Upon analysis of The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas, readers will see that in this short story the narrator makes several claims as fact. This narrator isn't just a narrator as one might believe, but an apathetic citizen that understands what horrors go on, as they present these atrocities in such a way that is unmoved and straight forward. This can be shown through the text in regard to the reaction of the townspeople to these atrocities and and the claims the narrator speaks, as if regurgitated.
The narrator represents the average citizen of Omelas, who understands the horror of what is happening but believes it to be justified and can present it in a straightforward manner. In this story, the townspeople believe that there is no helping the child without ruining everything they have worked for. They must sacrifice the child in order to keep a comfortable social order. They can see how their beliefs/actions are wrong, but refuse to acknowledge them/do anything about it. Examples of this are found in the following text:
“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.” (5)
When the narrator says that the townspeople know that all the good things in Omelas “depend wholly on this child’s abominable misery” (5), presented in a purely neutral way, they reveal themselves to believe everything that the townspeople believe. They admit to not knowing what lies beyond Omelas, just as a citizen would not. The narrator is likely an unreliable narrator who is simply a citizen of Omelas, believing in what they are saying. This means that everything they believe could easily be false, and adds another level of horror to the fact that most citizens decide that the child is beyond saving, as the narrator is no longer a “divine” power, but rather an apathetic citizen. If the narrator is not setting the rules, then readers suddenly have no reason to believe the terms presented in the story are real.
It is likely that the narrator is a citizen because they believe in un-proved theories blindly believed by the citizens, such as, “if the child could be released… it is too degraded and imbecile to know any real joy” (6). Though the narrator presents this as fact, the readers know it may not be, thus putting suspicion on the narrator. Additionally, the narrator uses the simile that the child is not free just as the citizens are not free because of their knowledge of the child (6). From a human-rights perspective, actual imprisonment simply isn’t equal to the guilt of knowing someone is imprisoned, but the narrator does not see this.
Some citizens, however, do realize the wrongdoings after a while and choose to leave. They break free from the social norms and start to question what they know. These citizens leave after seeing the child, and “they do not come back” (7). The narrator states that “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" (7). It is likely that the narrator only does not know where these citizens go because they themselves are a citizen. However, the citizens who do walk away do so with purpose.
In conclusion, the story The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas parallels the real world in which the citizens represent people in today’s world who know about the existence of suffering and human rights abuses yet believe in mindless justifications of it or are too numbed towards it to do anything. The narrator, who readers originally believe to be all-knowing, represents the way that people today may trust authority figures who try to justify atrocities without truly questioning them.
To find a solution seems nearly impossible as the reader’s only source of information comes from one of its citizens who is intent on keeping the child in its misery. A solution appears to only be possible from a non-citizen, someone who has not bought into the idea that the child cannot be saved. In this way, the issue of the child parallels the real world in that no individual on earth is immune to happiness and often individuals in the real world choose to be blind to atrocities, just as the citizens of Omelas are blind to help the child.
Perhaps the purpose that drives people out of Omelas could also be used to save the child. If the atrocities towards the imprisoned child are so bad that one chooses to leave, why hasn’t anyone attempted to free the child? Perhaps a root cause of the child’s misery is that no matter how dire the situation, individuals will choose their own happiness over that of the child.