The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas

The story hooked me from the get go. It painted a very bright picture of what a perfect society would be and then it crashes you down to give you a perspective of what reality is like. Almost waking you up from a daydream.

“Do you believe? Do you accept the festival, the city, the joy? No? Then let me describe one more thing.” (Le Guin 4)

The part about the deformed child being hidden away from society really struck me down when reading the story. The narrator talks about the child not even being considered human to the people in Omelas. It almost gave me a feeling of the child being something of a special attraction where people would pay just to see this thing and find some form of sadist entertainment. Their world was so perfect that something considered ugly to them was not accepted, and they had hide it before their [i]perfect[/i] children see it and it burns their eyes. Through this part of the story I reflected back the beginning of the story where the narrator talks about Omelas, and this festival that’s going on, and the children playing, and he describes the adults as simple, but mature and intelligent. I put the pieces together, that not only was he visualizing, but he was telling us about his Utopia of what Omelas should be. Throughout the story he’s adding pieces to this core of fantasy that he calls Omelas. He even uses questions to ask the reader what he thinks should go where. Almost like putting together a puzzle:

“How describe the citizens of Omelas?” (Le Guin 1)
“For instance, how about technology?” (Le Guin 2)
“But what else should there be?” (Le Guin 3)
“What else, what else belongs in this joyous city?” (Le Guin 4)

I don’t know why but I found it interesting. In the end the narrator talks about men, women, and children who saw this “thing” would be so disturbed that they would walk far away from Omelas and never seen again. Le Guin uses great adjectives and a great amount of imagery to drive me in and then toward the middle of the story paint a dark picture of reality.

The Day Before the Revolution

Laia going through the pains from the loss of her husband, Taviri. Is now an elderly woman living in a home filled with others who are starting this “revolution”. Le Guin uses imagery and comparison of Laia’s past to connect to the present where she’s looking at the much younger people living in the same house as her planning out some kind of revolution. I read through the story a few times and all I kept paying attention to was her connection to her husband who passed rather than her connecting her past to the present.

“”Taviri, I have never forgotten about you!” she whispered, and the stupidity of it had brought her back to morning light and the rumpled bed. Of course she hadn’t forgotten him. These things go without saying between husband and wife.” (Le Guin 4)

She talks about a younger fair colored man named, Noi. Who makes it known she’s had sexual relationships with and has awkward conversations with, and still can’t let go of her dead husband. Her old age, and her stroke, catches up with her in the end while she’s going downstairs and still has no choice but to accept her pending death. As a sort of way of finally letting go and seeing her husband.

The ones who walked away from Omelas is a very interesting tale. It was to me at least, a very difficult story to follow. I had to read over to pick up on things I didn’t catch or understand the first go round. The author uses the setting and the description of the town’s people to set the mood as joyous and cheerful. “…….quiet, merry women carrying their babies and chatting as they walked.In other streets the music beat faster, a shimmering of gong and tambourine, and the people went dancing, the procession was a dance” ( Omelas 1). On the second page the author hints that something is wrong but doesn’t give to much away as to what. ” Yet I repeat that these were not simple folk, not dulcet…….bland utopians” ( Omelas 2). That passage to me, means the people aen’t the happy, good people, we were lead to believe by the author’s description of them on the first page. That these people, the town of Omelas is holding a dark secret. The author then explains that we as humans are used to seeing evil, that evil is normal to us and happiness and boring. Happiness isn’t exciting, we need evil in our lives. With all this being said, we are afraid to embrace it. “…….. of considering happiness as something rather stupid. Only pain is intellectual, only evil is interesting……….. But to praise despair is to condem delight, to embrace violence is to lose hold of everything else” ( Omelas 2)

The author then brings back the joyous mood, until we get to the unexpected and disturbing introduction to this child. This then ties into the passage earlier of Le Guin preparing us that the town’s people aren’t so good. The description of the child is offensive to the reader. In a town of such respectable people, how can a child, the most precious thing, be neglected and for all intents and purposes abandoned? ” It could be a boy or a girl. It looks about six, but actually is nearly ten…….. Perhaps it was born defective, or perhaps it has become imbecile through fear, malnutrition, and neglect” ( Omelas 4). From this point until the end of the story I have more questions than answers and I am left feeling unsatisfied.  Why in a town like this, that the misery of this child, is so important? “…… to throw away the happiness of thousands  for the chance of the happiness of the one: that would be to let guilt within the walls indeed” ( omelas 6) It actually sounds utilitarianist, if it wasn’t so cruel! Le Guin doesn’t tell us why, why is this case? All Le Guin tells us is that they can’t help the child. They are trapped like the child is trapped. ” They know that they, like the child are not free” ( Omelas 6). I take this mean to that their happiness is soley dependent on the child, so this is a necessary evil they must endure. But if this is true, then why do the people who are so disgusted and fed up leave the town? Are these few brave people giving up their happiness because they can’t live with knowing about what is going on with the child?

Another question I have is at what age did this abuse of the child start? The child wasn’t born into this. And why this child in particular?  What happened to the child’s mother? Le Guin gives us no answers to these questions either. “……. but the child, who has not always lived in the tool room, and can remember sunlight and it’s mother’s voice……..” ( omelas 5). This line raises so many questions that Le Guin doesn’t answer! I find it extremely frustrating! One of my last questions is, this child is he related to the flute player? are they siblings? cousins perhaps? What is the connection? Do they know of each other’s existence? Do they know each other’s fate? ( They know that if the wretched one were not there sniveling in the dark, the other one, the flute player, could make no joyful music….” ( omelas 6) Why is that? What is the connection there? For me this was an interesting read once I read it over. It left me wanting more. I wanted the story to continue on and answer all of the questions that the text raised.

After reading and taking a closer look at this story, I like it and understand it more each time. I must admit its a confusing read at first but taking the time to analyze each paragraph or sentence on its own really helps understand the bigger picture the author is trying to paint. Le Guin begin this story painting the picture of the town and its citizens. Personally I enjoyed the set up; I felt like it she gave the citizens a place to live in our heads before she gave us the plot of the story and of its characters. The imagery given is in great detail, it describes a sort of festival or celebration that we later discover is for the “sunlight of the first morning of summer” or in other words the first day of summer. The narrator begins to describe the town and everything utopian about it, and even invites us to create or add our own visions of what a perfect world can be like as show in page 2 towards the end of the paragraph the narrator says ” they could perfectly well have central heating, subway trains, washing machines, and all kinds of marvelous devices not yet invented here, floating light-sources, fuel-less power, a cure for the common cold. Or they could have none of that; it doesn’t matter. As you like it.” Narrator then goes into an analysis of happiness, our happiness (the reader) compared to what the citizens of Omelas are to believe what happiness is. At this point of the story I feel that the narrator begins to add things to Omelas that we (as a society) can better envision because it is too good to be true, for example. top of page 3 “I fear that Omelas so far strikes some of you as goody-goody. Smiles, bells, parades, horses, bleh. If so, please add an orgy. If an orgy would help, don’t hesitate.” After this point in the story I feel as if the narrator is adding his/her own input/opinion on the utopia; of the things it has and what he/she believes it needs. I also like the sort of interaction the narrator has with the reader. Reassuring and questioning us on the validity of what we have read; this wonderful utopia. He/she assumes we don’t believe the story so begins telling us more on the town of Omelas. The shocking unexpected twist of the child or “it” as they say. This really caught me off guard, I would have never thought that in such a wonderfully painted place, something so inhumane and cruel can be happening. The story of child became part of the Omelas culture, proof is towards the end of page 5 where it reads “This is usually explained to children when they are between eight and twelve, whenever they seem capable of understanding; and most of those who come to see the child are young people, though often enough an adult comes, or comes back, to see the child. No matter how well the matter has been explained to them, these young spectators are always shocked and sickened at the sight.” The people of Omelas are completely aware of this travesty and can do nothing about it. Finally the dystopia is revealed, a nightmare under this wonderful outer shell of Omelas. The citizens as well as readers understand this paradox because it is the only way to keep their society and “happiness” intact. Story ends with people, young or old, without any explanation leave Omelas. I’m lead to believe that they leave because they cannot stand being in this lie and disgusting town any longer. I also believe that the narrator could have been one of those persons that left, which is why he/she knows a fair amount about the town of Omelas.