Why exactly was Falstaff the bad guy? He just wanted to have a bit of fun.
Hal couldn't grow up and take responsibility for the country because he found it easier and more comfortable to hang around with his drunken child minder. It's not that Falstaff was an evil guy or anything, but his influence was keeping Hal in a sort of perpetual childhood.
>>25179485Was adulthood really that good for Hal? He takes a throne that didn't belong to him, continues a bloody, unwinnable war against France, dies young, and his bloodline is ultimately wiped out by the Yorks anyway.
>>25179436Who says he's the bad guy? Seemed like Shakes preferred him over every other character with the degree and wit he wrote for him. Ultimately Hal just had to do what was required of him.
>>25179502Well he actually did win the war against France, it was a famously spectacular victory, in the play and in real life, but that's not really the point. It's about his personal growth as a man being stunted by his attachment to childhood.
>>25179553>Well he actually did win the war against FranceHe won a battle, not the war.
>>25179651Literally he conquered half of France in his lifetime after a number of battles and sieges, and the French crown was forced to capitulate. The fact that the land wasn't retained is, of course, a sad consequence of successive kings. But regardless of whether we agree on our interpretation of that war or not, the point for Shakespeare is that Harry would never have been able to achieve what victory he did without having to face the pain of giving up what was basically his childhood, but also, I think, the sort of 'all too human' part of him represented by Falstaff. That's why he's an interesting character, because he seems to represent the sort of joyful, human part of life but to the exclusion of the more serious part of life, like for example failing to participate in the battle against Percy.
