Is the suffering of one justified by the happiness of others? “In the Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas” we see a commentary on our society. We see how the world that is built upon the suffering of others. Most of us students in college are born within the protective bubble that our parent’s prosperity pays for. As we become older we begin to see the evil that exist in our society like the city everyone understands that “their happiness, the beauty of their city, the tenderness of their friendships, the health of their children, the wisdom of their scholars, the skill of their makers, even the abundance of their harvest and the kindly weathers of their skies depends wholly on this child’s abominable misery.” (MR 374) Some of us will refuse to take part in the system and leave like those in Omelas. Where we go will be unsafe without the benefits of the society. Shane Claiborne is like the people who walked away from Omelas. He lives his life without the support of a society that takes advantage of those around them. He decides to go to the streets where the homeless live. These people live lives much like that of the child. Like the child the kid lives in an environment that is oppressive. They are also neglected by society and those people who see them refuse to heed their call. The people around them sympathize those around them but they refuse to give up their status to help them. Shane Claiborne after spending time with the homeless decided that the way to help them was not to play a part of society that perpetually takes advantage of them. He cannot justify his life by the results that he sees. A question that we should seriously ask ourselves is our happiness worth the suffering of another person. Word 310
I do believe I am obliged to relate Ursula K. Le Guin's "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas" to Book VIII of Plato's Republic. Much like those who were chained together in the cave, the citizens of Omelas live a life of what appears to be ignorance. However, the citizens are more like those who have been unchained. There is a child bound, abused, and malnourished hidden away in a basement (Mercer Reader 373). One might assume that this child is a secret, but on the contrary, the child is known by each citizen at the age of puberty (8 years to 12 years of age) (374). This, I do believe, is the equivalent of being thrust out into the open light out of the cave (Plato 515E). The children are shown the truth of the situation, and many "feel disgust...feel anger, outrage, impotence" (MR 374), which are emotions quite equal to that of the one dragged out of the cave. They learn the futility of saving the sacrifice. It would be (what the author considers) impossible to integrate the sacrifice back into society, for it has known the mops in its cage longer than it has known other humans. They learn to look at life in a more broad sense, since they have witnessed the worst conditions of existence. It is here that the children must make a choice; they must either accept the consequences of the sacrifice, and continue to live their lives fruitfully, or they are to leave Omelas (375). Now, the latter is something the author states is "quite incredible" (375). One can assume this is because she thinks it dishonorable to have such close-mindedness as to leave in exile. More likely, however, she finds it interesting that they would have the drive to leave all they have known, and all those they loved, behind because they are searching for something. Many things can be extrapolated as to the meaning behind their departure, but it is far more powerful that "they seem to know where they are going" (375) when so many do not know what they will be doing next. {356}
How many would be willing to live in Omelas after learning the secret? Do any of the citizens truly know what they are doing?
How can the citizens of Omelas simply be content with their lives, knowing that there is someone in their very midst that is less fortunate than them?
What would come of the town and its citizens if the child was to be released and cared for?
One of the main ideas within The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas is the idea of suffering. Despite the people of Omelas having the knowledge that there is a child who is contained in a cell beneath their feet, they simply go on with their lives. Some, however, are different. Upon seeing the child, some are determined to leave Omelas, never to return again (Mercer Reader 375). Something as frightening as the deformed child is enough to cause some to leave their “city of happiness” (375). The others that stay are perhaps fueled by another belief. They might justify their unwillingness to help the child by believing the child is so beyond being “normal”, that releasing it from its prison would do little to help it (374). How can one who has known suffering all their life even begin to try to coexist with the others that inhabit the world? If the child was to be released, it would be no better off than it was when it was in the cellar (374). Such an effort is not justified in the eyes of the Omelas citizens. The townspeople know that there is little they can do, so they are merely content to let the child suffer (374). A similar idea is explored in Claiborne’s novel. Claiborne spends time with the homeless, trying to better their lives in any way he can. However, he knows that by doing this, there is no way poverty and homelessness will simply vanish from the face of the Earth. Claiborne could have simply let the homeless suffer, but he stepped in and helped them the best he could. His actions are different than those found in Omelas, but the idea that suffering cannot be solved within a short period of time is present within both readings. (Word Count 348).
Darlene Moua As Martin Luther King, Jr. puts it, “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere” (King 376). This statement is a reflection on the characters in “The Ones Who Walk away from Omelas.” In the beginning, the story started out with the joyous and wonderful things that the city had to offer. The story started out with descriptions of “bells that set the swallows soaring, the Festival of Summer came to the City of Omelas” (Guin 370). From then on, the author develops the characters and the town more. The people there were “simple folk, you see, though they were happy” (Guin 370). Although the town seems to be happy and simple, “in a basement under one of the beautiful public buildings of Omelas,” where “the floor is dirt, a little damp to the touch, as cellar dirt usually is” is “a child sitting” who is “nearly ten” (Guin 370). The gender of the child is unknown, but what the author does describe is the child being afraid of “mops” (Guin 373). There are times when people come in and kick the child, but majority of the time, “the door stays lock” (Guin 373). Although there are people who know that this happens, they refuse to do anything. Instead, “these people go out into the street, and walk down the street alone. They keep walking, and walk straight out of the city of Omelas through the beautiful gates” (Guin 375). This is a reflection of MLK’s statement when he says that justice will never happen as long as there is injustice in the world. In “The Ones Who Walk away from Omelas,” the people who walk away are the ones that are responsible for the injustices in their society. Although there are people who believe that this child is the main reason for the discomfort and the suffrage in society, there is no proof. This child is being torture because of other’s beliefs. This shows that religious views are permanent once someone is convinced that something is true. The person who convinces the town that the child is the main reason for the suffrage because of his/ her strong religious beliefs reminds me of Otsu from “Deep River.” Despite the negative things that people say to Otsu, he sticks to his religious beliefs. “The Ones Who Walk away from Omelas” is a reflection of both of these stories.
#17 The Ones Who Walk Away from the Omelas Is Le Guin trying to say that even in a seemingly perfect society evil still exists? What happens to those that walk away from the Omelas? In the beginning of this piece, it seems that Ursula K. Le Guin is illustrating a Utopian society. Everyone is happy and lives in peace without “rules and laws” and without “monarchy and slavery, so they also got on without the stock exchange, the advertisement, the secret police, and the bomb” (Mercer Reader 371). They live without all of the modern vises that hold us today in society that makes us “[consider] happiness as something rather stupid. Only pain is intellectual, only evil interesting” (371). To us, the only thing that captures out attention is evil and pain, we never take the time to be happy and free. At face value, the city of the Omelas seems perfect, full of “boundless and generous contentment, a magnanimous triumph felt not against some outer enemy but in communion with the finest and fairest in the souls of all men everywhere and the splendor of the world’s summer” (372). Upon closer examination however, tucked away out of sight out of mind for the Omelas is the reason they are able to have this perfect Utopian society, one poor, innocent child forced to live a life of isolation, despair, malnutrition, and lack of love. Under “one of the beautiful public buildings of Omelas” lives this poor wretched creature that is “feeble-minded. Perhaps it was born defective, or perhaps it has become imbecile through fear; malnutrition, and neglect” (373). Every citizen of the Omelas must come see this poor creature and understand that it must happen in order for them to have their beautiful, “perfect” society, there must be this one instance of injustice. Everyone understands that “their happiness, the beauty of their city, the tenderness of their friendships, the health of their children, the wisdom of their scholars, the skill of their makers, even the abundance of their harvest and the kindly weathers of their skies, depend wholly on this child’s abominable misery” (374). Le Guin is trying to illustrate that even in the most seemingly perfect society there has to be injustice. Injustice is everywhere no matter what.
How is this works view of injustice similar to that of Milgram’s work “The Perils of Injustice”?
In the work “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas”, by Ursula Le Guin, the City of Omelas is described to be a town filled with happiness and joy without any kind of fear or sadness. The city itself is described as almost like a fairy tale with no visible flaws or evidence of wrongdoing or injustice. However, Le Guin describes a room within the basement of one of the most beautiful buildings in the city that houses a young child who is cut-off from the outside world. Le Guin writes, “It could be a boy or a girl. It looks about six, but actually is nearly ten. It is feeble-minded. Perhaps it was born defective, or perhaps it has become imbecile through fear, malnutrition, and neglect” (Le Guin 372). The child is kept locked in this room at all times, and when others come in to see him they simply beat or mistreat him. This act of injustice is “justified” by the townspeople’s belief that their own happiness and prosperity can only be attained if the child is kept locked in the room. Le Guin writes, “They all understand that their happiness, the beauty of their city, the tenderness of their friendships, the health of their children, the wisdom of their scholars, the skill of their makers, even the abundance of their harvest and the kindly weather of their skies, depend wholly on this child’s abominable misery” (Le Guin 374). Although most of the townspeople have bought into this idea, there are the few who do not stand for this injustice that leave the city. This particular work on injustice is similar to that of “The Perils of Obedience”, by Stanley Milgram”, in which a vast majority of the people in the work succumb to hurting others only because they believe that their actions are justified because they are told to do so by a superior. This is similar to what the people in Omelas are doing because they believe that since they are not directly hurting or punishing the child they are not actually responsible for the acts of injustice that are committed.
Why would Ursula create a Utopia such as Omelas in the first place? Why do the citizens not conform and sacrifice their happiness for a new one? She speaks of a Utopia which supports itself without the use of slavery, “…secret police and the bomb”(Mercer Reader 371) Ursula describes happiness as “ a just discrimination of what is necessary, what is neither necessary nor destructive, and what is destructive” (371)but this happiness is a bliss that cannot be accepted in modern day religion. She mentions that orgy should be the main activity in their church. Obviously, there are all lost in their own “realm of spiritual darkness” She goes on to say it “would be better not to have any temples in Omelas” (372). But then she describes a child neglected in a damp storage room. This child which “has to be there”(374) is the missing link to this utopia, perhaps the innocent common sense which spoke out and wondered if it was right not to have religion nor rules. Alienated from this society and its mother it grows lonely and can only succumb to joining the majority by crying out “Please let me out. I will be good!”(373). Ursula says, “Some of them understand why, and some do not, but they all understand that their happiness, the beauty of their city, the tenderness of their friendships, the health of their children, the wisdom of theirs scholars, the skill of their makers, even the abundance of their harvest…depend wholly on this child’s abominable misery” (374). In comparison to Deep River, Otsu was also ostracized by Mitsuko and most of his schoolmates for believing in the western religion. And though this child suffers, the spectators have made up their mind after “weeks or years” (374) upon seeing its agony, they cannot simply trade the happiness of the multitude to satisfy this one child. They dry their “tears at the bitter injustice…when they begin to perceive the terrible justice of reality, and to accept it”(374). But there are those who cannot dry their tears, there are those who finally realize that they can no longer live in such a society with this hidden injustice, these “are the ones who walk away from Omelas”(375) Word count 371
What is just and right in this scenario? How does this relate to us today?
The first description does seem happy and joyous! I like how she said, “they were not simple people,” implying that the audience thinks that only simple people can be happy (although I’d like to add that it is easier to be happy when life is simple) (Guin 370). She says we think this because “we have a bad habit…of considering happiness as something rather stupid” (371). Instead, she says, “happiness is based on a just discrimination of what is necessary, what is neither necessary nor destructive, and what is destructive” (371). If only it were that easy! Based on that definition then, what about the child held hostage in a small space in the dark basement? She states that it is necessary that the child remain in misery there for the full happiness, beauty, tenderness, health, wisdom, skill, and abundance of the rest of Omelas (374). Yet, isn’t is also destructive at the same time, almost to point where some doubt that the child “is too degraded and imbecile to know real joy” (374)? Isn’t the point of that definition of happiness to do what is necessary, avoid what is destructive and everything else in between doesn’t matter? What about those things that are, like in this scenario, both necessary and destructive? I think that is her point, although subtle. Every once in a while, one person will see the child and “fall silent for a day or two, and then leave home” (375). I think she is trying to say that most of us are like the ones in the situation that “go home in tears or in a tearless rage,” and then rationalize the child being in that condition in a utilitarian sense is bettering the community for a small price. However, it is a rare person that truly takes to heart what that one suffering child means and that his/her well-being is worth slightly lowering the elevated status of the rest of Omelas. The world needs more of “the ones who walk away from Omelas” (375).
Is the suffering of one justified by the happiness of others?
ReplyDelete“In the Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas” we see a commentary on our society. We see how the world that is built upon the suffering of others. Most of us students in college are born within the protective bubble that our parent’s prosperity pays for. As we become older we begin to see the evil that exist in our society like the city everyone understands that “their happiness, the beauty of their city, the tenderness of their friendships, the health of their children, the wisdom of their scholars, the skill of their makers, even the abundance of their harvest and the kindly weathers of their skies depends wholly on this child’s abominable misery.” (MR 374) Some of us will refuse to take part in the system and leave like those in Omelas. Where we go will be unsafe without the benefits of the society.
Shane Claiborne is like the people who walked away from Omelas. He lives his life without the support of a society that takes advantage of those around them. He decides to go to the streets where the homeless live. These people live lives much like that of the child. Like the child the kid lives in an environment that is oppressive. They are also neglected by society and those people who see them refuse to heed their call. The people around them sympathize those around them but they refuse to give up their status to help them. Shane Claiborne after spending time with the homeless decided that the way to help them was not to play a part of society that perpetually takes advantage of them. He cannot justify his life by the results that he sees. A question that we should seriously ask ourselves is our happiness worth the suffering of another person.
Word 310
I do believe I am obliged to relate Ursula K. Le Guin's "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas" to Book VIII of Plato's Republic. Much like those who were chained together in the cave, the citizens of Omelas live a life of what appears to be ignorance. However, the citizens are more like those who have been unchained. There is a child bound, abused, and malnourished hidden away in a basement (Mercer Reader 373). One might assume that this child is a secret, but on the contrary, the child is known by each citizen at the age of puberty (8 years to 12 years of age) (374). This, I do believe, is the equivalent of being thrust out into the open light out of the cave (Plato 515E). The children are shown the truth of the situation, and many "feel disgust...feel anger, outrage, impotence" (MR 374), which are emotions quite equal to that of the one dragged out of the cave. They learn the futility of saving the sacrifice. It would be (what the author considers) impossible to integrate the sacrifice back into society, for it has known the mops in its cage longer than it has known other humans. They learn to look at life in a more broad sense, since they have witnessed the worst conditions of existence. It is here that the children must make a choice; they must either accept the consequences of the sacrifice, and continue to live their lives fruitfully, or they are to leave Omelas (375). Now, the latter is something the author states is "quite incredible" (375). One can assume this is because she thinks it dishonorable to have such close-mindedness as to leave in exile. More likely, however, she finds it interesting that they would have the drive to leave all they have known, and all those they loved, behind because they are searching for something. Many things can be extrapolated as to the meaning behind their departure, but it is far more powerful that "they seem to know where they are going" (375) when so many do not know what they will be doing next.
ReplyDelete{356}
How many would be willing to live in Omelas after learning the secret?
Do any of the citizens truly know what they are doing?
How can the citizens of Omelas simply be content with their lives, knowing that there is someone in their very midst that is less fortunate than them?
ReplyDeleteWhat would come of the town and its citizens if the child was to be released and cared for?
One of the main ideas within The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas is the idea of suffering. Despite the people of Omelas having the knowledge that there is a child who is contained in a cell beneath their feet, they simply go on with their lives. Some, however, are different. Upon seeing the child, some are determined to leave Omelas, never to return again (Mercer Reader 375). Something as frightening as the deformed child is enough to cause some to leave their “city of happiness” (375). The others that stay are perhaps fueled by another belief. They might justify their unwillingness to help the child by believing the child is so beyond being “normal”, that releasing it from its prison would do little to help it (374). How can one who has known suffering all their life even begin to try to coexist with the others that inhabit the world? If the child was to be released, it would be no better off than it was when it was in the cellar (374). Such an effort is not justified in the eyes of the Omelas citizens. The townspeople know that there is little they can do, so they are merely content to let the child suffer (374). A similar idea is explored in Claiborne’s novel. Claiborne spends time with the homeless, trying to better their lives in any way he can. However, he knows that by doing this, there is no way poverty and homelessness will simply vanish from the face of the Earth. Claiborne could have simply let the homeless suffer, but he stepped in and helped them the best he could. His actions are different than those found in Omelas, but the idea that suffering cannot be solved within a short period of time is present within both readings. (Word Count 348).
Darlene Moua
ReplyDeleteAs Martin Luther King, Jr. puts it, “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere” (King 376). This statement is a reflection on the characters in “The Ones Who Walk away from Omelas.” In the beginning, the story started out with the joyous and wonderful things that the city had to offer. The story started out with descriptions of “bells that set the swallows soaring, the Festival of Summer came to the City of Omelas” (Guin 370). From then on, the author develops the characters and the town more. The people there were “simple folk, you see, though they were happy” (Guin 370). Although the town seems to be happy and simple, “in a basement under one of the beautiful public buildings of Omelas,” where “the floor is dirt, a little damp to the touch, as cellar dirt usually is” is “a child sitting” who is “nearly ten” (Guin 370). The gender of the child is unknown, but what the author does describe is the child being afraid of “mops” (Guin 373). There are times when people come in and kick the child, but majority of the time, “the door stays lock” (Guin 373). Although there are people who know that this happens, they refuse to do anything. Instead, “these people go out into the street, and walk down the street alone. They keep walking, and walk straight out of the city of Omelas through the beautiful gates” (Guin 375). This is a reflection of MLK’s statement when he says that justice will never happen as long as there is injustice in the world. In “The Ones Who Walk away from Omelas,” the people who walk away are the ones that are responsible for the injustices in their society. Although there are people who believe that this child is the main reason for the discomfort and the suffrage in society, there is no proof. This child is being torture because of other’s beliefs. This shows that religious views are permanent once someone is convinced that something is true. The person who convinces the town that the child is the main reason for the suffrage because of his/ her strong religious beliefs reminds me of Otsu from “Deep River.” Despite the negative things that people say to Otsu, he sticks to his religious beliefs. “The Ones Who Walk away from Omelas” is a reflection of both of these stories.
#17 The Ones Who Walk Away from the Omelas
ReplyDeleteIs Le Guin trying to say that even in a seemingly perfect society evil still exists?
What happens to those that walk away from the Omelas?
In the beginning of this piece, it seems that Ursula K. Le Guin is illustrating a Utopian society. Everyone is happy and lives in peace without “rules and laws” and without “monarchy and slavery, so they also got on without the stock exchange, the advertisement, the secret police, and the bomb” (Mercer Reader 371). They live without all of the modern vises that hold us today in society that makes us “[consider] happiness as something rather stupid. Only pain is intellectual, only evil interesting” (371). To us, the only thing that captures out attention is evil and pain, we never take the time to be happy and free. At face value, the city of the Omelas seems perfect, full of “boundless and generous contentment, a magnanimous triumph felt not against some outer enemy but in communion with the finest and fairest in the souls of all men everywhere and the splendor of the world’s summer” (372). Upon closer examination however, tucked away out of sight out of mind for the Omelas is the reason they are able to have this perfect Utopian society, one poor, innocent child forced to live a life of isolation, despair, malnutrition, and lack of love. Under “one of the beautiful public buildings of Omelas” lives this poor wretched creature that is “feeble-minded. Perhaps it was born defective, or perhaps it has become imbecile through fear; malnutrition, and neglect” (373). Every citizen of the Omelas must come see this poor creature and understand that it must happen in order for them to have their beautiful, “perfect” society, there must be this one instance of injustice. Everyone understands that “their happiness, the beauty of their city, the tenderness of their friendships, the health of their children, the wisdom of their scholars, the skill of their makers, even the abundance of their harvest and the kindly weathers of their skies, depend wholly on this child’s abominable misery” (374). Le Guin is trying to illustrate that even in the most seemingly perfect society there has to be injustice. Injustice is everywhere no matter what.
Word Count: 380
How is this works view of injustice similar to that of Milgram’s work “The Perils of Injustice”?
ReplyDeleteIn the work “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas”, by Ursula Le Guin, the City of Omelas is described to be a town filled with happiness and joy without any kind of fear or sadness. The city itself is described as almost like a fairy tale with no visible flaws or evidence of wrongdoing or injustice. However, Le Guin describes a room within the basement of one of the most beautiful buildings in the city that houses a young child who is cut-off from the outside world. Le Guin writes, “It could be a boy or a girl. It looks about six, but actually is nearly ten. It is feeble-minded. Perhaps it was born defective, or perhaps it has become imbecile through fear, malnutrition, and neglect” (Le Guin 372). The child is kept locked in this room at all times, and when others come in to see him they simply beat or mistreat him. This act of injustice is “justified” by the townspeople’s belief that their own happiness and prosperity can only be attained if the child is kept locked in the room. Le Guin writes, “They all understand that their happiness, the beauty of their city, the tenderness of their friendships, the health of their children, the wisdom of their scholars, the skill of their makers, even the abundance of their harvest and the kindly weather of their skies, depend wholly on this child’s abominable misery” (Le Guin 374). Although most of the townspeople have bought into this idea, there are the few who do not stand for this injustice that leave the city. This particular work on injustice is similar to that of “The Perils of Obedience”, by Stanley Milgram”, in which a vast majority of the people in the work succumb to hurting others only because they believe that their actions are justified because they are told to do so by a superior. This is similar to what the people in Omelas are doing because they believe that since they are not directly hurting or punishing the child they are not actually responsible for the acts of injustice that are committed.
Word Count: 356
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhy would Ursula create a Utopia such as Omelas in the first place?
ReplyDeleteWhy do the citizens not conform and sacrifice their happiness for a new one?
She speaks of a Utopia which supports itself without the use of slavery, “…secret police and the bomb”(Mercer Reader 371) Ursula describes happiness as “ a just discrimination of what is necessary, what is neither necessary nor destructive, and what is destructive” (371)but this happiness is a bliss that cannot be accepted in modern day religion. She mentions that orgy should be the main activity in their church. Obviously, there are all lost in their own “realm of spiritual darkness” She goes on to say it “would be better not to have any temples in Omelas” (372). But then she describes a child neglected in a damp storage room. This child which “has to be there”(374) is the missing link to this utopia, perhaps the innocent common sense which spoke out and wondered if it was right not to have religion nor rules. Alienated from this society and its mother it grows lonely and can only succumb to joining the majority by crying out “Please let me out. I will be good!”(373). Ursula says, “Some of them understand why, and some do not, but they all understand that their happiness, the beauty of their city, the tenderness of their friendships, the health of their children, the wisdom of theirs scholars, the skill of their makers, even the abundance of their harvest…depend wholly on this child’s abominable misery” (374). In comparison to Deep River, Otsu was also ostracized by Mitsuko and most of his schoolmates for believing in the western religion. And though this child suffers, the spectators have made up their mind after “weeks or years” (374) upon seeing its agony, they cannot simply trade the happiness of the multitude to satisfy this one child. They dry their “tears at the bitter injustice…when they begin to perceive the terrible justice of reality, and to accept it”(374). But there are those who cannot dry their tears, there are those who finally realize that they can no longer live in such a society with this hidden injustice, these “are the ones who walk away from Omelas”(375)
Word count 371
What is just and right in this scenario?
ReplyDeleteHow does this relate to us today?
The first description does seem happy and joyous! I like how she said, “they were not simple people,” implying that the audience thinks that only simple people can be happy (although I’d like to add that it is easier to be happy when life is simple) (Guin 370). She says we think this because “we have a bad habit…of considering happiness as something rather stupid” (371). Instead, she says, “happiness is based on a just discrimination of what is necessary, what is neither necessary nor destructive, and what is destructive” (371). If only it were that easy! Based on that definition then, what about the child held hostage in a small space in the dark basement? She states that it is necessary that the child remain in misery there for the full happiness, beauty, tenderness, health, wisdom, skill, and abundance of the rest of Omelas (374). Yet, isn’t is also destructive at the same time, almost to point where some doubt that the child “is too degraded and imbecile to know real joy” (374)? Isn’t the point of that definition of happiness to do what is necessary, avoid what is destructive and everything else in between doesn’t matter? What about those things that are, like in this scenario, both necessary and destructive? I think that is her point, although subtle. Every once in a while, one person will see the child and “fall silent for a day or two, and then leave home” (375). I think she is trying to say that most of us are like the ones in the situation that “go home in tears or in a tearless rage,” and then rationalize the child being in that condition in a utilitarian sense is bettering the community for a small price. However, it is a rare person that truly takes to heart what that one suffering child means and that his/her well-being is worth slightly lowering the elevated status of the rest of Omelas. The world needs more of “the ones who walk away from Omelas” (375).
Word Count: 339