29 pages • 58 minutes read
John GalsworthyA modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.
Mr. Nilson is the central character in the story, and the story is told from his point of view through a third-person narrator. The narrator grants access to Nilson’s thoughts and feelings as well as to his limitations and blind spots. Though his age is not disclosed, Nilson presumably is a middle-aged man judging from his status and reputation. He is described mainly by external features: his clothing, accessories, quirks, and habits. This strategy designates Nilson as an external man—a man of surface appearance with little emotional or intellectual depth. He is a product of the social conventions of his world, and his life is shaped by the expectations of others. The few objects that are described in the story are markers of his status and relative affluence, suggesting that he is a thoroughly materialistic man.
Nilson is successful at what he does—and what he does involves money. At the outset of the story, and placed immediately after his name, the phrase “well known in the City” suggests that his reputation is the most important thing to him (Paragraph 1). As “the City” refers to the one-square-mile heart of London, the financial district, one can infer that Nilson works with money as an investor or speculator. The phrase “well known in the City” functions like an epithet—a tag-like phrase that describes a character’s most distinctive quality. Thus, an epithet is like a label that society places on an individual just as the tree has its own label in the garden.
The irony is that the epithet “well known in the City” is certainly how he views himself—not just how the narrator describes him. He sees himself as having a uniquely heroic attribute (renown), but there is little unique about him. The narrative suggests that Nilson never realizes how replaceable he is. His life and accomplishments could be swapped out for Tandram’s. His name recalls the word “nil” or nothing (which plays into the theme of Naming and Classifying as a Way of Knowing, as the author chooses names that convey something about the characters). The blackbird and tree come clearly into focus when seen in contrast to Nilson’s character. The bird and tree are fully realized “individuals” who respond authentically to their impulses and environment. In this sense, they are unique, even if they have no reputation in the world. The bird sings whether anyone hears it or not, and the tree had bloomed without recognition until it caught Nilson’s eye from the window.
Nilson is also a man of habit. The only spontaneous thing he seems to do is stop and delight in the bird’s song and the tree’s blossoms. Even this, however, is only in response to the spontaneity of the bird and tree, not because of his internal impulses. He adjusts his walking tempo at the end, but this variation merely serves the purpose of preventing another encounter with Tandram.
Mr. Tandram is the only other active character in the story. It would be wrong, however, to assign him the role of antagonist. The story’s primary conflict is internal, Nilson’s separation from his true self. The role Tandram plays as Nilson’s double clarifies this conflict and establishes internal conflict as the central action of the story. (His name suggests the word “tandem” meaning together or alongside one another.) The same epithet (“well known in the City”) is used to describe Tandram, which unambiguously designates the neighbor as Nilson’s double. The purpose of epithets in heroic and epic literature is to distinguish characters by their unique qualities. The implication is that neither Nilson nor Tandram has unique qualities. They stand in a one-to-one relationship with each other as doppelgangers, or “doubles.”
The resemblance between the two men is certified by the description that follows. In the same neutral tone, without a hint of irony, Tandram’s appearance is described in identical detail, even using the same wording. They are of the same height and have the same “firm well-coloured cheeks, neat brown moustaches, and round, well-opened, clear grey eyes” (Paragraph 6). Both men wear black frock coats and clasp newspapers behind their backs. The reader would be justified in sketching out an identical psychological profile for Tandram as for Nilson, especially as their reactions to one another are the same.
Tandram plays an instrumental role in the story as a prompt for Nilson, forcing him to confront himself as others see him. His final appearance in the story comes at the end as he is framed by the French window while looking out at the little tree. Tandram is imperfectly seen at that moment as he is standing “in the shadow of his French window” (Paragraph 25). His primary role as Nilson’s inner foil is evident: Nilson cannot see him clearly because Nilson cannot see himself clearly.
Technically, the wives of Nilson and Tandram are not characters in the story—at least not actively. They are not present in any scene, but they are felt by their absence from the morning tableau and traditional domestic scenes at the beginning of the story. Nilson’s wife is directly mentioned in reference to the technique of deep breathing that was “recommended by his wife’s doctor” (Paragraph 5). She has no identity, and she appears in Nilson’s mind not for her own sake but only in connection with his illness. Tandram, too, has a wife, but she is equally invisible. She is referenced in an even more oblique way when the narrator reveals that even though both Nilson and Tandram were married, they have never actually met and socialized (Paragraph 6). The sense of isolation and separateness among the characters is reinforced by these details; the men are separated from each other, but they are also separated from their wives who are absent from the story and, it seems, absent from the men’s consciousnesses.