As a disabled person, this story has always stood out to me as a critique of social darwinism, which seems to have been reframed recently in modern American individualism. This idea, that the suffering of some is acceptable, that they somehow MUST be in that situation, that their suffering is inevitable, that there's nothing to be done, is something that I've seen reflected in my own life's fight for understanding and necessary accommodations. I would walk away.
when you think about the suffering in the world today you realize that the sentiment behind Omelas is all too real. the phone I type this from contains coltan and cobalt that could very well have been mined by children in the DRC. our so-called developed country gorging itself on the fruits of modern day slavery.
I knew Ursula Le Guin would be featured on this channel eventually! She's one of my favorite writers. Hope there's an accompanying analysis video for this short story soon! 💛
@@TwisterTornado i feel like every time i see you in the comments you are projecting some hurtful sentiment? like, under kaz rowe's lord byron video, you seemed equally wrought with directionless rage that you let loose upon strangers. does it ever make you happy? does the anger go away for a little bit?
The only tales by candlelight I didn't make it through. I think this story is very thought provoking for those who haven't experienced being The Child. but for those of us who have been The Child, this story is a magnifying glass in front of a mirror for us to pick at the wounds of our suffering with. Waiting for enough people to walk away from Omelas that they stop making up reasons for us to suffer in the dark is a depressing feeling indeed. But this story is also a reminder that despite all the privileges granted to those who ignore us, there will always be someone who sees us... and maybe one day they'll be able to free us too on their way out.
Oh, and my Stephen accuses my Jeremy of one more thing: he asks him, "So, what would you do with the kid?" and Jeremy says, "I'd pick them up and carry them out of the city with me." Stephen says, "Oh, what a PERFECT answer, but what about everyone else, dumbass?" And Jeremy says, "If you can't find happiness without some kind of evil magic working for you, or against you, really, then what are you even doing? Grab the kid and run."
Ohhhhh I can’t wait for the analysis! This is the first time I’ve finished the story, but I’ve been aware of the central mystery and liberal discussion of the story. IMO attempts to “solve” Omelas, save the child and such, are missing the point. The point of the story is guilt. The narrator pointedly says in about the midpoint of the story “there is no guilt in omelas” and I would argue that is the more interesting question. It is unknown what happens to the people who leave, so it’s an open question what they end up doing with their guilt. Attempts to solve Omelas are attempts to assuage/absolve guilt, avoiding the central conflict. I think she meant for us to sit with the idea of guilt and think more about the parts of our life that are built on the misery of others. I also found it fascinating that the only entities with agency and action are the inanimate objects. Can’t wait to hear your more in depth thoughts and research to really get the neurons firing!
I remember the first time I read this story, a friend recommended it because they wanted to discuss it. Honestly, it is such a perfect rorschach test of a story for a state of mind and a view on society. To me the cruelty was unjustified, rooted in superstition, and to my friend it was innate in the system, there is always a contrast of those who have it good and those who have it bad.
You are a wonderful reader. Thank you. I didn't know this story though I am a big fan of LeGuin. There are so many layers to this. Must we be evil to be happy? Why is it so easy for us to justify our bad behavior? Does sharing the burden of evil lighten the load? Why are we so frightened of that which is different? And, you're going to do an analysis? Yay.
I struggle with Omelas. As a child, I witnessed and experienced restraint and seclusion, the school practice of locking a (almost always disabled) child in an empty closet, about the size described by Le Guin, with tile floors and padded walls (the ones at my school had bite marks in them), for hours at a time, for any perceived slight or noncompliance. I don't remember the time well-- I dissociated, as is a common reaction to such circumstances. Ursula Le Guin imagines a city free of slaves, kings, and capitalism, free of puritanical ideas around sex and drugs, free of guilt. Maybe she would say her city is free of sexism, too, and racism, and homophobia and transphobia. But it can't be a city free of ableism/disablism. She writes, "But as time goes on they begin to realize that even if the child could be released, it would not get much good of its freedom: a little vague pleasure of warmth and food, no real doubt, but little more. It is too degraded and imbecile to know any real joy. It has been afraid too long ever to be free of fear. Its habits are too uncouth for it to respond to humane treatment. Indeed, after so long it would probably be wretched without walls about it to protect it, and darkness for its eyes, and its own excrement to sit in." Those words are founded on the belief that disabled people are inferior to able people, that the joy of the 'degraded and imbecile' could never equal the joy of "normal" people. Maybe you can imagine some ramps for wheelchairs in Omelas (though of course no other disabled people are described in the story), but you can't expect them to view the 'feebleminded' as equal, can you? She didn't have to write that. She didn't have to describe the child as mentally disabled for the story to work. She could have written sentences about valuing the good of many lives over the possible good of one, about how it is likely the child would be angry and that anger might never heal, about any number of other justifications the citizens would tell themselves. But it seems she couldn't imagine a world without the bigotry of ableism. I read Omelas, as an Autistic woman who was abused, and I know I'm supposed to forgive that. I know that to everyone everyone else, the paragraph of questioning whether or not someone who is 'imbecile' and abused could ever really feel joy again and if that joy would be worth anything, is somehow not about disability at all. I'm not supposed to wonder bitterly how the people of Omelas even can quantify the intelligence of a being that they never speak to or interact with, or why it is so important that narrative stresses, repeatedly, the disgustingness and stupidity of this imagined child. I'm supposed to think about my complicity in systems of oppression, not about disability and how people excuse the abuse of people like me. I know how I'm supposed to read this. I'm not stupid. I just can't, for the life of me, read it without reading the threat in there, too.
As another autistic woman who suffered at the hands of an ableist system, I'm with you 100%. A "perfect" civilization that justifies the suffering of someone whom they consider to be "less than" is not perfect at all. Maybe, if someone helped the child, Omelas would crumble. And maybe, speaking as someone who has BEEN that child, Omelas deserves to fall to dust.
i agree that omelas is clearly not perfect and built on a foundation of ablism, but also i find it hard to believe that was put in there by accident. that le guin tried to make a perfect society but whoops! some ablism got mixed in too. i do think this is a story ABOUT ablism and prejudice or maybe even more generally what we use to justify ones prioririzing ones life over another. i definately dont think u should be expected to forgive the people of omelas. the passage u quoted is the most impactful part for me, everything else about omelas is airy and vague and imagined but that part is chillingly grounded in reality and real ablism, and i like to think thats the point of the story.
@@dinoanarchy1877 I agree. The degrading description of the child seemed very intentional to me. Not because viewing them as mentally disabled or somehow "less than" actually justifies their treatment, but because the citizens are trying so hard to rationalize it. It didn't read to me as accidental or careless ableism, but a representation of how cognitive dissonance can twist people's minds. It also shows that any utopia will inevitably exclude some people. This shines through in the fact that we're all encouraged to imagine Omelas differently. Some might say there are no disabilities in Omelas, but isn't that ableist in and of itself? All in all, I think this story invites us to examine who is and isn't included in our idea of utopia.
My interpretation was they ended their lives..as life itself is not that unlike this story and every happiness and contentment is dependent upon the suffering of another, whether directly or indirectly. Those who think it not worth the pain themselves or others endure..really only have one option, as there is no other world to escape to.
This is bar far my favourite channel on youtube, i love the way you read - your tone and cadence always suits the emotion and vibe of the scenes perfectly. I already know this story, but i didnt know many of the other stories you have read, and am so thankful i was introduced to them through you. I'm so looking forward to your analysis of this story!!
There is a... Is the child necessary? Can we not believe in the City of Omelas in joy without such cruel inhumanity. What happens if we accept Omelas without the cruelty. Is that the walking away?
In the book I'm writing, I DO incorporate this as a key text. I don't write the full thing out, obviously, because copyright, but the commune in which my hero Jeremy lives is stuffed to the gills with this kind of philosophy. The Shole--my commune--is similar to ?Omelas in some ways: they have singularly few hard-and-fast laws ("no theft, no waste, no violence"), with plenty of wiggle room and mental health help for people who can't help it, at least at first. They are not EXACTLY into "free love," but you can of course be poly without anyone judging you. Jeremy for example is VERY openly bisexual, and his on-again-off-again boyfriend, who is also his best friend, would go at it with him more-or-less in public when they were both younger. The INSTANT Jeremy turned 18 and Austen was still 17, though, it was hands-off territory. They are also alike in that they simply celebrate being alive, and I even throw certain elements of "Brave New World" in there, too: everyone works for everyone else. When one of my MCs, though, Victoria, asks Jeremy, "Well, does everyone BELONG to everyone else, too?", since she's read "Brave New World," he says to her, "No, dear, this isn't a dystopia." Her younger brother, Stephen, is my antihero, and he sits down alone with the text and reads the whole thing, and then accuses Jeremy, "So, is this why you're so strong and happy and PERFECT? Because of living like this?", and Jeremy tells him, "No, the opposite, actually. We're not perfect, but we do at least know that we can't afford sacrifices like that." Stephen is LIVID with jealousy of Jeremy and how popular the guy is. And this whole situation surrounding a girl they're both interested in, who used to date Jeremy but broke it off with him. Le Guin was also a Communist, eh, so she understood that NO ONE deserves to have their life laid down at the feet of another's happiness. It's wrong. It's also one of MANY reasons why, after leaving Catholicism, I STAYED gone. Can you tell I love this story? And it's f*cking horrifying. You're a very good reader, putting the irony where it should be. Nicely done.
I don't know how I feel about trigger warnings now that I realize they can be spoilers. I'm gonna need LeGuin to write up a narrative about it so I can sort out my feelings
As a disabled person, this story has always stood out to me as a critique of social darwinism, which seems to have been reframed recently in modern American individualism. This idea, that the suffering of some is acceptable, that they somehow MUST be in that situation, that their suffering is inevitable, that there's nothing to be done, is something that I've seen reflected in my own life's fight for understanding and necessary accommodations.
I would walk away.
when you think about the suffering in the world today you realize that the sentiment behind Omelas is all too real. the phone I type this from contains coltan and cobalt that could very well have been mined by children in the DRC. our so-called developed country gorging itself on the fruits of modern day slavery.
Reading this story in high school was the first time I really understood that writing could change someone.
Beautifully done.
I knew Ursula Le Guin would be featured on this channel eventually! She's one of my favorite writers. Hope there's an accompanying analysis video for this short story soon! 💛
As a survivor of horrific childhood trauma and abuse, this story haunts me.
I would walk away.
@@TwisterTornado i feel like every time i see you in the comments you are projecting some hurtful sentiment? like, under kaz rowe's lord byron video, you seemed equally wrought with directionless rage that you let loose upon strangers. does it ever make you happy? does the anger go away for a little bit?
@TwisterTornado
But why, When someone tells you they have suffered abuse, are you somehow blaming them for not having done enough?
The only tales by candlelight I didn't make it through. I think this story is very thought provoking for those who haven't experienced being The Child. but for those of us who have been The Child, this story is a magnifying glass in front of a mirror for us to pick at the wounds of our suffering with.
Waiting for enough people to walk away from Omelas that they stop making up reasons for us to suffer in the dark is a depressing feeling indeed. But this story is also a reminder that despite all the privileges granted to those who ignore us, there will always be someone who sees us... and maybe one day they'll be able to free us too on their way out.
Oh, and my Stephen accuses my Jeremy of one more thing: he asks him, "So, what would you do with the kid?" and Jeremy says, "I'd pick them up and carry them out of the city with me." Stephen says, "Oh, what a PERFECT answer, but what about everyone else, dumbass?" And Jeremy says, "If you can't find happiness without some kind of evil magic working for you, or against you, really, then what are you even doing? Grab the kid and run."
Ohhhhh I can’t wait for the analysis! This is the first time I’ve finished the story, but I’ve been aware of the central mystery and liberal discussion of the story. IMO attempts to “solve” Omelas, save the child and such, are missing the point. The point of the story is guilt. The narrator pointedly says in about the midpoint of the story “there is no guilt in omelas” and I would argue that is the more interesting question. It is unknown what happens to the people who leave, so it’s an open question what they end up doing with their guilt. Attempts to solve Omelas are attempts to assuage/absolve guilt, avoiding the central conflict. I think she meant for us to sit with the idea of guilt and think more about the parts of our life that are built on the misery of others.
I also found it fascinating that the only entities with agency and action are the inanimate objects.
Can’t wait to hear your more in depth thoughts and research to really get the neurons firing!
I remember the first time I read this story, a friend recommended it because they wanted to discuss it.
Honestly, it is such a perfect rorschach test of a story for a state of mind and a view on society.
To me the cruelty was unjustified, rooted in superstition, and to my friend it was innate in the system, there is always a contrast of those who have it good and those who have it bad.
You are a wonderful reader. Thank you. I didn't know this story though I am a big fan of LeGuin. There are so many layers to this. Must we be evil to be happy? Why is it so easy for us to justify our bad behavior? Does sharing the burden of evil lighten the load? Why are we so frightened of that which is different? And, you're going to do an analysis? Yay.
Thank you for introducing me to this short story! That was chilling.
Truly one of the most magnificent stories ever written.
I got so excited when I saw my favorite video essayist post about my favorite short story ever!! Thank you for doing this one!!
I struggle with Omelas.
As a child, I witnessed and experienced restraint and seclusion, the school practice of locking a (almost always disabled) child in an empty closet, about the size described by Le Guin, with tile floors and padded walls (the ones at my school had bite marks in them), for hours at a time, for any perceived slight or noncompliance. I don't remember the time well-- I dissociated, as is a common reaction to such circumstances.
Ursula Le Guin imagines a city free of slaves, kings, and capitalism, free of puritanical ideas around sex and drugs, free of guilt. Maybe she would say her city is free of sexism, too, and racism, and homophobia and transphobia. But it can't be a city free of ableism/disablism. She writes, "But as time goes on they begin to realize that even if the child could be released, it would not get much good of its freedom: a little vague pleasure of warmth and food, no real doubt, but little more. It is too degraded and imbecile to know any real joy. It has been afraid too long ever to be free of fear. Its habits are too uncouth for it to respond to humane treatment. Indeed, after so long it would probably be wretched without walls about it to protect it, and darkness for its eyes, and its own excrement to sit in." Those words are founded on the belief that disabled people are inferior to able people, that the joy of the 'degraded and imbecile' could never equal the joy of "normal" people. Maybe you can imagine some ramps for wheelchairs in Omelas (though of course no other disabled people are described in the story), but you can't expect them to view the 'feebleminded' as equal, can you?
She didn't have to write that. She didn't have to describe the child as mentally disabled for the story to work. She could have written sentences about valuing the good of many lives over the possible good of one, about how it is likely the child would be angry and that anger might never heal, about any number of other justifications the citizens would tell themselves. But it seems she couldn't imagine a world without the bigotry of ableism.
I read Omelas, as an Autistic woman who was abused, and I know I'm supposed to forgive that. I know that to everyone everyone else, the paragraph of questioning whether or not someone who is 'imbecile' and abused could ever really feel joy again and if that joy would be worth anything, is somehow not about disability at all. I'm not supposed to wonder bitterly how the people of Omelas even can quantify the intelligence of a being that they never speak to or interact with, or why it is so important that narrative stresses, repeatedly, the disgustingness and stupidity of this imagined child. I'm supposed to think about my complicity in systems of oppression, not about disability and how people excuse the abuse of people like me.
I know how I'm supposed to read this.
I'm not stupid.
I just can't, for the life of me, read it without reading the threat in there, too.
As another autistic woman who suffered at the hands of an ableist system, I'm with you 100%. A "perfect" civilization that justifies the suffering of someone whom they consider to be "less than" is not perfect at all. Maybe, if someone helped the child, Omelas would crumble. And maybe, speaking as someone who has BEEN that child, Omelas deserves to fall to dust.
i agree that omelas is clearly not perfect and built on a foundation of ablism, but also i find it hard to believe that was put in there by accident. that le guin tried to make a perfect society but whoops! some ablism got mixed in too. i do think this is a story ABOUT ablism and prejudice or maybe even more generally what we use to justify ones prioririzing ones life over another. i definately dont think u should be expected to forgive the people of omelas. the passage u quoted is the most impactful part for me, everything else about omelas is airy and vague and imagined but that part is chillingly grounded in reality and real ablism, and i like to think thats the point of the story.
@@dinoanarchy1877 I agree. The degrading description of the child seemed very intentional to me. Not because viewing them as mentally disabled or somehow "less than" actually justifies their treatment, but because the citizens are trying so hard to rationalize it. It didn't read to me as accidental or careless ableism, but a representation of how cognitive dissonance can twist people's minds. It also shows that any utopia will inevitably exclude some people. This shines through in the fact that we're all encouraged to imagine Omelas differently. Some might say there are no disabilities in Omelas, but isn't that ableist in and of itself? All in all, I think this story invites us to examine who is and isn't included in our idea of utopia.
What a chilling story! I wonder what happened to those who walked away from Omelas
My interpretation was they ended their lives..as life itself is not that unlike this story and every happiness and contentment is dependent upon the suffering of another, whether directly or indirectly.
Those who think it not worth the pain themselves or others endure..really only have one option, as there is no other world to escape to.
You can't. We never can. Our happiness is always contingent upon the suffering of others.
@@tazandalsoalastname youre wrong, good job being the type of person to fall for omelas' all-or-nothing propaganda tho
@@aricheec7722 I didn't say we can't work to better our society, I just said that we can't escape society.
This is bar far my favourite channel on youtube, i love the way you read - your tone and cadence always suits the emotion and vibe of the scenes perfectly. I already know this story, but i didnt know many of the other stories you have read, and am so thankful i was introduced to them through you. I'm so looking forward to your analysis of this story!!
Wow, thank you for exposing me to a story I would have never heard otherwise. I love this channel
that story was so profound I feel so utterly taken aback. Thank you for this confrontation.
There is a...
Is the child necessary? Can we not believe in the City of Omelas in joy without such cruel inhumanity.
What happens if we accept Omelas without the cruelty. Is that the walking away?
Watching this again instead of just reading the story because of your phenomenal presentation.
Thank you!
A story that I love, but can't help but weep terribly every time I read or hear it.
Oh dear. Buckling in for this one.
Thank you for this beautiful reading
Such a provocative story.
Beautifully read! What a powerful story. ❤
Definitely food for thought 🤔
One of my favorite stories! Thanks for this video!
gonna be thinking about that for a while...
I think about this story at least once a week since I first read it in 2003
Excellent thank you 👍
Love your channel so much, I plan on becoming a patron soon ❤ you deserve all the success and support
great story.
Watching the precariously positioned on pillow🕯
Shirley Jackson-esque.
LETS GOOOOOOOOO
In the book I'm writing, I DO incorporate this as a key text. I don't write the full thing out, obviously, because copyright, but the commune in which my hero Jeremy lives is stuffed to the gills with this kind of philosophy. The Shole--my commune--is similar to ?Omelas in some ways: they have singularly few hard-and-fast laws ("no theft, no waste, no violence"), with plenty of wiggle room and mental health help for people who can't help it, at least at first. They are not EXACTLY into "free love," but you can of course be poly without anyone judging you. Jeremy for example is VERY openly bisexual, and his on-again-off-again boyfriend, who is also his best friend, would go at it with him more-or-less in public when they were both younger. The INSTANT Jeremy turned 18 and Austen was still 17, though, it was hands-off territory. They are also alike in that they simply celebrate being alive, and I even throw certain elements of "Brave New World" in there, too: everyone works for everyone else. When one of my MCs, though, Victoria, asks Jeremy, "Well, does everyone BELONG to everyone else, too?", since she's read "Brave New World," he says to her, "No, dear, this isn't a dystopia." Her younger brother, Stephen, is my antihero, and he sits down alone with the text and reads the whole thing, and then accuses Jeremy, "So, is this why you're so strong and happy and PERFECT? Because of living like this?", and Jeremy tells him, "No, the opposite, actually. We're not perfect, but we do at least know that we can't afford sacrifices like that." Stephen is LIVID with jealousy of Jeremy and how popular the guy is. And this whole situation surrounding a girl they're both interested in, who used to date Jeremy but broke it off with him. Le Guin was also a Communist, eh, so she understood that NO ONE deserves to have their life laid down at the feet of another's happiness. It's wrong. It's also one of MANY reasons why, after leaving Catholicism, I STAYED gone. Can you tell I love this story? And it's f*cking horrifying. You're a very good reader, putting the irony where it should be. Nicely done.
I don't know how I feel about trigger warnings now that I realize they can be spoilers.
I'm gonna need LeGuin to write up a narrative about it so I can sort out my feelings