I think it’s kinda weird to call the meaning that the vast majority of people, including LeGuin herself, ascribed to her work as a “misreading”. Isn’t it more likely that you have found another interpretation of the work that the author didn’t intend?
My interpetation is that Leguin did indeed believe in utopias, and in the passage you cited was indeed critiquing peoples inability to concieve of them. Her excellent book “the dispossessed” has the subtitle “a flawed utopia”, and describes an anarchist society that is not sustained by torture or inequality.
However, “Omelas” is a critique of “Utopias” which are not truly utopias, because the provide good lives to the majority at the expense of bad lives for a few. Under many forms of utilitarianism, a society like the one described in Omelas would be described as a very good one: LeGuin disagrees, and so do I. Omelas is about rejecting fake utopias, and pushing towards real ones.
I’ve seen the critique Tobias makes before—it is a fair point (though kind of unrelated to the usefulness of the Omelas story). The story itself is really explicitly making a point about the writing/ imagining of utopias, as Tobias says. It’s really not hard to see this when you read it—it was surprising for me to come back to the story and read it again and see that it’s a very explicit thought experiment about just that.
However I do think that’s not much of a gotcha against the people who use it to make points about utilitarianism. They’re only wrong insofar as their argument relies on the authority of Le Guin or something—you can use and repurpose fiction as a thought experiment however you like. I presume (without reading the context) that Le Guin herself is using her thought experiment for a different purpose in different contexts, and that’s fine.
Fair, ‘misreading’ is a strong word for what’s going on. I find it somewhat justified because of how much less plausible the ‘standard reading’ becomes once you engage with the whole story. I tried to address the weirdness of disagreeing with the author in the last section.
I didn’t intend this post to be a gotcha. Sorry if it comes across this way!
I also agree that it’s fine for people to repurpose stories. There are likely many people with “Two roads diverged in a wood, and I took the one less travelled by. And that has made all the difference.” posters, who derive a lot of value from them, which is good. But it’s still interesting to me that those posters misread the poem, and that how common this misreading is may reveal something broader about the readers & what they want to get out of literature.
I’ll continue to defend the ‘standard reading’. I think the story can be critiquing our lack of imagination of utopia andalso be against standard utilitarianism and third world exploitation and so on. I don’t think the two are opposed, I think they actually link up.
I think what’s missing from your interpretation is the climax of the story, which is also the title: the ones who walk away:
They leave Omelas, they walk ahead into the darkness, and theydo not come back. The place they go towards is a place even less imaginable to most of us that 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
I don’t think this finale works, if the story is only about Omelas being absurd. I think LeGuin is arguing that the type of society described in Omelas is wrong, and is arguing that it should be rejected.
LeGuin was a left-wing anarchist and anti-capitalist. I’m guessing she was probably gesturing to western society as analogous to Omelas, as a place of plenty that benefits from the exploitation of others in the developing world. She was saying that people justify an unjust status quo with utilitarian arguments that exploitation is justified on greater good grounds. I see the story as an attack on peoples inability to think that a world without exploitation and inequality is possible: an attack on fatalistic acceptance of pain and suffering as inevitable.
I’m guessing that you are not a left-wing anarchist anti-capitalist, which is fine. I think your interpretation is a valid one, but I would guess that it is not the one that is intended by the author, which is also fine. LeGuin was an excellent writer but nobody is obligated to agree with her politically.
I didn’t intend this post to be a gotcha. Sorry if it comes across this way!
I think this was just poor word-choice on my part—I was just pointing out that sometimes this point (that people are reading the story wrong) can be used as a point against people making the anti-utilitarian argument. ‘Gotcha’ is a bit harsher than what I meant, and I also didn’t want to accuse you of this. Sorry!
I think it’s kinda weird to call the meaning that the vast majority of people, including LeGuin herself, ascribed to her work as a “misreading”. Isn’t it more likely that you have found another interpretation of the work that the author didn’t intend?
My interpetation is that Leguin did indeed believe in utopias, and in the passage you cited was indeed critiquing peoples inability to concieve of them. Her excellent book “the dispossessed” has the subtitle “a flawed utopia”, and describes an anarchist society that is not sustained by torture or inequality.
However, “Omelas” is a critique of “Utopias” which are not truly utopias, because the provide good lives to the majority at the expense of bad lives for a few. Under many forms of utilitarianism, a society like the one described in Omelas would be described as a very good one: LeGuin disagrees, and so do I. Omelas is about rejecting fake utopias, and pushing towards real ones.
I’ve seen the critique Tobias makes before—it is a fair point (though kind of unrelated to the usefulness of the Omelas story). The story itself is really explicitly making a point about the writing/ imagining of utopias, as Tobias says. It’s really not hard to see this when you read it—it was surprising for me to come back to the story and read it again and see that it’s a very explicit thought experiment about just that.
However I do think that’s not much of a gotcha against the people who use it to make points about utilitarianism. They’re only wrong insofar as their argument relies on the authority of Le Guin or something—you can use and repurpose fiction as a thought experiment however you like. I presume (without reading the context) that Le Guin herself is using her thought experiment for a different purpose in different contexts, and that’s fine.
Thanks, Toby & titotal!
Fair, ‘misreading’ is a strong word for what’s going on. I find it somewhat justified because of how much less plausible the ‘standard reading’ becomes once you engage with the whole story. I tried to address the weirdness of disagreeing with the author in the last section.
I didn’t intend this post to be a gotcha. Sorry if it comes across this way!
I also agree that it’s fine for people to repurpose stories. There are likely many people with “Two roads diverged in a wood, and I took the one less travelled by. And that has made all the difference.” posters, who derive a lot of value from them, which is good. But it’s still interesting to me that those posters misread the poem, and that how common this misreading is may reveal something broader about the readers & what they want to get out of literature.
I’ll continue to defend the ‘standard reading’. I think the story can be critiquing our lack of imagination of utopia and also be against standard utilitarianism and third world exploitation and so on. I don’t think the two are opposed, I think they actually link up.
I think what’s missing from your interpretation is the climax of the story, which is also the title: the ones who walk away:
I don’t think this finale works, if the story is only about Omelas being absurd. I think LeGuin is arguing that the type of society described in Omelas is wrong, and is arguing that it should be rejected.
LeGuin was a left-wing anarchist and anti-capitalist. I’m guessing she was probably gesturing to western society as analogous to Omelas, as a place of plenty that benefits from the exploitation of others in the developing world. She was saying that people justify an unjust status quo with utilitarian arguments that exploitation is justified on greater good grounds. I see the story as an attack on peoples inability to think that a world without exploitation and inequality is possible: an attack on fatalistic acceptance of pain and suffering as inevitable.
I’m guessing that you are not a left-wing anarchist anti-capitalist, which is fine. I think your interpretation is a valid one, but I would guess that it is not the one that is intended by the author, which is also fine. LeGuin was an excellent writer but nobody is obligated to agree with her politically.
I think this was just poor word-choice on my part—I was just pointing out that sometimes this point (that people are reading the story wrong) can be used as a point against people making the anti-utilitarian argument. ‘Gotcha’ is a bit harsher than what I meant, and I also didn’t want to accuse you of this. Sorry!