The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas
1. During the seminar, the idea was made that the people who walk away from Omelas die. I disagreed with this statement because I was and still am under the impression that the people who walk away do not die; they simply wander off to a different place. It is possible that these people do not take a distinguished route, and then die due to lack of resources, but that is the farthest I would take the assumption that the people of Omelas simply walk away and die. As I mentioned in the seminar prewrite, I think that the people who walk away serve as an allegory, and, furthermore; the select few that do something right (according to the author’s opinion) in a bad or inhumane situation. For example, instead of participating knowingly in an act that dehumanizes others, such as a sweatshop, these people, although benefiting from the loss of others, could walk away. This may not be the most effective solution, but it is at least a small protest against the powers that can inspire and set an example for others.
2. When we discussed what the people who walk away represent, the thought that the people knew that, “there was no grief in Omelas,” was questioned. If these people did not know that there was no grief in the city, then did they walk away simply because, or did the unknown rule that there was no grief drive them out? Conversely, if the townspeople knew that there was to be no grief, did the rule drive the people away or the knowledge of what would happen to the griever drive the person out? Based on the fact that some people got over the fact that there was an insolent child taking on all of the misery of the people of Omelas, I will assume that townspeople themselves would not drive away a griever, because at one point, each of those townspeople were stricken with grief at the sudden knowledge of the adolescent as well. Also based on my assumption drawn in the first question, I think that a rule did not drive these people out, I think that the ones who walked away simply could not deal with the knowledge of the youth in the cellar, and could not be associated with a town that thrived off of the devastation of one child.
I do not think that grief was the only thing that drove out those who walked away. Therefore, I believe that the people of Omelas did not know that there was no grief in Omelas, and they walked away simply because of the bitterness of their unwelcome new knowledge. The force that drove these people out of Omelas was probably a mix of resentful emotions, such as despair, disgust, guilt, being indignant, etc. I doubt that a lot of these people did it because they felt it was the right thing, because I think that a person who would feel so strongly about the subject would probably take a more opposing action, such as actually attempting to free the child or talk some sense into the other people of Omelas. The action of walking away was not made to benefit the child in the cellar, but simply to ease the mind of those who could not bear the idea of that child in the cellar looming over their thoughts any longer, unless they were no longer involved in the child’s misery. At most the people who walked away from Omelas presented a small, momentary protest to the child’s complete misery.
3. Throughout the seminar, I kept connecting the child in the cellar to a feral child, because although the adolescents in the cellar are exposed to society, this child has either become dormant from the process of it’s downfall, or the child was born into the cellar and was never even exposed to societal norms. I thought it was especially interesting how the author chose to imply that these children had at one point been introduced to the societal norms, but had lost any recollection of these norms, or any form of communication at all, until they reached a point at which the author described characteristics that resemble those of a feral child, such as lying in its own feces, or being stuck with fear by everyday objects, such as mop and bucket.
4. Questions
1. Is Omelas supposed to serve as an example or substitute of happenings elsewhere?
a. You could read an interview with the author explaining her motivations for key concepts in the text.
b. You could research human rights violations throughout the world and compare them to the events in the texts.
2. How does the dehumanization of this child compare to the classification systems, specifically the lower part of these systems, compare to those of other societies?
a. You could research the different systems of government used by diverse societies, and compare the societal functions of the societies.
b. You could cross reference the history of a society’s ladder with its current societal ladder and see how the two have compared.
c. You could compare patterns in governmental systematic changes concerning the classification of society with examples from the text.
3. Why does the author set up the story so that it seems fantastical when she wants us to “believe” in the people of Omelas?
a. You could research literary techniques that are commonly used by authors and see if anything relates to what she did in the text.
b. You could consider how the text would read if she weren’t to set up the story the way she had, and see if anything concerning the story might change due to the alterations. Þ If the author were to make the text seem less fantastical, I think that people would automatically doubt the validity of her argument for the people of Omelas, because she would not be able to explain why these people seemed so fantastical, but were actually realistic enough for us to be able to compare societal factors.
2. When we discussed what the people who walk away represent, the thought that the people knew that, “there was no grief in Omelas,” was questioned. If these people did not know that there was no grief in the city, then did they walk away simply because, or did the unknown rule that there was no grief drive them out? Conversely, if the townspeople knew that there was to be no grief, did the rule drive the people away or the knowledge of what would happen to the griever drive the person out? Based on the fact that some people got over the fact that there was an insolent child taking on all of the misery of the people of Omelas, I will assume that townspeople themselves would not drive away a griever, because at one point, each of those townspeople were stricken with grief at the sudden knowledge of the adolescent as well. Also based on my assumption drawn in the first question, I think that a rule did not drive these people out, I think that the ones who walked away simply could not deal with the knowledge of the youth in the cellar, and could not be associated with a town that thrived off of the devastation of one child.
I do not think that grief was the only thing that drove out those who walked away. Therefore, I believe that the people of Omelas did not know that there was no grief in Omelas, and they walked away simply because of the bitterness of their unwelcome new knowledge. The force that drove these people out of Omelas was probably a mix of resentful emotions, such as despair, disgust, guilt, being indignant, etc. I doubt that a lot of these people did it because they felt it was the right thing, because I think that a person who would feel so strongly about the subject would probably take a more opposing action, such as actually attempting to free the child or talk some sense into the other people of Omelas. The action of walking away was not made to benefit the child in the cellar, but simply to ease the mind of those who could not bear the idea of that child in the cellar looming over their thoughts any longer, unless they were no longer involved in the child’s misery. At most the people who walked away from Omelas presented a small, momentary protest to the child’s complete misery.
3. Throughout the seminar, I kept connecting the child in the cellar to a feral child, because although the adolescents in the cellar are exposed to society, this child has either become dormant from the process of it’s downfall, or the child was born into the cellar and was never even exposed to societal norms. I thought it was especially interesting how the author chose to imply that these children had at one point been introduced to the societal norms, but had lost any recollection of these norms, or any form of communication at all, until they reached a point at which the author described characteristics that resemble those of a feral child, such as lying in its own feces, or being stuck with fear by everyday objects, such as mop and bucket.
4. Questions
1. Is Omelas supposed to serve as an example or substitute of happenings elsewhere?
a. You could read an interview with the author explaining her motivations for key concepts in the text.
b. You could research human rights violations throughout the world and compare them to the events in the texts.
2. How does the dehumanization of this child compare to the classification systems, specifically the lower part of these systems, compare to those of other societies?
a. You could research the different systems of government used by diverse societies, and compare the societal functions of the societies.
b. You could cross reference the history of a society’s ladder with its current societal ladder and see how the two have compared.
c. You could compare patterns in governmental systematic changes concerning the classification of society with examples from the text.
3. Why does the author set up the story so that it seems fantastical when she wants us to “believe” in the people of Omelas?
a. You could research literary techniques that are commonly used by authors and see if anything relates to what she did in the text.
b. You could consider how the text would read if she weren’t to set up the story the way she had, and see if anything concerning the story might change due to the alterations. Þ If the author were to make the text seem less fantastical, I think that people would automatically doubt the validity of her argument for the people of Omelas, because she would not be able to explain why these people seemed so fantastical, but were actually realistic enough for us to be able to compare societal factors.