Garrett Love

03/08/2021
INTL-3111-001

At the end of the story in Toni Morrison’s lecture, the old woman says to the young people
who have come to visit her, “Finally, I trust you now. I trust you with the bird that is not in
your hands because you have truly caught it. Look. How lovely it is, this thing we have done
– together.”
What is “this thing” she refers to, and what, exactly, have they (the old woman and young
people) done together?

The thing referred to by the old woman at the end of Toni Morrison’s lecture is the
shared appreciation of language between herself and the young boys. At the start of their
conversation, the boys appear to be nothing more than ignorant children looking to cause trouble.
To both the reader and the old woman, the sole purpose of their visit is to disprove the woman's
intelligence by posing an impossible question given her blindness; is the bird in their hands alive
or dead? In response, the woman states that she cannot answer the question, but that the fate of
the supposed bird is in their hands, in that if it's alive they can nurture it or kill it. Following this
response, the woman stays silent for a very long time, which annoys the boys. In her silence she
is internally contemplating the meaning of language and how it relates to the boys question - that
the bird they are describing is representative of language.
Finally, they elect to speak, but do so in a much more eloquent manner than the woman
could have expected. They chastise her for her lack of investigation into their question - and for
answering it at face value, assuming the worst of them. They ask the woman to impart her
wisdom on them, stories of her childhood, of slavery, and the lessons she has learned through her
experiences. It's clear in the way that they are speaking that they are very displeased with the
woman. Unbeknownst to them, however, the response the woman gave was a test to determine if
they shared her appreciation of language. They prove that they do, and so in her final statement,
she expresses her relief and states that can now trust them because of their shared appreciation.

Why do you think some members of the community walk away from this utopia? Is their
decision a good or an unnecessary one? Can a utopia truly exist, or are all utopias
simultaneously dystopias? What would your own utopia look like--would it be a utopia for
everyone, or would it also be a dystopia for some members of your society? Point to the text
as you argue for your perspective.

In The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas, The city of Omelas is described as this
wonderful utopia where everyone is educated, cared for, and, most importantly, happy. This
happiness comes with a cost however, and the cost is the existence of a young child forever
confined to a dark, dusty broom closet. The child is never spoken to, never allowed to leave, and
is only fed enough to be kept alive. Every member of the city knows of this child, and for some
the idea that their happiness is reliant on the suffering of this child is too much to bear, so they
leave the city.
Omelas, and the burden it must carry to exist, represents the cost of creating a utopian
society. While the people within the society may be content, there is always a cost associated
with their happiness. In the case of Omelas, it is the poor confined child, and for a more real-
world scenario it could be the exploitation or villainization of less privileged groups.
Knowing this, if I were to create my own utopia it would certainly not be uniform in its
reach, despite my best attempts to do so. I would be hopeful to imagine a society where every
citizen is treated equally and has every need met; but that will never happen. Because the human
experience is so varied and each person is so unique, there cannot be a true utopia where the
needs of every individual is met. Somewhere along the line there will be groups of people who
are left out and who will see the utopia as more of a dystopia.