Here.
Please don't read comments until you've read this. It is very short and fast to read. It is radicalizing. It is a good short story to send to your friend who needs to understand what capitalism is. LeGuin wrote this in 1973, cementing her status as Chad Supreme of Fuck Mountain. Bow before her might.
Let's discuss in the comments below.
Contrary to what the left-wing media would have you believe, the child in the basement is no angel.
We just need to go back to a simpler time, when everybody was polite to each other and nobody discussed the child in the basement.
It's too late for that too many have left, we have to tighten our belts and may need to consider two children next year.
That every time a drone bombed a hospital and I kept thinking about politics as something that happens every four years, that I was making that choice.
You've touched on exactly why this is such a good fucking story. Thank you!
They're not even making that choice, they're putting most people in the basement so a few rich old people can live in the city.
I can’t tell you how mad I was, wishing I could go back to that incident and fucking scream at everyone there that I know what they would do because they’re fucking doing it, they’re making their choice, right this moment.
If you don't feel like this about multiple instances in your past I will question leftist credentials, I ain't even shy.
I've given this story to many a liberal and it's always the same: "oh my god, I can't believe they walk away at the end. if it were me, I'd tear the kid free with my own hands." pointing out to them that it's an allegory for our world and all the suffering they accept, they to a one grow uncomfortable and change the subject. I've never had one willing to discuss the story past that point except perhaps to go back to insisting that they'd free the kid.
to those in this thread lamenting that they walk away at the end: walking away is a rejection of the society, of both its utopia and its curse. those who walk away do so to build a new world. walking away is the rejection of the very premise of the society - an embrace of revolution. perhaps LeGuin's point, one of them, anyway, is that it's very easy to say what one would do when put in similar circumstances. it's another thing entirely to actually act. sometimes, it's all you can do to refuse. after all, freeing the child is tantamount to ending capitalism. none of us can do that alone. the only choice we have alone is to walk away. and it's only from amongst those who have rejected this society that you will find the revolutionaries that can band together to do anything greater. but we must each first choose to walk away.
if it were me,
If I were Harry Potter I would simply buy an AK47
Why Harry Potter needs a gun
Ok, this has been driving me crazy for seven movies now, and I know you're going to roll your eyes, but hear me out: Harry Potter should have carried a 1911. Here's why:
Think about how quickly the entire WWWIII (Wizarding-World War III) would have ended if all of the good guys had simply armed up with good ol' American hot lead. Basilisk? Let's see how tough it is when you shoot it with a .470 Nitro Express. Worried about its Medusa-gaze? Wear night vision goggles. The image is light-amplified and re-transmitted to your eyes. You aren't looking at it--you're looking at a picture of it. Imagine how epic the first movie would be if Harry had put a breeching charge on the bathroom wall, flash-banged the hole, and then went in wearing NVGs and a Kevlar-weave stab-vest, carrying a SPAS-12.
And have you noticed that only Europe seems to a problem with Deatheaters? Maybe it's because Americans have spent the last 200 years shooting deer, playing GTA: Vice City, and keeping an eye out for black helicopters over their compounds. Meanwhile, Brits have been cutting their steaks with spoons. Remember: gun-control means that Voldemort wins. God made wizards and God made muggles, but Samuel Colt made them equal.
Now I know what you're going to say: "But a wizard could just disarm someone with a gun!" Yeah, well they can also disarm someone with a wand (as they do many times throughout the books/movies). But which is faster: saying a spell or pulling a trigger? Avada Kedavra, meet Avtomat Kalashnikova.
Imagine Harry out in the woods, wearing his invisibility cloak, carrying a .50bmg Barrett, turning Deatheaters into pink mist, scratching a lightning bolt into his rifle stock for each kill. I don't think Madam Pomfrey has any spells that can scrape your brains off of the trees and put you back together after something like that. Voldemort's wand may be 13.5 inches with a Phoenix-feather core, but Harry's would be 0.50 inches with a tungsten core. Let's see Voldy wave his at 3,000 feet per second. Better hope you have some Essence of Dittany for that sucking chest wound.
I can see it now...Voldemort roaring with evil laughter and boasting to Harry that he can't be killed, since he is protected by seven Horcruxes, only to have Harry give a crooked grin, flick his cigarette butt away, and deliver what would easily be the best one-liner in the entire series:
"Well then I guess it's a good thing my 1911 holds 7+1." And that is why Harry Potter should have carried a 1911.
This actually exposes one of the biggest reasons I dislike Harry Potter: ill-defined principles. Why are some people more magical than others? What form does that take? How do they do things differently? What sort of magic is involved in doing any given action? Why is it hard? Why is it easy? Nothing is every explained, and I'm not saying I need the science, I just need to know if lifting a car is harder than lifting a cup. And how is that determined and so on.
I’ve given this story to many a liberal and it’s always the same: “oh my god, I can’t believe they walk away at the end. if it were me, I’d tear the kid free with my own hands.” pointing out to them that it’s an allegory for our world and all the suffering they accept, they to a one grow uncomfortable and change the subject. I’ve never had one willing to discuss the story past that point except perhaps to go back to insisting that they’d free the kid.
I ask anyone saying they'd free the kid why they haven't traveled to their nearest ICE facility and done the same. And you may say, well, they have weapons, and Omelas doesn't have weapons. Sure. But you aren't at these facilities daily protesting, and you have reasons for that, and those reasons are ones we have to live with because we aren't actually doing everything in our power to do something. And that sucks a lot, but it's absolutely a thing.
yea, as I said, they stop wanting to have the conversation once the allegory is pointed out to them.
My favourite bit I think is where we're told that the inhabitants are shown the child in the basement, and some even return when they're older to revisit it. They know it's there and they're aware that their society and their comfort depends on the child's suffering but most push it to the back of their minds.
I'll be honest this reminds me of when you're talking to someone and they acknowledge that yes, capitalism is pretty horrific but there's this wall that they can't quite get over. They usually mutter some platitude about 'the least worst system' and go on.
The end bit is the reason why I think. The residents of Omelas are fundamentally scared of change and they have no idea if something better is possible so they don't really want to try.
We live in capitalism. Its power seems inescapable. So did the divine right of kings. Any human power can be resisted and changed by human beings. Resistance and change often begin in art, and very often in our art, the art of words. - Ursula K. Le Guin
this absolutely had to inspire snowpiercer
Snowpiercer's source material is more anarchist than this and it expands to a world with multiple trains still running the rails, but if there weren't a little influence, I'd be shocked.
So, the entire story is poignant and heartbreaking, and its a poor reflection on our world that we have more people in the basement than in the utopia and we still can't be happy. I wish the people didn't walk away though, that seems tantamount to suicide when in reality we can't simply leave the city, I wish they saved the child or died trying. But, one part stands separate from the rest to me and I'd like to talk about it on its own:
"They were not less complex than us. The trouble is that we have a bad habit, encouraged by pedants and sophisticates, of considering happiness as something rather stupid. Only pain is intellectual, only evil interesting. This is the treason of the artist: a refusal to admit the banality of evil and the terrible boredom of pain. If you can’t lick ‘em, join ‘em. If it hurts, repeat it. But to praise despair is to condemn delight, to embrace violence is to lose hold of everything else. We have almost lost hold; we can no longer describe a happy man, nor make any celebration of joy."
I think this is a condemnation of so much #deep media, with the fetishization of suffering and pain. I think the reason I love shows like She-Ra and Kipo is their resolve to hope, to have characters be joyful and loving and that not be naïve. In Kipo it is even shown that loving your enemy won't always work, but it is always worth the effort. No one is made stronger by their suffering, no one is helped by hate, it is so uplifting. Then I remember ASoIaF and how even the reader's hopes and wants were used as ammunition to show just how mean and bad the world is. I want more media that dares to hope, to be happy and less grimdark.
this is actually a whole subgenre in fantasy as long as grimdark stopped being ironic, maybe a dozen years ago. there's always been this pushback against grimdark for exactly the reasons you're citing.
for example, Malazan Book of the Fallen is an example of an intentionally, explicitly hopeful work that doesn't shy away from the dark, grim, and dirty, but rather uses those things to highlight the nugget of hope that survives, celebrating it and the people who never gave up, who fought through the most futile of circumstances to unearth, at great personal cost. also, a decent chunk of the books feature explicit critiques of empire and capitalism.
there's 10 books in the series and each one stands alone (except the ninth which is the only cliffhanger). the first book was written about a decade before the others so the writing quality is a bit worse but it's fantastic from there on out. two warnings: 1. the books don't hold your hand - if characters should already know stuff, it won't get explained to you, so you sometimes have to wait a while for explanations; 2. some of the books are utterly heartbreaking. they really cut across the whole range of human emotions.
I've heard so much good about Malazan, I should really jump in.
Read through the whole thing in like 9 month period and let me tell you, they really don't hold your hand. There's stuff happening in book 1 that isnt explained until book 6 or so, but it's a very rewarding read.
I enjoyed when some of that stuff comes up and your brain is like: "Oh wait a minute....THAT'S why that happened like 2000 pages ago!"
I'm already reading Malazan so that's covered. Do you have any other recommendations in the same vein?
the main issue with most of the books that come to mind are the politics. they're largely written by liberals, for liberals, and so you mostly have to take uncritical perspectives on empire, monarchy, and liberal freedoms as a kind of given - the books with decent politics are rare. so I have to divide my recommendations based on what you're looking for and what you're willing to tolerate. the one easy exception is NK Jemisin's Broken Earth trilogy.
if you want a story about a great man and don't mind philosopher-kings, Robin Hobb's series are great. read these books for the amazing characterization stretching over long volumes that really leave you feeling like you know these people at least as well as you know yourself.
if you just want a plain happy story and can get past the completely uncritical lens the story brings to bear, the Goblin Emperor is one of the best antidotes to the erosion of hope.
if you want something a bit more historical, Guy Gavriel Kay's works each stand alone and tell wonderful stories in real places, featuring real people, but with the whole thing twisted just a bit towards the fantastic. the names of the people and the places are always changed so that he can tell interesting stories about them. but they always planted from seeds rooted in the real world. my personal favorite is the Lions of al-Rassan, but you honestly can't go wrong with any of them.
if you've already been through all of these, let me know and I'll dig through my collection for some weirder stuff.
Solid recs. Yeah the politics in most fantasy is not...good. Ngl tho, I really dug Goblin Emperor. I guess it was the purehearted nature of the MC and the court intrigue that appealed to me.
spoiler
_What did you think about the conversation between Maia and the guy who blew up the air ship?
I've heard about GGK and Robin Hobb and tried some of their works but I tend to drop books even if they're "good" unless something in it captures my interest early or if there's some idea in the book that I want to read about. So there's been a lot of false starts with those two authors but I hope to get around to them eventually.
I haven't yet read any of NK Jemisin's works so your recommendation might actually make me pick up the trilogy.
GGK is easier on that front than Hobb. you really have to give her two books before the whole scope of what she's doing in any given trilogy opens up to you. she's the complete opposite of a fast hook. GGK though... have you tried Tigana? I was glued to that one from the start as the intrigue begins within the first few chapters and he has this way of making you fall in love with all of the characters.
honestly, I barely remember the plot of the Goblin Emperor, it's been 4 years or so since I read it. I remember enjoying the sheer happiness of the ending and I might reread it if the world starts to feel like a dark place (moreso than usual) and I need a pick me up.
the Broken Earth trilogy is fantastic and I can't recommend it enough. Jemisin is a comrade and she's telling the story of slaves - it's very deeply about how colonialism works its way into our minds, the effects of being forced to pass for the majority (at the risk of violent reprisal), and the joy that exists only in spaces free of empire. I really need to reread this because I read it before I admitted to myself that I needed to transition and I think I'll react to it in a whole other way now.
So true. I'm in a book club (my friends and I started a zoom book club as a Covid coping mechanism) and so many "book club books" are so depressing. I don't want to wallow in that shit! Give me something deep and hopeful, damn it.
Point one: You should wish that they tried to save the child, but it makes sense why they wouldn't--they don't want to risk killing others by saving one. I think it's also a good point though, in that a lot of the way our society is currently established, you either choose to participate or don't, but you can't change things.
Point two: Absolutely, she is all over saying fuck you to grimdark. It's one reason I dislike DSN over TNG, because TNG is still very hopeful about the future.
Ok, dissenting opinion: I don't think this has anything to do with capitalism.
For one thing, everyone but the kid in Omelas has a perfect life; under capitalism the masses are miserable and oppressed.
Second, the story implies that the right thing to do is for the people of Omelas to build a more just society on ethical grounds, as opposed to oppressed people liberating themselves from their oppressors. There's no class struggle whatsoever.
Third, nobody actually does anything about the kid; the ones who walk away are just symbolically wiping their hands of it without actually challenging the power structure of Omelas.
It's a moral fable. I don't understand how it's supposed to radicalize anyone or help them understand capitalism.
I agree with Not Capitalism: "As they did without monarchy and slavery, so they also got on without the stock exchange, the advertisement, the secret police, and the bomb.", no war mongering or stock/money shit here
Could you explain more of what you mean? Marx doesn't talk about this story, so it is to you to make the bridge.
This has everything to do with capitalism. This is about a people who live perfect lives at the expense and suffering of others (simplified and reduced at this point to AN other), and especially in a senseless and superstitious way. Like how we have built a Cult of Hard Work to force people to pay for things we have in abundance like food, and housing, and clothing.
The story doesn't imply that this is the right thing to do. The story illustrates that this is what these people choose to do.
And yes, none of them do anything about the kid. So ask yourself, is that the right thing to do?
This is about a people who live perfect lives at the expense and suffering of others (simplified and reduced at this point to AN other)
Ok, but making the "other" a single person and the beneficiaries of the system literally everyone else inverts structure of capitalist society; it's the few oppressing and benefiting from the oppression of the many. Capitalism is not a perfectly utilitarian society, and it's not perpetuated by the masses turning a blind eye to the suffering of others, but by the masses not organizing to overthrow their oppressors.
If you interpret the story as representing capitalist society, then the problem is presented as the bourgeoisie just acting immorally, and the solution as them just choosing to stop doing that (and some do).
A story that serves as an allegory for capitalism would have to depict class society in some way, and not the individual moral failings of nearly everyone in a society causing injustice.
Oh, and I just noticed this line:
As they did without monarchy and slavery, so they also got on without the stock exchange, the advertisement, the secret police, and the bomb.
It's explicitly not a capitalist society.
and especially in a senseless and superstitious way. Like how we have built a Cult of Hard Work to force people to pay for things we have in abundance like food, and housing, and clothing.
But capitalism isn't senseless or superstitious. It's completely rational in pursuit of wealth and power for the capitalist class, and came about from people in the past leveraging their power in service of their own self-interest. People have to pay for necessities because they physically can't choose otherwise, not just because of cultural attitudes. But also I don't think this has anything to do with the story.
They all know it is there, all the people of Omelas. Some of them have come to see it, others are content merely to know it is there. They all know that it has to be there. 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 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.
The story is a thought experiment, and it's safe to assume based on lines like, "they could perfectly well have central heating, subway trains, washing machines, and all kinds of marvelous devices not yet invented here, floating light-sources, fuelless power, a cure for the common cold. Or they could have none of that; it doesn’t matter", that the relationship between the utopia and the child's suffering is real because the details of the setting are irrelevant. She doesn't get into the details of proving how this relationship exists because the point is to present a hypothetical utopia which is based on a fundamental injustice. It's her attempt at a "gotcha" against utilitarianism.
But even if we assume that everyone in Omelas is just indoctrinated to assume that their happiness is reliant on the kid's suffering but that it's actually just a big lie that exists for no reason, that wouldn't at all be an allegory for capitalism, because capitalism isn't something that exists just because people believe it's necessary. (Not that capitalist cultural hegemony doesn't play any role, but it's not enough without direct, violent repression and physically separating people from what they need to survive.)
The story doesn’t imply that this is the right thing to do. The story illustrates that this is what these people choose to do.
I think it's pretty clear from the context of the story that the ones who walk away are framed as making the correct moral choice. The last lines in particular:
The place they go towards is a place even less imaginable to most of us than the city of happiness. I cannot describe it at all. It is possible that it does not exist. But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.
It's not explicit, but also there's nothing condemning them for inaction, which you'd need to make the opposite case.
And just to be clear, I'm not criticizing the story itself.
I think the point is that even for a utopia, a veritable heaven on earth, even when the cost is just one child, we shudder to pay the cost and beat our chests about how we would free that child, whatever the cost of doing so. so why do we happily pay the much higher price of capitalism when it hurts so many and benefits so few?
so why do we happily pay the much higher price of capitalism when it hurts so many and benefits so few?
Well that's the thing: we (meaning the workers and the oppressed) are paying the price of capitalism (to a varying degree). Socialism isn't really about altruism, not that it isn't a good thing or that it can't help. Fundamentally it's about the oppressed liberating themselves, not the comfortable, well-off oppressors choosing out of the kindness of their hearts to stop oppressing.
Also, again, the arrangement in the story benefits the many and hurts the few, which is why I don't think this particular story's related to capitalism.
Don't worry, I'm clear that you're not criticizing the story itself.
It looks to me like you're trying to map this more strictly than is necessary for the story to still function as a critique. Omelas is not a capitalist society, but their prosperity is dependent on the unimaginable and cruel suffering of a child. That child is not a worker and cannot organize, but that child is still the very reason for their prosperity and decadence. So the people of Omelas have to maintain a dual consciousness wherein they recognize that their society is a good and beautiful thing but also that it is fueled by their collective abuse of this child.
This is about how we know capitalism doesn't work and causes unnecessary suffering but we're afraid to end it based on magical thinking. And there's a great deal of superstition in capitalism, in the stock market, in the invisible hand of the free market, in the cult of pain that surrounds it. You could perhaps believe that the bourgeois push these myths to be widely believed, but some of them evangelize to the degree where I think that if they are lying simply to fool us, they've additionally fooled themselves.
Liberating the child would absolutely be a violent conflict, one that would doubtless rend Omelas apart, and with good reason. Those who walk away are washing their hands of the entire affair (and perhaps are by the author not judged harshly, but again this is not something to hang every last moving part on) and personally I judge them for doing so. I think the author in general is letting us make our decisions about this society.
I can't tell if it's suppose to be a thing where we think how ridiculous it is they think all their prosperity is predicated on the suffering or the child, or if it's a thing where people need someone below them/worse off to feel good about themselves.
I dont like how the child is just there as a superstition. If you want to look at this in a third world oppression kind of way, the luxuries and commodities of the first world are a direct artifact of the oppression of the third world. Reading this i just thought why dont they just liberate the kid, he's just there for no reason, while liberating the masses would mean that the first world/the western bourgeoisie would be less luxurious and happy.
Plus as a utilitarian i dont see this system as bad, if a million people can live as happily as ever at the cost of one sacrifice. Which is absolutely not rappresentative of any status quo where that happiness is fabbricated and the suffering are more numerous by far than those profitting. Maybe we all have different tollerances of how much misery there can be for some happiness in the rest of us, and this falls in my range of tollerance. For a society with no violence, rape, sadness or worry i'd absolutely sacrifice a child.
I know im probably reading this way wrong (im not a good reader) and i dont want to shit on LeGuin but this reads like a conservative/fascist thing against liberals, who dont accept a necessary evil and therefore perform some sort of self harm or hermitism, like protesting or boycotting some product.
So, LeGuin is certainly not a utilitarian. She claims to be a Taoist, which I know little about, but the story's morality is almost Kantian. No suffering is morally permissible, there is no great balance. But I believe the story is trying to state that "This idealized world with only one suffering and all else reaping the benefits is still unethical, how much less is our world."
By the by, I am a utilitarian and can see the story as both a allegory in which I appreciate its message, and as a fiction where I'd choose this world over any realistic possibility.
It’s a moral fable. I don’t understand
have you tried not being an amoral dunce?
A classic. Her stories are not only well written, but an awesome radicalizing tool.
I used the Dispossessed to turn my brother in law from a Musk loving techbro into a 'holy fuck, anarchism is more than a fun word. Maybe there is something to this.'
He isn't all the way there yet, but I'll bring him over.
The Dispossessed got me where I am today. Its description of Anarres was strangely similar to my home country before the 90s. The lack of comodities, the peace and harmony in life, pursuit of knowledge, strong moral intelligence, organisational beurocracy, communal living and isolation. I'd heard only bad things about it on the news and boomers, I've lived a few years of it and was present during the transition, so Ive seen societal and human values change in real time. But after reading this book i realised why my grandfathers generation, looked upon that time with longing and nostalgia, even tough it was one of the harshest socialist regimes in the world. Some things worked, some didn't and an ambiguous utopia sounds about right, or the way there at least.
an ambiguous utopia
Yes, this! So good to have someone articulate it so well. UKG didn't just idiolise Anarres, but it was clearly her preference in the story.
I think this groundingakes things more real for readers, gives us a clear, not a fantastical choice and that's why it's so persuasive.
Fingers crossed you'll one day not only experience the country of your grandfather's generation, but something even stronger and more inspiring.
Oh yeah, you can build on the tech brinidea as well. We talked about how the internet basically functions off of anarchic systems - not just individual websites, but the technology itself.
This old wired article is a really good intro for tech bros. When talk about how humans 'need heirarchys', just point them in the direction of the IETF of in some ways the W3C.
Not the perfect examples of Anarchist systems, but an interesting first step for people, and holding together everything we do on the internet.
Worth noting omelass is a better world than ours.
Most things about our world suck and we have countless lives being fed into worse meatgrinders than that closet
That closet basically describes a fairly average persons stay in solitary and we have thousands of people doing just that in america. Only, the upside we get from that is some guy who owns a prison can buy a fancier jetski. He was gonna buy a jetski anyway, but the extra money he gets from the extra torture just means he can have a nicer one.
Omelas is a better world for everyone but that one child, sure. But it's fucked that you have to live your life knowing that child is suffering--perhaps entirely unnecessarily--just so you can be fine.
If you ever needed a quick allegory to completely blow someone's head off in a short, powerful way, this is such a good fucking way to do it.
it is not as short, but if you want to read some more really brutal and radicalizing sci-fi go find Bloodchild by Octavia Butler. (is also available as audiobook)
I recently listened to the Very Bad Wizards episode on it, and it's super funny because they never bring up her politics, I think they might've been unaware of it or something. At one point they ask something like "Is it just like, a political allegory or something?" Good podcast but very liberal...
Have you read Le Guin's The Day Before the Revolution? It's both a short prequel to The Dispossessed and "about one of the ones who walked away from Omelas."
At one point they ask something like “Is it just like, a political allegory or something?” Good podcast but very liberal…
Ugh god how do liberals manage to feel smug about being smarter than everyone else and then still fuck this kind of thing up?
Haven't read it but I'll put that one on my list too!
I love the way she sets the scene, the myriad of description threads that come together to weave a clear tapestry. Great allegory, I haven't read this before. One of the saddest things is that the people who willfully ignore as it is easier to bear that than to be able to have the vision to see a way of life beyond that presented, exactly as she puts forth in the closing passage.
Have you read NK Jemisin's "response" to Omelas? I don't think it's as powerful, but there's some food for thought there too.
I think LeGuin herself arrives at largely the same point in The Dispossessed, in much the same way.
Interesting, just did. I like this one too, although you're right, it's not as powerful.
This one feels so condensing and the writing is just worse. I'm only like 3/4's of the way through though so we'll see I guess.
reposing my own comment for 'karma':
I have thought about writing a short story called “The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelettes”
🐓
