How my Question Relates to Henry IV

The characters in Henry IV exhibit both good and bad traits.  The main culprits are definitely Falstaff and Hotspur, with Hotspur intruding habits that consist mainly of a rash nature while Falstaff fluctuates back and forth between a moral and cowardly character.  Although both characters demonstrate these traits, it is tough to conclude if either is good or bad.  For example, when Hotspur neglects to even glance at the letters the king has sent to him, I wouldn't say that this necessarily makes him evil, it just illustrates Hotspur's stubbornness and pride. 

Falstaff is difficult to decipher because while he exhibits both good and bad traits, each side is not exactly good or evil.  Falstaff isn't out to hurt anyone, yet he doesn't necessarily look to help anyone other than himself.  This is not an evil trait, something that is imprinted in basic human nature.  In fact, Falstaff's character represents the fundamental ideals that make us human.

This novel is tough to relate to my big question, because I think it is hard to interpret whether or not humankind is inherently good or evil from the actions of the characters.  They all display ok and bad qualities, yet none of the actions which the perform would be what I would deem "good or evil."  Albeit there are more examples of good in the novel--like Hal saving his father from Douglas and finally cementing some trust in their relationship--but I don't think they are enough to convince the argument one way or another.

How My Question Relates to Catch 22

     I originally thought that this question would be simple to answer, because my book contains a setting in the middle of a war.  War is often thought of as a very traumatic, evil event, and rightly so.  Humans naturally create conflict between each other, and that idea is prevalent throughout Catch 22.  The consistent turmoil that occurs in the novel demonstrates an almost primal nature that exists in mankind, and detrimental to the men's overall health and stability.  Interestingly enough, the egregious acts committed in the novel are not enemy against enemy, but ally against ally.  For example, the teasing Major Major Major receives is synonymous with childhood bullying; others make fun of a certain attribute that one has and uses it to hurt him.  It also represents it because Major Major is a Major, many ranks above those of the other men, and it is also another outlet for the men to make fun of because he holds a title that ironically utilizes his name.  Is this trait just part of human nature, or it it something we as humans consciously decide to do?

     One of the primary characters, Yossarian, does not want to fly in the air force anymore, and simply wants to be sent home.  His crazy captain, however, keeps raising the amount of missions a soldier must go on before he can be sent home.  In order to stay out of the missions, though, Yossarian fakes an injury and attempts to camp in the hospital for as along as he can.  I'm not sure whether or not this evasive nature displays the good or evil in him, because one could argue that he isn't performing the duties to his country which he signed up for, but on the other hand is just a scared soldier who doesn't want to deal with the atrocities that are literally bombarding him daily.