Responsibility In The Rich Brother By Tobias Wolff

Even thought Pete does not show caring emotions, his actions say all the words. For example: Donald said, "Pete do you ever dream about me?" Pete replied with, "What kind of question is that? Of course I don't dream about you." He said untruthfully. (pg.367). This is one of the only parts in this short story that shows the reader a very small part of Pete's soft side. Another example compares in a similar way that Pete does in fact have a connection with his only brother Donald. "There was something wrong with me, and you were helping me out. Taking care of me. Just the two of us. I don't know where everyone else was supposed to be." Pete said. (pg. 369) If someone were to analyze only this part of the story it would portray that in his dream he depended on Donald. When he says it was just the two of them, it gives the reader an idea that was the way it was supposed to be, that Pete didn't need anyone else in the world to help him but only needed the person he could truly rely upon. Dependency is one of the main concealed habits between siblings, not only growing up, but continuously throughout one others life. Another common inconspicuous idiosyncrasy is rivalry.

Lauren Greenfield’s 2012 documentary The Queen of Versailles offers an entertaining and thought provoking look at what subjects a documentary can cover as the film follows billionaires David and Jacqueline Siegel and their family as they navigate the 2008 economic crisis and attempt to build a mansion inspired by Versailles. Though the premise of the film is fairly straightforward, on a deeper level the film touches upon such ideas as the unattainability of the “American Dream,” the correlation between wealth and happiness, and family perseverance in the face of adversity. However, one key theme of the film serves to discredit the outside assumption that wealthy individuals lead flawless happy lives, and are in someway elevated beyond typical humanity, not experiencing hardships in the same manner as middle class society. In reality, as the film demonstrates, the wealthy are as flawed and as deeply human as any other class, capable of experiencing hardships and unhappiness regardless of material wealth. To further explore how the film achieves its theme, one must first have a firm understanding of the documentary form and how certain events in the film highlight the theme, which is explored in the following paragraphs .

At each stratum of society, there is the misconception of correlating money and character. Jim’s mother risked her life and that of her only son to get her ‘dues.’ “[I]’m an honest woman,” she proclaims and intends to prove this proclamation by taking only what is owed (Stevenson 17). It is astonishing how her perception of value is skewed. She sits counting money in the face of imminent danger. She values money over the safety of herself and her son. It is when danger is at the door that Jim is able to pull her back from the brink of death and disaster.

is trying to earn a living as a cleaner which is a poor job and she is

Supposedly, both the individuals with ascribed statuses with hereditary wealth and the poor and homeless have equal chances to become successful although, Orestes Bronwnson in The Laboring Classes, pointed out that this is not true. “Do the young man inheriting ten thousand pounds and the one whose inheritance is merely the gutter, start even?” (219). As a result, the harsh separation of the rich and the poor, where capitalism thrives and,” the division of the community into two classes, one which owns the funds…the other provides the labor” (216). The inhumane apprehension of a capitalist society that keeps its workers “in a permanent system, [has] given preference to the slave system” (214) says a lot about the evils of capitalism corresponding with the false American Dream. An outcome of capitalism is the frustrating rivalry between the poor. “There’s more people! That’s what’s ruining the country. The competition is maddening”

Today donating to charitable causes is a widespread among the world’s wealthy people. Some are contributing the majority of their vast fortunes, “Warren Buffett, who has committed 99 percent of his fortune to charity upon his death, along with Bill and Melinda Gates, who have given more than $28 billion to their foundation and say they plan to give a significant portion of their remaining wealth to good causes.” (Yen). In The Great Gatsby a large amount of Gatsby’s wealth is wasted on lavish parties for people who are indifferent about him. The Buchanan’s are even more selfish. Tom frequently sees the poor when he visits his mistress Myrtle, yet he never feels an obligation to help them. It appears as though the affluent people of today feel that helping the less fortunate is more of their responsibility than the rich of the Roaring 20s did. While the wealthy still don’t support the destitute to their full abilities, noblesse oblige is much more present today in America than it ever has been.

Money is the supreme power of the world. Its immeasurable power and limitless influence has hacked into our society today, ruining our political democracy, our capitalistic economy, and our chances at achieving the American Dream. Money is handled differently between the rich and the poor. Money in the hands of the poor is spent on essential items necessary for survival, and since money is not abundant in the hands of the poor, every single penny is cherished as a gift from God. However in the hands of the rich, money is used to acquire more money. The urge to succumb to greed influences the rich to use any and all means necessary to grow their wealth, to grow their power, to grow their long lasting influence. We look up to the rich with awe for their ability to achieve the American Dream, but what we are blindfolded from seeing is the true rise to stardom, their true pathway to success. Not all, but some have achieved the American Dream through immoral acts and satanic deeds, swindling the desired ones from their exit of poverty or their chance to enter into reality. In the end of The Great Gatsby, F Scott Fitzgerald revealed to us the true Jay Gatsby. Fitzgerald teaches us that not all people achieve the American Dream immorally, giving the example of Jay Gatsby

Although some consider material wealth to represent one’s worth, no financial measure can express the value of personal integrity when an individual encounters moral challenges. In Toni Morrison’s A Mercy, the author explores this concept through the behavior and character of Jacob Vaark, a white farmer trying to make a living in the New World. Initially committed to avoiding slave trade, he involves himself by accepting Florens, a fourteen year-old, from the affluent D’Ortega to repay a debt. This decision begins his spiral from modest sustenance farmer to obsessed, narcissistic landowner who then destroys himself and his legacy. Consumed with building a mansion as a monument to him, Vaark loses his path and his moral clarity and

Greed is a common flaw in all human beings, coaxing individuals to pour in all their effort without ever being satisfied. The ultimate goal for greed is generally achieving affluence. In F. Scott Fitzgerald’s insightful novel, The Great Gatsby, wealth is portrayed as the key factor in determining whether one is successful or not. Most people value prosperity over morals and ethics during the heat of pursuing their own ambitions; yet all unscrupulous behaviors do not escape God’s eyes. By utilizing eye motif, repetitions of sight words, and tone changes, F. Scott Fitzgerald justifies that avarice will always end in vain and amoral decisions will always end in regrets.

Charlotte Bronte’s Jane Eyre, F. Scott Fitzgerald’s Great Gatsby, and Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn all explore the effects of wealth and class on society. On closer inspection, a common strand seems to form between these three classic novels. The idea that wealth (and the social class that comes with it) determines a person is refuted via the use of deep characterization. In the end, it seems, wealth and class don’t determine a person’s moral integrity and value, but rather how they interact those two things. Ultimately, Twain makes a case for the lower-classes, that even the poor (and enslaved) can be truly good, setting a better example than the wealthy. Fitzgerald, on the other hand, shows that rich aren’t entirely superficial, rather, that they can be great men. Bronte’s Jane Eyre is a bit more of an oddball than the other two novels, focusing instead on a protagonist that leaps from riches (under the supervision of a cruel aunt), to rags, then back to riches once again. Still, this common strand holds true between the three books: no class, poor or rich, is entirely exempt from moral bankruptcy. A poor person like Pap Finn can be morally corrupt, while a rich man like Jay Gatsby can be good. All character-based judgments in these books lay solely on the person they are judging, blind of the class and wealth that surrounds them.

However, the story “The Rich Brother”, emphasizes that Pete is rich with a job in real state while Donald is jobless and is trying new things. Money has been a struggle for the youngest brother and depends on his brother, he doesn’t pay the money back. Pete doesn’t deny him money because he tries to help Donald not fall behind. One reason that Pete is furious at Donald is that he can’t save his money and gives it away to a stranger. Pete and Donald struggle to understand each other because they have different lives and standards. Pete is classified as high-class and Donald low-class, both are from diverse category

In Tobias Wolff’s 1985 short story “The Rich Brother,” we are introduced to two brothers. According to Wolf, you cannot even tell that they are brothers because of their physical differences, but as the story goes into more detail we can tell that they are different in every aspect. One of the major differences is that one is wealthy and the other is always in need of financial assistance. The older brother, Pete, is a successful real estate agent while his younger brother, Donald, works as a painter whenever he can. The two brothers are very different in their belief about what is valuable. Pete is a man that has worked hard and values what he has acquired. His brother Donald, on the other hand, values sharing whatever he has. Even if

“Our brothers and sisters are there with us from the dawn of our personal stories to the inevitable dusk” (Susan Scarf Merrell). Merrell, an American author and a creative writing and literature teacher at Stony Brook Southampton, states that since the early days of your youth to the end of our story our siblings are there throughout our whole journey. Life is similar to a play; parents pass away during the first half; while one’s children come in during the second half; but siblings are there throughout both acts. Tobias Wolff’s, The Rich Brother, portrays the relationship between two brothers that are complete opposites; yet they know each other’s strengths and weaknesses better than anyone else will ever be able. The Rich Brother describes a complex sibling relationship that is fairly common in today’s society; Tobias Wolff makes use of pathos by incorporating real life sibling abuse; and ethos in his own life and credentials.

“Miller sees many people’s lives being poisoned by their desire to be successful. People like the Lomans are doomed to try for success but fail, with all the resulting guilt that such failure brings. Others like Ben and Howard display an ability to make money that deems them successful but at the cost of their own moral integrity.” (Abbotson, 317)

But the moral can be that wealth just keeps you wanting more until you ruin yourself, while poverty teaches appreciation. “Maupassant seems (http:// www.shvoong.com) to be reinforcing on the fact that shows your true selves to others and don’t indulge in things that are beyond your capacity or reach. It is not money or high status that brings you respect but your good work and good name in society that heightens you in people’s estimation. And borrowing is never a good habit” (http:// www.shvoong.com). The action of the story begins when M.Loisel, antagonist, brings home an invitation to a reception. The young couple squabbles about attending the reception. Here we see the conflict of man vs. man (husband vs. wife). This often happens with young married couples. Finally, M.Loisel offers to buy his wife a dress to wear to the event. After, Mme. Loisel gets the dress but complains that she does not have any jewels to wear with her dress. M.Loisel tells his wife, “My, but you’re silly” trying to assure that she was beautiful without a fancy dress or jewels (Clugston, 2010). At this point we witness another conflict, man vs. society. It is the idea of Mme. Loisel seeing herself to poor to attend a reception with the affluent citizens of upper society. Mme. Loisel then borrows a beautiful diamond necklace from a friend, Mme. Forester. Now she has the life of upper society, which