Finish reading and complete a typed fiction outline for Le Guin's "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas." Using complete sentences and paragraphs, post an answer to the following interpretive question: Are the ones who walk away believable or incredible? What qualities would these people have to possess?

-- Anonymous, December 07, 2004

Answers

The ones who walk away from Omelas are the only sane people in that society. These people are the only humans who I see as believable. The suffering of an innocent child can’t support a perfect utopia. So the people who live in Omelas and don’t leave are unbelievable. The fact that they would allow a child to suffer for their personal benefit proves that they are not human and have no emotions or morals. The people who leave Omelas are they only humans in the entire story.

-- Anonymous, December 15, 2004

I believe that this is a very believable act in this society. This person would need to have a very strong conscience. This person would also need to be able to feel guilt and feel strong about this belief and that the society shouldn’t be the way hat it is and that a child has to be treated so misera

-- Anonymous, December 15, 2004

The ones who walk away from Omelas are indeed incredible, the fact that they defy an entire civilization’s beliefs makes them so. They are both the most believable and also the most beyond belief. They are willing to give up their utopian society because of its fatal fault. They have the guts and wisdom to see the injustice in the persecution of just one life, even when it benefits a whole utopia.

-- Anonymous, December 15, 2004

First I would like to say that I support both groups of people in the story equally. I can understand where both groups have their reasons for doing what they do. Anyway, everyone in the story is believable. Those who walk away simply have a heavier conscience that others, and the ones who stay understand that sometimes the happiness of one must be given away for the group. People take advantage of people every day. Just look at how the rich people in our society take advantage of the poor people. They live with theirselves everyday, so I find it to no surprise that this group of people would live, every day, with the fact that little boy is living in such conditions that we as human beings can only justfiably note as DEFINATELY breaking the Geneva Convention. I mean, come on. The author did not have to go into as much detail as he did, but I guess he was just trying to make a point. Overall, I enjoyed the story very much(except for the part explaining the boy). I found the society of Omela to be quite surprising and I would enjoy to live in it. I hope "The Laughing Man" will be as good as this story.

-- Anonymous, December 15, 2004

When I read the last part of the story, I immediately thought that the ones who walk away are the parents of the children in the room. After all, it does mention them right after it tells that sometimes the young people have to stay in the room, as if it were a connected thought.

So, if at least some of the ones who walk away are the parents of the miserable children, their actions make sense. Human beings tend to ignore or excuse an issue until it hits home, and having my own child taken for a purpose I've always known of and never done anything about would be enough to send me away, if only in disgust at myself. Walking away is believable. Rebellion would be incredible.

-- Anonymous, December 15, 2004

Let's stop and think about these people. Are they forced to walk away, or do they choose to in order to retain the customs of their civilization? If it's the latter, then they must possess a great deal of loyalty. Good for them. Now let's think about the general Omelan public. The story says, "One thing I know there is none of in Omelas is guilt." Well, that's nice...clean slate for the whole lot of them. Then, "to throw away the happiness of thousands for the chance of the happiness of one: that would be to let guilt within the walls indeed." So the slate isn't clean. But wait a minute...what if there was a group of people within this lot-- people who are not the same and just don't understand that a little boy peeing on himself should traumatize his life? That would certainly make the Omelas more believable. Snaps for being different.

-- Anonymous, December 15, 2004

I think the people that walk away are believable. They do not agree with the way the child is treated and they show their belief in a very dramatic way. These people have a strong conscious and a very heavy heart. These are the types of people in our society that do what they think is right and do not just follow whatever the group does. These are the types of people that make a difference in the world.

-- Anonymous, December 15, 2004

The people who walk away from Omelas are very believable. Some people cannot accept the means needed for a certain end. Those who feel individual compassion, caring for individuals, are the ones who walk away. Many of them probably think, “what is the use of everyone’s happiness if everyone knows and accepts that someone terrible is occuring in the very center of this happiness.”

-- Anonymous, December 15, 2004

In my opinion, these people who walk away are believable. As for why, and the answer to the other question... read on.

Everyone has been saying how these people who walk away are taking a stand against society, not being a conformist. Here's what I wonder. They could not bear that their perfect lives because they could not bear to live off of this child's misery. What did they do about it?

They did what any lazy or mild-mannered or hopeless or [insert other detail here] person did about a problem like this, one that's unbearable mentally or emotionally, or requires more effort than one is willing to spend.

They ran away from it.

These people who walked away could not bear the sufferings of the child. And what did they do about it? Nothing, besides not have their lives depend on this child's suffering. That did nothing to help the child, did it?

To put in clearer words the answer to the second question: these people have strong morals to abandon lives of happiness for the sake of this child, yet at the same time cowardly run away from the problem instead of attempting to solve it. So they are strong morally, but somewhat cowardly, or do not have the strong will that would be required to make things right.

-- Anonymous, December 15, 2004

The ones who walk away are very believable. They are the few people in their entire society with a sense of right and wrong. They do not free the child but refuse to reap the benefits of its misery. Walking away into the unknown is their silent way of pretest of the inhumane treatment of the child. They have morals and values, and because of them, will not tolerate what is being done to the child, so they leave.

-- Anonymous, December 15, 2004

Sorry guys, I have a quick question. On the board it says we have a quiz tomorrow on Sections 1-9 in vocabulary. We have only done sections 1-6 though. Sorry if Mr. Waller already said something about that in class but I must have missed it.

-- Anonymous, December 15, 2004

I think that the people who walk away are very believable, becuase many people in every society believe in human rights. The child is treated very unfairly, and occasionaly a person will think that it is not just that while that child must suffer greatly, everyone else is able to live a joyous and happy life. However, the people leaving the city of Omelas do rid them selves of feeling guilty, but they do not save the child, thus their leaving does not really help the child.

-- Anonymous, December 15, 2004

An entire city of presumably thousands motivated into happiness and contentment by the misery, suffering, and torment of a little child. Some in private rebellion leave the utopian realm; many others stay. Quite obviously both groups are supported by completely different sets of morals. On the one hand, you have the ones who stay; who live their lives and justify the torment of the child by theories of common good and “the end justifies the means.” On the other, there are those who leave, who for their predefined morals are shocked by the tortured child and leave, from either initial shock or gradual calculated analyzation.

-- Anonymous, December 15, 2004

In my opinion the ones who walk away are the only ones who are believable. They all possess the smallest amount of a conscience which prompts them to leave their horrific society. They do not, however, have enough conscience to stay and stand up for those who are wronged by their society.

The people who stay have been completely brainwashed by their civilization. These people are okay with the fact that their society condones the torturing of children for the betterment of the society. This is despicable and under no circumstance is acceptable.

-- Anonymous, December 15, 2004

uh who is the first guy who posted??

-- Anonymous, December 15, 2004

Will--I think it's a typo. At least, I really really hope so.

-- Anonymous, December 15, 2004

Oh, and in case my weird-ish theory about the walkawayers being the parents is totally off, I would have to say that the ones who walk away are incredible. They're like silent rebels: they can't do anything for the child, for fear of destroying Omelas for the others, but they can protest.

Peaceful resistance...Mahatma Gandhi would have approved.

-- Anonymous, December 15, 2004

I believe the people who walk away from the city are selfish and incredible. Basically, they have three choices. The first is to stay in the city and try to help the child. This might bring about unhappiness to all; therefore, I would reject this idea. The second choice would be to stay in the city with the child, but accept any problems and live life to the fullest. One cannot help every person in the world, so moving on and continuing to use the joy for which this child suffers would be the best idea. Of course, walking away from the city to try to get away from the grief and pain does not help at all. That is the third option. Leaving the city not only won't make you feel any better, but it does nothing to help the child. If someone feels so badly for another person, then let them show it, not walk away in some futile attempt to mask feelings and run from problems.

These people would have to possess selfish and helpless characteristics to do something so drastic. Walking away will not accomplish anything, so one would have to be crazy to walk.

-- Anonymous, December 15, 2004

The ones that walk away are believable because some people can’t put up with the fact that they are happy because someone else is miserable. These people would have to be extremely compassionate and willing to leave everything behind. These people would have to forfeit their joy and prosperity in order to relieve themselves of the guilt that the child has placed on them. They are believable because you see these kinds of people every once in a while in our world even.

-- Anonymous, December 15, 2004

These people are believable in the sense of considering how outrageous the situation of the little child is. Although I would never do anything as extreme as walk for a couple days and nights, the whole concept is understandable.

On another point the people who are bold enough just to walk away from Omelas have to posses the audacity the just get up and leave their home because their too disgusted to live there any longer.

-- Anonymous, December 16, 2004

I think the ones who walk away are believable as they follow the common human emotion of compassion. It is in human nature to abhor suffering and to distance yourself from it so it is only logical that the ones who walked away would make a pilgrimage from their utopia. These people posses qualities such as morality, logic, and humanity. Humaneness is a quality that seldom drives people to act on its own, so in that way the story is incredible and unbelievable. Then again, the premise of the entire story is complete and utter bologna and a metaphorical failure for a description of our world so take these answers for what they are worth.

-- Anonymous, December 16, 2004

This story is mostly not believable. The reason why I say mostly not believable is because I think it can stand for so many other things, other scenarios, that it is used as a symbol. Symbols aren’t “believable” or “unbelievable,” they represent something else. This story, I must say, is one of the scariest stories I have ever read; it shows just how mean and horrible people can be to save their own happiness. Maybe they could be happy some other way, but they would never know. Most everyone in the city of Omelas justifies to themselves the reason why the must keep the little child locked up: that sickens me. At first, reading the story, I thought “hey, this could be a great place to live. Everyone should find this place in their life, not the physical place but an emotional place I guess where they can be happy.” Reading on, I discovered that this society was happy, yet it was not perfect. The fact that no one has found anything to do for the little child astounds me, and the fact that the only ones who DO do something about this child simply walk away. Sometimes walking away is a good thing, but I don’t see in the situation how it has helped anyone except for themselves; in a way, they are being just as selfish as the other citizens of Omelas.

Did anyone else find this story a scary as I did? Reading your responses, I don't believe so; maybe I missed one or it wasn't up yet. It scares me though, makes me shiver, it really does. But even with that, I in some weird twisted way like this story. It makes me think, about topics that are hard to think about. And some of these are the best stories to read.

-- Anonymous, December 16, 2004