In an effort to create more perfect societies, people have historically relied on conformity and rebellion as tools of human progress. Humans have for centuries been pre-occupied with questions on how to create the best society. The ultimate goal is utopia, a world that grants everybody freedom and happiness. Heroes are often called and expected to emerge when people slide towards a dark path. The reality of the trade offs involved in the creation of better societies are well presented in Ursula K. Le Guin’s “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas” and Ralph Ellison’s “Battle Royal”. In both seminal works of fiction, individuals are presented with a choice on whether to rebel or conform. In both stories, conformity provides stability without justice while rebellion has the potential to create just societies while at the same time jeopardizing stability.
This paper seeks to explore the treatment of the themes of rebellion in Le Guin and Ellison’s critically acclaimed short stories as they relate to heroism. The argument put forward is that even though rebellion sounds like the best response to oppression and unjust societies, man usually conforms and casts a blind eye. The burden of guilt is nipped in the bud and societies pretend like they are not havens of injustice. Most often flawed heroes emerge like the nameless narrator in Battle Royale and the few people who go to see the child locked away in Omelas’ basement so that it can be prosperous.
Le Guin presents the ultimate human dilemma in “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas”. At the core of the plotless and characterless story is the question about the price of Utopia and freedom. Omelas’ joy and happiness depends on the pain and suffering of an ill treated feeble minded child in a dungeon. It is a case about choosing the life of many versus the life on a few. Human life should not be expendable but it is in Omelas (Laurie 8). People are always bound on taking the side of many as compared to a few. Those that see society playing unfairly often walk away like the ones who walk away from Omelas.
There is an irony in Le Guin’s depiction of the citizens of Omelas. The narrator reassures the reader that “these were not simple folk, not dulcet shepherds, noble savages, bland utopians” (Le Guin. This is however not true because a trip to the basement shows the extent of Omelas’ savagery. This point is made before the reader is taken to the small room with the chained child. One is no longer sure if the citizens of Omelas are not ‘simple’. The narrator observes that the people of Omelas “were not naive and happy children- though their children were, in fact, happy. They were mature, intelligent, passionate adults whose lives were not wretched” (Le Guin 291). In this instance, Omelas sounds like utopia, a place people would do anything to live in. Nothing could be bad here. Utopia can't be what it is without happiness. The narrator provides a nuanced definition of happiness and the conditions that makes it possible. He notes that “happiness is based on a just discrimination of what is necessary, what is neither necessary nor destructive, and what is destructive” (Le Guin 292). Because necessity defines Omela’s definition of happiness what is necessary can be vile, disgusting but acceptable to the larger parts of the community. Those who do not accept this kind of happiness walk away from Omelas.
It is when the narrator moves from the crowd to the basement that the horror of Omelas becomes apparent and an opportunity is presented for a hero to emerge. The child is the hero in this case but not a deliberate hero. The people of Omelas out of superstition keep a child locked up in a basement under one of the beautiful public buildings. A ten year old dirty and starving child whose gender cannot be deciphered is Omelas’ key to happiness. It seems like there are no heroes in Omelas in the traditional sense. Only the child deserves to be called a hero. The whole population is aware of the child in the basement. The village has accepted that no matter how much the child suffers, he or she needs to stay in the dungeon. The reason is because;
“some of them understand why, 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. (Le Guin 294).
The rage at the first sight of the child wanes once people understand that their future happiness depends on someone else’s suffering. Those who walk away are not as much of heroes as the sacrificial child. They see this injustice and walk away. They know that they cannot convince the crowd that the life of the child is more important that the prosperity of Omelas. Omelas does sound like a strange place but it is in essence a mirror of the modern society. It is more dystopian than utopian. Progress and cheap access of commodities depends on the labor of individuals like the child of Omelas.
While Le Guin treats utopia and conformity with indifference, Ellison tries to create a hero out of the nameless narrator growing up in a racially segregated American South. The narrator in “Battle Royal” introduces himself with confidence and high assertiveness. He refuses to be defined by the heritage of slavery and the pitiful conditions of black people. His goal is to use humility in the fight for equality.
The humiliation that the narrator suffers at the hands of the white citizens of the town is graphic and heart-rendering. It comes after he has professed humility and the desire to abide by the rules as much as he can. He thinks he is something special but all the white people around him see a hopeless negro. Being forced to fight before giving a speech about humility and social responsibility shows the extent to which society, especially the oppressive system of the time, did not accept any level of black excellence.
In “Battle Royal”, heroes conform. The nameless narrator is able to gain the respect of the local townspeople because he excelled in school and tried his best to not upset the system. He was an example of “desirable conduct” (Ellison 273). He was haunted by the fact that his grandfather had called desirable conduct- treachery. The fight takes his life battle to a different place he never explored. He is forced to confront the true nature of his black existence. As the fight progresses and become more brutal, he gets more perceptive. He discovers that the fight is an integral part of the initiation to the brutal world he is about to enter. The fight scene is reminiscent of dystopia. The savagery of the white folks who attend and the fighters shows a society regressing. Going through the fight and the electric rug and being able to deliver a speech after that is heroic in itself (Parish 533). The prize for rebellion would have been higher and dangerous. For survival he needed to fight. In societies like the one portrayed in Battle Royal heroism does not come from revolt. The narrator had already assumed a certain status among the black folks of the town.
The Battle Royal is a mythified occurrence. Like most ancient heroic tales, the narrator’s patience, eloquence, physical prowess is tested and he rightfully succeeds. The cost of not participating is very high. It involves physical torture and most of all the taking away of the opportunity to speak in front of the esteemed white people of the town. The narrator was aware that what was at stake was not just his body pain but the dignity of black folks. His grandfather would have haunted him more had he not put more effort in the fine. Trying to be honorable in front of people who shouted “let me at that big nigger” is difficult but the narrator braved it (278). He is no ordinary hero or hero in the traditional sense but his acts are heroic. The lapse of mentioning social equality is a testament of his heroism.
In conclusion, Le Guin and Ellison create complex world. It is a world where the choice to rebel or conform is not in balck and white. Heroism comes from the inner understanding that society is deeply flawed and was designed by flawed humans. There are limits to heroism. Walking away and humility become new forms of heroism. It is a form of heroism people are not proud of but makes life go on. The nameless narrator is neither a hero nor a villain. He is a man caught in an indifferent world.
Works Cited
Ellison, Ralph. “Battle Royal”. Class reading.
Laurie, Langbauer. Ethics and Theory: Suffering Children in Dickens, Dostoevsky and Le Guin.
Le Guin, Ursula. K. “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas”. Class Reading
Parrish, Timothy. Ralph Ellison and the Genius of America. African American Review 46.2
(2013): 532-535.
