Why would anyone walk away from an omelette?

I read the story and had an immediate reaction to it. I think when you have been in the position to be the "ugly" one or the "poor" one...the one that is different or not as good as the others around you, you realize your tenous position in society and how close you could come to being that child in the closet yourself. If one person can be subjected to that type of treatment, anyone could. Who is to say that the definition of defective would not change through some philosophical insight the next go around and someone who least expected to be considered the next child in the closet gets put there. It would be better to live in a society that knows anguish and is not perfect, so that all who live there could share the burden and make it better for others. Perhaps those who walk away from Omelas realize these things.

Of course life is not as happy for those who live outside, but it is less sinister and more straight forward in its construction...and I would not have another's misery on my head for the price of my happiness.

poettess from the krysondra thread wrote: If you make a pact with others to keep someone poor, you are saying "you will never be anything than what you are because we have decreed it" which makes you in control of that person's life. The first example shows you in control of your life only, the second puts you in the position of control over others. This is what I do not like about the scapegoating aspect of Omelas and why it should never be "decided" that anyone should be sacrificed by a group of people unless they decide it themselves.

I agree with this theory whole-heartedly. A willing sacrifice is one thing, but to simply choose a child - who remembers light and its mother's voice - to be the bearer of all evil in a town seems wrong.

Even in "The Lottery", each person knows that once a year someone from their village will get stoned to death. However, they all come willingly to this event and somewhat willingly participate in order to keep the crops growing.

In "Omelas", this one unlucky child bears all of the weight of the town's journey which I, rashly and impulsively, singularly and shockingly, disapprove of.

Eugene V. Debs wrote:Years ago I recognized my kinship with all living things, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on the earth. I said then and I say now, that while there is a lower class, I am in it; while there is a criminal element, I am of it; while there is a soul in prison, I am not free.

Thus, I would walk away from Omelas. There may be happiness there, but it is soiled. I might not be able to save the child, but I could at least save myself.

What a great story and how interesting to read it right after The Lottery.

A couple of interesting things I noticed. The story doesn't really have a plot or, at least, not a conventional plot. It starts out simply as description of a town called Omelas and the people in it. However, as this description unfolds, the narrator/storyteller adds details that add tension to the story. Initially, Omelas seems a utopia and there is some kind of festival or celebration about to take place and all the townspeople are getting ready for it. But with one revelation we understand that there is quite a steep price to the townspeople's happiness.

The story doesn't really have any characters either except for the townspeople who are treated as a single character. And the child, of course, who is nearly ten and "could be a boy or girl."

It seems to me that the narrator/storyteller calls attention to the fact that this is a work of fiction which makes it metafiction:

Wiki: "Metafiction is a type of fiction that self-consciously addresses the devices of fiction. It is the literary term describing fictional writing that self-consciously and systematically draws attention to its status as an artifact in posing questions about the relationship between fiction and reality, usually, irony and self-reflection.

Vonnegut does this metafiction thing in many of his stories. In Slaughterhouse 5, for example, which is semi-autobiographical, he interjects right in the middle of a paragraph: "That's me!" Also, I think Neil Gaiman has a metafictional story in Smoke and Mirrors which I read a couple of years ago. And Charles Baxter's The Feast of Love actually has a character in the story named "Charles Baxter."

In a way this isn't a story at all, but a kind of moral dilemma or thought experiment. I think LeGuin is holding up a mirror to society which does exactly what the townspeople do. Many of us are educated and live in nice houses and we are more or less happy. At the same time we know there are many in society who are not nearly so well off, people who can barely fend for themselves and don't have enough to eat or who have to live in their cars, etc. The difference between this story and real life is we can't just walk away. We can't resolve the inequity that exists in our world. We have to live with it and how we deal with that is we just don't think about it very much.

Again, interesting story.

Thank you Geo, I enjoyed your comments.

You are right, we can't just walk away from a society full of injustices. This makes me think of the homeless people I see driving through Phila. on my way to my nice safe home in the suburbs. It's interesting that the author chose a child. I'm trying to think of a substitute for the child, an elderly person maybe, but the feeling would be the same.

Metafiction, interesting, I've never heard of it.

Suzanne and Geo,

I can understand your association with homeless people and poor people in general to this story, but I feel that there is a distinction between the child and those who "choose" to be homeless or drug addicts in this society. First of all, our lives are not all perfect because they have been locked in a closet against their will, secondly, they (for the most part) can transcend their choices in life, no matter how difficult that might seem. There is a degree of social injustice that keeps people in a bad situation, but at a certain point we have to say that they are no longer scapegoats but willing participants in their choice to be in their situation.

poettess wrote:Suzanne and Geo,

I can understand your association with homeless people and poor people in general to this story, but I feel that there is a distinction between the child and those who "choose" to be homeless or drug addicts in this society. First of all, our lives are not all perfect because they have been locked in a closet against their will, secondly, they (for the most part) can transcend their choices in life, no matter how difficult that might seem. There is a degree of social injustice that keeps people in a bad situation, but at a certain point we have to say that they are no longer scapegoats but willing participants in their choice to be in their situation.

Yes, that's a good point. The child in this story has no choice to stay or go. He/she remains a prisoner by the will of the townspeople. Which, in my opinion, makes the townspeople's acceptance even more appalling.

Anyway, I just went to the Wikipedia site about this story and did you know this story is subtitled, "Variations on a theme by William James?" Apparently LeGuin got the idea for this story from James' The Moral Philosopher and the Moral Life.

William James wrote: Or if the hypothesis were offered us of a world in which Messrs. Fourier's and Bellamy's and Morris's utopias should all be outdone, and millions kept permanently happy on the one simple condition that a certain lost soul on the far-off edge of things should lead a life of lonely torture, what except a specifical and independent sort of emotion can it be which would make us immediately feel, even though an impulse arose within us to clutch at the happiness so offered, how hideous a thing would be its enjoyment when deliberately accepted as the fruit of such a bargain?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ones_W ... rom_Omelas

Poettess:

I agree with you for the most part. Adults do have the capability to choose their path in life. Drug addicts certainly choose, no one forces them. I also agree that their are many people who refuse to help themselves. I'll go one step farther and say, many people feel comfortable standing with their hands out waiting for society to pay their way.

The part I disagree with is that a good percentage of the homeless suffer from mental illness, and for one reason or another have been thrown on the street without any choices or chances. Most of the mentally ill homeless can't and won't take advantage of the soup kitchens and shelters. Many homeless men are former vets with disabilities, who have been thrown away. These people are incapable of transending their lives, they are at the mercy of society, and society for the most part, gauk at them, view them with distain, shake their heads and walk off.

The author choose to use a child, which really hit the point home. Many, many children suffer, the agencies and services that are meant to protect children oftentimes fail. There have been countless cases of children who have died because of the incompetance of these agencies. But, human suffering can be seen in our society in both children and aldults.

Anyway, Geo, thank you for reciprecating on the research! Very interesting.

geo wrote:A couple of interesting things I noticed. The story doesn't really have a plot or, at least, not a conventional plot. It starts out simply as description of a town called Omelas and the people in it. However, as this description unfolds, the narrator/storyteller adds details that add tension to the story. Initially, Omelas seems a utopia and there is some kind of festival or celebration about to take place and all the townspeople are getting ready for it. But with one revelation we understand that there is quite a steep price to the townspeople's happiness.

The other interesting thing that the narrator does is to draw the reader into the story - make him or her a conarrator and thus a sort of co-conspirator in the plight of child and the world of Omelas.

Perhaps it would be best if you imagined it as your own fancy bids, assuming it will rise to the occasion, for certainly I cannot suit you all.

But even granted trains, 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.

I thought at first there were no drugs, but that is puritanical. For those who like it, the faint insistent sweetness of drooz may perfume the ways of the city, drooz which first brings a great lightness and brilliance to the mind and limbs, and then after some hours a dreamy languor, and wonderful visions at last of the very arcane and inmost secrets of the Universe, as well as exciting the pleasure of sex beyond all belief; and it is not habit-forming. For more modest tastes I think there ought to be beer. What else, what else belongs in the joyous city?

geo wrote:In a way this isn't a story at all, but a kind of moral dilemma or thought experiment. ... We can't resolve the inequity that exists in our world. We have to live with it and how we deal with that is we just don't think about it very much.

I agree with you that this is an experiment in thought and philosophy or morality if you will. I think it hits home so hard becuase the reader has become so personally entangled in creating Omelas.

I also agree that this is a morality "play" for our own society. In order to make certain, that there is true happiness with no bitter aftertaste, we need to be able to take care of everyone who wishes to be cared for. We need the people who can work to do so. We need to be more aware of our impact on the people around us.

I just started teaching English Composition at a local community college. I inherited the class from an instructor who moved on to other things. Anyway, I just decided to change the second major assignment from an Op-Ed to a literary analysis. And I'm trying to decide which fiction story to use. The three contenders are: The Lottery by Shirley Jackson, The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas by Ursula Le Guin, and The Devil by Leo Tolstoy. I thought I would mention it here since this is where I discovered Le Guin's story. It would be interesting to do a compare/contrast of Jackson's and Le Guin's stories, but probably I'll just settle on one. I just can't decide which. Any suggestions?