46 pages • 1 hour read
Kurt Vonnegut Jr.God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater
Fiction | Novel | Adult | Published in 1965A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.
Themes
American Capitalism and Socioeconomic Inequality
Much of the tension in the novel arises from Eliot’s fixation on equality, while his family members view themselves as superior to others precisely because they are rich. When Eliot is in the Vashti firehouse, he proposes to “some idlers” the idea of government-sanctioned distribution of wealth, “instead of some people having more than they could ever use, and others having nothing” (38). His sense of injustice typically focuses on the contrast between people who have too little to survive and those with more than they could ever use. This inequality produces suffering, and Eliot cannot abide unnecessary suffering.
In his letter to his eventual successor, Eliot writes of a mistake made by the Founding Fathers: “Those sadly recent ancestors had not made it a law of the Utopia that the wealth of each citizen should be limited” (8). He describes the root of inequality in terms of whether people have access to “The Money River” (121), where the wealth of the nation flows. The wealthiest people have the easiest access to the Money River. They teach their children how to exploit their wealth as well. The secret to dynastic wealth is knowing that the Money River exists. To make a fortune, Eliot explains that one must be a part of a nepotic family: “[T]here’s nothing fair about it, that he had damn well better forget about hard work and the merit system and all that crap and get to where the river is. Go where the rich and powerful are […] and learn their ways” (124). Inequality is built into the capitalist system in America, where the impoverished truly do not understand the world of the affluent. The richest people in the novel inherited their wealth. They are not entrepreneurs who succeeded through grit and vision; they benefited from the opportunism of their ancestors. The Senator’s views on those who are impoverished are doubly hypocritical because he would have been in their situation, had he not been born into a windfall.
Although wealth aligns with corruption in the novel, Vonnegut does not equate poverty with moral superiority. Mushari and Fred, though by no means impoverished, fall outside the moneyed circles to which Eliot and his side of the family belong. They are just as scheming as those whose wealth they hope to acquire. The novel’s opening line—which states that the foundation’s money is a character capable of changing the outcomes of people’s lives—develops the theme of economic inequality from the onset. Vonnegut critiques those who elevate the acquisition of money over morality, regardless of their socioeconomic status. In presenting equally self-serving characters like Mushari and Fred, Vonnegut underscores that greed permeates all class spheres and drives people to sacrifice their humanity for wealth.
The Fear of Uselessness and Obsolescence
In the novel 2BR02B, Trout imagines a dystopian future: “[A]n America in which almost all the work was done by machines, and the only people who could get work had three or more PhD’s” (21). The fear of being useless, or obsolete, is a prominent theme, both in the novels of Kilgore Trout and in the fears of the people of Rosewater. Through exaggeration, or hyperbole, Trout proposes that only the intellectual elite will be able to obtain work. Trout’s question for the world is: “How to love people who have no use?” (264). The speculative novel provides a framework for the quandaries of what it means for a person to become obsolete, especially if a person identifies with the tasks they perform. With the exception of Eliot, the Rosewaters and other wealthy characters in the novel view all people from lower socioeconomic classes as useful only if they can create more wealth for the upper class. They do not see those people’s lives as having intrinsic value or meaning apart from their labor.
Eliot employs the rhetoric of uselessness when talking about those he means to help: “I’m going to love these discarded Americans, even though they’re useless and unattractive. That is going to be my work of art” (43). It can be argued that art is the attempt by the artist to express something that is inexpressible in another way. Eliot focuses on the town as a form of self-expression. The town is also the vehicle through which Eliot revolts against his father, and by extension, the greater patriarchy of American capitalism, and he uses the dispersal of wealth as his medium.
Trout views Eliot as an antidote to America’s ills. To Trout, Eliot is an example of human compassion, and his actions underscore the ineffectuality of cruelty. Trout views poverty as a “disease” and maintains that only a cure like Eliot’s love can counter the degradation of humanity. Through Trout, Vonnegut proposes that “uselessness” can affect all humankind, regardless of an individual’s status and efforts: “Uselessness will kill strong and weak souls alike, and kill every time” (265). For example, Harry Pena depends on his identity as a “working man” and his usefulness as a fisherman, but machines could replace him and his identity. If that happens, it is not clear what Pena and others like him would have left.
Many of the novel’s characters—both affluent and impoverished—are lonely. The loneliness arises from a lack of purpose and human connection. Eliot, as unlikely a hero as he is, provides them with love, generosity, and empathy. His actions do not always make him feel better, but the people of Rosewater worry that they will die without him. He saves the lives of the people who call him. However, he does not merely bribe them to keep living; he makes them feel useful, which gives them a new reason to live. Vonnegut overtly proposes that money is not the cure for humanity’s ills. Rather, people need to feel valued and connected to prosper.
The Abstraction of Sanity
Eliot has a tremendous amount of guilt from his killings during the war. He is aware that the combination of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and alcohol abuse may distort his thinking. He also finds himself highly suggestible to the science-fiction writings of Trout. However, it is Eliot’s insistence on generosity—and his eschewal of American capitalism as the highest ideal—that makes his family believe he is psychologically “unstable.” His outlook is novel and unexpected in a society focused on greed and acquisition. Because his family cannot understand his worldview, it is more comfortable for them to assume he lacks reason than to contemplate the merits of his arguments, which may place their own values in question.
From the beginning, Mushari‘s goal is to have Eliot declared “legally insane,” thereby nullifying his position in the Rosewater Foundation. The character of Trout serves to counter the consensus view of Eliot’s “absurd” actions:
What you did in Rosewater County was far from insane. It was quite possibly the most important social experiment of our time, for it dealt on a very small scale with a problem whose queasy horrors will eventually be made world-wide by the sophistication of machines (264).
Trout believes that Eliot’s recourse underscores the existential quandary of human existence. Without purpose, human life has no meaning. Trout’s acknowledgment of Eliot as rational in an irrational world anchors Eliot’s “sanity.”
Sylvia’s father says that Eliot is the “sanest American he has ever met” (85). Later in the novel, the newspaper headline repeats this phrase and questions whether Eliot is legally fit: “SANEST MAN IN AMERICA?” (260). The thought that Eliot might be mentally competent is uncomfortable for Senator Lister, Mushari, and others who stand to benefit from his downfall. If Eliot is rational, then his worldview must be considered as coming from a rational mind. However, his conclusions about American capitalism and the role of the rich in assuaging suffering are seen as irrational to people who only want to hold onto wealth and power.
Eliot is eventually taken to a psychiatric hospital, but even there, it is difficult to prove that he is psychologically “unstable.” Most of what others perceive as Eliot’s “mental incompetence” arises from his intolerance of injustice and his revulsion at the economic gap between the wealthy and the impoverished. Eliot is also willing to admit that he has “some doubts” about his own rationality; he claims that he has doubted his state of mind since he was 10 years old. There is proof of his questionable psychological state in the novel. For instance, the firestorm that consumes Indianapolis is likely a hallucination. The question of Eliot’s judgment is not what Vonnegut aims to prove or disprove. Eliot’s actions tend to lead to positive outcomes, so for those who benefit from his attention, Eliot’s “sanity” is irrelevant. Through Eliot, Vonnegut demonstrates how society shuns and undermines nonconformist worldviews. Vonnegut’s work is a call to action, urging those with compassion to uphold human integrity and eschew unscrupulous, self-serving philosophies.
Related Titles
By Kurt Vonnegut Jr.
