Chaos Reading discussion

Story: The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas [Full text]
Author: Ursula K. Le Guin

I just recently read this and was blown away. I'm keen to know what others think

*SPOILERS from here on in*

For those who've read it..

- Where are those who walk away headed to? What are they expecting outside Omelas?

- Would you walk away?

I love this story! Did you read a copy with her introduction about how it was inspired by the discussion in The Brothers Karamazov about a peaceful society predicated on the suffering of one child?

I like to think I'd have the fortitude to walk away. What I'd expect outside Omelas is the real world, where there is far more suffering than there is in Omelas, but at least by leaving one isn't deliberately complicit in it.

I would agree that those who walk away are in "our" world.

There is a certain cast-out-of-Eden-from-the-knowledge-of-the-forbidden-fruit archetype going on here, but it seems to have a flaw to the logic. Everyone is required to see the child suffer with knowledge that the suffering allows everyone else to be happy and joyous and live in this utopia, but often it speaks of those who see the suffering child become upset (some leave others stay and accept the law). My problem with this is if they can be upset (staying or leaving is irrelevent to this point) then the suffering child does not in fact allow them to live in perfect happiness, and that Omelas is not a perfect place, since the knowledge of said suffering child brings those who witness it emotional pain.

I didn't get the idea it was supposed to be a utopia in the "Brave New World / Soma / Feel No Pain" sense, but in a fulfilled an peaceful sense. After all, LeGuin makes it clear that people feel compassion, anger, etc.. The main theme as I see it isn't what makes a happy society, but what is the morality of ending suffering for many by choosing instead the deliberate suffering of one innocent.

Ben, on further reflection I think out views are more compatible than I originally thought. Aren't those who suffer emotional pain, as you say, the ones who walk away? While those who stay choose to view the suffering child as a necessity or even enhancement of the greater good?

As a separate point (Sorry to keep dragging Dostoevsky into it), in the Brothers Karamozov, the rejection of building an supposedly enlightened society on the suffering of innocents was equated with a rejection of the tenets of Christianity.

I haven't read that introduction, but would love to have a look. I read the version in Brave New Worlds (which has a whole BUNCH of excellent dystopian/utopian stories - they've all been really excellent). If I get chance tomorrow, I'll see if I can track down a copy of the intro.

I think the people who walk away from Omelas are coming to our everyday world, (where things are less pleasant overall), but I wonder what they expect to find. Do they think it will be less pleasant, but that they will feel happier on the whole because they don't have to live with the image of the child's suffering? Do they think they will be less happy, but they're prepared to live with suffering themselves rather than knowing they're the cause of someone else's suffering? It's a subtle distinction though, I'll admit!

I'd like to think I'd walk away, but the more I think about it, the less sure I am. By supporting the "other" society, I'd be supporting many more people's suffering. At least in Omelas, you know it's only one child who suffers, rather than knowing it is many. In that sense, it is almost selfish to walk away - to ease your own guilt, rather than actually easing anyone's suffering.

Again, this is what makes me wonder what the walkers expect. Do they know how truly bad the world can be?

Whitney, the rejection of the tenets of Chrisitanity is a very interesting thought with the whole child suffering for everyone / Jesus on the cross for all sins. So it could go on to say that those who walk away from Omelas are in fact walking away from Christianity. They do not want to live in a world (or ideology) where an innocent (the child / Jesus) is sacrificed for the good of everyone else.

....but anyway back to the original point I was attempting to make.

Everybody in Omelas is aware at some point of the suffering child, and they are aware that the suffering this child endures allows everybody in Omelas to live their happy/content lives. Now after being enlightened to this knowledge, most people decide to stay in Omelas and others choose to leave. The people who stay have seen the horrors this child must suffer for them and they feel upset by this but somehow can then go back to a happy content life in Omelas.

Now I understand that people can disassociate themselves from such knowledge and use whatever other means to push this knowledge away and stay in Omelas, but the narrator goes to great lengths explaining that these people are not stupid that they are just genuinely happy. So does this mean that anyone who stays in Omelas is a terrible person since they have witnessed this child suffer but now no longer care and can go on leading happy and content lives?

There would have to be some people staying in Omelas, who themselves are torn by the choice we are presented: to allow a child to suffer so that many can find happiness/peace/contentment/whatever or to leave and not be a part of this (although the child will still most likely suffer). We are dealing with the hypothetical question “Would you walk away?” but for those in Omelas this would be a real question that they face at a certain time in their lives. For those who are on the fence with the question but ultimately decide to stay in Omelas, do they suddenly forget this tough decision or the suffering of the child? They would always live with this choice and knowledge of the suffering child, sure they may push it aside but eventually such a choice would pop into mind here and there later in life.

Now (sorry for being long winded) my point is if the child suffers for the happiness/contentment of all those who stay in Omelas, but those who stay have to deal with the issue of the child suffering (they are aware of it), how do those who stay reach this happiness/contentment knowing the sacrifice of the child that allows for this happiness/contentment of all in Omelas?

Ben wrote: "....those who stay in Omelas, but those who stay have to deal with the issue of the child suffering (they are aware of it), how do those who stay reach this happiness/contentment knowing the sacrifice of the child that allows for this happiness/contentment of all in Omelas? ..."

Afraid I have to go back to TBK again, here. The rejection of religion based on innocents suffering has nothing to do with Jesus, who willingly sacrificed himself, but is more subtle. If you accept God's creation, you accept a world where innocent people (children) suffer, and you accept it in the understanding that it is all ultimately for a greater good / greater happiness in the end.

LeGuin makes it clear that those who stay are not in denial, but embrace the idea that what they have is dependent on the child's suffering:

"It is the existence of the child, and their knowledge of its existence, that makes possible the nobility of their architecture, the poignancy of their music, the profundity of their science. It is because of the child that they are so gentle with children."

I think your questions are exactly the ones that LeGuin is trying to raise. One child is preventing the suffering of many, many more. The math works out in favor of his continued imprisonment. On the other hand, can you live with yourself knowing that you are complicit in this torture, even if it is for the greater good?

Whitney wrote: "I think your questions are exactly the ones that LeGuin is trying to raise. One child is preventing the suffering of many, many more. The math works out in favor of his continued imprisonment. On the other hand, can you live with yourself knowing that you are complicit in this torture, even if it is for the greater good?..."

That's absolutely it in a nutshell, Whitney, and it captures several of our points. That one child's suffering is for the greater good. The ones who stay aren't being selfish and choosing their own happiness over that of the child, they are preventing many more children from suffering. That's the real choice here.

That quote jumped out at me at the time too, as it shows that people have made a conscious choice, and one not taken lightly. For the sake of all of their children, they are allowing a single child to suffer - yet still they feel the weight of this and it shows in all they do.

Ruby wrote: "Whitney wrote: "I think your questions are exactly the ones that LeGuin is trying to raise. One child is preventing the suffering of many, many more. The math works out in favor of his continued im..." I agree. I read this many years ago but it seemed clear to me that 'those who stayed' held the child in reverance, contributing all their greatest achivements to his suffering in a manner that approached a worship like state that allowed them to be content and happy.

Ruby wrote: "people have made a conscious choice, and one not taken lightly. For the sake of all of their children, they are allowing a single child to suffer - yet still they feel the weight of this and it shows in all they do..."

Yes, well put, and bringing in how their decision affects their children's lives makes it that much weightier.

Regarding your previous statement that it could almost be considered selfish to walk away, I have to respectfully disagree. I think the walkers are acting with as much consideration as those who stay. They aren't preaching that the society is wrong and they aren't trying to tear it down (i.e. free the child), they are simply choosing not to participate in it themselves.

Going back to the religious analogy, if I refuse to accept the implications of God's creation I'm not denying salvation to anyone but myself. As to what the walkers expect, I think they expect that they are effectively damning themselves to an imperfect and painful world, and they walk away anyway.

Before this discussion, I considered those who stayed to be the selfish ones. Now I would say that, given the decision is made with full understanding of the implications either way, there is no objective right or wrong to it. It really is a decision that is just right or wrong for each individual.

Need I say that this is an awesome choice for a short story discussion?

If anyone hasn't seen the TV film of Lathe of Heaven, it is available on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8VRba... . I stumbled on this when I was 13 and it blew my mind. (Yes, it's a little dated, but it was made in 1979 so it gets a pass.)

I've never read a LeGuin novel yet. Not from lack of trying - they just never have any on the shelves when I go looking.

I'm partway through reading another story in the same anthology with very similar themes. In this story, it's a joyously hedonistic paradise....for nine straight days. But every tenth day, residents endure a living hell - quite literally the end of the world. It's very dark, and very well written - and again it asks the questions, "What is a reasonable price for peace and happiness?" and, "Can you live with that price yet remain happy?".
It's called, "Of A Sweet, Slow Dance In The Wake Of Temporary Dogs", written by Adam-Troy Castro.
The full text is available free online - http://www.albeshiloh.com/imaginings/...

If anyone else reads that Castro story - I have a question: Is it just me, or could the quote at the end be taken in a couple of different ways...?

...I totally just read Omelas!... H-hello? Hello? Haha. Thought it was great and really supports my theory that works of fiction are empathy thought experiments, even although I spend more time reading them than bothering to relate to fellow humans!

(What follows is a bit random)

Perhaps Omelas is our world: lots of us are willing to enjoy our lives and control the dull guilt that arises from the fact that in much less perceptible ways, the things we do make people suffer.

The push for cheaper eggs resulting in horrible chicken battery farming conditions; comfy affordable Ugg boots from brutalized sheep (if PETA are to be believed)...Much as Omelas, it's part of this apparent joy balance:

size of joy x frequency of those experiencing it = -(magnitude of suffering x frequency of sufferers x relative importance of the sufferer)

In Omelas' case, one very important child must suffer a great deal to maintain the happiness of a whole city, albeit in a more esoteric sense.

The "ones who walk away" perhaps do not move physically away in real life, but choose not to accept this formula as necessarily true.

Do joy and suffering go hand in hand? Does one exist without the other? Le Guin starts off by suggesting that suffering is pointless, then disproves herself by the end.... or does she... man, it's so complicated.

I will also read the Castro story but am not insulted at all if no one notices this post ;)

Hm. I know I read 'Omelas' some years ago, and still have a vague recollection of it, apart from the fact that it was of course well-written and insightful. Now I'm reminded, I'll have to re-read it and then come back here. And I can't remember whether or not I read the one with the introduction concerning The Brothers Karamazov--but I did recently read that book, since The Grand Inquisitor, a volume with excerpts from the novel, was on the reading list for my Philosophy class. Will be interesting to see what I make of Le Guin's story now, having read the piece that inspired it.

While I'm at it, guess I'll read the Adam Troy-Castro story as well--I'm familiar with one book series of his, so it'll be interesting to see his writing in a different context/subject/topic.

But while I'm thinking of it--has anyone read Orson Scott Card's "Kingsmeat"? The scenario in it is...pretty strange (and fairly horrifying/monstrous/etc), and not entirely (at all?) analogous here, but for some reason I'm reminded of it. Dunno.

Ruby wrote: "If anyone else reads that Castro story - I have a question: Is it just me, or could the quote at the end be taken in a couple of different ways...?"

Thanks for the link! Just finished the story.

"The mere absence of war is not peace."
---President John F. Kennedy

Hmm...well, yeah, there do seem to be various gradations of meaning there. My initial interpretation is basically that it's hardly peace if you're just waiting for the next war. But I guess that another meaning could be that just not fighting isn't exactly the same as being at peace. I suppose also there's the idea of duality, war/peace, and that to know what peace is, one must also know what war is. That being, I think, the philosophy the the citizens of Enysbourg in Troy-Castro's story have intended to live by...but even so I wouldn't call the result 'peace', having known war and counting down the days until it happens again--that being more in line with my first interpretation of the quotation.

Now I just have to re-read 'The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas'.

Thanks for reminding me about these stories, Leo. That Castro one is amazing - the imagery is still right there in my mind.

Good point about the difference between "peace" and "not fighting". The hedonism isn't really "peace' because it brings with it the knowledge of suffering ahead and behind. Brrrr. Just gave myself chills!

Just read the Castro story, I can see why it reminded you of Omelas.

I think there are some definite layers to the quote. In addition to the ones already mentioned. The quote was part of a State of the Union speech warning people that just because things were calm at the moment didn't mean that work didn't have to be done. That was the height of Cold War, following the Cuban Missile Crises.

The final lines of the story are pretty despairing, essentially saying that all they can do is stick their heads in the sand and not think about the horrors to come. To state the obvious, it's implied that there's nothing to be done about the 10th day. I'm wondering if Castro is trying to make a point about a passive acceptance of the horrors as a trade-off with the quote.

The interlude at the waterfall was interesting. She shows him the space behind the falls, where the outside world is seemingly shut out. The narrator says that "It seemed important to her. At that moment, I could not understand why." Why the need to hide from the "9 day" Enysbourg, unless the unbridled joy of the good days is really a form of denial? (It briefly crossed my mind she was showing him a place safe from day 10, but I don't think that's in keeping with the premise of the story.) There's an air of desperation to the mad partying, while they're really counting down the days, as Caracal said.

On reflection, I’ve come to the conclusion that the inhabitants of Enysbourg are a bunch of assholes. LeGuin made a point of saying how Omelas had art and culture and a sophisticated population, whereas Enysbourg seems to be a giant frat party broken up with some sightseeing and bookended by war torn Beirut. These people aren’t finding meaning, they’re finding an excuse to party all the time, then rationalizing it all by a day of Lent after 9 days of Mardi Gras. Their suffering is as meaningless as their partying. None of it seems to serve any purpose outside of narcissism.

And that Jerry guy, what a tool. He makes me think of people who take their trust fund to go live in a cabin somewhere and then start referring to everyone else as sheeple.

Ruby wrote: "Good point about the difference between "peace" and "not fighting". The hedonism isn't really "peace' because it brings with it the knowledge of suffering ahead and behind. Brrrr. Just gave myself chills! "

Yes! That's a better way of putting it! :-)

Whitney wrote: "Their suffering is as meaningless as their partying. None of it seems to serve any purpose outside of narcissism."

He lost me at "weed" -_-

There is a definite connection between the stories, but my reading of the Castro story was less about was or resistance, but just the general tragedies that act as intermissions in our lives, personified.

How I would love to live in a world where my time spent feeling like shit because of weird occurrences that drop out the sky was not only regimented but in a proportion of 1/10! Where I knew not only what was going to happen, but when? I think the chaos of real life is much more horrific than Enysbourg- many more douchebags as well! :p

Leo wrote: "Ruby wrote: "Good point about the difference between "peace" and "not fighting". The hedonism isn't really "peace' because it brings with it the knowledge of suffering ahead and behind. Brrrr. Jus..."

Well. That's... heartening. :)

Do we think there's a reason it's called "Enysbourg"? Like - this could be anywhere on Earth. And maybe it already is?

Ruby wrote: "Well. That's... heartening. :)"

Hah! Srsly Roobs, I would take a zombie d*ck for my loved ones.

Also that sounds like a good theory for the name of the place :) in which case if it's already on Earth I hope nobody calls me on the zombie d*ck...

Ruby wrote: "Do we think there's a reason it's called "Enysbourg"? Like - this could be anywhere on Earth. And maybe it already is?
..."

Yeah, I thought the name was way too on the nose. It's representative of issues I've had with other Adam Troy Castro stories. His main intent comes across as "writing an allegory about this or that", with the actual story sometimes getting shoehorned into the needs of the allegory.

I'm sorry, I'm still stuck on "zombie dick". Wait. Let me rephrase that..

Hahaha! It was a cool story though :) have you guys read other stories of his? Any recommendations?

I think I may have come across another of his stories on Pseudopod, but it's been about a year since I listened to any podcasts. My memories are hazy!

The two I remember were "The Totals", on Nightmare Magazine, and "The Thing About Shapes to Come" on Lightspeed Magazine (both podcasts). I recommend the first one. The second one you should listen to so we can discuss :-)

Gonna listen now! :)