Skip to main content

In reading "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas," what are the parts of the story that tell you how the writer actually feels about her characters...

The people of Omelas are are happy. If some want excess, they can have it. If some want simplicity, they can live that way. There are no structures in place to dictate how they should be happy, and the narrator suggests that this is how their happiness is achieved. But the narrator is continually defensive, as if we (readers/listeners) are thinking this is too good to be true.


O miracle! but I wish I could...

The people of Omelas are are happy. If some want excess, they can have it. If some want simplicity, they can live that way. There are no structures in place to dictate how they should be happy, and the narrator suggests that this is how their happiness is achieved. But the narrator is continually defensive, as if we (readers/listeners) are thinking this is too good to be true.



O miracle! but I wish I could describe it better. I wish I could convince you.



The narrator is defensive because she wants to prove that the collective happiness of Omelas' people will justify the torture of that one child. This is where the author/narrator really expresses her assessment of Omelas' people. 



Some of them understand why, and some do not, but they all understand that their happiness, the beauty of their city, the tenderness of their friendships, the health of their children, the wisdom of their scholars, the skill of their makers, even the abundance of their harvest and the kindly weathers of their skies, depend wholly on this child's abominable misery.



They all know that their happiness depends upon the misery of one.



To exchange all the goodness and grace of every life in Omelas for that single, small improvement: to throw away the happiness of thousands for the chance of the happiness of one: that would be to let guilt within the walls indeed.



Since most people will not save the child and thereby ruin the happiness of all the others, they rationalize. They think that the child would not get much out of "its" freedom. Up to and following this point, the narrator is quite ambivalent about blaming the people. But here, showing their self-righteous rationalization of the necessity of this child's suffering, the narrator subtly suggests that this rationalization is unethical.


Le Guin brilliantly lets the reader decide what to think. She never fully condemns the people of Omelas, nor does she fully applaud the "ones who walk away." The story ends with the question: Is the happiness of all worth the tremendous suffering of one? And are the ones who walk away more heroic or ethical than those who stay?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What are some external and internal conflicts that Montag has in Fahrenheit 451?

 Montag, the protagonist of Fahrenheit 451, faces both external and internal conflicts throughout the novel. Some examples of these conflicts are: External Conflicts: Conflict with the society: Montag lives in a society that prohibits books and critical thinking. He faces opposition from the government and the people who enforce this law. Montag struggles to come to terms with the fact that his society is based on censorship and control. Conflict with his wife: Montag's wife, Mildred, is completely absorbed in the shallow and meaningless entertainment provided by the government. Montag's growing dissatisfaction with his marriage adds to his external conflict. Conflict with the fire captain: Montag's superior, Captain Beatty, is the personification of the oppressive regime that Montag is fighting against. Montag's struggle against Beatty represents his external conflict with the government. Internal Conflicts: Conflict with his own beliefs: Montag, at the beginning of th...
Post a Comment
Read more

In A People's History of the United States, why does Howard Zinn feel that Wilson made a flimsy argument for entering World War I?

"War is the health of the state," the radical writer Randolph Bourne said, in the midst of the First World War. Indeed, as the nations of Europe went to war in 1914, the governments flourished, patriotism bloomed, class struggle was stilled, and young men died in frightful numbers on the battlefields-often for a hundred yards of land, a line of trenches. -- Chapter 14, Page 350, A People's History of the United States Howard Zinn outlines his arguments for why World War I was fought in the opening paragraph of Chapter 14 (referenced above). The nationalism that was created by the Great War benefited the elite political and financial leadership of the various countries involved. Socialism, which was gaining momentum in Europe, as was class struggle, took a backseat to mobilizing for war. Zinn believes that World War I was fought for the gain of the industrial capitalists of Europe in a competition for capital and resources. He states that humanity itself was punished by t...
Post a Comment
Read more

Where did Atticus take the light and extension cord in To Kill a Mockingbird?

Atticus brings the light to the courthouse jail so that he can protect Tom Robinson.  Atticus learns that Tom Robinson, his client, is in danger.  A group of white men want to prevent the trial and lynch Robinson. He is warned by a small group of men that appear at his house.  He refuses to back down.  Atticus knows that the Cunninghams will target his client, so he plans to sit up all night with... Atticus brings the light to the courthouse jail so that he can protect Tom Robinson.  Atticus learns that Tom Robinson, his client, is in danger.  A group of white men want to prevent the trial and lynch Robinson. He is warned by a small group of men that appear at his house.  He refuses to back down.  Atticus knows that the Cunninghams will target his client, so he plans to sit up all night with Jim if that’s what it takes to protect him.  Atticus tells the men that he will make sure his client gets his fair shake at the law.  “Link, that boy might go to the chair, but he’s not going till ...
Post a Comment
Read more