Is it self-destructive to devote your life to help others who bear no societal use? Would it be foolish to have no ambition of your own? To seek nothing but simple pleasures whilst simultaneously having a great effect on the lives of other people?

Eliot Rosewater, born into wealth that was born into wealth, has never had to worry about money in his life. He was set from the day of his birth and yet, somehow, without the influence of anyone he sets out to become a lifeline for the poor, disturbed, ill, whatever name you want to attach to common peoples' problems. What interests me most is how naturally it comes to him to rebel against his birth right, how effortlessly he conducts his rebellion—in fact, there's nothing he does or says explicitly to show he is actively choosing to rebel.

He is to be proven insane only so that his wealth can be transferred to distant relatives that are unaware of their connection to the wealthy Rosewaters. The poor-Rosewaters who struggle to feel they have a true identity in society because of their financial problems and the wealthy-Rosewater who seems not to care a dime (pun-intended) who or what anyone thinks of him. It is not to say that Eliot is absent-minded and unaware of the troubles he inflicts upon his family—for a moment he even even appears regretful when processing how his actions destroyed his wife—but he continues on.

'The problem is this: How to love people who have no use?'

5/5
Vonnegut you are in my good books (once more, pun intended).