|
With a clamor of bells that set the swallows
soaring, the Festival of Summer came to the
city Omelas, bright-towered by the sea. The
rigging of the boats in harbor sparkled with
flags. In the streets between houses with
red roofs and painted walls, between old
moss-grown gardens and under avenues of trees,
past great parks and public buildings, processions
moved. Some were decorous: old people in
long stiff robes of mauve and grey, grave
master workmen, quiet, merry women carrying
their babies and chatting as they walked.
In other streets the music beat faster, a
shimmering of gong and tambourine, and the
people went dancing, the procession was a
dance.
Children dodged in and out, their high calls
rising like the swallows’ crossing flights
over the music and the singing. All the processions
wound towards the north side of the city,
where on the great water-meadow called the
Green Fields boys and girls, naked in the
bright air, with mud-stained feet and ankles
and long, lithe arms, exercised their restive
horses before the race. The horses wore no
gear at all but a halter without bit. Their
manes were braided with streamers of silver,
gold, and green. They flared their nostrils
and pranced and boasted to one another; they
were vastly excited, the horse being the
only animal who has adopted our ceremonies
as his own. Far off to the north and west
the mountains stood up half encircling Omelas
on her bay.
The air of morning was so clear that the
snow still crowning the Eighteen Peaks burned
with white-gold fire across the miles of
sunlit air, under the dark blue of the sky.
There was just enough wind to make the banners
that marked the racecourse snap and flutter
now and then. In the silence of the broad
green meadows one could hear the music winding
through the city streets, farther and nearer
and ever approaching, a cheerful faint sweetness
of the air that from time to time trembled
and gathered together and broke out into
the great joyous clanging of the bells.
Joyous! How is one to tell about joy? How
describe the citizens of Omelas?
They were not simple folk, you see, though
they were happy. But we do not say the words
of cheer much any more. All smiles have become
archaic. Given a description such as this
one tends to make certain assumptions. Given
a description such as this one tends to look
next for the King, mounted on a splendid
stallion and surrounded by his noble knights,
or perhaps in a golden litter borne by great-muscled
slaves. But there was no king. They did not
use swords, or keep slaves. They were not
barbarians. I do not know the rules and laws
of their society, but I suspect that they
were singularly few. As they did without
monarchy and slavery, so they also got on
without the stock exchange, the advertisement,
the secret police, and the bomb. Yet I repeat
that these were not simple folk, not dulcet
shepherds, noble savages, bland utopians.
They were not less complex than us. The trouble
is that we have a bad habit, encouraged by
pedants and sophisticates, of considering
happiness as something rather stupid. Only
pain is intellectual, only evil interesting.
This is the treason of
the artist: a refusal to admit the banality
of evil and the terrible boredom of pain.
If you can’t lick ‘em, join ‘em. If it hurts,
repeat it. But to praise despair is to condemn
delight, to embrace violence is to lose hold
of everything else. We have almost lost hold;
we can no longer describe a happy man, nor
make any celebration of joy. How can I tell
you about the people of Omelas? They were
not naive and happy children—though their
children were, in fact, happy. They were
mature, intelligent, passionate adults whose
lives were not wretched. O miracle! but I
wish I could describe it better. I wish I
could convince you. Omelas sounds in my words
like a city in a fairy tale, long ago and
far away, once upon a time. Perhaps it would
be best if you imagined it as your own fancy
bids, assuming it will rise to the occasion,
for certainly I cannot suit you all. For
instance, how about technology? I think that
there would be no cars or helicopters in
and above the streets; this follows from
the fact that the people of Omelas are happy
people.
Happiness is based on
a just discrimination of what is necessary,
what is neither necessary nor destructive,
and what is destructive. In the middle category,
however—that of the unnecessary but undestructive,
that of comfort, luxury, exuberance, etc.—they
could perfectly well have central heating,
subway trains, washing machines, and all
kinds of marvelous devices not yet invented
here, floating light-sources, fuelless power,
a cure for the common cold. Or they could
have none of that; it doesn’t matter. As
you like it. I incline to think that people
from towns up and down the coast have been
coming in to Omelas during the last days
before the Festival on very fast little trains
and double-decked trams, and that the train
station of Omelas is actually the handsomest
building in town, though plainer than the
magnificent Farmers’ Market. But even granted
trains, I fear that Omelas so far strikes
some of you as goody-goody. Smiles, bells,
parades, horses, bleh. If so, please add
an orgy. If an orgy would help, don’t hesitate.
Let us not, however, have temples from which
issue beautiful nude priests and priestesses
already half in ecstasy and ready to copulate
with any man or woman, lover or stranger,
who desires union with the deep godhead of
the blood, although that was my first idea.
But really it would be better not to have
any temples in Omelas—at least, not manned
temples. Religion yes, clergy no.
Surely the beautiful
nudes can just wander about, offering themselves
like divine souffles to the hunger of the
needy and the rapture of the flesh. Let them
join the processions. Let tambourines be
struck above the copulations, and the glory
of desire be proclaimed upon the gongs, and
(a not unimportant point) let the offspring
of these delightful rituals be beloved and
looked after by all. One thing I know there
is none of in Omelas is guilt. But what else
should there be? I thought at first there
were not drugs, but that is puritanical.
For those who like it, the faint insistent
sweetness of drooz may perfume the ways of
the city, drooz which first brings a great
lightness and brilliance to the mind and
limbs, and then after some hours a dreamy
languor, and wonderful visions at last of
the very arcana and inmost secrets of the
Universe, as well as exciting the pleasure
of sex beyond belief; and it is not habit-forming.
For more modest tastes I think there ought
to be beer. What else, what else belongs
in the joyous city? The sense of victory,
surely, the celebration of courage. But as
we did without clergy, let us do without
soldiers. The joy built upon successful slaughter
is not the right kind of joy; it will not
do; it is fearful and it is trivial. A boundless
and generous contentment, a magnanimous triumph
felt not against some outer enemy but in
communion with the finest and fairest in
the souls of all men everywhere and the splendor
of the world’s summer: this is what swells
the hearts of the people of Omelas, and the
victory they celebrate is that of life. I
really don’t think many of them need to take
drooz.
Most of the procession have reached the Green
Fields by now. A marvelous smell of cooking
goes forth from the red and blue tents of
the provisioners. The faces of small children
are amiably sticky; in the benign grey beard
of a man a couple of crumbs of rich pastry
are entangled. The youths and girls have
mounted their horses and are beginning to
group around the starting line of the course.
An old women, small, fat, and laughing, is
passing out flowers from a basket, and tall
young men where her flowers in their shining
hair. A child of nine or ten sits at the
edge of the crowd, alone, playing on a wooden
flute. People pause to listen, and they smile,
but they do not speak to him, for he never
ceases playing and never sees them, his dark
eyes wholly rapt in the sweet, thin magic
of the tune.
He finishes, and slowly lowers his hands
holding the wooden flute.
As if that little private silence were the
signal, all at once a trumpet sounds from
the pavilion near the starting line: imperious,
melancholy, piercing. The horses rear on
their slender legs, and some of them neigh
in answer. Sober-faced, the young riders
stroke the horses’ necks and soothe them,
whispering, “Quiet, quiet, there my beauty,
my hope....” They begin to form in rank along
the starting line. The crowds along the racecourse
are like a field of grass and flowers in
the wind. The Festival of Summer has begun.
Do you believe? Do you accept the festival,
the city, the joy? No? Then let me describe
one more thing.
In a basement under one of the beautiful
public buildings of Omelas, or perhaps in
the cellar of one of its spacious private
homes, there is a room. It has one locked
door, and no window. A little light seeps
in dustily between cracks in the boards,
secondhand from a cobwebbed window somewhere
across the cellar. In one corner of the little
room a couple of mops, with stiff, clotted,
foul-smelling heads stand near a rusty bucket.
The floor is dirt, a little damp to the touch,
as cellar dirt usually is. The room is about
three paces long and two wide: a mere broom
closet or disused tool room. In the room
a child is sitting. It could be a boy or
a girl. It looks about six, but actually
is nearly ten. It is feeble-minded. Perhaps
it was born defective, or perhaps it has
become imbecile through fear, malnutrition,
and neglect. It picks its nose and occasionally
fumbles vaguely with its toes or genitals,
as it sits hunched in the corner farthest
from the bucket and the two mops. It is afraid
of the mops. It finds them horrible. It shuts
its eyes, but it knows the mops are still
standing there; and the door is locked; and
nobody will come. The door is always locked;
and nobody ever comes, except that sometimes—the
child has no understanding of time or interval—sometimes
the door rattles terribly and opens, and
a person, or several people, are there.
One of them may come
in and kick the child to make it stand up.
The others never come close, but peer in
at it with frightened, disgusted eyes. The
food bowl and the water jug are hastily filled,
the door is locked, the eyes disappear. The
people at the door never say anything, but
the child, who has not always lived in the
tool room, and can remember sunlight and
its mother’s voice, sometimes speaks. “I
will be good,” it says. “Please let me out.
I will be good!” They never answer. The child
used to scream for help at night, and cry
a good deal, but now it only makes a kind
of whining, “eh-haa, eh-haa,” and it speaks
less and less often. It is so thin there
are no calves to its legs; its belly protrudes;
it lives on a half-bowl of corn meal and
grease a day. It is naked. Its buttocks and
thighs are a mass of festered sores, as it
sits in its own excrement continually.
They all know it is there, all the people
of Omelas. Some of them have come to see
it, others are content merely to know it
is there. They all know that it has to be
there. Some of them understand why, and some
do not, but they all understand that their
happiness, the beauty of their city, the
tenderness of their friendships, the health
of their children, the wisdom of their scholars,
the skill of their makers, even the abundance
of their harvest and the kindly weathers
of their skies, depend wholly on this child’s
abominable misery.
This is usually explained to children when
they are between eight and twelve, whenever
they seem capable of understanding; and most
of those who come to see the child are young
people, though often enough an adult comes,
or comes back, to see the child. No matter
how well the matter has been explained to
them, these young spectators are always shocked
and sickened at the sight. They feel disgust,
which they had thought themselves superior
to. They feel anger, outrage, impotence,
despite all the explanations. They would
like to do something for the child. But there
is nothing they can do. If the child were
brought up into the sunlight out of that
vile place, if it were cleaned and fed and
comforted, that would be a good thing indeed;
but if it were done, in that day and hour
all the prosperity and beauty and delight
of Omelas would wither and be destroyed.
Those are the terms. To exchange all the
goodness and grace of every life in Omelas
for that single, small improvement: to throw
away the happiness of thousands for the chance
of the happiness of one: that would be to
let guilt within the walls indeed.
The terms are strict and absolute; there
may not even be a kind word spoken to the
child.
Often the young people go home in tears,
or in a tearless rage, when they have seen
the child and faced this terrible paradox.
They may brood over it for weeks or years.
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:
a little vague pleasure of warmth and food,
no doubt, but little more. It is too degraded
and imbecile to know any real joy. It has
been afraid too long ever to be free of fear.
Its habits are too uncouth for it to respond
to humane treatment. Indeed, after so long
it would probably be wretched without walls
about it to protect it, and darkness for
its eyes, and its own excrement to sit in.
Their tears at the bitter injustice dry when
they begin to perceive the terrible justice
of reality, and to accept it. Yet it is their
tears and anger, the trying of their generosity
and the acceptance of their helplessness,
which are perhaps the true source of the
splendor of their lives. Theirs is no vapid,
irresponsible happiness. They know that they,
like the child, are not free. They know compassion.
It is the existence of the child, and their
knowledge of its existence, that makes possible
the nobility of their architecture, the poignancy
of their music, the profundity of their science.
It is because of the child that they are
so gentle with children. They know that if
the wretched one were not there sniveling
in the dark, the other one, the flute-player,
could make no joyful music as the young riders
line up in their beauty for the race in the
sunlight of the first morning of summer.
Now do you believe in them? Are they not
more credible? But there is one more thing
to tell, and this is quite incredible.
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. Sometimes also a man or woman much
older falls silent for a day or two, and
then leaves home. These people go out into
the street, and walk down the street alone.
They keep walking, and walk straight out
of the city of Omelas, through the beautiful
gates. They keep walking across the farmlands
of Omelas. Each one goes alone, youth or
girl, man or woman. Night falls; the traveler
must pass down village streets, between the
houses with yellow-lit windows, and on out
into the darkness of the fields. Each alone,
they go west or north, towards the mountains.
They go on. They leave Omelas, they walk
ahead into the darkness, and they do not
come back. The place they go towards is a
place even less imaginable to most of us
than 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.
Reprinted from
Ursula K. Le Guin's
"The Wind's Twelve Quarters"
A Collection of Short Stories |
|
The central idea of this psychomyth, the
scapegoat, turns up in Dostoyevsky's Brothers
Karamazov, and several people have asked
me, rather suspiciously, why I gave the credit
to William James. The fact is, I haven't
been able to re-read Dostoyevsky, much as
I loved him, since I was twenty-five, and
I'd simply forgotten he used the idea. But
when I met it in James's "The Moral
Philosopher and the Moral Life," it
was with a shock of recognition. Here is
how James puts it:
Or if the hypothesis
were offered us of a world in which Messrs.
Fourier's and Bellamy's and Morris's Utopias
should all be outdone, and millions kept
permanently happy on the one simple condition
that a certain lost soul on the far-off edge
of things should lead a life of lonely torment,
what except a specifical and independent
sort of emotion can it be which would make
us immediately feel, even though an impulse
arose within us to clutch at the happiness
so offered, how hideous a thing would be
its enjoyment when deliberately accepted
as the fruit of such a bargain?
The dilemma of the American
conscience can hardly be better stated. Dostoyevsky
was a great artist, and a radical one, but
his early social radicalism reversed itself,
leaving him a violent reactionary. Whereas
the American James, who seems so mild, so
naively gentlemanly—look how he says "us,"
assuming all his readers are as decent as
himself!—was, and remained, and remains,
a genuinely radical thinker. Directly after
the "lost soul" passage he goes
on,
All the higher, more
penetrating ideals are revolutionary. They
present themselves far less in the guise
of effects of past experience than in that
of probable causes of future experience,
factors to which the environment and the
lessons it has so far taught us must learn
to bend.
The application of those
two sentences to this story, and to science
fiction, and to all thinking about the future,
is quite direct. Ideals as "the probable
causes of future experience"—that is
a subtle and an exhilarating remark!
Of course I didn't read
James and sit down and say. Now I'll write
a story about that "lost soul."
It seldom works that simply. I sat down and
started a story, just because I felt like
it, with nothing but the word "Omelas"
in mind. It came from a road sign: Salem
(Oregon) backwards. Don't you read road signs
backwards? POTS. WOLS nerdlihc. Ocsicnarf
Nas... Salem equals schelomo equals salaam
equals Peace. Melas. O melas. Omelas. Homme
helas. "Where do you get your ideas
from, Ms Le Guin?" From forgetting Dostoyevsky
and reading road signs backwards, naturally.
Where else?
|
|