Byrne 1

Xavier Byrne

Steve McHugh

ENG-132-92

20 April 2023

Faith and Irony

Ursula K. Le Guin’s, “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas” presents a utopian

society called Omelas, which appears to be perfect in every way. However, the happiness and

well-being of Omelas' citizens is dependent on the suffering of a single child locked away in a

basement. The child's misery is the price Omelas pays for its utopia. The story goes on to

describe how the citizens of Omelas come to learn about the child's plight, and how most of them

ultimately decide that the suffering of one is a small price to pay for the happiness of the many.

However, there are some who cannot accept this arrangement and choose to leave Omelas,

walking away from the city and into the unknown. The story ends with the suggestion that the

ones who walk away from Omelas are the only ones who have truly understood the cost of their

society's happiness, and that their departure into the unknown is preferable to the terrible price of

their current utopia.

Jerre Collins’s breaks down and analyzes all the allegories and metaphors of Le Guin’s

story in his critical analysis called, “Leaving Omelas: Questions of Faith and Understanding”.

Collins opens with the claim that the story is an allegory for Western civilization. He explains

that Le Guin’s portrayal of a scapegoat (the child) is reflective of how the powerful in America

exploit the working class. We then get the thesis: Why haven't works that critique the American

psyche had a lasting effect on the American conscience? Collins continues by explaining the
 Byrne 2

theodicy of the citizens of Omelas and how it doesn't make sense, because a good theodicy has to

answer any questions that may be raised. He then explains that Le Guin uses two theodicies in

her story, those being the redemption theodicy and the resurrection theodicy, both of which are

present in the bible. Collins finishes by stating that Le Guin's criticism of the redemption

theodicy, while simultaneously appealing to the resurrection theodicy, weakens her argument

significantly. This is why her work hasn't changed the American conscience.

Collins claims that the dilemma of the child’s suffering is representative of the Christian

redemption theodicy and American morals. I agree with this claim, however, I disagree with his

claim that Le Guin uses the people who choose to leave Omelas is an allegory for Christian

resurrection theodicy, which Collins also claims is intertwined with Christian redemption

theodicy. To me it just feels like the connection Collins makes is a reach. While I do agree with

most of Collins’s breakdown, it is this claim that I feel weakens the whole critical analysis,

because of the lack of reasoning for the two being linked, the key difference that I notice

between them that remains unrefuted, and conclusions that Collins leaves up to the reader to

rationalize.

I will open my argument by stating that I think Le Guin’s allegory for American moral

values works quite well on its own and reading the story “alternately as a religious allegory and

as a politico-economic allegory” (Collins 3), is a legitimate way to interpret the story. My first

problem with his analysis is Collins never gives us a whole lot to convince us that walking away

from Omelas is indeed like dying and being reborn. The most we get is this quote, “To walk into

the darkness, unable to imagine where one might be going, is very much like walking off the

edge of the world. Or rather, in the archetypal imagery of our culture, leaving bright Omelas and

walking into the darkness is like going from life into death” (Collins 3-4). In my opinion this is a
 Byrne 3

good way to present this concept to the reader. The connection being made is simple and easy for

the reader to grasp. However, this is as convincing as this part of his argument gets. Collins

continues by stating that this is comparable to the story of the crucifixion of Christ Jesus and his

resurrection three days later, otherwise known as the Christian redemption theodicy. This is

where Collins’s comparison between the two gets sticky. He seems to think that this brief

rundown suffices as a solid foundation in which to hold his grand final claim together, as there is

not much else given to the reader that links redemption and resurrection theodicy together. The

final claim that I am referring to being that Le Guin’s embrace of the resurrection theodicy

completely undermines her condemnation of redemption theodicy. I find that it is this deflated

link between the two ultimately leads to a disconnect while reading the analysis. As a result,

Collins falls short of convincing me of this claim.

The key difference that I find between the redemption theology is that it would imply that

the ones who are leaving the city represent Jesus, which doesn’t track because we, the audience,

have already been presented with a stand in for Jesus at this point in the analysis, that being the

suffering child. He explains his claim with this quote, “Jesus suffers and dies, only to rise again

to a transformed, glorious life in the presence of the Father” (Collins 4). The events are made to

sound like they are all happening to one person in the story, but as we know this is not true.

Collins doesn’t mention the child at all whilst explaining the resurrection theodicy, which

certainly doesn’t do him any favors when it comes to supporting his claim. In my opinion, the

notion that the child continues to endure the suffering, like that of Jesus, while the ones who

leave are symbolic of death and resurrection, also like Jesus, just doesn’t fit together well. If this

sounds nitpicky to you, I then ask you this. In an algebra problem, if you have the variable x on

two different sides of the equation, and after solving for that variable those x values are not
 Byrne 4

equivalent. In mathematical terms, that is what is referred to as an invalid solution. The same can

be applied to Collins’s comparison. It feels as if we are supposed to ignore the differences

between the multiple connections made to Jesus and draw our own conclusions to affirm

Collins’s claim.

This leads me to my final point which is that Collins seems to leave the reader to connect

the dots on their own. To quote from the short story itself, “At times one of the adolescent girls

or boys who go to see the child does not go home to weep or rage, does not, in fact, go home at

all” (Le Guin). It could be rationalized that the ones who reject the child’s suffering and leave

Omelas are not representative of Jesus, but instead are representative of Christian’s who accept

Jesus as their savior, who died for their sins, and now can be resurrected. Unfortunately, this is

not articulated to the audience. An explanation like this would have gone a long way, but

unfortunately, I don’t feel that it is right to assume that this is what Collins was intending to say.

It is the critic’s responsibility to present as much evidence as possible in order to articulate what

he or she wants the audience to understand. It should not be up to the audience to write the

critic’s argument for them, just for the sake of benefit of the doubt. If this is truly what Collins

had intended to confer to the audience, his argument could have been much more solid if he had

included one more paragraph that explained it as such.

Collins himself finds that the ladder part of Le Guin’s story weakens the message of it

considerably. I find this ironic, as I believe the same can be said about his own critical analysis.

His lack of reasoning for the two being linked, the key difference between them, and conclusions

that he leaves up to the reader to rationalize, all seal the deal in my opinion. I do feel that most of

the claims made in his critical analysis are insightful and present a good alternative way to read

Le Guin’s story. But that one moment in which he fails to build a foundation for his final claim
 Byrne 5

ends up being his Achillies heal. That is a lesson that can apply to much more than debate such

as this. In fact, you could say it applies to just about anything. Your athletic or musical

endeavors, your schoolwork, your career, and even your hobbies can be tied back to the one

simple phrase. You reap what you sow, so it’s better to aim too high than to aim too low. As I

was always told by my football coaches growing up, a chain is only as strong as its weakest link.
 Byrne 6

Works Cited

Le Guin, Ursula K. "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas." Art of the Short Story. Pearson,

2005.

Collins, Jerre. "Leaving Omelas: Questions of Faith and Understanding." EXPLORING Short

Stories, Gale, 2003.