In Shakespeare's King Henry IV, people in positions of leadership manipulate ordinary citizens for their own gain. In a war environment, basic common sense is sacrificed for the profit and personal gain of those in power. Major Cathcart continually pursues his desperate but futile goal of promotion, to the detriment of the men of his squadron, ordinary civilians, and even the progress of the war effort. Heller paints a cynical portrait of war, in which the ultimately arbitrary nature of leadership positions is exploited, thereby becoming the ultimate goal of the powerful instead of the good of soldiers and civilians. In the first part of Shakespeare's play Henry IV, the king is portrayed as a Machiavellian leader, while the prince's connection with the people shows a more empathetic and inclusive leadership style, although he is revealed to be part of a ploy to manipulate others in order to become a better leader. Even Prince Hal, it seems, is incapable of ruling innocently, and in this portrait Shakespeare calls into question the idea of ​​the divine right to rule. it establishes the dramatic irony of Harry's character, known to no one but the audience and the prince himself. It also exposes the complexities and ambiguities of Harry's mind, showing a seemingly virtuous young man who can manipulate and lie to others to achieve his somewhat selfish, albeit important, goals. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay Yossarian and Falstaff are both anti-heroes who challenge the manipulation of ordinary people by leaders who exploit their power for selfish ends. The very nature of Catch-22 embodies the ineffectiveness of government and the fact that people are no longer treated as individuals. It is ultimately revealed that capture represents the justification for any action taken by men in positions of power, without fear of punishment, because they "have the right to do whatever we cannot stop them from doing." By refusing to fly further combat missions, Yossarian "rocks the boat", speaking out against the manipulation of leaders and the injustice of war and regaining a semblance of independence. Thus, his actions are ultimately about independence and courage rather than cowardice, as portrayed by military personnel who have no patience with people who do not do what is expected of them. The ridiculousness and ineffectiveness of the military in protecting the justice system and its citizens is further illustrated by the pointless mission of bombing a civilian village in order to create a road block, which ultimately will only bring will make little difference to the war effort but will destroy the lives of many innocent people. . The absurdity of this situation is further underlined by the Colonel's insistence on a careful bomb design; a completely fabricated notion that only serves to highlight the absolute power of General Peckam, who enjoys exploiting his power for personal gain and pleasure. Heller once again satirizes military logic, this time about a raid on a small Italian village to create a road blockade. The villagers pose no threat and are all civilians, but the village will be reduced to ruins which will be cleared away in a few days anyway. The raid would be more effective if the bombs were distributed along the hills, away from the village, thus blocking more of the road; but that will not be enough. Colonel Cathcart, still trying to impress General Peckem, calls for a tight bomb deployment "for me, for your country, forGod and for this great American, General PP Peckem. » In Shakespeare's King Henry IV, an outdated system of government and ideals of nobility are called into question by criticizing the effectiveness of Machiavellian leadership against a chaotic backdrop of rebellion. The Commonwealth's disillusionment with the existing manipulative monarchical system is made clear in Falstaff's diatribe on honor, which emphasizes that the idea of ​​honor only benefits those in positions of power. The metaphor “honor stings me” creates a violent image that highlights the harmful implications of relying on such an outdated notion. The personification of honor, which "stings" him, creates imagery of violence that perfectly reflects Falstaff's pragmatic view that honor often compels people to do more harm than good. Falstaff therefore concludes that honor is worthless, "a mere badge", and that he wants nothing to do with it. In a play obsessed with the idea of ​​honor, this speech appears out of nowhere to call into question all the moral values ​​on which most of the characters base their lives. It is one of the remarkable aspects of Falstaff's character that he is able to live so far from the normal mores and expectations of his society; this speech embodies Falstaff's independent streak. And underlines the insufficiency of the monarchy, which relies on notions of honor to justify the morality of its actions. This is confirmed when it becomes apparent that everyone, even Hal, is scheming for power. Even those reluctant to power must plot to become a leader. Honor is just a disguise, created to justify the scheming actions of rulers while arguing that it benefits everyone. This is reflected very well in Yossarian's conviction of the futility of war and the injustice of a country that does not care for its individuals; the wartime equivalent of honor, whereby war benefits everyone, is detrimental to individuals. Falstaff is not only a shameful opportunist, but a pragmatist with strange truths. Hal's meeting with his father in the setting of a cold and austere court, a dramatic contrast to the warmth and vitality of the tavern, highlights how Machiavellian notions of power and ambition can come into conflict with morality. Shakespeare provides incisive insight into contrasting notions of power; Hal's ideal of leadership is a man who understands and sympathizes with ordinary people, juxtaposed with Henry's belief that by minimizing contact with ordinary people he can maintain his carefully constructed aura of respect and mystery. Continuing the celestial motif in “Solar majesty, when it is seldom in admiring eyes,” Henry emphasizes that an air of mystery is essential to commanding the respect a king demands. He describes Richard II's constant presence as being "soon lit and soon burned", a metaphor that serves as a powerful reminder that Hal is the direct antithesis of the king's ideal of leadership. The king originally acted in the collective interest because he believed he would be able to better rule England, but he gradually lost sight of his duty to his people as they became blinded by power . The audience is given a glimpse into the king's private sphere and an insight into the strained relationship between king and prince, which highlights the king's insecurities about the legitimacy of his rule, which he usually hides from the rest of his court through a carefully constructed image that he manipulates. Through his depiction of Hal as a man who initially lost his father's respect and fell from grace, but was ultimately redeemed by his actions, Shakespeare comments that the merit and virtues of aleader are more powerful than the idea of ​​a divine chain of beings. However, even Prince Hal is not immune to the selfish intrigues and manipulations necessary to succeed in court. In his soliloquy, Hal reveals his clandestine manipulation of the Commonwealth in order to improve his image and gain respect when he finally succeeds his father. “Yet here I will imitate the sun // which allows the vile and contagious clouds // By piercing the foul and ugly mists // Of vapors which seemed to strangle it. Hal never wanted to be king "to pay the debt I never promised", but he still realizes that manipulation is important to secure power, which highlights the unfair treatment of the Commonwealth, which is not only replaceable pawns.in a much larger game. The recurring motif of the robes symbolizes leadership as something that can be thrown off or put on: connections between appearance and reality. Hal's transformation from trash to "so sweet hope" for England revolves around his acceptance of royal duties and his contact with the commoners of the tavern. In a Machiavellian way, Hal realizes that future kings will need the support of the population, who believe in the humanity of their leaders rather than in a divine right to rule. Shakespeare explores this to highlight the changing political dynamics of the Elizabethan era and new ideas about power and the divine right to rule. Hal and his father realize that they must challenge existing paradigms of leadership expectations in order to develop a relationship with the people who will support them as king. Hal does not reject his father's ideology or refuse to engage with him, but plans in his own way. In humanity's never-ending power struggle, the motives of some individuals can be unclear when attempting to manipulate people to gain political advantage. What is clear, however, is that control and lasting influence are the ultimate goals of the dangerous game of politics. By exploring the tension between individual and collective interest, Keller critiques the purpose of war and the consequences of selfish leadership in Catch 22. Through a recurring theme of irrational logic, when considering only the actions in the public sphere, individual sacrifices and consequences seem unimportant if they ultimately benefit the collective. “Imagine a man of his age risking what little life he has left for something as absurd as a country!” This rhetorical question from Nately's Old Man, although it initially seems far-fetched, is ultimately filled with truth and critiques the irrationality of war. His demand for his rights as an individual highlights the ridiculousness of forced submission when considering the individual's point of view, showing how soldiers and civilians alike suffer from the forced imposition of war by society for the “supposed” greater good. By juxtaposing the benefits and consequences of war from a collective and individual perspective, Keller questions society's inability to recognize individuality, while still making collective decisions that will benefit society as a whole , suggesting the political implications of the coexistence of nationalism and democracy. Yossarian, symbolizing the self-preserving pragmatist, vows to survive at all costs, seeing the ultimate fragility of life exposed by war. “It doesn’t matter who wins the war versus someone who dies.” However, Clevinger, an idealist who only cares about victory, explores the institutional view that people abandon their identity and duty for their own survival when they become soldiers, insisting on.