Scan barcode
A review by themoonwholistens
The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas by Ursula K. Le Guin
4.0
Before reading this I was surely convinced that I would be one of those who would “walk away from Omelas” because who would want to live in a society that lets a child suffer? I think my mistake there was assuming that it was an easy decision.
I mean if you want something thought-provoking and disturbing.... this is incredibly realistic in the most extreme ways.
Let's face it, is leaving better than staying? Do we know that leaving Omelas will actually help solve the problem? Is it that we just can't live with the idea that someone is suffering while we relatively are living in happiness? Is it really worth condemning everyone by letting the child go?
Can you actually walk away from the problem? Or would you rather stay and take care of the children who aren't condemned in the basement? What are you willing to compromise for your so-called "happiness"?
This might be the line that hit me the most and ultimately made me question my initial stance. Luxury is called luxury because of the people that do not have it. Whether we like it or not, we take care of things when we know what it means to neglect them. We are all probably living in Omelas right now. And I don't mean that people (or one child for the sake of the majority) deserve to suffer but if you think that the society we live in right now is free from suffering and either leaving or staying is an easy decision... then you have not seen the child.
I don't know what the solution is or if there even is one. But Ursula K. Le Guin challenges us to face the reality that sometimes we look away from, choose to ignore, or have never been challenged with in the first place.
The afterword of my copy had this closing statement that made me question my already questionable opinion so here it is for you:
This conclusion is going to take into consideration BTS' interpretation of it in their album "You Never Walk Alone" because a huge part that was pointed out in this book about the "ones who walk away" is the fact that they, indeed, walk alone.
I like to think that the ones who walk away from Omelas to that place that "they seem to know where they are going" can be equivalent to a world we are hoping to achieve where children do not need to suffer. That "walking alone" could probably mean carrying the baggage ourselves and refusing the help of others when we need it. We know it's possible to walk out but it's a daunting journey to take alone. I don't think the book ever even said that Omelas is the only place where you can find happiness and luxury?
You can argue that we can never really walk away from the suffering and sadness in our lives and I would agree with you. But do we believe that suffering needs to exist because those are the "rules" of the game of life like in Omelas or is it that we are just too scared to walk alone, out of the game or "happiness" that we have known just to keep walking for who knows how long but we are sure exists? In that line, who even said that we have to walk out alone? For all the "rules" that Omelas had, this was the one part that did not read to me as such.
Again, who knows what the answer really is but perhaps the one thing I learned is that maybe we don't have to walk out of Omelas alone... and wouldn't that be a little less scary?
To me, there is no right or wrong because when is anything ever as simple as that. Every person's interpretation will differ which is, I think, ultimately the reason why a place like Omelas could exist and why we feel it is so closely tied to our own.
— 4.0 —
I mean if you want something thought-provoking and disturbing.... this is incredibly realistic in the most extreme ways.
“The trouble is that we have a bad habit, encouraged by pedants and sophisticates, of considering happiness as something rather stupid. Only pain is intellectual, only evil interesting”
Let's face it, is leaving better than staying? Do we know that leaving Omelas will actually help solve the problem? Is it that we just can't live with the idea that someone is suffering while we relatively are living in happiness? Is it really worth condemning everyone by letting the child go?
Can you actually walk away from the problem? Or would you rather stay and take care of the children who aren't condemned in the basement? What are you willing to compromise for your so-called "happiness"?
“It is because of the child that they are so gentle with children.”
This might be the line that hit me the most and ultimately made me question my initial stance. Luxury is called luxury because of the people that do not have it. Whether we like it or not, we take care of things when we know what it means to neglect them. We are all probably living in Omelas right now. And I don't mean that people (or one child for the sake of the majority) deserve to suffer but if you think that the society we live in right now is free from suffering and either leaving or staying is an easy decision... then you have not seen the child.
I don't know what the solution is or if there even is one. But Ursula K. Le Guin challenges us to face the reality that sometimes we look away from, choose to ignore, or have never been challenged with in the first place.
“Yet it is their tears and anger, the trying of their generosity and the acceptance of their helplessness, which are perhaps the true source of the splendor in their lives.”
The afterword of my copy had this closing statement that made me question my already questionable opinion so here it is for you:
“We already live here -- in the narrow, foul, dark prison we let our ignorance, fear, and hatred build for us and keep us in, here in the splendid, beautiful city of life...”
This conclusion is going to take into consideration BTS' interpretation of it in their album "You Never Walk Alone" because a huge part that was pointed out in this book about the "ones who walk away" is the fact that they, indeed, walk alone.
I like to think that the ones who walk away from Omelas to that place that "they seem to know where they are going" can be equivalent to a world we are hoping to achieve where children do not need to suffer. That "walking alone" could probably mean carrying the baggage ourselves and refusing the help of others when we need it. We know it's possible to walk out but it's a daunting journey to take alone. I don't think the book ever even said that Omelas is the only place where you can find happiness and luxury?
You can argue that we can never really walk away from the suffering and sadness in our lives and I would agree with you. But do we believe that suffering needs to exist because those are the "rules" of the game of life like in Omelas or is it that we are just too scared to walk alone, out of the game or "happiness" that we have known just to keep walking for who knows how long but we are sure exists? In that line, who even said that we have to walk out alone? For all the "rules" that Omelas had, this was the one part that did not read to me as such.
Again, who knows what the answer really is but perhaps the one thing I learned is that maybe we don't have to walk out of Omelas alone... and wouldn't that be a little less scary?
To me, there is no right or wrong because when is anything ever as simple as that. Every person's interpretation will differ which is, I think, ultimately the reason why a place like Omelas could exist and why we feel it is so closely tied to our own.
— 4.0 —