With respect, I think you are slightly mistaken in your
conclusions about this story. You are right in thinking that there are two groups of
characters that are presented: those who stay, and those who decide to walk away from
Omelas, the obvious subject of the story as indicated by the title. Yet, it is clear
that they do not choose to leave because of any problem with class. It is made clear
that those who choose to leave are not from any specific social grouping. Rather, those
who leave appear to be reacting to a gut response that protests against the treatment of
the child who is the source of the happiness of Omelas. This story is therefore not much
about class. Rather, in this story the author is presenting us with an extreme moral
dilemma. Is happiness for the many justified by extreme suffering and punishment for one
individual? Note how the text posits this conundrum:
If the child were brought up into the sunlight
out of the vile place, if it were cleaned and fed and comforted, that would be a good
thing, indeed; but if it were done, in that day and hour all the propserity and beauty
and delight of Omelas would wither and be
destroyed.
Thus the two
groups of characters who are referred to are those who hide and ignore there feelings of
injustice and focus on "the greater good," and those who just are unable to accept such
a Faustian pact, and are compelled, by moral forces beyond their control, to leave the
city as an act of protest, in search of a better world which tries to attain happiness
for all, rather than happiness for most at the expense of the
one.
No comments:
Post a Comment