Post by Calvin - Comparison of Carlo and Mandras

The author, De Bernieres has portrayed the two characters of Carlo and Mandras very differently with different attitudes of war and on their loved ones. But he also shows the similarities of how the war has affected both in a way.
Carlo’s attitude towards war was that he has joined the army to find love, he believed that by joining the army and the war he would ‘find someone to love’ and ‘be ennobled by this love’. Mandras however, has a different attitude in joining the war, he is eager to join as he wants to prove to Pelagia how much he loves her, and show how courageous he is, and that he is not just a ‘nobody fisherman’. So Mandras being very ambitious in my opinion, has joined the war to obtain that glory and respect he will get after the war ends. Both Mandras and Carlo have different attitudes towards the war, but this has also affected their attitudes towards their loved ones. The letters that Carlo writes are very emotional which represents his character being very reflective. The letters he wrote about the death of Francesco, was so detailed and clear that it allows the reader to even empathise with Carlo, ‘I gathered his tears on my fingers and drank them’ shows how emotional Carlo was and how strong their love was. Mandras on the other hand is not as emotional as Carlo, but he is very ambitious and wants to achieve honour and glory. When he returns from the war, he is expected to be treated with respect from Pelagia, but does not, his attitude towards her is now very harsh and the way he pressurize Pelagia to read him the letters she wrote. Making Pelagia’s initial love towards Mandras change to ‘pity and then to hate’.
De Bernieres has shown how the similarities of war have affected both Carlo and Mandras, but he has also shown the differences as to how much both were affected. It is shown that they both have lost their loved ones, however Carlo lost his love in the line of duty, where the death was a very emotional death, and how Francesco died right before his very eyes. He is affected by his attitude towards war. Whereas, Mandras lost Pelagia because of his over ambitiousness and his selfishness. The love that Pelagia once had has now changed into ‘hate’. So the both has lost their love but Carlo literally and Mandras metaphorically. The difference however is that Mandras loss to me is a bigger loss than Carlo’s loss. Though Francesco died in front of Carlo, they both knew the chances they had of being alive in the war, so they knew that one day, either or both will die. So the loss for Carlo was only momentarily. Mandras loss of Pelagia is bigger in a way that, in the earlier chapters, Pelagia was very much in love with Mandras and vice-versa, and also the attitude that Mandras had was very positive where it did not matter to him if he was dead or alive after the war. He believed that he would either die in honour and pride for his country and Pelagia, or be alive where he will always be remembered and honoured. However through the course of the war, the love Pelagia have for Mandras degrades. De Bernieres presents Carlo as a very emotional character and allows this character to write letters expressing his feelings which makes a reader have for empathy. However Mandras character is presented more on his ‘beauty’ being compared to ‘a man like adam’ showing how he is represented as a godly figure.

Carlo and Mandras

Comparison of Carlo and Mandras

In the novel, Captain Corelli’s Mandolin, both characters Mandras and Carlo are presented very similarly yet at the same time entirely different. Carlos attitudes towards war are very dissimilar from Mandras’ for example their reasons for joining the war. Carlo joins the war in search of love, in hopes that in the army he would find a soldier whom he could love unconditionally and would be willing to sacrifice his own life out of pure love for this man even if the love is not reciprocated (and he finds this in Francesco). He hopes that by joining the army, the notion of ‘love between men’ will conceal his homosexuality and be regarded as purely plutonic rather than homosexual. Mandras however, joins the army in order to prove his worthiness to both Pelagia and her father, Dr Iannis and to gain their respect and honour so that he can marry Pelagia. Both men have different reasons for enrolling in the army yet both of them join in search of a way to be accepted or fit in.
Their attitudes towards loved one also vary. Carlo’s love for Francesco is shown through his letters and presented as absolute admiration. Even when Francesco goes mad from the war and ends up deliberately shitting himself (page 115) Carlo’s unquestioning love for Francesco remains as he even makes mittens for him. His love again is shown by how the death of Francesco affects him. He cradles Francesco’s head in his arms, the action of what a mother would do to her child showing how nurturing Carlo is towards him. He also ends up crying a very emotional reaction again showing how deeply Carlo has been wounded by Francesco’s death and the extent to which Carlo loved him. On the other hand, Mandras attitudes to love are different to Carlo’s. While Carlos love is obviously true, the love between Mandras and Pelagia is presented to us as more lust than love. We first meet Mandras in the eyes of Pelagia where she describes his beauty; de Bernieres uses similes to compare him to a dolphin and uses biblical reference to emphasise Madras as a pure, holy and god like figure. There is very little emotional connection between the two and their love is purely physical attraction. Mandras also does not treat Pelagia with the same kindness as Carlo devotes to Francesco. When he returns from the war he is expecting a hero’s welcome but gets the complete opposite. He victimises Pelagia by forcing her to read out the letters against her will when it is clearly upsetting her and causing her deep pain to do so showing that he does not care about her feelings. This is further emphasised by how demanding and aggressive he becomes as the letters get shorter.
Both characters have been affected by war in similar ways in that both experience loss of loved ones however the way they lose them is different. Carlo loses Francesco in the battles of war where as Mandras loses Pelagia due to miscommunication of the fact that he doesn’t know how to read or write (again this shows how false their love was as if it were true Pelagia would have known this simple fact). Although they both undergo loses, Carlo comes out of war strong and even more determined to find love while Mandras comes out completely diminished to nothing more than an infant who cannot think and act for itself, relying on the care of those around him. Not only this, but his appearance has greatly changed from that of a beautiful boy to an unrecognisable stranger resembling a hermit. Although they both experience loss, they are different in that Carlo’s is much more tragic as there was little he could do to prevent it while Mandras’ is almost entirely his fault as he practically drives Pelagia away from him.
De Bernieres presents Carlo and Mandras in different ways. Carlos is presented as an outsider through the chapter titles “L’omusessuale” which not only emphasise his alienation by being homosexual but by being Italian the Greek love between men will not apply to him either, therefore he is not accepted anywhere. For half the novel we only see Carlo from his letters showing us that he is a reflective and emotional character. Through his letters de Bernieres is able to provoke sympathy towards Carlo as he writes about his suppression of his homosexuality and how he feels isolated and alienated within not only society but his own family. Mandras on the other hand is presented first through the eyes of Pelagia as beautiful and physically attractive but there is no description of personality, emphasising that Pelagia is only focusing on his appearance. This suggests to us that there is nothing more to Mandras than his beauty. As the novel progresses we come to dislike him as he becomes the aggressor and very sadistic towards Pelagia who he supposedly loves. The fact that the readers feel no emotional connection towards Mandras yet feel deep empathy and compassion towards Carlo shows us just how different these two characters are.

The comparison of Carlo and Mandras - Jessica

In the novel CCM, De Bernieres makes the characters of Carlo and Mandras strongly contrasting. Although both characters ideally joined the war for love their true motives behind joining were very different. Carlo’s attitude towards the war was that it was a place where he was able to love fully, under the protection of the idea of comradeship as a kind of love between men rather than viewing all love between men as homosexuality. Mandras however, uses the war as a way to prove to Pelagia and her father that he is worth their time and respect in order to gain love or rather to gain honour and power. Although their general attitudes towards the war were different, both men went in order to find something they were missing. Both characters attitudes towards their loved ones are very different also. Through his letters, the reader can come to the conclusion that Carlo is a very reflective character; he loves unconditionally and gives all that he is able to give. This is shown in the “L’omosessuale” chapters, where Carlo writes about the deterioration of Francesco’s mental health, shown when Francesco “shits himself deliberately in order to savour the momentary heat”, yet even after that Carlo continues to love him, shown when “[Francesco’s] shattered head was cradled in [Carlo’s] arms like a little child” the use of “child” at this point shows the reader the absolute extent of Carlo’s unconditional love. Mandras however showed little emotion throughout the beginning of the novel and when he did they were limited to selfish acts that would gain him honour and status. Before the war the relationship between Mandras and Pelagia is very visual, describing the beauty of the characters however there is a lack of absolute love and devotion, their ‘love’ seems only surface deep. After returning from the war Mandras expected full love and devotion from Pelagia without considering the effects of the war on her and her feelings. He demands her love, respect and obedience rather than earning it and he becomes aggressive when he does not receive these which he is demanding. This shows that overall Mandras’ ‘love’ for Pelagia is purely through aesthetics not true love. The war affected everyone at the time, not only the soldiers, though the effects on them were the greatest. Both Carlo and Mandras suffer greatly from the war, both men suffered the unbearable conditions and both men suffered the loss of someone they love, however the final affects on the men was very different. Mandras comes back from war unrecognisable and reduced to infancy. Carlo however maintains his strength and his ‘manly’ persona. Both men lost someone they loved; Carlo lost Francesco, the man he was able to love so fully and unconditionally, to the war. He left feeling more tortured and anguished than he had before the war. And Mandras lost the love of Pelagia due to social barriers and Mandras’ inability to read or write, never feeling true loss only anger and resentment. Therefore, although these characters are similar in the sense that they have suffered loss and physical pain, the affects that the war has had on them is very different. De Bernieres presents the two characters very differently. Carlo was presented though his letters, the first person narrative was effective as it portrayed a very reflective, sensitive and emotional character. Through reading the letters Carlo’s character gains empathy from the readers. Personal emotions conveyed to the reader through the letters in sorrowful reflection such as “ I am exploding with the fire of love and there is no one to accept or nourish it”, turns Carlo from being just another character into someone the reader can understand and connect with. Mandras however is first presented to the reader through the eyes of Pelagia, presenting him as a “beautiful” character but there is no depth or personal connection in the reader/character relationship. De Bernieres describes Mandras’ character through his beauty rather than his emotions as was done with Carlo. De Bernieres uses similes such as “man naked and wild, a man like Adam”, suggesting that God had made Mandras to perfection, that there was nothing more beautiful than him. Mandras is purely described as a ‘beautiful’ character; De Bernieres purely uses visual literary techniques to portray a very shallow character that the reader is unable to have a deep, emotional connection with as they had done with Carlo. The lack of personal response towards Mandras’ character allows De Bernieres to create two very different characters.

The Comparison of Carlo and Mandras - Amber

In the novel CCM, both characters; Carlo and Mandras are affected by war. Carlo’s attitude towards the war is very much a safe haven, where he can seek for the love of men and not be accused of homosexuality. Mandras on the other hand, looks at war as a place for him to prove his worth and might, where he can gain respect and statues. Neither of these characters really takes war seriously for both have joined the army for reasons other than ‘fighting for your country’. However, both characters have joined war seeking; either that be Carlo for love or Mandras for glory and honour, both characters feel like they are lacking something from life and had resulted to a ‘manly’ task. Their behaviour towards their loved ones had also been affected by war; Carlo, had mostly been represented and presented through his reflective letters, this had led the reader into thinking that he is an emotional character. Thus signifying that he treats those around him with regard to their emotions, this is conveyed with his love for Francesco. Carlo had secretly loved Francesco until the day his beloved died; even then Carlo was loyal and stayed by Francesco’s side. Mandras however, though he hadn’t had many personal presentations where his emotions were displayed, express a selfish character that wants attention, glory, honour and statues. He had deliberately hurt the one person he had said to love, being Pelagia. He had forced her against her will to read to him her letters and tortures himself to grieve her further. Hence illustrating a self-centred and, to an extent, very selfish character. These two contradicting characters have been presented by de Bernieres in two different aspects. Carlo; had been presented through a series of personal letters, where he had the use of 1st character narrative, and have thus made it an effective way to portray to the reader the type of character Carlo is. Which is; caring, reflective, emotional, sensitive and to an extent sincere. Carlo had also been able to gain much of the reader’s empathy and understanding “what I would have been if God had not meddled with me in my mother’s womb” or “I have not had a family since puberty”. Conversely, Mandras was first presented through the eyes of Pelagia, and a 3rd person narrative, this had concluded to an impersonal relationship between the character and the reader, thus conveying a more significant message of a character that demands the attention of those around him. Contradictory to this point, de Bernieres had many a scene, especially in chapter 13 on page 88 -89, described the ‘beauty’ of Mandras, how he was strong and lean, de Bernieres had used many pleasant similes and metaphors to illustrate a truly handsome character, however, when looked at from a different perspective; Mandras had only ever been presented through the means of visual literary techniques. Such as “he stood glistening on the beach” and “transfixed by his beauty” none of which was the deep and emotional response the reader had gotten from Carlo “and this gives me incalculable grief.” This very much separates the two characters. The consequences of war branches out far and wide, change everyone who is in anyway involved with it. In the case of Carlo and Mandras, both characters have been caused to suffer, they have had to endure harsh conditions and lose those who were close to them. Yet both characters had come away from the war differently affected, Mandras had been reduced to nothing, an infant, a cripple. Whereas Carlo though anguished, still depicts a man. Carlo had lost the man that he so feverishly loved, to be left feeling more tortured and pain than anything else he had before felt. Mandras had also lost a loved one, but he had not felt the utter distress that Carlo felt, he felt anger and resentment. This here shows the extent to how both characters are similar, but very different at the same time.

PowerPoint Resources

You can now access all of the lessons / PowerPoints on Z drive. Follow the link below to access lessons from both Regeneration and Captain Corelli's Mandolin:

Z:\Public-Students\Secondary\A1_LEARNING_RESOURCES\A3_KEYSTAGE5_IB\G1_LANGUAGES_A1\ENGLISH\YEAR_12

I will continue to update the folders as we progress through the year.

Similarities and Differences

In the novels Regeneration and Captain Corelli’s Mandolin, both Barker and Louis De Bernieres use historical characters to challenge traditional views of society. Barker uses Sassoon and Rivers; De Bernieres uses Mussolini, Metaxas and Carlo. De Bernieres uses Carlo to represent how the pressure of society can affect someone. He presents Carlo as someone alienated and shunned. Furthermore, both Sassoon and Carlo hide their homosexuality. The authors have done this to show how society can silence people through the strong expectations of males.

Louis De Bernieres is more open in presenting historical characters as being homosexual to challenge society’s views whereas Barker uses a more subtle way and only suggests homosexuality. An example of this is when Sassoon wants to go back to the war because he wants to help his men (theme of ‘love between men’) whereas Carlo wants to go to the war to find a partner. A more obvious example is De Bernieres choice of chapters ‘L’Omossesuale’ which means the homosexual in Italian which is a direct way of talking about his homosexuality in contrast with Barker who only hints the historical characters homosexuality.

Louis De Bernieres openly mocks historical characters. In chapter two, Mussolini’s dramatic monologue is used to present him as a stupid, arrogant and self centered character. However, Barker presents Rivers as a compassionate and nurturing “male mother”. This clearly shows the different styles in the treatment of historical figures between the two authors.

Similarities and Differences

In both of the novels, “Regeneration” and “Captain Corelli’s Mandolin”, they use non-fictional historical figures to present their point. They use the characters and add fictional characteristics that allow the author to present the ideas of homosexuality.

The similarities in the use of fictional historical figures between the two authors, Barker and de Bernieres, are that they both do not agree and tolerate the way society expectation treats the characters. For de Bernieres’ character, Carlo, he is hiding his identity of being a homosexual person by writing letters and Barkers’ character, Sassoon, he is hiding his identity of being a homosexual by not admitting to it. This suggests that they are both being silenced or muted by society and their expectations on the male role.

The differences between de Bernieres’ and Barkers’ fictional historical figures are their patriarchal characteristics. De Bernieres presents his patriarchal character through Mussolini who has characteristics such as arrogance, ignorance and stupidity that creates a very hateful patriarchal character. Barker does present a patriarchal character who is Rivers a nurturing, caring and compassionate towards his patients.

Another difference is the reason that Sassoon wants to go back into the army at the near end of the novel of Regeneration is that he wants to protect his men which therefore shows a more plutonic relationship where as Carlo wants to join the army to fall in love with a man which he does which is more like a romantic relationship.

Another difference is the amount of fictional information that the author involves in the characters. Barker uses non-fictional historical figures that are not well known universally whereas de Bernieres uses a more widely known non-fictional historical figure. Barker interprets more of his own personal opinion of the character to present her message through the novel whereas de Bernieres does place his own personal opinion of how the characters are in reality, however it is at a more realistic rate and thus agreed by the reader and so his messages are at some extent more easier to be agreed by the readers.

Year 12 A1 Work - Monday 5th October lessons 5 and 6

Choose one of the following essays and complete it by the end of the double lesson:

1. Carlo is presented as nothing more than an 'alien in [his] own race'. To what extent to you agree / disagree?
2. Carlo, in CCM,  is presented as being more accepting of his own sexuality than Sassoon is, in Regeneration. How far do you agree with this statement?

Complete it by the end of the lesson and leave it on my desk in Room 305.

Similarities/Differences in treatment of historical figures

In the novels 'Regeneration' and 'CCM' both Barker and de Bernieres use their characters to challenge society’s views on homosexuality. Similarly, they both explore the effects that societies views have on the men who are homosexual and how they are dealt with (Sassoon,Rivers,Graves and Carlo)
However, Barker portrays characters such as Sassoon and Rivers as more dominant figures who appear to us to be very patriarchal and poses more masculine qualities, where as de Bernieres presents Carlo as having more feminine characteristics like being reflective, sensitive and emotional. An example of this is the mere fact that Carlo writes letters, not to other people, but to himself and these letters include his personal and emotional thoughts and feelings about the war and his love for Francesco.

Another noticable difference between the two authors is that style in which the novels are writen in order to present historical figures. While Barkers style is more serious, de Bernieres is much more of a mockery especially towards characters like Mussolini in chapter2. When discussing the topic of the homosexuality of the characters, Barker is much more evasive, as in the reader almost has to guess and speculate that characters such as Sassoon and Rivers are in fact homosexual. It is not made perfectly clear to us or discussed openly although there are certain hints and suggestions that lead us to this conclusion. De Bernieres on the other hand is much more open to the notion of homosexuality, the simple fact that he titles his chapters with Carlo as "L'Omosessuale" shows this. Carlo as a character also willing admits to being in love with a man.

Similarities and Differences

Both Barker and de Bernieres use the characters as a way of critisising and challenging society. One of the most noticeable similarities is the use of homosexuality as a way of challenging society’s views and the effect of these views on the men involved.

However Barker’s and de Bernieres’ style of writing and approaches to the characters are very different. Barker uses the homosexual characters of Sassoon and Rivers to portray strong, and patriarchal figures, to challenge stereotypical views of homosexuality, however de Bernieres does not challenge the stereotype so much as use it to help portray the character of Carlo as a very sensitive, emotional and reflective character.

Finally, Barker’s style of writing is very upfront and serious, where as de Bernieres uses satire and mockery to poke fun at certain historical figures (Mussolini), both of these styles of writing being very effective.

Similarities and Differences

In Regeneration, Pat Barker, and Captain Corelli’s Mandolin, Louis de Bernieres use historical characters in their novel. In Regeneration, there are Rivers and Sassoon and in Captain Corelli’s Mandolin, there are the Duce, which is Mussolini and Metaxas, Prime Minister of Greece. The similarity of both of this novel in using historical characters is that the opinions and thoughts of the character are all expressed to the reader. Pat Barker uses narrative viewpoint to put the reader to observe the conversation and understand the character feeling. Louis de Bernieres uses dramatic monologue for the reader to be the listener to the Duce. De Bernieres uses different style to viewing Metaxas, it is similar to Barker narrative viewpoint. Other similarities such as, they have comment theme of war, mocking on society and homosexual.

The differences are the depth of Pat Barker and Louis de Bernieres uses the character. Pat Barker had to be careful not to overuse the historical character since she wants to make it as real as possible. Different to Louis de Bernieres, he uses as much as possible the way to mock the character or impress the reader as possible. And Barker set her novel on World War One and de Bernieres set his on World War Two therefore the storyline as well the message deliver are different. Also Barker main location is in the Craiglockhart the hospital and the war scenes are only shown through conversations and dreams, opposite to de Bernieres, he has many different location in his novel such as the battlefront and Kelafonia.

Similarities and Differences in treatment of actual historical figures in regeneration and CCM

The similarities of Barker and De Bernieres is that they both represent people who were actually one way or another, a part of the war. A fact to point out is that they both show that homosexuality was common in both world war 1 in Regeneration and world war 2 in CCM. In Regeneration, Sassoon and Rivers are both homosexuals, but they are not really elaborated however in CCM, Carlo homosexuality is clear and shows that he is in love with Francesco.

The difference between Barker and De Bernieres is that Barker represents the historical characters who helped in the war, like Sassoon who was in the front lines and Rivers as a doctor trying to cure patients to make them fight again. However De Bernieres mocks the historical characters, and they are the political leaders like Mussolini and Prime minister metaxes.

Different approaches to historical characters

In Regeneration, Barker had used the historical figures to represent and convey messages that criticises society. The same is done in CCM, where Bierniers uses historical figures such as Carlo to represent the shunned affect of being a homosexual. However, as both authors use these figures to convey the same message, they are portraying a different representation of each character. For example; Barker's portayal of Rivers, Sassoon and Graves are of strong, and bold/'big' characters within the novel. They are seen as patriachal as well as influencing the dynamic events in the novel. However, Biernieres had used Carlo to portray a very timid, emotional and reflective character. In other words, Biernieres had allowed Carlo to be a more feminine character rather than a bold character like that Barker would have done.

Another noticeable point on how these authors approach their characters differently are; Barker using a more conservative and passive mockery of historical figures or attitudes, unlike Biernieres who openly mocks these character to show his disagreements. This is shown through the dramatic monologue of chapter 2 in CCM (The Duce), here he had portrayed Mussolini as a mad man who was humourous to the reader because the character was utterly whimsical and irrational. As for Barker, the representation of social mockery was done in a more seriouse manner through the character of Yealland; an arrogant, domineering and cruel character.