Here's our thread for you to post one
additional thing — one interesting fact, one astute observation, one
cogent comparison, etc. — about God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater that we did not discuss during our in-class conversations.
Your final observations don't necessarily need to be long, but they
should be substantial and interesting, and rooted in the text itself (or
its contexts). Ideal thoughts should follow from openings like "did
you notice . . ." or "isn't it fascinating that . . ." (though you don't
need to actually say this).
Please post your observations as comments on this thread and be sure to
include your name. So that we can make a clean break in starting on our
next book, and so you can have the weekend to yourself, the window for
posting is between the end of Thursday's class and 6pm Friday. Finally,
as is the case with the discussion leaders' posting of their questions
on the respective novels' threads, these final observations are also
"first come, first served," so you can't repeat what someone else has
previously said. You can, however, use someone else's post as a jumping
off point for your own insights.
As a continuation of what I brought up in class... I found Vonnegut's portrayal of Caroline and Fred strange in a few ways. First of all, she is the unhappily married woman that cares solely on possession and money. I now know that it is clear that Fred doesn't split or divorce her because of the perfect marriage / small town feel, as long with the insurance aspect. Vonnegut appears to support the "American life" within the text. However, I can't tell if he's mocking the ideology that has been instilled in Americans or not... any thoughts? I definitely think he is mocking.
ReplyDeleteVonnegut has a way of repeating certain themes in his novels. Obviously, in God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater, we see American greed portrayed strongly with some of the characters, and it makes sense that we do since Vonnegut tells us in the beginning that money is the main character in this book. Caroline Rosewater, the wife of Fred Rosewater admits she married him because she thought he was rich. Mushari is totally motivated by greed, and we can also say that residents of Rosewater County are influenced from greed, if they weren't they would have noticed Eliot's erratic behavior.
ReplyDeleteIn Cat's Cradle greed was portrayed by all three of the Hoenikker children due to the selfish way they used their ice-nine. The narrator Jonah also ties in with this theme as he becomes President of San Lorenzo and has to marry Mona and be the only one for her. Also not to forget Anita in Player Piano, whom does not wish to think of what her life might be like if she had not married into the Proteus name. This reoccurring theme makes me question how Kurt Vonnegut views American society. It will be interesting to see how his other books play out in terms of themes.
-Megan Obermeyer
While reading God Bless You Mr. Rosewater, it seemed like the main conflict in the book wasn't Eliot Rosewater having to prove his sanity to maintain control over the Rosewater Foundation, but Eliot having to prove that there is still room in the world for personal generosity. When wealthy people make large donations, they usually are thought to better society as a whole. Donating a building to a university or a painting to a museum are acts that are intended to benefit the widest segment of society as possible. However, Vonnegut is stressing that smaller, individual kindnesses are just as important and possibly more beneficial than grand acts of wide-reaching charity. Perhaps buying a meal for someone who is hungry is just as valid an act as donating 300 grand to Harvard.
ReplyDelete-Nick Bading
I couldn't help but to believe throughout parts of the book that Mr. Rosewater was a schizo. I mean he went an entire YEAR in an institute where he became a great tennis player and all it took was a pretty chirping bird under a sycamore to knock him back into this 'reality' where he was seen as 'crazy'? Maybe one personality was crazy, unclean, unkempt man, and the other one was a successful army vet, tennis player, multimillionaire who had his stuff together...? Sounds like a disassociation disorder to me.
ReplyDelete-Alexis Wharton
With the hauntingly true section of the flag pole rustling in the wind Vonnegut gives a brief glimpse of Americana- or a sentiment that isn’t directed at scolding/attacking the rich or capitalism. Vonnegut for the first time in the novel gives us the true human feelings of the people whom Eliot has helped- not overshadowed by his usual interjections of what is wrong with society in the treatment of these mostly pathetic individuals. Nothing is added or interjected upon the other characters or Eliot. Wondering if this was a conscious part in Vonnegut’s writing or if in the final farewells to Eliot, he let the characters tell their own story without Vonnegut speaking his own societal views/providing commentary. All in all a very nice section on Vonnegut’s part, very sensitive and humanistic.
ReplyDeleteI found it interesting how Eliot and Sylvia had very similar mental breakdowns at different times in the book. It seemed to me that for Eliot's final break down he was breaking down for the same reason that Sylvia had before. He simply couldn't cope with it anymore. It was almost like Sylvia was a foreshadowing of his own break down, she was just more fragile to begin with. Kind of like they were each halves of the same whole. They wanted to help, but they didn't necessarily actually know how. They had been handed everything their whole life, so they thought that handing out was also the right way. "Give a man a fish he eats for a day, teach a man to fish he eats for a lifetime." They were giving because they had been given.
ReplyDeleteWe have all made connections between Player Piano, Cat's Cradle and God Bless you Mr. Rosewater. What it seems Vonegut is doing (though I'm not sure if we are reading these in chronological order) is building on his pre-existing ideas and themes. While God Bless You Mr. Rosewater does not really focus on the meaning of purpose or the idea of machines ruling the world, there is one thing Elliot says that sounds like it came straight from Paul's mouth. "I look at these people, these Americans," Eliot went on, "and I realize that they can't even care about themselves anymore - because they have no 'use'. The factory, the farms and the mines across the river - they're almost completely automatic now. And America doesn't even need these people for war - not any more." (Vonnegut 44 or end of chapter 3) I find it interesting how Vonnegut brings this thought back into the book and am also wondering just how horrible Vonnegut thought the future was going to be? I mean he wrote this in the 1960s? and we are in the year 2012 and I don't see this happening yet. Its interesting how people view the future and how it turns out nothing like anyone expected. His recurring themes seem to just add onto how badly he views the world.
ReplyDeleteMariah Acord
Throughout the novel God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater, readers are quickly and easily able to see Eliot’s strong connection to firemen. At one point in the novel, Vonnegut introduces us to the cause of Eliot’s nervous breakdown, which took place near the end of World War II. After pitching a grenade, Captain Eliot Rosewater went through the window of the establishment in which he had just acted to explode. When he stood up, he found himself stumbling over the dead bodies of the Germans that had been killed by his grenade; Eliot then found himself standing in front of a German that was very much alive. Although an American sergeant acted to stop him, he was too late – “Eliot had killed three unarmed firemen” (Vonnegut 64). Although Eliot’s explosion regarding Mary Moody’s calling the fire department hotline about a personal call was touched on in class, we did not fully elaborate on why he had such an issue with that situation. It seems as though Eliot may be either defensive of firemen because he feels guilt for what he did during World War II, or simply that he takes great pride in now being a fireman himself, in order to honor those whose lives he claimed.
ReplyDeleteKelsie Wilson
Empowerment by means of money played a big role in this book. The Rich are "deserving" of their luxury's and privileges while they believe the Poor are poor because they are lazy and stupid. When a "sane" rich person (Elliot) recognizes the unfair and ridiculousness of the Rich's perspective of the poor and tries to help those less fortunate, the Rich insult him and declare him insane. They are choosing to shield their eyes from the "right" thing to do. They are attacking Elliot when really, he is only doing what is right by trying to help the poor and love everyone.
ReplyDeleteMcKenzie Moore
Rosewater, Indiana is filled with what Senator Rosewater thinks is the scum of America. He can't stand the people living there and hardly ever goes. When Elliot moves to Rosewater he changes the dynamic of the whole town with the Rosewater Foundation. Instead of people wallowing in their own troubles (financially, emotionally, spiritually, etc) they call Elliot and he comes the backbone of the county. When he leaves Rosewater the people of the county don't know what to do so like the extremely human beings that they are, they hide in their houses and stores and watch him pass down the street. I wonder if Elliot Rosewater's actions in Rosewater, Indiana did actually help the people of Rosewater. By giving them free money and advice is he helping them in the end or just projecting their misery a little longer? Just something to think about...
ReplyDeleteAshton Meadows
The phrase "God bless you, Mr. Rosewater" is seen throughout the novel. Most of the time it is directed toward Eliot by one of the less fortunate people that he helps. What I think is incredibly interesting is Vonnegut's portrayal of Fred Rosewater. Vonnegut writes him as a poor underprivileged man. He has no where near the means that Eliot has. And yet, on page 146 Fred says that the greatest satisfaction he gets from his job "comes when I have a bride come up to me and say, 'I don't know how the children and I can ever thank you enough for what you've done. God bless you, Mr. Rosewater.'" The parallelism between the two Rosewaters is very interesting. Eliot has all the money any man could want or need and he uses it to help the poor and less fortunate. On the other hand, Fred is much less fortunate and yet he still finds a way to help others and earn that same phrase. They are both worthy of praise even though they are so different from each other.
ReplyDelete--Kimberly Jent
In continuation of what I brought up in class, I found interesting the scene in the restaurant in Rhode Island where everyone is watching Harry Pena and his two sons catching tuna. In this scene Harry and his boys are throwing the tuna onto their boat and then the fish are beat to death. Here we also see Harry being compares to God. I found this interesting in that I couldn't really see why Vonnegut would make this comparison. Vonnegut's idea of God may be that of a spiteful God. Being that Harry pulls the fish from the ocean only to instantly kill them. Perhaps that is what God is to Vonnegut?
ReplyDeleteJp White
This has been brought up a few times in class, but I have been impressed with how seamlessly Vonnegut inserts his life experiences into each book. We have seen this in each of the novels so far but it was very clear in God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater. Vonnegut’s father issues are evident throughout the portrayal of Elliot and Senator Rosewater. Throughout the novel there is constant conflict between the Senator and his son Elliot. The senator cannot understand how Elliot can be so generous to the underprivileged living in Rosewater County. This is very apparent in the fight that the Elliot and his father have toward the end of the novel. I feel as though Vonnegut uses his writing as a way to cope with the troubles of his life. I am interested to see if Vonnegut continues this in his later work and in what fashion.
ReplyDelete-Cameron Lozier
Everytime that I read books I always think about the title of it and the reasoning behind why the author chose that specific title . With God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater, the title is referring to Eliot Rosewater and Fred Rosewater. Both of these men are completely different but yet very similar, which I think is what Vonnegut was trying to show. Both men help people who really seem to have nothing going for them in life. These people are very grateful of what each of these men are doing for them. At the end of the novel, also, Eliot gave all of his fortune to the children that he "fathered" which I'm sure all of them would be blessed for!
ReplyDelete-Adrienne Biggers
I find Vonnegut’s association with science fiction an interesting thing to think about while reflecting on God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater. Every Kurt Vonnegut book I have read up until God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater (Player Piano, Sirens of Titan, Cat’s Cradle and Slaughterhouse-Five) has had a sci-fi aspect to it that played a central role in the plot. Mr. Rosewater is the only exception so far. Instead of being set in a futuristic dystopia or out in space, God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater is set in what was present day America and therefore had a really different feel to it than the other books I have read. I think that giving this book a more realistic setting allowed for Vonnegut’s own personal thoughts and Ideas to come through more clearly than some of his other works. However, I do think it’s funny that he made a point to include the sci-fi writers and Kilgore Trout in God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater even though they weren’t central to the plot. There always has to be at least a touch of science fiction.
ReplyDelete-Tim Sievers
I enjoyed how the rather eccentric character of Bunny Weeks looks out his window and scoffs at Harry and his sons fishing, commenting on how he supposedly knows they're going bankrupt and making obvious his sense of superiority. Soon after, however, he "looked around his restaurant, invited Amanita to do so, too... to despise his customers as much as he did... Almost all were beneficiaries of boodles and laws that had nothing to do with wisdom or work" (186). He perches himself in a precarious position in between the classic ideal of men working for their living with their bare hands, and the white collars who merely had the right parents. He leeches off both, exploiting the work of the former while taking the money of the latter, and feeling morally superior to both in the process.
ReplyDeletePlaying off what I mentioned in what I think was Tuesday's class about Eliot's not-quite-there portrayal of Jesus Christ, his final act of great anthropology, generosity, benevolence, sanity, whatever you may call it, was again just a donation of money - all he knew how to do. Who's to say that these 57 children will not become customers in Bunny's restaurant, or other forms of the undeserving rich folk that Vonnegut so mercilessly portrays in the book. If anything, I think it's LOGICAL to conclude this. After all, look at our real life parallels - namely, the transition of collegiate athletes into professional sports. They do it for the money. It's all about the money, and any dried up old NCAA president who claims to "care" about their education is dead wrong. People (with the exception of a small few) are weak. Call me a cynic, but I can very easily see all the children embracing the money and the self-entitlement lifestyle that they spent so many years in the dismal shadows of.
ReplyDeleteP.S. Professor Hennessey, I'm sorry this is past the deadline; I was up sick all night and just now dragged myself out of bed.
Austin Baurichter
It was said that Eliot Rosewater could be seen as a Christ like character. In the bible, Jesus hung out with the people that were the lower class citizens and the sinners rather than hang out with the higher up people that you would think someone so important as the son of God would hang out with. In the bible he also sacrificed everything. He would give things to others that they needed. Rosewater does the same thing with the people of Rosewater. I think that the connection even goes further. In the end of the book we were questioning Eliot's motives for claiming the 57 children as his own. I think that this is another connection to the Christ like image of Rosewater. In the bible the line between Jesus and God is very thin. Jesus is said to be the son of God but in some ways it seems like they are really one in the same. Once Jesus dies in the bible he goes to heaven and takes his rightful place at God's side or possibly takes his place as the father of all. In the same way, in the end Eliot sacrifices everything by making sure that his fortune goes to the children of Rosewater and at the same time, takes his rightful place as the father of all of them.
ReplyDelete-Elliot Shouse-
So, I once again have managed to forget to participate in this thread.... So sorry..... But I have remembered today, so here it is... I would like to address the point that was made in class in regards to the shallowness of Kurt Vonnegut's characters. I think this point was made on Tuesday, at which point I did not speak up about disagreeing ... Good thing I didn't, because now I have something to say.... I would say that the books written by Vonnegut are short and condensed with character. The character development, in my opinion, is in-large done through interpretation. As the reader, we get to judge and/or assume aspects of each character based on their reaction and/or participation in the story. Like in many real world scenarios, the viewer does not get a thorough manuscript for every individual that one meets. Instead, we see actions and reactions and based on those, we have an idea of character more than when we read simple facts..... I hope this makes sense to anyone besides myself.....
ReplyDeleteSorry that last post was from me, Margaret..... oops
ReplyDeleteJP! doesn't it just blow your mind that Kurt was able to describe fishing with such detail? I can't really picture Vonnegut being to excited about going fishing. Maybe Vonnegut draws the comparison of Harry being God because he is the master of a ritual. He holds dominion over the fish and slaughters them indiscriminately. Since good ol' Kurt was a humanist, free thinker, what ever, maybe he is saying that humans can fulfill a God like role, the only difference is acknowledgment.
ReplyDeleteWe touched on Vonnegut’s use of music and sensory devices in class on Thursday, but I’d like to elaborate. I’ve noticed that the characters that are described as being unmusical or inartistic are also the characters that seem to be out of touch with their humanity. For instance, Mr. Mushari is described as being “tone-deaf,” Mrs. Buntline, who declares “people get what they deserve,” unknowingly listens to a Beethoven record at the wrong speed and Senator Rosewater is appalled at the love poem he read from Eliot to Silvia. The less-greedy characters, such as the orphan girl who “played the piano beautifully” and the young man who suffered a nervous breakdown, Rolland Barry, are able to appreciate the arts at a deeper level. Even Eliot declares himself an artist for loving the people of Rosewater County. Vonnegut seems to be suggesting that artistically creative individuals are more in tuned with the world outside of themselves.
ReplyDeleteBrooke Beery
Long time listener, first time participant. I've noticed a few people mentioning in the end he just gives away all his money to the supposed children he fathered. I know he was thinking it would be a way to help the children out, but I wonder if he thought of the fallout. You have tons of children splitting a ton of money, wouldn't they all just drain the foundation dry and everyone lose it all, and in the end wouldn't that make it worse on them to have money then lose it all cause of mass greed by all?
ReplyDeleteMatt Adkins
In class, there was a lot of Jesus-themed speculation regarding Eliot Rosewater, and I added at the very last moment that I felt his monetary gift to the 57 individuals shares something in common with Jesus' final sacrifice, which earned all humans their place in heaven for eternity. I want to expand this idea a bit. In the NIV Bible, Genesis 1:28 says, "God blessed them and said to them, 'Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.'" Obviously, this refers directly to Eliot's last line in the book. While it would be simple to write the bible quote off as ironic, even absurdist, I think it may shed light on the meaning of Eliot's final act. I'm not I'm personally capable of illuminating, but I thought it worth bringing up. Also, here are some other questions related to the Jesus business:
ReplyDelete• The beginning of the book states that the money is a character in its own right; does this put Eliot in the position of God rather than Jesus, in that he has given away his one and only "son" in order to benefit all of his lesser sons (humankind)? Does the cleansing power of the money somehow redeem people—is Eliot's constant flicking around of hundreds of dollars his version of holy water?
• Are the rich this world's gods, with the power to bestow as well as withhold mercy? Does it follow that every mercy not bestowed is also a mercy withheld?
• Is Eliot giving the people a gift, or is his primary intent to destroy the money, which is to him somehow emblematic of sin? Is he giving sin to people—is his action a sort of grand Confession of his sin? After all, the message of the book is clear—money corrupts. Is it a blight he is inflicting on people so he can be saved?
- Elizabeth Baur
A recurring theme I've noticed from Player Piano through Cat's Cradle and God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater is the main protagonist's growing disconnect with sanity. Vonnegut seems to make the line between sane and insane blur. Eliot, who suffered through traumatizing events such as the death of his mother and the horrors of warfare, his emotions were practically severed completely. By the end of the novel, Eliot is emotionally estranged entirely from the "real world", which is a constant culmination of Vonnegut's characters.
ReplyDelete-Bryan Shupe
I think it's ironic how Eliot ended up in Rosewater, the place where his father tried to keep Eliot away from. The senator despises the people of Rosewater, yet Rosewater is where Eliot spends years of his life helping these despised people by listening to their problems and in the process, he ends up becoming a sort of father figure to the community. I think that while Eliot was in Rosewater he acted how he expected a father should act by giving his money to those that needed it, counseling/listening to the people who called him, and by punishing, to a minimal extent, those who misused the red phone. Meanwhile, in New York (or Washington D.C.) his disgruntled father is mad that his son is not acting appropriately or according to the Rosewater standard, at least. But, in a way Eliot is doing something noble and worthy of acknowledgement, he is a leader, something that his father should be proud of, but because he is doing these acts in Rosewater his father despises him. Senator Rosewater's prejudice blinds him of his son's good deeds and robs him of a relationship with Eliot for several years, which is really sad and almost pitiful.
ReplyDelete- Bryce Althen
God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater i think is Vonnegut’s most un-balanced novel yet. It doesn't quite keep you trying to figure out the characters personalities much. It is obvious who the villains and the hero who is a good, flawed, guy. Although, I think this is the the only way this book could have been written, because it's obvious that when it comes to money, the main "character" in this book, that their are only going to be heroes and villains.
ReplyDeleteAs Vonnegut writes, he reveals that the worst or most dangerous or destructive human states is loneliness... But in the interview read in class Vonnegut states that he was the lone survivor and that the bombing of Dresden benefited only him. He expresses a good amount of survivor's guilt... Do you think that Vonnegut would have chosen death if the choice was really given...? Margaret
ReplyDeleteIt was difficult for me to get into this book at first, and I'm not even sure why. But when I finally did finish it, my first thought was oddly onto a lot of my friends who are on welfare. I grew up in a town where having to ask for help was frowned on. It was a very old school town where being able to afford a nice home in subdivisions was applauded, no matter how horrible you were. I was looked down on because I didn't have all that and lived in a one story ranch house. But When I moved to Kentucky, I was estranged at first because I was rich compared to the majority of the kids at my high school. Now my friends are growing up and having children and the majority of them are on assistance and people who don't qualify for it are jealous of those who do. So I suppose in my life, I have experienced both sides of the spectrum, where richness was applauded and "pull yourself up by your bootstraps!" much like the world in which Eliot Rosewater lived in, and then living in the nitty gritty, more needy area which is the polar opposite of his world. I think it takes both halves to make the society we live in. Without the poor, there can be no rich.
ReplyDeleteIt had not occurred to me until I was in the middle of writing my final paper that even though Vonnegut is not a religious man part of this story has very Christian values. Rosewater abandons his wealth for a life of poverty which is what Jesus in the New Testament preaches about. It was known that Vonnegut at least respected religion and might have gathered some inspiration from the stories in the Bible. Just thought this was an interesting oomparrison and thought.
ReplyDelete-Richard Marnell
God Bless you Mr. Rosewater obviously revolved around money.. I saw Mr. Rosewater someone close to a Christ like or savior like figure because he wanted to help everyone in Rosewater county, and he even refers to them as "his Children" This novel made me reflect upon what the world would be like if everyone handled money the way Mr. Rosewater did.. it would probably make money worthless
ReplyDelete