Granted, more than one individual has left Omelas, so a new community could conceivably establish itself elsewhere. Question Four: In the story, do you find any implied criticism of our own society? Again this would appear to be illogical as the boy does not seem to be different to other boys. There is just one thing that bothers me. Another example would be the homeless. But they seem to be worse than animals because they are granted with humanlike intellect and capacity for empathy, but they choose not to act on these things by not recognizing the suffering of the one child and trying to end it. The narrator does not know where they go, for it is impossible to imagine—the place might not even exist.
Archived from on April 19, 2012. Everyone in Omelas knows the child exists; it is no secret. Morality is not based upon a weighing in scales of the benfits and costs of the choice. His opinion, like the adults in Omelas, is that idealism must yield to pragmatism; it is too much to ask for everyone to give up the niceties to save one person from a life of torture and suffering. The weather in Omelas is perfect for their festival, just enough wind to make the banners float in the.
Once all the festivals end and the merriment is stripped away, the citizens are left with the grim notion that everything they have comes from the torment of the child in the basement. I am 14 and to you all, I may have just screwed up my entire speech. It seems to me that the flute player, the same age as the prisoner, is the other half of the magic, adn hte fluteis the intrumetn that converts the suffering of one to the happiness of all. It's a given that they are walking away from the most thorough joy anyone has ever known, so there is no doubt that their decision to leave Omelas will erode their own happiness. To further visualize this concept, one may use this example: if an individual believes a lie with enough intensity, no matter how erroneous it is, that statement starts to sound true in his or her head. The specifics of the negative consequences of freeing the child are very vague. She explains that in the city everything is perfect and everyone is happy.
The author leads you on to believe that Omelas is in perfect harmony and that the inhabitants are content with their lives completely. While the children of Omelas eat treats at the Festival of Summer, the child is limited to corn meal and grease. Yet they started out as innocents, the children borne into an institution that counted them as three-fifths a human being. However, one must analyze the validity of that statement. What kind of happiness would you receive if you watched and allowed a child to suffer.
When the narrator reveals that the happiness of life in Omelas depends on the suffering of one child, however, the previously uncomplicated appearance of the perfect society fades away. Therefore, one should embrace both sides and try to make the best of it. Me personally, the ethical thing to do if I was living in Omelas is to walk away, if there is nothing you can do to help the child. First, she takes a meta-textual or meta-discursive turn in which the text calls attention to its own project: telling a story. But the narrator also notes that occasionally, someone who has seen the child will choose not to go home, instead of walking through the city, out the gates, toward the mountains.
He is lonely because people are jealous of him and the beautiful music that he makes. Light brings out the color in every single thing that has substance. It's a sacrifice they are willing to make. Will I be one of those who stay in Omelas? Same as the child in the broom closet. The flute player plays beautiful music but is lonely. LeGuin What is one to make of the city of Omelas? The question I would like to ask the author is what exactly would happen to the city of Omelas if the child were rescued. Sacrifices must be made, sadness must be felt, lost must be done.
The problem lies in the fact that the bulk of the society are habituated to comply to the social norms. How to describe the citizens of Omelas? Both pieces revolve around the agony experienced by one person in order to enhance the lives of many; turning a blind eye to the horrors of humanity for the greater good of all affected people. The fate this child has been condemned to is truly horrifying. To further visualize this concept, one may use this example: if an individual believes a lie with enough intensity, no matter how erroneous it is, that statement starts to sound true in his or her head. To most, the beauty and richness of their lives justifies the sacrifice of the child. However, all this prosperity comes with a price. For example…The poor kids who get bullied in school, or the homelss man on the street corner that is being bothered and harrassed.
They may choose to sympathize with the people of Omelas and agree with the narrator. Or they might return to what once was, what existed before these twisted individuals built an entire thriving society on the immense suffering of one, defenseless individual—a return to humanity. Every detail she puts in the story is there to persuade the reader to think like the narrator and like the people of Omelas: to believe in a lie. The child is malnourished and filthy, with festering sores. They live for immediate gratification.
Their happiness doesn't come from innocence or stupidity; it comes from their willingness to sacrifice one human being for the benefit of the rest. It is a way to not face your problems. Omelasian morality seems to be based on the idealistic nature of their society. A carefree community that seems pleasing and just, turns out to be structured on injustice and ultimately untenable for some of its citizens. Within this, a moral dilemma exists as the story depicts a utopian perfect happy place where everyone is in a state of euphoria.