For the Greater Good

For The Greater Good
Imagine life as we know it altered to a state where perfection comes naturally or each day could be your last. Of course, these two descriptions are opposite examples of how nations could rule. As we see in Ursula K. Le Guin’s short story, The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas, we see a rich, beautiful utopia where everyone is content with happiness. In Suzanne Collins’ novel, The Hunger Games, her fictional country, Panem, is a dystopia where many people die each day of starvation and diseases. In this blog, I aim to compare the two works by encompassing children’s role in each nation, the people’s sympathy and desire for an easier life to show similarities, despite their opposing systems.
In order for Omelas to retain its utopian society, a child must be treated harshly and be kept in filthy, miserable conditions. A similar concept can be seen in The Hunger Games where twenty-four teenagers are transported to a dangerous arena where they must fight to the death. As one can see, both works incorporate the element of harsh treatment towards children by the government. According to one of Le Guin’s fans, who quotes Nicholas Ruddick, “‘Le Guin's protagonists are typically lonely, isolated, and out on the edge of things.’” She goes on to say that “Ruddick’s statement is an accurate description of the neglected child.” Not only does Ruddick’s statement match Le Guin’s protagonist, it also describes Collins’ protagonist, Katniss. Katniss is neglected by her only surviving parent and participates in the deadly games in place of her sister. Therefore, both works provide us with neglected children facing harsh treatment that are given no choice but to deal with it. In other words, children are powerless against adults and ruling figures which make children scapegoats.
Another element seen in each work is the sympathy from the people towards the mistreated children. In Le Guin’s short story, the residents in Omelas become aware of its dark secret. However, they accept it because the residents know a child’s misery gives Omelas a wondrous life. In Collins’ novel, the people grew up with the brutal games and are disgusted by it, but are unable to do anything since their government requires it. As a reward for the sole survivor of the games, his or her district is given more food for a year until the next games. In both these works, the residents do know this is an inhumane exchange, but accept it for their own benefit and to avoid trouble. Additionally, both works do mention a select few who chose to not live in their country and it is uncertain as to where these people go. Nonetheless, a vast majority of each country’s population accepts the exchange of children’s misery, but is sympathetic in doing so.
Furthermore, both works provide examples of having an easier life means sacrifices must occur. In Collins’ novel, twenty-three children die just so one district can have an abundance of food for a year. In Le Guin’s short story, a young child is traumatized by its citizens for Omelas. We see a similar incident happening in our world with Africa being stripped of its natural resources by other countries. This occurs so we can have cheaper items on the market and more resources for our citizens. However, many people do not want more expensive items or fewer resources for themselves. We are so accustomed to receiving things on demand and electronic devices that we cannot imagine life without such things. Therefore, we chose to continue stripping less fortunate countries’ resources for our own benefit.
Although The Hunger Games and The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas are dystopian and utopian fiction, they both are similar by how the people reside. Both works mistreat their children in exchange for the people’s happiness and content. While the residents are sympathetic towards the mistreated children, they accept it because without their children’s misery, everyone will live in misery. We even see this in today’s society where we live in a free trade world. We take other countries’ resources to make our lives easier. While we may be sympathetic for doing it, it will not make us stop. Also, both works do have a few people who chose to not participate in watching children suffer by leaving their respectful nation. Overall, both works place children as scapegoats for their nation’s better lifestyle which is a small sacrifice for the majority of the people who want a better life.