RitalinKid
New Member
I just finished this book, and bobbyburns seemed to really enjoy it as well, so I started this thread. This is my first book discussion, so maybe this is a milestone.
Disclaimer: This contains spoilers!
I really enjoyed this book, and I now plan to read the rest of his books. Vonnegut did a great job of telling a story and weaving in his odd sense of humor and fantasy while also preaching a social commentary. Despite all the great humor, the two main themes of the story are the power of money and the responsibility to take care of those who cannot fend for themselves.
Early in the book, Vonnegut explains that oxygen is all around us, and we need it to survive, but we take measures to ensure that our loved ones and the things we love don't combine with oxygen and combust. To me, he is making a parallel to money. We have money, and money is a necessity, but when we have so much of it, it can consume us just as an oxygen rich atmosphere can cause combustion of substances that would not ignite under normal atmospheric conditions. Over and over again, Vonnegut shows people of wealth that are troubled. They are out of touch, alcoholic or generally unhappy. Some deal with being rich by reasoning that those who aren't rich are that way only because they don't work hard while others deal with it by drinking constantly.
Vonnegut does throw a clue that as to how he feels about Eliot and his intentions. Eliot's father says "Fire engines and booze-a happy childhood regained." That's taken from the expression "genius is a happy childhood regained." In my opinion, that expression goes right along with the quote in my signature by Einstein. Anyway, it seems to me Vonnegut is calling Eliot brilliant to emerge from a priveleged life only to want to help the less fortunate.
Vonnegut provides a famous rant of Senator Rosewater where he proclaims that welfare creates dependency, and I read it as if Vonnegut was looking down on him for saying it, but at the end of the book, the people of Rosewater seem to be very dependent (and thankful) to Eliot, so I think he was just trying to show two extreme views: (1) give, give, give, and (2) everyone gets what they work for. At the end, he might show that he realizes the reality lies somewhere in between.
Throughout the book, the anecdotes of the fictional author Trout are a great touch. I love that he makes an appearance at the end to give the moral of the story together. Because Trout has no money and is redeeming food stamps when he's found, he's forced by free will capitalism to work for the Rosewaters. That was a nice touch even though I'm a huge fan of capitalism.
The ending is a little ambiguous. Did he father the children or not? Regardless of whether he did, I think he felt responsible for their well being because he had taken care of the people of Rosewater as if they were his children. However, if they were all his, it would go right along with the theme about the corrupting power of money. In effect, he would have been receiving sexual favors for caring for the people. If that were the case, Vonnegut would be admitting the idealism of a situation in which richer, more powerful people would be willing to give their money away for nothing. In other words, someone will always wield some sort of power when there are two groups of people and one is reliant on the other.
Quotable Quotes: "Eliot took a sip of Southern Comfort, was uncomforted."
There are plenty of other quotes and points to make, but it's late and I can't remember everything. I just hope this gets the ball rolling. Please, add more or critique my critique.
Disclaimer: This contains spoilers!
I really enjoyed this book, and I now plan to read the rest of his books. Vonnegut did a great job of telling a story and weaving in his odd sense of humor and fantasy while also preaching a social commentary. Despite all the great humor, the two main themes of the story are the power of money and the responsibility to take care of those who cannot fend for themselves.
Early in the book, Vonnegut explains that oxygen is all around us, and we need it to survive, but we take measures to ensure that our loved ones and the things we love don't combine with oxygen and combust. To me, he is making a parallel to money. We have money, and money is a necessity, but when we have so much of it, it can consume us just as an oxygen rich atmosphere can cause combustion of substances that would not ignite under normal atmospheric conditions. Over and over again, Vonnegut shows people of wealth that are troubled. They are out of touch, alcoholic or generally unhappy. Some deal with being rich by reasoning that those who aren't rich are that way only because they don't work hard while others deal with it by drinking constantly.
Vonnegut does throw a clue that as to how he feels about Eliot and his intentions. Eliot's father says "Fire engines and booze-a happy childhood regained." That's taken from the expression "genius is a happy childhood regained." In my opinion, that expression goes right along with the quote in my signature by Einstein. Anyway, it seems to me Vonnegut is calling Eliot brilliant to emerge from a priveleged life only to want to help the less fortunate.
Vonnegut provides a famous rant of Senator Rosewater where he proclaims that welfare creates dependency, and I read it as if Vonnegut was looking down on him for saying it, but at the end of the book, the people of Rosewater seem to be very dependent (and thankful) to Eliot, so I think he was just trying to show two extreme views: (1) give, give, give, and (2) everyone gets what they work for. At the end, he might show that he realizes the reality lies somewhere in between.
Throughout the book, the anecdotes of the fictional author Trout are a great touch. I love that he makes an appearance at the end to give the moral of the story together. Because Trout has no money and is redeeming food stamps when he's found, he's forced by free will capitalism to work for the Rosewaters. That was a nice touch even though I'm a huge fan of capitalism.
The ending is a little ambiguous. Did he father the children or not? Regardless of whether he did, I think he felt responsible for their well being because he had taken care of the people of Rosewater as if they were his children. However, if they were all his, it would go right along with the theme about the corrupting power of money. In effect, he would have been receiving sexual favors for caring for the people. If that were the case, Vonnegut would be admitting the idealism of a situation in which richer, more powerful people would be willing to give their money away for nothing. In other words, someone will always wield some sort of power when there are two groups of people and one is reliant on the other.
Quotable Quotes: "Eliot took a sip of Southern Comfort, was uncomforted."
There are plenty of other quotes and points to make, but it's late and I can't remember everything. I just hope this gets the ball rolling. Please, add more or critique my critique.