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.
Good summation:
ReplyDeleteIn fact, Falstaff's character represents the fundamental ideals that make us human.