The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas
Summer
The story The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas is a description of a city filled with happiness. The city of Omelas is a utopia described as being anything that any individual sees fit to have in a utopia city. Ursula K. Le Guin allows the reader to picture a city in which they are most happy. But this city has a secret. Under a building there is a child locked in a room. The child is malnourished and abused. Every piece of happiness in the city of Omelas is dependent on the misery of this one child. And when people of the city of Omelas come to learn of this child and how it affects the city they either choose to stay in the city or they choose to leave, and these people are the ones who walk away from Omelas.
Interpretation
When I read this story I couldn't help but think of the doctrines of the Utilitarians. This type of utopia is what Utilitarians describe. The Utilitarian mode of thought suggests that good comes from the whatever brings happiness to the masses. This story seems to suggest just that. The city of Omelas is only a utopia as long as this child suffers, which is the way that Utilitarians think happiness should be achieved. Happiness is given to the city (the greater number of people) because of this child's abuse (the fewer amount of people). This is a greatly debatable topic as it does not seem right that this child should suffer for a utopia.
Another observation I made also concerns a philosophical mode of thought. This mode of thought suggests that a utopia filled with happiness could never exist because people cannot know pleasure without the existence of pain. Omelas could never be in existence without the small child beneath the city because humans need an opposition in order to recognize the other.
And one final observation stemed from this line:"This is the treason of the artist: a refusal to admit the banality of evil and the terrible boredom of pain" (Le Guin 260). I believe that Le Guin's statement here is ironic. When a person reads a book or watches a movie or a television show do they really want one that is void of conflict and filled with nothing but happiness? Even some of the more pleasant movies like Disney movies contain conflict. Something must arise in order for the person watching or reading to have an opposition to other wise she would not continue watching. I will also ask another question. when a person recalls a memory which memories seem to flood the brain more, memories of pleasure or memories of pain? I will contest to the latter.
The story The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas is a description of a city filled with happiness. The city of Omelas is a utopia described as being anything that any individual sees fit to have in a utopia city. Ursula K. Le Guin allows the reader to picture a city in which they are most happy. But this city has a secret. Under a building there is a child locked in a room. The child is malnourished and abused. Every piece of happiness in the city of Omelas is dependent on the misery of this one child. And when people of the city of Omelas come to learn of this child and how it affects the city they either choose to stay in the city or they choose to leave, and these people are the ones who walk away from Omelas.
Interpretation
When I read this story I couldn't help but think of the doctrines of the Utilitarians. This type of utopia is what Utilitarians describe. The Utilitarian mode of thought suggests that good comes from the whatever brings happiness to the masses. This story seems to suggest just that. The city of Omelas is only a utopia as long as this child suffers, which is the way that Utilitarians think happiness should be achieved. Happiness is given to the city (the greater number of people) because of this child's abuse (the fewer amount of people). This is a greatly debatable topic as it does not seem right that this child should suffer for a utopia.
Another observation I made also concerns a philosophical mode of thought. This mode of thought suggests that a utopia filled with happiness could never exist because people cannot know pleasure without the existence of pain. Omelas could never be in existence without the small child beneath the city because humans need an opposition in order to recognize the other.
And one final observation stemed from this line:"This is the treason of the artist: a refusal to admit the banality of evil and the terrible boredom of pain" (Le Guin 260). I believe that Le Guin's statement here is ironic. When a person reads a book or watches a movie or a television show do they really want one that is void of conflict and filled with nothing but happiness? Even some of the more pleasant movies like Disney movies contain conflict. Something must arise in order for the person watching or reading to have an opposition to other wise she would not continue watching. I will also ask another question. when a person recalls a memory which memories seem to flood the brain more, memories of pleasure or memories of pain? I will contest to the latter.
powered by performancing firefox
posted by Adam Bruns at
1:07 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home