Comparison of Carlo and Mandras

Louis de Bernières presents the two characters Carlo and Mandras to be similar with their ways of affection, reason for war, affects of war and motivation for war; however both characters also show some differences. Louis de Bernières presents this carefully throughout the novel of CCM.
Mandras’ way of visualizing the purpose of war for his personal benefit is very different to Carlos. Mandras views war as a way to act honorably with dignity and those men who follows that path is given the righteous respect from its people. He says that he will “walk with (his) head held high” and that everyone will say “that’s Mandras who fought for his country” this shows how he wants to get acknowledged and gain respect from his people. On the other hand Carlo view’s the war as a place where homosexuality proves to be an advantage. He believes in “Phaedras” which was a state of the soldiers in the army being in love with one another and thus being a strong army that would die for one another.
These views of the war affect their reason to join the army in the first place. Carlo joined the army to see all the “young and beautiful” men and for “love”. His view of “phaedras” made him join the army. Mandras joined the army to gain respect and honor.
The thing that motivates the both of them throughout the war is their affection for the people they love. Mandras is motivated by Palegia and Carlo is motivated by Francesco. Mandras describes how he fights for his home and that “Palegia is (his) home” which makes Palegia sound extremely significant and as though she is Greece itself. Carlo gives the reader a sense that he would die for the person he loves in war as he explain the theory behind “phaedras”. Although he didn’t save Francesco he did save Captain Corelli later on in the novel which shows the same striving motivation between the two characters.
Louis de Bernières presents the idea that war makes us lose things that are important to us. To the two characters, Carlo and Mandras, they both had very important people to them. For Carlo it was Francesco who literally died and could not be saved. He died in the war which shows how Carlo lost somebody important to him. We saw how tragic this is with the chapter that used a lot of juxtaposition to emphasise the tragedy, in chapter 19 “L’Omosessuale (6)”. For Mandras he lost Palegia who stopped loving him when he didn’t write back to her letters. In one of the letters she writes “all I feel now is emptiness” this is emphasized when she uses the word “overflowing” to describe her feelings that she used to have. The two words are a complete opposite.
The fact that they both lost the people they love is suggested through the description of their affection because it suggests that it is more lustful rather than a deeply meaningful love. Louis de Bernières uses language in describing the affection between Mandras and Palegia to be similar to the affection between Carlo and Francesco. Both are compared to being an animal. Francesco as a cat and Mandras as a dolphin. Both animals represent a harmless and friendly creature but we can also view this to describe the distant between the human Carlo and the cat-like Francesco or the human Palegia and the dolphin-like Mandras. The description for both of the characters seems lustful. Carlo talks of the muscle line and “parallel” muscle structures, parallel suggesting perfection without and fault. Palegia sees the “one with the sea” like body structure and describes it to be “sleek”.
Later on in the novel the description of Francesco and Mandras still shows form of similarity but they both changed description from the first lustful appearance. Francesco is said to have “deliberately shat himself” the word “deliberately” is a way that a savage thinks especially when it’s about excreting. Mandras is also described to have “shat himself” when a bomb exploded near him. This gives us an uncourageous image of Mandras. They are also described with very similar appearances such as the overgrown facial hair, lice in the hair and smelling really horrible.
The level of sympathy that the two characters get is also different to an extent. Carlo is given deep sympathy through his letters that are followed through by the chapters of “L’Omosessuale” The letters describes his childhood to be as if “concealing leprosy” which gives us a gruesome imagery of a skin disease to replace homosexuality. The letters describe a lot about Carlo which makes us feel sympathetic towards him. For Mandras we don’t feel as sympathetic. Father Arsenios defines him as having a mental illness and says that he should be “sent to a madhouse”. Mandras also humiliates Palegia by making her read the letters. However there are chapters that describes Mandras’ viewpoint of things. He explains how he can’t read.
There are similarities and differences when comparing the two characters. Both characters are affected deeply by their affection and war. These affects make the two characters at some point similar but at others completely different. But Louis de Bernières presents both of the characters tragic characters.