Thursday, October 18, 2007

That Winston Tunnel Scene in Full

As part of our "Atlas Shrugged" 50th Anniversary discussions, we present one of the most controversial passages from Ayn Rand's bestseller. Here the doomed Comet train, part of the decaying infrastructure in slow motion collapse due to concomitant political, social and economic collapse, heads towards disaster in the eight-mile Winston tunnel:

"As the tunnel came closer, they saw, at the edge of the sky far to the south, in a void of space and rock, a spot of living fire twisting in the wind. They did not know what it was and did not care to learn.

It is said that catastrophes are a matter of pure chance, and there were those who would have said that the passengers of the Comet were not guilty or responsible for the thing that happened to them.

The man in Bedroom A, Car No. 1, was a professor of sociology who taught that individual ability is of no consequence, that individual effort is futile, that an individual conscience is a useless luxury, that there is no individual mind or character or achievement, that everything is achieved collectively, and that it's masses that count, not men.

The man in Roomette 7, Car No. 2, was a journalist who wrote that it is proper and moral to use compulsion 'for a good cause' who believed that he had the right to unleash physical force upon others - to wreck lives, throttle ambitions, strangle desires, violate convictions, to imprison, to despoil, to murder - for the sake of whatever he chose to consider as his own idea of 'a good cause',which did not even have to be an idea, since he had never defined what he regarded as the good, but had merely stated that he went by 'a feeling' -a feeling unrestrained by any knowledge, since he considered emotion superior to knowledge and relied soley on his own 'good intentions' and on the power of a gun.

The woman in Roomette 10, Car No.3, was an elderly schoolteacher who had spent her life turning class after class of helpless children into miserable cowards, by teaching them that the will of the majority is the only standard of good and evil, and that a majority may do anything it pleases, that they must not assert their own personalities, but must do as others were doing.

The man in Drawing Room B, Car No. 4, was a newspaper publisher who believed that mend are evil by nature and unfit for freedom, that their basic interests, if left unchecked, are to lie, to rob and murder one another - and, therefore, men must be ruled by means of lies, robbery and murder, which must be made the exclusive privilege of the rules, for the purpose of forcing men to work, teaching them to be moral and keeping them within the bounds of order and justice.

The man in Bedroom H, Car No. 5, was a businessman who had acquired his business, an ore mine, with the help of a government loan, under the Equalization of Opportunity Bill.

The man in Drawing Room A, Car No 6, was a financier who had made a fortune by buying 'frozen' railway bonds and getting his friends in Washington to 'defreeze' them.

The man in Seat 5, Car No.7, was a worker who believed that he had "a right" to a job, whether his employer wanted him or not.

The woman in Roomette 6, Car no. 8, was a lecturer who believed that, as a consumer, she had "a right" to transportation, whether the railroad people wished to provide it or not.

The man in Roomette 2, Car No. 9, was a professor of economics who advocated the abolition of private property, explaining that intelligence plays no part in industrial production, that man's mind is conditioned by material tools, that anybody can run a factory or a railroad and it's only a matter of seizing the machinery.

The woman in Bedroom D, Car No. 10, was a mother who had put her two children to sleep in the berth above her, carefully tucking them in, protecting them from drafts and jolts; a mother whose husband held a government job enforcing directives, which she defended by saying, 'I don't care, it's only the rich that they hurt. After all, I must think of my children.'

The man in Roomette 3, Car No. 11, was a sniveling little neurotic who wrote cheap little plays into which, as a social message, he inserted cowardly little obscenities to the effect that all businessmen were scoundrels.

The woman in Roomette 9, Car No. 12, was a housewife who believed that she had the right to elect politicians, of whom she knew nothing, to control giant industries, of which she had no knowledge.

The man in Bedroom F, Car No.13, was a lawyer who had said, 'Me? I'll find a way to get along under any political system.'

The man in Bedroom A, Car No.14, was a professor of philosophy who taught that there is no mind - how do you know that the tunnel is dangerous? - no reality - how can you prove that the tunnel exists? - no logic - why do you claim that trains cannot move without motive power? - no principles - why should you be bound by the laws of cause and effect? - no rights - why shouldn't you attach men to their jobs by force? - no morality - what's moral about running a railroad? - no absolutes - what difference does it make to you whether you live or die anyway?. He taught that we know nothing - why oppose the orders of your superiors? - that we can never be certain of anything - how do you know you're right? - that we must act on the expediency of the moment - you don't want to risk your job do you?

The man in Drawing Room B, Car No.15, was an heir who had inherited his fortune, and who had kept repeating, 'Why should Rearden be the only one permitted to manufacture Rearden Metal?'

The man in Bedroom A, Car no. 16, was a humanitarian who had said, 'The men of ability? I do not care what or if they are made to suffer. They must be penalized in order to support the incompetent. Frankly, I do not care whether this is just or not. I take pride in not caring to grant any justice to the able, where mercy to the needy is concerned.'

These passengers were awake; there was not a man aboard the train who did not share one or more of their ideas. As the train went into the tunnel, the flame of Wyatt's Torch was the last thing they saw on earth."
- Ayn Rand, "Atlas Shrugged", p566-568

32 comments:

Kelly said...

"These passengers were awake; there was not a man aboard the train who did not share one or more of their ideas. "

Except for maybe the 2 children in Car No.10 . But if the woman is guilty for being married to a man who works for the government, maybe the kids are guilty too. Thank god Rand brought moral clarity to world.

Mark Plus said...

You have to wonder how much passenger business Dagny would do if she could screen out all the philosophically undesirable people like the ones in the tunnel accident. Even her freight business delivered the goods these people consumed, so in a way she enabled the growth of the population which threatened to overwhelm Earth's Objectivist carrying capacity.

Guru Banana said...

Well, it's clearly a piece of vicarious revenge-taking against those she feels are her enemies, and doubtless some of them represent people who have genuinely slighted her in the past. It's very immature, but I suspect we've all indulged in these fantasies from time to time, and probably still do (well I do anyway!).

The question is whether Rand really believed that people like these deserved to die, and I have the horrible suspicion that she did: this is not a tolerant or forgiving creed.

I have to confess that I am somewhat prejudiced against Objectivism and Objectivists - being described as an insect on a MySpace group was something of a rude introduction to the philosophy - but I feel there is something of value in it. Whether there is enough of value to maintain the interest of a left-wing European libertarian is something that remains to be discovered, but I suspect the answer is 'no'. I'll keep reading for a while and see.

In the (likely) event of this being my last post here, I wish you all the best.

gregnyquist said...

guru banana: "Well, it's clearly a piece of vicarious revenge-taking against those she feels are her enemies"

I think this is right. In any case, it explains the tone of contempt throughout AS. The point of the book is not to convert people to Rand's view (how could it be?—you don't convert anyone by first insulting them), but simply to work off feelings of frustration against those who refuse to agree with Rand. AS, then, is best seen as a revenge fantasy. Is this a good thing or bad thing? It would be a good thing if it helped Rand and her followers work off steam and get all those bad emotions out of their system. It would be a bad thing if it simply worked up those emotions and intensified them.

Jay said...

I have a different opinion on the matter.

When I read Atlas Shrugged I don't come away feeling bitter and looking for people to take revenge on. I usually feel inspired. I like reading about how Rearden or Francisco overcame some obstacle greater than whatever I'm facing. It helps me think "It might suck right now, but I can overcome it" rather than "Oh well, fuck it."

I always say Atlas as the literary antidote to the passive "Oh well, whaddaya gonna do?" logic that chokes the world. I think mature readers of Atlas conclude something similar.

Daniel Barnes said...

Jay:
>When I read Atlas Shrugged I don't come away feeling bitter and looking for people to take revenge on. I usually feel inspired.

Well, you are probably using Rand correctly, in my opinion. Sheer inspiration is usually a good thing. Taking her actual doctrines more seriously, however - for example, her absolutism, or her psychological theories - is where the real problems emerge.

Olivia Pierson said...

Oh dear, so much for intelligent comment.

Well, it's clearly a piece of vicarious revenge-taking against those she feels are her enemies, and doubtless some of them represent people who have genuinely slighted her in the past. It's very immature, but I suspect we've all indulged in these fantasies from time to time, and probably still do (well I do anyway!).

GB... have you ever heard of the concept of projection and the tendency human beings have toward it? Because you may have revenge fantasies does not mean that's what Rand is indulging here. Spare the cheap psychologizing please.

And this -

Nyquist: I think this is right. In any case, it explains the tone of contempt throughout AS. The point of the book is not to convert people to Rand's view (how could it be?—you don't convert anyone by first insulting them), but simply to work off feelings of frustration against those who refuse to agree with Rand. AS, then, is best seen as a revenge fantasy.

You keep going on about the contempt in Atlas - you're really stuck on it, huh.

What about the passion, the intelligence, the greatness of the heroes, the SEX, the villains, the sense of grandeur and the amazingly intricate plot?!

You take, in my opinion, a very shallow view when you say that it is a "revenge fantasy." Sure revenge is part of the picture (I'm thinking of the avenging angel Ragnar Danneskjold), but Atlas is a "you can't have your cake and eat it too" story.

This tunnel scene is exactly that. You can't advocate nor contribute to the mindless abdication of responsibility or truth AND have that society provide you with safe transport on demand. Something's gotta give.

Remember the novel is fictitious - New York is a winter away from starvation. Rand has painted a picture of extremes for the purpose of her story.
Thoughts, words and deeds are pulled into sharp focus with little time delay between them, in order to illustrate the human capability/desire for the ideal.

Olivia Pierson said...

Mark Plus -

You have to wonder how much passenger business Dagny would do if she could screen out all the philosophically undesirable people like the ones in the tunnel accident. Even her freight business delivered the goods these people consumed, so in a way she enabled the growth of the population which threatened to overwhelm Earth's Objectivist carrying capacity.

Um Mark... this is why Galt declares war on her and pledges to destroy her railroad.

(See... Rand thought of it before you did!) ;-)

Jay said...

I actually DO find myself referring to Atlas Shrugged in real life situations.

For example, a girl I like told me tonight that her boyfriend went into a jealous rage because she makes more money than he does. His twisted logic was that since he's 5 years older and has more work experience he automatically deserves more money than she does.

To counteract that I told her that earning a lot of money through hard work is an amazing achievement to be proud of. I even sent her a link to Francisco's money speech. Is that a little cheesy? Probably. But my point is that I DO take her theories seriously and that's not always a bad thing.

Paul said...

Jay:

My response would be that her boyfriend is too attached to things that are not his true self: he is not his job or his salary. In other words he should get over it and realize that his ultimate worth does not come from how much he is paid.

I'm not trying to say whose counter-argument is superior, but that different philosophies can overlap in their conclusions.

Daniel Barnes said...

Jay:
>For example, a girl I like told me tonight that her boyfriend went into a jealous rage because she makes more money than he does. His twisted logic was that since he's 5 years older and has more work experience he automatically deserves more money than she does.

Your advice is of course admirable, but there is nothing distinctively Randian about the idea that people should be rewarded according to their merits, as opposed to merely age, years on the job, gender or race! This idea is commonplace, occuring in literally thousands of books other than "Atlas Shrugged." Hence we're more interested in examining the differentia of Rand's books - for example, Winston Tunnel - than the more generic features.

gregnyquist said...

Jay: "To counteract that I told her that earning a lot of money through hard work is an amazing achievement to be proud of. I even sent her a link to Francisco's money speech. Is that a little cheesy? Probably."

Well, if it works, it's all for the best. But you need to proceed very carefully about recommending AS to any women you might feel attracted to. I have received over the years several emails from women who have read AS on the recommendation of their boyfriends and have not liked what they have read. Indeed, they have begun to wonder whether they wanted to continue the relationship with their AS-admiring boyfriends. It's not just the books ideas that some of us find disturbing: more so, it's the temperment of the piece. AS may glory in heroic productivity and the like, but it is either hostile or indifferent to the softer virtues of family, empathy, and charity — virtues which, among some people, particularly women, count for a great deal.

Daniel Barnes said...

Incidentally Jay, can I just say...her boyfriend sounds like an idiot...;-)

Jay said...

My response would be that her boyfriend is too attached to things that are not his true self: he is not his job or his salary. In other words he should get over it and realize that his ultimate worth does not come from how much he is paid.

Agreed 100%.

Jay said...

Incidentally Jay, can I just say...her boyfriend sounds like an idiot...;-)

He is. I've found that getting girls to leave mean abusive boyfriends tough. Human inertia is a tough river to dam.

Eric said...

<< gregnyquist said: I have received over the years several emails from women who... begun to wonder whether they wanted to continue the relationship with their AS-admiring boyfriends. >>

If my girlfriend recommended a book with that many references to the stoic endurance of torture - mostly mental, but occasionally physical - I'd have second thoughts too. :-) I can only imagine how a woman might react to the "rape" in The Fountainhead. The inside of Rand's head was clearly not an all-ages ride.

Jay said...

I can see your guys' points. The girl I recommended Atlas to suffers from very low self-esteem and passive acceptance of abuse from those around her. I figured it'd be a good read and an inspiration to start making some positive changes - especially since the main character is a female.

However, I don't believe Atlas is about endurance of torture. That is part of it, to be sure, but it's more about intransigently upholding a sense of your own value in all that you do.

Greg - what do some of those e-mails say? Are they confidential, or can you paraphrase them?

gregnyquist said...

Jay: "Greg - what do some of those e-mails say? Are they confidential, or can you paraphrase them?"

The emails were in response to a review I wrote about Atlas some years ago warning people that unless they agreed with Rand they might feel antagonized by the book. I received some emails agreeing with my review, and a couple woman expressed some concern about why their boyfriends had recommended to them the book. As I remember it, the emails somewhat playful and ironic, so I don't know how serious they were about the issue. Some women often will speak sardonically about their boyfriends to other people. So it may have simply been something along the lines of, "Well, I knew he wasn't perfect: this bizarre Atlas infatuation is just one more thing I'll have to live with." If, however, she was already thinking that she wanted out of the relationship, it could've been the proverbial straw.

Anonymous said...

The woman in Roomette 9, Car No. 12, was a housewife who believed that she had the right to elect politicians, of whom she knew nothing, to control giant industries, of which she had no knowledge.

Am I the only one who got a really sexist vibe off this part? I mean, it could easily be argued that Rand was arguing against ill-informed people voting, but her emphasis on housewife seems to suggest a contempt for a) housewives, b) "little" people, or c) women in general.

On another note, being ill-informed about certain certain things should not bar people from being part of the electoral process (though it certainly helps). I may not know much about the power industry, but that doesn't mean I won't vote to keep them from dumping their waste in my community's water supply.

However, I don't believe Atlas is about endurance of torture.

I dunno, I know a lot of non-Randroids who'd argue that reading Atlas Shrugged is torture.

Anon69 said...

YOU equate being a housewife with being "little" and then accuse RAND of being sexist? Take a good look in the mirror, Anonymous.

Cavewight said...

As a group, American women are the most privileged females on earth: they control the wealth of the United States—through inheritance from fathers and husbands who work themselves into an early grave, struggling to provide every comfort and luxury for the bridge-playing, cocktail-party-chasing cohorts, who give them very little in return. Women's Lib proclaims that they should give still less, and exhorts its members to refuse to cook their husbands' meals—with its placards commanding: "Starve a rat today!" (Where would the cat's food come from, after the rat is starved? Blank out.)
The notion that a woman's place is in the home—the Kinder-Kuche-Kirche axis—is an ancient, primitive evil, supported and perpetuated by women as much as, or more than, by men. The aggressive, embittered, self-righteous and envious housewife is the greatest enemy of the career woman.


Ayn Rand, The Age of Envy

Costa Rica Cheap Land for Sale said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
EriktheRed said...

AS may glory in heroic productivity and the like, but it is either hostile or indifferent to the softer virtues of family, empathy, and charity — virtues which, among some people, particularly women, count for a great deal.

A certain other group of people which we fought in the not-too-distant past had that same attitude.

Anonymous said...

I tried reading AS on three distinctly different occasions. Once n HS, once as a young father and once in my 40's. I have yet to be able to finish this god awful book.

The characters are shallow and completely lacking in depth. I found the story line heavily contrived. As with the Winston Tunnel scene, it's 3 full pages of pettiness.

When I read about this book now, I don't see a work of fiction, I see Ad Space intended for those who appreciate authoritarianism.

This woman's ideas deserve to be buried along with her.

Anonymous said...

"This woman's ideas deserve to be buried along with her."

Don't worry they were.

Steven Johnston

Anonymous said...

"I think mature readers of Atlas conclude something similar."

There are no mature readers of Atlas Shrugged.

Schroon Lake said...

She shows great moral clarity and humanity. I guess all the worthy people, then as now, were driving their SUVS instead of riding out of date subsidized rail.

Anonymous said...

Officer Barbrady sums up the book nicely: "Yes, at first I was happy to be learning how to read. It seemed exciting and magical, but then I read this: Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. I read every last word, and because of this shit, I am never reading again."

Melody said...

Olivia: You CAN have your cake and eat it too, (what would be the point of having a cake if you didn't eat it?) What you cannot do is: Eat your cake, THEN have it too.

I am reading this 'wonderful' book this month, and I am only 1/4 through. So far I gotta say, someone should slap the editor of this book! If this was submitted to print today, it would be summarily rejected. Did Rand even bother with a second draft? She should have cut half the book. Too much repeating and obvious agenda propaganda. Tell the story and let the reader draw the conclusions. If the author does the job well, the theme will present itself naturally. You don't need to bludgeon the reader, finesse is to be admired over force.

Anonymous said...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik

Objectivists have been slow to either praise on condemn this evil man...but surely in the context of the Winston tunnel scene they should surely praise his actions? After all his victims were looters.

Steven Johnston
UK

Anonymous said...

In this section, Ayn Rand is not saying that her opponents should die, she's saying that people will die due to the failures of a planned economy. The power of individualistic capitalism (represent by Wyatt's Torch, something which the passengers did not want to know about) would have saved their lives. Dagny Taggart, in the novel, had wanted to rerail the track in the Winston Tunnel but was overruled by the government. It is that philosophy, which the passengers lived by, which killed them.

Glenn, UK.

Daniel Barnes said...

Hi Glenn,

Your last sentence entirely undermines your claim in the first sentence.

Cheers
Daniel