What's the Point, Fitz?

Call me what you will, but a Fitzgerald hater I am not. In fact, I love F. Scott Fitzgerald. I would defend his works to the grave, either with actual intellectual argument or, if necessary, with petty name-calling and stubborn refusals to concede any adversarial points.
I say all of this only to contextualize how hard it is for me to admit that I have no idea what Fitzgerald was going for with The Beautiful and Damned. The Great Gatsby, for example, spoke volumes about the apparent hollowness of aristocratic society and the absolute perversion of the American Dream. The entirety of Fitzgerald’s prose in the case of Gatsby builds upon these two ideas. When the reader had made his or her way through the story, they can feel as if they’ve learned something, even if that something is nothing more than Fitzgerald’s views on the world and culture he so immersed himself in. With The Beautiful and Damned, however, it’s a different story.
The problem seems to stem, at least from my point of view, from the fact that the different characters within the story seem to be giving different (and in some ways contradictory) messages. Every time there seems to be a chance for Fitzgerald to make a real statement, different characters seem to make arguments for both sides. This will be a whole lot easier to explain using actual examples from the book, so here are a few (but definitely not all) of them:

Cynicism Towards Life: Anthony and Maury are two characters that could very well have allowed Fitzgerald to comment on this idea of cynicism (or alternatively passion) towards life. These two are introduced as cynical, especially in relation to Dick, who is relatively passionate and sentimental. However, Anthony and Maury go in two separate directions. Anthony has his tragic fall and Maury becomes wealthy and happy. Both are cynical, so Fitzgerald can’t be making a comment on this issue (or, if he is, it isn’t a very strong or generalized one).

Shallowness of the Aristocracy: If The Beautiful and Damned only concerned Anthony and Gloria, this may have been a very powerful theme. Unfortunately, there are just too many other characters who also have wealth that fare much better than Mr. and Mrs. Patch. Maury, for one, and also Dick, Bloeckman, etc. Not only do these characters find prosperity, but they seem to be very levelheaded and mature. Surely Fitzgerald couldn’t be commenting on this common theme of his, or else this shallowness would have been extended to all those with wealth.

Importance of Work: Anthony and Gloria both seem to consider being lazy an admirable virtue, which is obviously a backwards ideal (or so we are led to believe in contemporary society), so could this be what Fitzgerald is aiming at? Again, if he is, his other characters seem to undermine this assertion. Maury’s vocational endeavors are glossed over, condensed to only one or two sentences, and Muriel never seems to get a job herself, and yet they both turn out fine.

Futility of Material Wealth and Beauty: This was, during my reading, something I looked for a lot, as it seems a fine fit for a story like this. All of the parties, preening, and arrogance of Anthony and Gloria becomes moot later in life as their money begins to disappear. In fact, the pursuit of money seems to be a major cause of tension in the Patch household, especially after they find out that Adam Patch has removed them from his will. Strangely, this pursuit of wealth is validated in the final pages of the book when the inheritance is given to Anthony and Gloria. All of their laziness and partying is given a completely undeserved pat on the head (so to speak) in this moment. It’s a strange choice by Fitzgerald, to say the least.

Obviously, I’m generalizing in some of the above examples, but what the list does provide is proof that Fitzgerald seems to wander from (potential) argument to argument without really providing solid support for either side. The last argument is, admittedly, the most likely candidate for Fitzgerald’s main theme. Even though they do receive the inheritance, the fruitless pursuit of money and beauty has made them “unclean” in the eyes of others. The journey has left them hallow shells of their former selves, though again, there are other characters who counter this argument. Bloeckman, again, and Dick come to mind (both pursue success and fortune and attain it without “losing their souls,” so to speak).
If one were to combine some of these potential themes, some truth might make its way to forefront. Perhaps, then, the real message of the story is that “Without honest work, the pursuit of material wealth is a nearly impossible endeavor.” This seems to be something that Fitzgerald’s work here could support. But even this is not without counterexamples in the story.
I don’t mean to pick on Fitzgerald or The Beautiful and Damned. I liked the book and (as I explained at the beginning) I love the Fitz. It’s just that this story seems rather sloppy compared to some of his other works. I’m sure others will disagree with me on this last point. Perhaps I just misinterpreted some pivotal scene and the story’s theme is much more apparent than I make it appear. All I know is that, as a Fitzgerald fan, I was ultimately disappointed by the weak moral argument that The Beautiful and Damned presents to its reader.