Take a photo of a barcode or cover
apurpleyuan 's review for:
The Ones Who Stay and Fight
by N.K. Jemisin
challenging
dark
reflective
Plot or Character Driven:
N/A
Strong character development:
N/A
Loveable characters:
N/A
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
N/A
I read a couple of other people's thoughts on this short story while gathering my own. The work is polarizing, to say the least, with wildly different interpretations. I don't think it necessarily helps that the work is often framed as a "reply" to Le Guin's classic and beloved The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas. I do think it is a reply in a sense. But I don't necessarily think that means it is some sort of direct rebuttal, as many others seem to have taken it.
It's probably important to first discuss The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas to understand my personal interpretation of The Ones Who Stay and Fight. I can't claim to have a definitive understanding of either, but I suppose you can say that these are what I believe to be consistent takeaways given my reading of these authors' other works. Omelas is a clear and shockingly powerful indictment of utilitarianism and what is considered acceptable societal suffering for the benefit of others. I think the ideas around utilitarianism are likely obvious, so I won't dig into those. The society of Omelas clearly have accepted that the intense suffering of this one child is necessary for the rest of society to experience utopia.
What does it mean to walk away? A lot of readers seem to have interpreted walking away rather literally; there seems to be some sentiment that Le Guin's message is that we must completely disengage from Omelas's societal structure; there must be a complete rejection of this pretend utopia — a dystopia in disguise — to the point of literally walking away. And I don't think that that is completely off the mark, per se. The Dispossessed essentially plays that idea out: what happens if people genuinely and literally do walk away from unequal societal structures that choose to devalue people over others?
But I do think it's also enough to read Omelas allegorically. Walking away from Omelas is rejection, absolutely. It's rejection of the idea that it's necessary for there to be a scapegoat. The ones who are walking away don't know where they're going, but they still choose to leave. Le Guin is urging us to reject the idea that capitalism is necessary, that suffering is necessary for a prosperous and happy society. But here's the kicker: Le Guin doesn't know the answer. The ones who are leaving don't know where they're going.
It's probably important to first discuss The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas to understand my personal interpretation of The Ones Who Stay and Fight. I can't claim to have a definitive understanding of either, but I suppose you can say that these are what I believe to be consistent takeaways given my reading of these authors' other works. Omelas is a clear and shockingly powerful indictment of utilitarianism and what is considered acceptable societal suffering for the benefit of others. I think the ideas around utilitarianism are likely obvious, so I won't dig into those. The society of Omelas clearly have accepted that the intense suffering of this one child is necessary for the rest of society to experience utopia.
What does it mean to walk away? A lot of readers seem to have interpreted walking away rather literally; there seems to be some sentiment that Le Guin's message is that we must completely disengage from Omelas's societal structure; there must be a complete rejection of this pretend utopia — a dystopia in disguise — to the point of literally walking away. And I don't think that that is completely off the mark, per se. The Dispossessed essentially plays that idea out: what happens if people genuinely and literally do walk away from unequal societal structures that choose to devalue people over others?
But I do think it's also enough to read Omelas allegorically. Walking away from Omelas is rejection, absolutely. It's rejection of the idea that it's necessary for there to be a scapegoat. The ones who are walking away don't know where they're going, but they still choose to leave. Le Guin is urging us to reject the idea that capitalism is necessary, that suffering is necessary for a prosperous and happy society. But here's the kicker: Le Guin doesn't know the answer. The ones who are leaving don't know where they're going.
We don’t have to have all of the answers. We can’t even promise that a different attempt would be better, or have less suffering overall (from a utilitarian perspective). But I think the importance is that the attempt is made. That there is the act of rejection and the movement towards something different from this idea that anyone is less than anyone else—that anyone’s necessary suffering is what is realistic.
To return to The Ones Who Stay and Fight, I don’t see this short story at all being any kind of rebuttal. Yes, the idea of staying is the opposite of the idea of walking away; you could argue that arguing that we should stay and fight is, on its face, a criticism of walking away. But I would argue that The Ones Who Stay and Fight is Jemisin’s evolution of Le Guin’s story. It is building upon Le Guin’s story given modern context and Jemisin’s personal perspective. After all, it does not present the exact same scenario. It does not have any character rescue the poor child, choosing to stay and fight the rest of Omelas.
The land of Um-Helat is inherently different. It doesn’t pretend to be a utopia, not really. There are still inequalities. There are still mental health problems and homeless folks. But the society as a whole deeply values mutual care. The idea that we must all take care of each other and that no person is worth any more or any less than any other person is the root of this society. Anything otherwise is viewed with horror and incomprehensibility. “There is history rather than malice in [still existing inequalities], and it is still being actively, intentionally corrected—because the people of Um-Helat are not naive believers in good intentions as the solution to all ills.”
To say this is a rebuttal to Omelas is, in my opinion, misguided. The society of Um-Helat is one that has taken the message of Omelas and made it their very soul. Yes, there is suffering and it is not some fantastical utopia, but the citizens try. The citizens are, in essence, all together walking away from the ridiculous idea that it is necessary for certain people to suffer. But here is Jemisin’s evolution: she is pointing in a direction.
Now, I have read some interpretations online saying that Jemisin is criticizing the violent censorship of mere ideas and communication. I actually think that this is entirely backward. That interpretation is, in my opinion, a personal reaction to Jemisin’s radical commitment to power.
Does that seem wrong to you? It should not. The trouble is that we have a bad habit, encouraged by those concealing ill intent, of insisting that people already suffering should be afflicted with further, unnecessary pain. This is the paradox of tolerance, the treason of free speech: We hesitate to admit that some people are just fucking evil and need to be stopped.
That language—“some people are just fucking evil and need to be stopped”—shocked me in the moment and I gave a burst of laughter. It is unapologetic and clear; it is like for a brief moment, Jemisin pulled back the curtain, pulled back the fourth wall, and spoke directly to the reader. And it is the heart of this short story. How can you read that and think that this work is a criticism of violence? No! This work is a direct call to violence. If not literal violence, then the violence necessary to genuinely tear down structures, to genuinely prevent evil, to genuinely build equality in a society that has a deep history of inequality.
The folks who interpret this story as a criticism of the silencing of ideas might still believe that concepts like a ‘free marketplace of ideas’ can still benefit society. Or perhaps such a thing is even morally necessary, regardless of the harms those ideas might cause. Jemisin very clearly and emphatically rejects this. She writes with the experience of someone living in our modern day who has been harmed by ‘mere ideas.’ These ideas and understandings of how an evil society—that is, our society—might operate would infect and warp the society of Um-Helat. These ideas are, to use Jemisin’s words, “just fucking evil and need to be stopped.”
And so the social workers of Um-Helat stop them. They murder the ideas at their root. “Um-Helatians are learned enough to understand what must be done to make the world better, and pragmatic enough to actually enact it.”
Jemisin is not, in my interpretation, ‘rebutting’ Le Guin’s walking away. Jemisin isn’t even painting the picture of a better utopia; a place that is like Omelas but without the suffering child. The Ones Who Stay and Fight is the act of walking. It is the rejection of necessary suffering, necessary injustice, necessary greed and cruelty and prejudice. It is the act of rejection. It is not saying, don’t walk! It is a criticism of those who would reject with their mouths but not with their feet. It is a challenge to readers, asking each and every one of us whether or not we are willing to do what it takes to walk: to murder these ideas violently at their core.
“It’s possible!” Jemisin writes. It’s possible, but we must be willing to do it.