In Ursala Le Guin's The Ones Who Walk When You Could Run?

Why Walk When You Could Run?
It has been said by many, "Any society, any nation, is judged on the basis of how it treats its weakest members”. What if the weakest member of a society is placed in a position to carry the town’s woes? That is true in Ursala Le Guin’s short story, “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas.” Le Guin’s depressing tale describes a society that is neither compassionate nor relevant, speaks about a culture of people who are corrupt thereby making the characters static. However, those citizens of Omelas that do discover the enlightenment of conscience and walk away symbolize a shunning of their culture.
The people of Omelas, no matter how happy they may seem, show no compassion throughout the story. This can be proven
by how they treat the child in the cellar and that the people disregard the child willingly for some illusion of happiness. The people of Omelas mistreat the weakest member of the society by, “kick[ing] the child to make it stand up” (Le Guin par. 8). Not only do the people beat the child but mal nourish it by feeding the child with, “a half-bowl of corn meal and grease a day” (Le Guin par. 8). The reason that the child is mistreated and malnourished in the way that it is, as Le Guin writes, is because if the child were to be helped, “…in that day and hour all the prosperity and beauty and delight of Omelas would wither and be destroyed” (Le Guin par. 10). As a result of this fact, in order for the people to continue to be happy they must mistreat this child and keep it in slave conditions, “…there may not even be a kind word spoken to the child” (Le Guin par. 11). The problem with this belief is that one does not know happiness without knowing pain, and if you do not know pain or loss how can one say that they are happy?
The corruption that is evident in the City of Omelas proves that the chacters involved are static in nature.
For some unknown reason the city of Omelas has a strict rule that being nice in any sort to the child in the closet will ruin the makeup of the society. The culture of the city is to believe that, “…their happiness, the beauty of their city, the tenderness of their friendships…depend wholly on this child’s abominable misery” (Le Guin par. 9). They defend this treatment by believing that, “its habits are too uncouth for it to respond to humane treatment” (Le Guin par. 12). For generations and generations this has been going on, and because the city is smiling and their lives are filled with joy the child stays in, “…a mass of festered sores, as [the child] sits in its own excrement continually” (Le Guin par. 8). Though when they first discover the child in such a state of, “anger, outrage, impotence, despite all the explanations” the townspeople act like nothing happened and move on with their lives (Le Guin par. 10). For a couple of days sometimes weeks however, the people seem to be affected by the discovery 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” (Le Guin par. 12). Due to this terrible fact is the reason why the characters in the story are static, they do not continue with their sadness and grief enough to actually change society they just let it continue on over
time. After seeing the child a few citizens unexpectedly leave the town forever following their natural instincts for freedom but also, symbolizing the shunning of their culture.
This is both a good thing and a bad thing because they let their natural instinct to do what’s right become prominent in their thoughts but instead of helping their society become stronger they, “…walk ahead into the darkness, and they do not come back” (Le Guin par. 14). The ones that decide to leave the city realize that, “…they, like the child, are not free” (Le Guin par. 12). From this realization sprouts the decision for the man or woman to leave the city forever thereby turning their back on the culture that they once lived in. Though it is a good thing that the person’s conscious returns and becomes prominent in them, the argument must be raised that instead of shunning the culture, that same person could instead fight to release the child and hopefully give the child a shot at joy in
life. Overall, after reading the short story, no matter how well written, the story is not worth reading. Though Le Guin is effective in telling a 1984-esque tale about a child being held knowingly in captivity with no chance of escape and the wellbeing of the city is in the hands of that child is very captivating, the city is very static and does not show any signs of changing its ways in order to further prosper as a community and a society. Overall the ones who walk away from Omelas are finding a deep seated repression from within and when their conscience is awakened, they can’t bear staying and walk away. Although, they walk away from their culture, the ones that walk away from Omelas are walking away from the corruption, neglect, and torture of a poor soul that does not deserve such treatment.