#But I also don't like when the supra-character narrative plain is ignored. Because a book is not just what characters do and say.

[heliomanteia]

I think Nico's ability to survive is less so about his will to live and more so about his refusal (less so personal and more so narrative-wise) to die. Nico, for the lack of a better word, is like a cockroach: you cannot kill him in a way that matters so he survives and keeps haunting the scene.

There was once a marvelous post on Nico's function as a narrative tool and it was so beautifully pointed out that he's a near-omniscient deus ex machina (to simplify) which cannot be overlooked when characterizing him. Nico carries so much narrative weight on his back (which arguably could be an example of either good or bad writing depending on your perspective) that he cannot just go and die.

His road towards healing (though definitely not walked alone/individually) is his own, that's his choice to make as a character, but his disposition as a guy that perseveres resides more within his function, in my opinion.

He's not the tragic prince doomed for self-destruction people often draw him out to be but his capacity for survival is also not a product of his continuous work as a character, at least not just that — but is rather a result of his narrative function. Simply saying, you cannot, narratively, kill off Nico di Angelo.