Monday, September 30, 2013
Why is Nicholas at all?
Nicholas is easily the most obnoxious primary character in the novel. He acts impulsively, preens his masculinity, consistently makes stupid mistakes, values honor to a detrimental degree, and holds the Emperor in a reverence that borders on creepy. At the same time, he is undeniably good-hearted and ethical. Put more concisely, Nicholas is a model for immaturity, and he stands in sharp contrast to the other older, more philosophical primary male characters. I suspect that Nicholas is included as a complement to Andrew, both in their opposite backgrounds and in their wildly different personalities. Nicholas, to some extent, shows the results of nurturing and love while Andrew shows the results of discipline and instruction; Andrew is more sophisticated and competent while Nicholas is more kind and naive. However, there is still some value in Nicholas individually. First, his naive beliefs about the glory of war and the Emperor sets him up for disillusionment, allowing Tolstoy to get didactic on the horrors of war and great men. Also, by his youth and the consequences of it, he both allows the romantic development in the novel and lodges a subtle criticism of it (that, at least in Tolstoy's time, people chose their life partners in their period of greatest immaturity). Still, characters like Nicholas are made to change, and his outburst at the end of book five indicates that he is becoming self aware and maybe even likable. Why do you think Nicholas is included among far more ideologically complex, likable characters? What do you think of him generally?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Ha, you scared me there Adam! For a moment I thought you argued that Nicky shouldn't exist in the novel at all. I agree with you that he is suppose to compliment Andrew with his wildly different behavior; that was a great observation. I feel that Nicholas is such a likable character BECAUSE of his immaturity. Immaturity sometimes symbolizes youth (note how I didn't say ALWAYS), and youth, in turn, symbolizes goodness and innocence. You already mentioned that he is one of the more ethical characters within the novel, and his immaturity just might be a very different branch of that.
ReplyDeleteThanks for commenting! I agree that Nicholas's ham-handed antics and immaturity can be charming. I'm not sure I can agree that Immaturity symbolizes youth, but I definitely agree that immaturity is a consequence of youth, and would support you in saying Nicholas is meant to come off as a prototypically young young man. Good post
DeleteI think that Tolstoy definitely shows some aspects of Nicholas' character to make the reader dislike him. Tolstoy does this with Andrew as well, and I think that by demonstrating the sometimes robotic coldness of Andrew in contrast to Nicholas' foolish romanticizing, Tolstoy shows a few of the most important character flaws. I think that these contrasting flaws in Nicholas and Andrew's characters are bound to be changed throughout the book, and Nicholas will definitely become a more well-rounded, likable character.
ReplyDeleteI very much agree, and think Tolstoy has to give his characters flaws. I also agree that Nicholas will almost certainly grow, as especially immature characters are generally made to change. Overall, good post.
Delete