From online discussions, it seems most people take the narration at face value. The child definitely exists and is definitely being mistreated to fuel the happiness of Omelas. Most discussions are based on if the reader would decide to leave or stay.
However rereading I felt it was apparent that there is no true confirmation that the child or their suffering actually exists. It seems like the narrator is merely trolling us because she knows that most readers can’t just accept a utopian society where everyone is happy. She’s poking fun at the reader for believing that a society that somehow fuels its utopia from one child suffering is more realistic/believable than a society that is just truly happy.
To me it seems like the story is also a parody of the all-too-common “utopia is actually a dystopia” trope, rather than just a launching pad for discussions on the ethics of staying in the society.
by Klickytat
2 Comments
I mean. No???
Even setting aside the obvious real-world parallels it’s trying to draw, and the fact that it was written in the 70’s before the trend you’re claiming it’s deconstructing was a big enough thing for “obvious” backlash, LeGuin has been pretty open about her inspiration for the story, and the point she’s making. She [literally calls the idea of “The Scapegoat” a central theme of the story](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ones_Who_Walk_Away_from_Omelas).
Interesting perspective!
And in turn you could say that we, the readers, are ‘The ones who walk away from Omelas’, turning our backs on ambitions of a utopia, believing they’re unattainable or that there will always be a catch.