#nikolai analysis

---------------------------- ⁠☆ ----------------------------

Nikolai has a lot of elements in a character who has a very small portion of screen time/manga panels, yet he's conveyed in such an excellent way that gives so much insight on his character from his words in the manga in a matter of minutes, and how much he contributes to our world as a whole.

Today for now, I'll dive into one of the many aspects of Nikolai's character, and that will be how he is a metaphor of human beings perception of good vs evil in a black and white lens with his conversation with Atsushi.

For starters, a quick establishment on the idea of what I mean with humans having a understanding of good vs evil and what plays into the morality of humanity:

There is a term for the saying "Black and white lens", that being dichotomous thinking or polarized thinking. It is a term used to think in extreme ways and not able to consider or see through the "grey areas" of a person or a thing, hence the saying "Black and White lens".

"People with black-and-white thinking may also struggle with compromise. Rigid thinking or insisting that there’s only one “right” way to think or act in a situation."

While dichotomous thinking is a cognitive condition, I think it's rather normal or common to have this perspective. By normal I mean a lot of us have a "Black and White" thinking for everything or something specific.

An example can be used to associate someone or something from a group or community and how they present themselves as an individual instead of what their labels are. A bad experience from something or someone can leave an impact in you to conclude if that person will impact your view on a whole community or not

This is what dichotomous thinking is. You see a person or things either fully "black" (fully evil or corrupted) or fully "White" (all good and cannot do anything wrong) while some situations like a black or white thinking can work for individuals who commit to disgusting actions, there are situations where a "Black and White lens" cannot work.

With what I have established, I'll use Nikolai as an example of dichotomous thinking with his conversation with Atsushi:

Nikolai is established to be a member of the decay of angels; A terrorist organization that serves to destroy Yokohama entirely and bring chaos.

In the manga, Nikolai describes the Decay of Angels as divin figures who will bring Yokohama and the Ada to ruins, but when shown tied up in front of the Ada, he acknowledges and admires the Ada's determination and persistence of wanting justice and righteousness, but says he chooses the Decay of Angels because it's "more fun!"

I think this highlights Nikolai is a subtle way of conveying he's a morally grey character who can acknowledge what is good and evil but still has his own morals and idea of free will.

The scene with atsushi and Nikolai helps us understand the idea of a human with a person who is in a view of black and white lens. Humans make bad decisions and even despicable ones as shown from Nikolai's actions throughout the manga, but they are humans at the end of the day.

Nikolai has murdered numerous people before and has committed acts of terrorism. Atsushi ask nikolai why he kills and he gives atsushi two answers; he finds it "fun" and calls himself a monster who has no humanity or remorse. He dehumanizes himself to atsushi so he does not feel sympathy when he dies. However, he gives atsushi another answer; "I am completely sane. I understand the evil of murder. I feel a sense of guilt like other people."

I think the reason why we are so quick to dehumanize bad people (whether their actions are small or big) and say they are "not human" is to believe they are nothing like us. Humans cannot do bad things but monsters do. It's the easiest way for the brain to understand something simple, rather than to conflict itself with what humans are capable of doing, which is exactly what nikolai is aiming for. He is doing what no "normal" human would do. Commiting acts that only a monster would do from a Humans eyes. He wants people to show what he is capable of; to open their eyes at his "freedom."

Nikolai is also a good example of not knowing if the people in your life are secretly bad people or have flaws of their own behind closed doors. We believe that nobody we know has flaws, which results in infantilized ideas of people and humans to be something perfect. In this situation, Atsushi is us seeing a monster who acts like a "human," when that is far from that when looking at Nikolai's character.

Nikolai breaks that perspective of bad people who do bad things as humans who can be normal and sane. Someone who has flaws that are all presented on the surface and exaggerated in order to delude others of the idea of what humans really are, this way from Nikolai is almost a mercy from making them go mad or even more blinded just like him.

Nikolai can represent the aspect of Humans perspective on the concept of "good vs evil" through a black and white lens. Humans want to be right about something, it's a natural instinct to do. To die from a "monster" who's not human gives you a sense of closure, that you were right about something. While with the idea that you could have been killed by a human just like yourself, you delude yourself to thinking they're not, but the uncertainty haunts the back of your head. Never knowing if you were right or not. Wondering what humans actually are. What they are capable of?

To talk about Nikolai, the first thing about him that should be talked about is his views on freedom

Okay... maybe it’s a bit of an overserious title, but I find it to be fitting.

So, I’ve seen the idea of comparing Gogol to Raskolnikov come up more and more, and I wanted to give my personal take on it.

My take: it’s a folly.

Now, make no mistake, I’m not saying that the comparison can’t be used for good in small doses. There are some comparisons that are beneficial to consider (i.e. both kill to reach a higher ‘something’).

However, I also believe that relying too heavily on the comparison for characterisation is essentially using crutches made of webbed glass--one small misstep and your characterisation comes crashing down, crippling you for a time (in my experience, at least).

Raskolnikov is reaching to be someone great amongst society, to become a Napolean and prove to himself and others that he can achieve greatness (and, I’m sure, to get a better life). He genuinely believes for a time that he’s capable of it, and thus starts his journey.

Gogol, on the other hand, isn’t trying to prove greatness. He doesn’t feel a need to. His “freedom” (going against society), isn’t to be great or prove power, the only thing he’s proving is his free will. To be free from the brainwashing of society. It’s just to escape his cage.

For my understaning of Gogol, I first had to understand the key to BSD’s character development. After reading multiple original source materials, I noticed that Asagiri has created each character to mirror a character in literature, but with one vital difference--he included the element that each BSD character needed to transcend the limitation (implied by the author) that caused the literary character to fail.

The key to Gogol’s character is realising what made Akaky Akakievich (protagonist of “The Overcoat”) fail--his intensively brainwashed compliance--and going against it. Akaky Akakievich followed the strictures of his society, even to his death. Gogol therefore actively rejects the ‘brainwashing’ of society altogether, as to him that equals freedom.

Raskolnikov isn’t “going against ALL society”, as far as I remember. He’s still operating within it, only against it for a time before it realises that he’s right. He’s working within it to prove greatness, and maybe bending some rules of his own society, but, overall, a freedom from society isn’t the point. Being accepted is. 

As far as freedom can go, Raskolnikov needs a freedom from innate morality, to be extraordinary, like BSD Dostoyevsky. Raskolnikov needs to have the qualities that will one day bring him greatness, that one day everyone will understand.

Gogol, on the other hand, goes completely against society. He doesn’t want to be accepted. He wants to be as unaccepted as possible, to prove his free will from the brainwashing instilled by society. He wants to go against the grain like Raskolnikov, but the end goal isn’t anywhere near a societal realisation. He doesn’t need anyone to understand, even if it’s lovely that Dostoyevsky does.

BSD characters tend to have what their book counterparts were lacking (in my experience, which is very limited, but I feel like it, at least, applies to Gogol, Dostoyevsky, Dazai, Pushkin and Goncharov). They have what it takes to succeed where their predecessors failed.

And so, I firmly believe that it’s vital to mention that Raskolnikov is Dostoyevsky’s character. And Akaky Akakievich is Gogol’s. Both are distinct and towering authors in their own right, and I don’t believe Asagiri would do one of them the disservice of basing such vital character depth in another author’s work. He wouldn’t make Gogol’s Ability “Crime and Punishment” just as he wouldn’t make Dostoyevsky’s Ability “Dead Souls”.

Therefore, Raskolnikov cannot be considered as a base source for Gogol. If you want to understand Gogol, then you’ll have to refer Gogol’s works.

Lastly--and most blatantly--Asagiri is clearly a lover of literature and loves the literary characters with such a passion that he’s created two manga series to portray them. It does him a disservice to say that he would confuse the character development between two such distinct and well-known authors.

And so, I don’t feel that, in good faith, I can as of now agree with the idea that Gogol is anything like Raskolnikov in more than a few surface-level ways.

------------------------------------------------------------

This is the second theory I have for nikolai gogol. This will be rather short since there isn't a lot of evidence I can analyze and dive into.

Firstly, let me get something very clear: Do I believe in this theory? No. Not really. Despite my love for nikolai, this theory is based on a hypothetical idea.

I just thought it would be interesting to discuss this, especially when considering his reappearance in the series after his supposed "death."

(Part 1): Nikolai's cane.

Let's start off with this rant: Nikolai's supposed cane he carries around. This was shown when sigma was falling out of the sky casino. Through the merusault arc and the many few panels of him, he is seen carrying a cane. It has a gold or silver handle and a black stick at the ends of the handle.

(Part 1.5): His overall physical body.

However, we are shown multiple times that he can walk perfectly normally without his cane. Not saying he could not likely have a disability (if you have a headcanon for that) but we are shown he can perform physical activities such as walking normally and bending down normally. Even able to carry the suitcase and fyodor's "dead hand."

------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------

(Part 2): Nikolai is in London theory.

Now here is where the theory starts; Nikolai is mostly likely the man Atsushi encounters when he arrives in London. The reason why I say this is that if you look very closely, the cane looks to be the exact same model as the one nikolai is seen using. While not the literal exact same one (if you look close, the ends of the handle have two twists rather than a single handle) but we are aware of how nikolai can disguise himself with anyone.

The only flaw within this theory is one simple question: how did nikolai even get to London? Not to mention how little time he manages to do so in whatever amount of time he had during the airport arc. However, we are informed of a time jump after the airport arc and when the ada was temporarily closed. It's not unlikely for Nikolai to be in London with that time skip, but why he would even be in London is unknown. From the many rumors from fans saying that Asagiri is likely to bring Nikolai back to the series, nikolai might have interest in the order of the clock tower when considering Agatha will be introduced soon in the new arc and part 2 of bungo stray dogs.

------------------------------------------------------------

1. They both do bad stuff in order to feel something or lose themselves in the name of their own motive or desire. Junko does this for Despair, and Nikolai does it for Freedom

2. They're both very exaggerated characters within their own series, often portrayed as crazy or silly

3. They both go against social norms from society. This would make sense with how Junko is supposed to be the Ultimate Gyaru instead of fashionista in the English translation, and nikolai is shown to be presented as a clown and often interpreted as queer coded for his motive and his relationship with Fyodor through a queer lens

I never noticed how much they almost correlate with one another, it's almost shocking.

As we all know, Nikolai is obsessed with the idea of liberating himself from all constraints: societal laws, emotional bonds, morality, consequences and possibly even life and death.

(that was shown throughout the manga)

His freedom is total anarchy of the self, an internal rebellion against all forces that attempt to define or control identity. (Which setting himself in an emotional endless self-torture. Self-torture because he is doing this to himself.)

Despite his flamboyant personality, Nikolai fears attachment. Emotional bonds, in his view, enslave people. Love, loyalty, and friendship are forms of emotional shackles.

This is most clearly seen in his relationship with Fyodor Dostoevsky, more specific, his attempt at killing Fyodor to sever that chain and assert his ultimate freedom or to prove that he is "free".

This makes his actions deeply tragic, because he's not seeking freedom as a positive state, but as the absence of anything that could ever tie him down — including love, including life. (Yes, I do ship fyolai wyw)

Nikolai sees life itself as a prison, and death as the final step toward pure freedom. This doesn’t mean he wants to die out of despair — he views the willingness to die as the ultimate rejection of all chains.

(chapter 58)

This belief puts him in contrast with Atsushi, who clings to meaning and connection. To Nikolai, those are just illusions, traps that keep people tied.

In a way, Nikolai embodies nihilistic existentialism — freedom is only real when you strip away everything, even the meaning of existence.

But like I said, despite preaching freedom, Nikolai remains deeply trapped: He’s bound by his need to prove his freedom. To prove that he is free.

In the end, Nikolai’s view of freedom is self-destructive. The more he tries to escape, the more he is tied down.

That's all! Hope you enjoy^^