The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas

Thread replies: 3
Thread images: 1

Anonymous
The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas 2016-04-28 00:05:43 Post No. 7973052
[Report] Image search: [Google]

File: TheOnesWhoWalkAwayFromOmelas.jpg (25 KB, 213x294) Image search: [Google]

The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas Anonymous 2016-04-28 00:05:43 Post No. 7973052 [Report]

Help me out here, guys. I'm completely stumped. I read this about a year or two ago and assumed it was a critique of the tendency to make genre fiction (or fiction in general) edgy and grimdark because that's "realistic".

I found I didn't quite understand where Le Guin was going with it, so to speak. Was she saying she eschewed the edginess - that she had walked away? Refusing to let her work fall into laziness etc? But I didn't really care.

Recently, the story/essay/whatever was mentioned in connection with an alleged child molestation epidemic in SF circles of the time. I thought it was BS and decided to google a few analyses to see what was going on. Turns out most analyses don't think it's any way a reflection on fiction. They seem to think it's a real-world political allegory.

I'm aware of the Henry James connection to utilitarianism, but can any kindly passer-by help me out here? What the hell is this actually about?

>>

Anonymous 2016-04-28 00:14:01 Post No.7973104
[Report]

Anonymous 2016-04-28 00:14:01 Post No.7973104 [Report]

>>7973052
It's an essay in moral philosophy - viz., on the limitations of utilitarianism.

I don't know where you got 'edgy', 'grimdark' or 'realistic'. Try reading it again after taking a class in introductory ethics.

>>

Anonymous 2016-04-28 00:27:20 Post No.7973163
[Report]

Anonymous 2016-04-28 00:27:20 Post No.7973163 [Report]

>>7973104
>I don't know where you got 'edgy', 'grimdark' or 'realistic'.

She says that modern audiences consider happiness 'archaic' and indicative of simple-mindedness. She hammers home repeatedly that despite their happiness, they aren't 'simple folk'. She then suggests that it is difficult for the reader to actually accept this, and then presents the scapegoat child, with the assurance that this will make the Omelasians far easier to picture, and to accept as both happy and complex, with rich inner lives etc.

As I said, I'm aware of its inspiration by William James (it's late) and his remarks on utilitarianism. But if this interpretation is correct then I fail to see it as interesting. It doesn't in any sense actually explore or consider the implied utilitarian system - it's just The Ones Who Didn't Subscribe To Specific Variants Of Utilitarianism. So what? Whereas it seems at least to be somewhat provocative, or suggestive of an actual thesis, if it's read as a critique of trends in fiction.

And don't bother replying until you've taken an introductory course in not being a cunt.