The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas and the stories that came after it
I think I first came across "The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas" by Ursula K LeGuin a few years ago. I read something else in conversation with it, but somehow had missed the original. Hugo Award winning and Locus award nominated, I thought folks might be interested in discussing it and its descendants.
LeGuin's original in pdf format
Omelas is a utopia in the middle of a festival. And as the narrator explains the city to you, they understand that you may not believe it is even possible.
The ones who walk away from Omelas spoilers
So the narrator explains that keeping this city a utopia relies on the horrible and perpetual suffering of a single child. At a certain age, all citizens are brought to see the suffering child and they're all horrified, but most come to see that the prosperity and safety of everyone is served by the suffering of this one child. The ones who don't, walk away and never return.Othe authors have written stories in conversation with this,
NK Jemisin's The Ones Who Stay And Fight is directly engaging with it.
In Um-Helat
There is a utopia, and no child suffering in a hole. But when suffering arises, there is a call to fix it.The Golden Enclaves by Naomi Novik (the 3rd Scholomance book) engages with this idea too.
Golden Enclaves major plot point spoiler
All the major enclaves of magic users are build on the death of an innocent - someone that has never taken and used magic from the death or pain of other beings, and at least once a teenager, but likely a often child due to the restriction. This allows you to create a safe home against the magical monsters but also creates an ever hungry devouring monster of perpetual suffering (a maw mouth) that is unleashed on anyone who doesn't have an enclave to protect them. There's a way to build them without this, but the enclaves would be smaller and less luxurious, and after all, it's only one person...So I had read all of the above works and been mulling over the topic of Omelas, and then found this story today
Why Don't We Just Kill the Kid In the Omelas Hole
In which people, uh, start killing the kid in the Omelas hole. Sorry, not a lot of room not to spoil that given the title. I'll let you read the story for where that goes.
Risk of spoilers for the above works from here:
I think there is a lot about our society here. LeGuin herself said the story, "has a long and happy career of being used by teachers to upset students and make them argue fiercely about morality." Because what is the right answer? Novik, via El in the Scholomance series says to burn it down. Jemisin says there is a better way. I don't believe LeGuin is arguing that the ones who walk away are "right" in that they leave having benefited from Omelas and the child still suffers.
But I thought folks who hadn't read one or more of these might enjoy them, and I find they make me think and often won't stop letting me think.
ETA: ST:SNW did an entire episode using Omelas as an inspiration. I haven't seen it so I can't speak to it but wanted to add it here for reference.
I came across "Why don't we just kill the kid..." on Mastodon a little bit ago - when I was reading it, I hit a point where I felt I definitely "got the point" of this addition to the story of Omelas, but it was so compelling that I had to finish the story regardless.
I think the ending of that one that really struck me because you almost expect it to work. That the accelerationists will be successful. But no, it makes sense that that doesn't solve anything either
The way it was described to me was that the point of Omelas wasn't that the whole city ran off of the suffering of a child, it was that the story was only interesting because of it. I'm not sure if I agree entirely with that take, if all of the discourse about a load bearing forsaken child is just a diversion from the main issue that people can't accept a utopia, but "Why Don't We Just Kill the Kid..." does a pretty good job of playing both ideas out to a logical conclusion.
I know the story presents it in that manner, but I don't think that was the intent. However, I think it is worth examining from that angle too. I did not have this work taught to me at any point so I'm not sure beyond what I've found online, what prevailing interpretations are. I think Jemisin's story can also be read in that light but still in response. However, if there is no child then why would anyone walk away?
This kind of goes back what was mentioned earlier about used as a debate tool, death of the author and whatnot. I guess the utilitarian need for a load bearing child implies that some aspects of society believes there is supposed to be a load bearing child, through fate or the ways things have always been done. That would sort of square the circle on the interpretation of people can't see a world without downside and why "kill the kid" works as well as it does.
This is a rather interesting short story. After reading it, I am struck most by the fact that it seems to be written as much about the ideas of Utopia and morality, as it is written to be a discussion of how our minds seem to take it for granted that there must be suffering. She introduces the idea of the child following these lines: "Do you believe? Do you accept the festival, the city, the joy? No? Then let me describe one more thing." Would we accept Omelas for what she is making it without the child? Perhaps, but it wouldn't be a good short story without the child. But other than that, what does the child add to this vision of utopia? Especially when comparing it to other works, like Thomas More's.
I get stuck there when trying to understand her story. I am of the mind at the end that this is the closest thing we get to a justification for the child to be there; for their suffering. But it seems to me that there must be some sort of inherent magic of this city she creates. It is frankly otherwise an anemic telling. Do they never have natural disasters? Do they never have famine? Is there just enough rain to water their crops and fill their reservoirs but not too much that they have floods? Or do they have all of thees things, and the thought "at least I'm not the child" is enough to keep them happy? Must all fortune be at the suffering of another, and if so can you make one person suffer enough so that the rest of society does not have to?
Then I have the thought of what a Utopia even is. This piece actually gave me a rather different idea behind the matter. A social utopia means that there is always someone ready and able to do anything you need, but you never have to do anything that you do not want to do. These very ideas are counter to one another, aren't they? Isn't that were all utopias fall apart? Why would the best builder be ready to fix every house that needs it, and why would they spend their lives training to become the best builder? If they don't do we just accept the work that we receive and learn to be happy with mediocrity. Happiness truly is the middle path, is it not?
As far as enjoyment of reading goes, I've always felt like LeGuin's work is written for someone other than me, I don't know why that is. I have tried the first two Earthsea books, and now this short story. Her style somehow reminds me a great deal of Margaret Atwood's. I find her topics extremely interesting, I find the things she is trying to say with them compelling, but for some reason I always feel like a foreigner engaging with her works. It's like I'm perpetually reading the first chapter of a new book series and I never get used to it, I never find the flow I can get while reading other stories. Does anyone else have a similar experience, and have any recommendations for how I can more enjoyable engage with their work?
The impression I get from her construction is that she's inviting the reader to contemplate the scenario independently of the details. Never mind why, it is perfect, save for that one detail. I've always considered the point of that story to be directly addressing the contradiction you've pointed out - that there are misalignments in needs and wants in a real scenario, and that this child somehow makes that go away in exchange for accepting one horrible discrepancy, one thing that is individually so much worse than any of those little things, but which is far outweighed by the aggregate.
The irony is that in real scenarios the inverse is most often true - we prize individual acts of kindness and miss the cruelty bound up in the aggregate, which is much greater in every sense.
Thank you for your reply.
You brought another idea to my mind: what do you think of an interpretation of the story as a sort of trolley problem? On one rail you have the child undergoing continuing suffering for their entire existence, and on the other rail you have all of society, including the child. I almost think that at its base the story basically proposes an alternate version of the trolley problem.
I think it's the same species of problem, for sure - the lesser evil you choose to inflict versus the greater one that will happen due to your inaction. They both point at the valence that the intentionality of an act adds to our perception of it, that something bad that is done intentionally is perceived as worse than something bad that we fail to prevent. Plenty of villains in stories (Dr. Doom comes to mind) who are just pulling trolley levers, from their perspective.
Thanks for putting this together. It's an interesting set of connected stories.
Le Guin is a great writer but I hadn't yet read Omelas. I recently finished and enjoyed the Golden Enclaves. Now I want to explore the resources you laid out here.