The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas

The short story I have chosen for today’s blog post is “The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas” by Ursula K Le Guin. I should probably start by saying that this is my favorite story we (as a class) have read thus far. There were two quotes that struck me the most (indeed, there were many). The first was on page 76, where the narrator claims “The trouble is that we have a bad habit, encourages by pedants and sophisticates, of considering happiness as something rather stupid” (Le Guin). This quote is a crucial component of my analysis, which is as follows. I believe that Omelas, or “the joyous city” is the philosophical concept of happiness. To that end, I believe that the way she actively involved the reader by asking them what would constitute their vision of Omelas was a cleverly disguised way of asking what would make them happy. It seemed to me as though she was asking what else would be conducive to the happiness of the city of Omelas, as well as to their personal happiness. This could be considered happiness in general. At the same time, I believe she was implying that the happiness of the people of Omelas (which would also be happiness in general) was not random. These people are not happy because they are “less complex” ( Le Guin 76). Their happiness is calculated, deliberate. It exists for a reason. It is not “stupid” or lesser, nor is it unearned in the eyes of the happy. It exists because, by knowing sadness, they have made the necessary sacrifices that build a foundation for their happiness.

After the attempt to best articulate the people of Omelas to the reader, the narrator asks “What else? What else belongs in the joyous city?” (Le Guin 78). The description of the city is concluded by asking the reader if they believed in the joyous city yet, if everything that should be in a utopia, as the reader sees fit, is present, and in essence, she is asking the reader if these things alone would make them happy. She then follows that question with the description of the child. I believe this child to be the embodiment of the necessary suffering that acts as a crucial component in the philosophical construct of happiness. Every action has an opposite reaction; no dark can exist without the light. I believe that the narrator was implying that the child, that sadness and suffering, did in fact belong there. How could the people of Omelas know happiness if they were to never encounter suffering? Everything described, especially the child, works in a delicate balance to ensure that the people of Omelas stay happy (or so that happiness in general can exist). They just made an attempt at minimizing the amount of sadness required. However, there are those who walk away from Omelas. I believe them to be unsung heroes. They can never be happy knowing that such sadness exists, and in the context of the story, they refuse to be part of an organization that requires that such sadness exist deliberately. They condemn themselves to walk amongst the dark so that others can walk in the light, rejecting happiness if it means they must inflict (or maybe even because they must know) sadness.