24 congressmen walk into a bar. There’s a snowstorm and they can’t leave for seven days. Who do they eat first?
Mark Twain’s 1868 short story, “Cannibalism in the Cars,” takes place in a train, not a bar, but there’s still cannibalism — don’t you worry.
The story follows the so-called “Stranger’s Narrative”: the story of 24 “gentlemen” on a train bound for Chicago in December of 1853. Snow is falling and there is a pleasant atmosphere, but soon the train can no longer push forward.The men realize they have no food, only wood for fire to keep them warm.
Days pass and among the sorrow, hunger lingers. On the seventh day, the gentlemen can no longer take the starvation. Richard H. Gaston of Minnesota then stands and exclaims, “Gentlemen: It cannot be delayed longer! The time is at hand! We must determine which of us shall die to furnish the food for the rest!” This, I believe, is the first spark of the story. We, the reader, are confronted with a great contradiction. One would expect to name anyone who intends to be a cannibal anything but a gentleman. Take barbarian or madman for a spin, why would Twain use “gentlemen”? We can find the answer in their election.
All twenty-four of the gentlemen become congressmen. A democratic election occurs to decide who shall be eaten first. With comments such as, “I nominate Mr. Daniel Slote of New York,” and “If there be no objection, the gentleman’s desire will be acceded to,” a deeply disturbing conversation retains a proper facade. They move toward an election by ballot for the final decision. Once they choose their first meal, it never ends, for each meal a man is eaten. The stranger in his narration described one as, “a perfect gentleman, and singularly juicy.”
This is Twain’s political satire, he parodies political elections in the U.S through the gentlemen in the cars conducting an election to decide who to eat first. Twain chooses to mock democratic elections through cannibalism to shock the reader into recognizing the absurdity of the political landscape and call attention to the nature of congressmen. This juxtaposition of gentlemen and cannibals is where we find absurdity.
Absurdity can be understood as a divorce. A separation between what we expect of reality and the reality we face. When Twain draws our attention to “gentlemen” deciding who to cannibalize through an election, he is employing the contradiction and the absurdity of the situation that we are experiencing so that we recognize the absurdity of politics. We expect an election to be on a civil subject but we witness cannibalism: possibly the epitome of inhumanity.
Despite being written in 1868, this story is a fantastic parody of our current political landscape. We expect our elections to be civilized and have outcomes that we all can tolerate or enjoy. But this is not our reality. Our elections are riddled with candidates tearing each other apart (though perhaps not literally);the validity of outcomes becomes a subject of constant debate, as though the political strife never ends. It’s much like the men’s elections continuing with who will be eaten next. Just when you think their appetite is satiated, it continues. We must confront the fact that the congressmen we thought to be civil are actually barbaric. Twain doesn’t separate the men into parties, because it does not matter, they’re all cannibals and that’s the point.
The telling of the “Stranger’s Narrative” ends when they reach the stranger’s stop. He departs, leaving his one-man-audience bewildered. However, the conductor clears any remaining confusion for both the reader and the still seated man. He explains that the stranger was once a member of Congress but got caught in a snowstorm in a train car. He starved and was weak and out of his mind for months after. Now, he often gets caught up in the story. The conductor tells the man that if the stranger had finished the story, he would have claimed to have eaten every single passenger.
This conclusion to Twain’s political parody suggests that the congressman was a madman not recalling a true story, and yet, Twain still manages to criticize and mock Congress. The madman would have eaten everyone by the end of the story if he had finished telling it. In our present landscape we witness a similar event: our own candidates will only stop when they have torn each other down to nothing. “Cannibalism in the Cars” is a successful parody of democratic elections.
With the 2024 election coming up next week, Mark Twain’s short story from 1868 reminds us that it’s not about party divisions; rather, we can find “cannibalism” or exploitation in any politician. Similarly, they are willing to exploit or cannibalize each other with the goal of survival. The congressmen in his story only grew in strength by weakening others. They conducted a democratic election to decide who to eat next, all to disguise their cannibalistic nature. “Cannibalism in the Cars” criticizes not one party but the entire political landscape. 156 years later, Twain calls our attention to absurdity and exploitation of politics in the U.S. regardless of political affiliation.
Sophia Romanov Imber is a freshman in the College of Arts and Sciences. She can be reached at [email protected].