Money Is Not the Man in God Bless You, Research Paper Example

Kurt Vonnegut’s novel, God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater (1965), explores idea of class struggle and economic disparity. At one level, the novel is a satire of materialistic society; at another level, it is an anthem to the redemptive power of love and compassion. At its core, the novel is a reinforcement of the idea that human beings are social creatures and derive the highest sense of fulfillment and accomplishment through civic duty. Of course, many readers may fail to grasp this latter aspect of the novel on first reading due to the fact that the efforts of the novel’s protagonist, Eliot Rosewater, appears to be less than successful in his efforts to redeem the poor and socially disadvantaged through acts of philanthropy. The key to understanding the moral imperative that underlies Vonnegut’s sustained irony in the novel is to understand that Vonnegut does not intend the reader to equate wealth with morality, even in the case of Eliot. Vonnegut presents a political and social vision in the novel that is based on humanism rather than economics. This view emerged out of Vonnegut’s life experience and is rooted in her personal sense of class consciousness.

Brian McCammack points out in “A Fading Old Left Vision: Gospel-Inspired Socialism in Vonnegut’s “Rosewater”” (2008) that the political and economic viewpoint presented by Vonnegut in God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater is a form of socialism. however, it is a form of socialism that attempts to move beyond the idea of economics and even economic justice as a means toward ensuring a just society. McCammack writes that “The basis of Vonnegut’s socialism is a concern for the poor and criticism of those who participate in the system of their exploitation…and therefore is more closely related to Marxist Humanism” (McCammack). This is a highly significant point to keep in mind when approaching the novel from a political point of view. First and foremost, Vonnegut is attempting to make money and the concept of capitalism into an antagonist.

This means that, in the context of the novel, money cannot be portrayed as a solution, even when it is backed by good intentions. That said, it is crucial to keep in mind that Vonnegut does, in fact want to make an important statement about money and economics. As Kathyrn Hume mentions, Vonnegut wanted to break new ground with the novel and his first choice of subjects was economics. Hume notes that “”God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater is his first engagement with the inequitable distribution of wealth.” (Hume). The less obvious aspect of Vonnegut’s approach to the theme of wealth redistribution is that he views this as an insufficient solution to the capitalist problem. The theme of the novel is precisely this: that the redistribution of wealth through philanthropical (or other) means is not the solution to the economic and political problems that humanity faces.

The solution that Vonnegut advocates in the novel is rooted in individualism. One of the novel’s central ironies is the way that Vonnegut casts the Rosewater fortune itself as a character in the story. Vonnegut begins the novel: “A sum of money is a leading character in this tale about people, just as a sum of honey might properly be a leading character in a tale about bees” (Vonnegut, 1).” The connection between the novel and ideas of economics and socialism are clear from the opening words. Throughout the rising action of the novel, it becomes clear that the fortune is perceived to be more desirable on the surface than Eliot himself. The Rosewater fortune is a source of power and motivation for the other characters in the novel. Vonnegut’s use of the money as a character is meant to coerce the reader into understanding how dehumanizing the impact of a capitalist society is to its citizens. In response to this dehumanization, the urge to give away money, such as Eliot feels, is a reawakening of humanism.

The philanthropical impulse is still “wrong” in that it is still rooted in the idea of money being a solution to problems, but it is at least a partial return to a humanistic response to the world. McCammick remarks that the philanthropical impulse as evidenced by Eliot in the novel indicates that Vonnegut’s vision of socialism was rooted in the idea of personal consciousness and awakening. He writes that “Vonnegut argues that a personal, private manifestation of socialist ideals is the best chance to make a positive difference in both the public and private spheres.” (McCammack). Money is not a human emotion, nor is a fortune an individual. the fallacious belief that it is so is the mechanism by which society has become as dehumanizing agent, rather than a facilitator of human happiness and individuality.

The reason that Vonnegut is able to express such a strong notion of individuality in the novel is because the themes of class struggle and class consciousness that are expressed in the novel emerge out of his own life-experience. Paul J. Ramsey notes in “Chapter 20: God Bless You, Mr. Vonnegut: Learning Civics from Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.” (2009)  that Vonnegut’s personal life ensured that he saw both sides of the economic disparity in America. Ramsey asserts that “Although coming from a well-to-do family, the Great Depression depleted the family fortune by the time Vonnegut was in elementary school.” (Ramsey). As a consequence, Vonnegut attended public school and endured a great deal of economic hardship in his youth and adult life. This situation was a exacerbated by the fact that Vonnegut grew up with full knowledge of the wealth that his family had formerly possessed.

In a collection of interviews with Vonnegut, The Vonnegut Chronicles: Interviews and Essays (1996), the editors note that “At one point Vonnegut notes that his ancestors had prepared many “comforts” and “privileges” for him, all based ultimately on the money now taken away by the depression ( PS, 61). This feeling of having “just missed” the comforts of wealth and privilege  in the eventual development of Vonnegut’s literary themes, particularly those expressed in God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater. The influence of Vonnegut’s life experience over the novel extends further into events of personal tragedy such as his mother’s suicide on Mother’s day, when Vonnegut was twenty-one years old. Although the incident is not viewed by critics as being directly connected to Vonnegut’s socialist ideals, it is viewed as being rooted in his sense of struggle and in his ultimate take on irony and cruelty.

Bill Eichenberger points out in “God Bless You, Mr. Vonnegut from a Tortured Life, Great Fiction” (2012) that personal tragedy alongside with an early sense of financial obligation informed Vonnegut’s political and social views. He notes that in addition to serving in World War Two and witnessing the fire-bombing of Dresden, Vonnegut “struggled mightily for the first decade of his career as a writer, always worrying if the next check would arrive in time to feed, clothe and house his family.” (Eichenberger). These events in Vonnegut’s life are important in relation to all of his literary works but they are of special relevance to God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater because it is this novel that most explicitly and forcefully forwards Vonnegut’s theme of Marxist humanism. The root of this sense of socialist philosophy is an individual sense of civic obligation that is indicative of an intrinsic human empathy and compassion.

As previously mentioned, Eliot’s philanthropy is a sign that this intrinsic sense of compassion and empathy is awakening within him. The ironic and tragic developments of the novel spring from one basic misconception held by Eliot and nearly everyone else around him that prevents the deeper humanistic response from reaching fruition. This mistaken belief is, of course, that money is an expression of compassion and that therefore when empathy and compassion are incited, an economic response is indicated.  Despite any good intentions that rest beneath this idea, the fact is that it is still an exploitative conception. It is an ironic twisting of the innate compassion and love that Vonnegut is actually attempting to advocate in the novel. The central irony: that money is the problem and not the solution impacts everything else in the novel. As indicated in Kurt Vonnegut: Images and Representations (2000), “Everything Vonnegut has written, but especially God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater ( 1965), should alert us to the unpleasant irony,  (Merrill 74). The irony is that we have all collectively placed our faith in the problem rather than in the solution.

The path forward from this mistaken ideal lies in the individual response to a sense of shared community and welfare. Emotional values are more important than economics. This is the journey of discovery that is undertaken by Eliot and through his character by the reader. The redemptive process for Eliot begins where his faith in money as a panacea to social ills ends: “Eliot realizes that money’s prime function in this form of philanthropy lies in its symbolic value which shows that someone cares,” (Morse 157). It si caring, rather than the money, that makes the difference in the world. This is the case for two extremely important reasons: first that each person is endowed with a capacity to care for others, and second, each person needs to be cared about and cared for by others. This is the true value in human existence, rather than a “fortune” of useless money. The end-result of feeling a personal responsibility to others is to first desire to create a more economically just society, but even more importantly, to move beyond using money as a yardstick for anything meaningful in human life.

Obviously, such an assertion is not only subversive in American society, but outright radical. For this reason, Vonnegut’s casting of the money as a central character takes on an even greater degree of irony when the reader comes to realize that the money is not only a central character, but the antagonist of the story. Such a viewpoint is an inversion not only of the default perspective of the novel’s audience, but also a direct antithesis to the perception of the novel’s protagonist. Despite this fact, it is the money that ironically defines Eliot’s heroism, but in a directly inverted manner to his expectations. This is a brilliant literary device used by Vonnegut. It creates a spin on the class “David and Goliath” story: “David and Goliath are present in God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater but David is clearly Eliot Rosewater, while Goliath is the Rosewater fortune, (Morse 158). If, by the novel’s end, the reader has arrived at the conclusion that money is an enemy, rather than a means to heroic action, then the theme of the novel has been adequately understood by the reader.

As if the preceding examples were not sufficient enough to clearly demonstrate the central irony that is represented by money in the novel, there is the statement by Trout, late in the novel that frames the novel’s theme directly for the reader. Trout, while speculating the way in which technology is apt to make human labor obsolete, commends Eliot for what he views as the most important near-term question that faces humanity: “How to love people who have no use?” (Vonnegut, 264). This question is a statement of what naked materialism means whether or not that materialism is combined with humanism and rational compassion. In Vonnegut’s vision of socialism, the very idea of materialism must be jettisoned in favor of a feeling of love and interconnectedness. Viewing people as workers, rather than as individuals, is a displacement of what society should actually mean: a collective that ensures the best for the individual.

Love is the primary means by which the solution beyond money is attained. This is due to the fact that money is merely a symbol for something that lies behind it. In the case of philanthropy, it is often, as in Eliot’s case, a sense of guilt and compassion and social obligation that spurs the impulse to give. Those who receive the money are receiving a form of love, but in Vonnegut’s perception the money stands as an obstacle to the true sharing of this natural love. Additionally, the widespread faith in money that is evident in contemporary culture therefore stands for a deficiency of love that is in direct proportion to the amount of money in question. Each transaction is a brick that helps to build a wall between people and eradicate the intrinsic feeling of communalism and civic responsibility that, in final analysis, is what makes us human. It is this principle that allows for the successful and just organization of society. The intrusion of money on what would otherwise be a natural sense of community and interpersonal responsibility is viewed by Vonnegut as the greatest irony in human civilization. The will to do good for one’s self or for society is misdirected so radically as to be rendered useless when it is combined with materialism or money in any way, shape, or form. This is a startling idea but one which, once accepted, leads naturally and logically to potential solutions that are as viable ast the present obstacles we face are intimidating.

The best conclusion to reach given the ironic theme of the novel is that Vonnegut passionately wanted to reignite the faith that people are capable of feeling for love between citizens and civic pride. The novel is extremely optimistic because unlike many dystopian novels, the story offers a solution to the present state of social alienation and exploitation that seems rampant around the globe. This solution is not only attainable; it is readily available to every person because it resides not in money or social position or in restrictive knowledge or scientific technology, but within every person’s psychological and emotional response to living together in a society. All that is necessary to move beyond the kind of fragmented and unjust society that we find ourselves in today is to move past money and commerce completely and discover that the real problems and solutions that we face as human beings are based on non-material realities such as compassion and love.

Works Cited

Eichenberger, Bill. “God Bless You, Mr. Vonnegut from a Tortured Life, Great Fiction (Not Just ‘Science Fiction’).” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (Pittsburgh, PA) 15 Jan. 2012.

Hume, Kathryn. “Vonnegut’s Melancholy.” Philological Quarterly 77.2 (1998).

Leeds, Marc, and Peter J. Reed, eds. Kurt Vonnegut: Images and Representations. Westport, CT:          Greenwood, 2000.

Marvin, Thomas F. Kurt Vonnegut: A Critical Companion. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 2002.

McCammack, Brian. “A Fading Old Left Vision: Gospel-Inspired Socialism in Vonnegut’s “Rosewater”” The Midwest Quarterly 49.2 (2008): 161+.

Ramsey, Paul J. “Chapter 20: God Bless You, Mr. Vonnegut: Learning Civics from Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.” Curriculum and Teaching Dialogue 11.1-2 (2009): 207+.

Reed, Peter J., and Marc Leeds, eds. The Vonnegut Chronicles: Interviews and Essays. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1996.

Vonnegut, Kurt. God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater: A Novel. Dial Press Trade Paperback. 1998.