting for free will when you're creating a life to be a tool. and that is why parents who have children for an agenda have such a hard time loving their children. they didn't want children. they wanted their goals, their dreams, their desire for unconditional love to be fulfilled.
this might be messy, but i wanted to get it out there. sorry if i inflicted any psychic damage on anyone with this post. just reflecting on what the narrator means to me without delving too deep into my own stuff.