The last two posts have given me much food for thought and I'm still rolling them around in my mind.
One thought I'm taking away from them is that at times, societies need martyrs. That's an overtly and probably overly religious term to use, but I think it applies. I can't remember if matyrology was an element of Yomeshta, but it wouldn't have been part of Handara.
We tend to call them activists and we need them. Early activists act presumably without the entire expectation that they'll see the desired change in their time, but that they'll be part of the process. Martyrs are a little different, going for the quick change, risking everything and if not seeking martyrdom, are at least comfortable with it. I didn't really pick up on Estraven's explicit martyrdom; I let it go as a death wish. Ultimately, however, I think he wanted to die for a cause.
Pulling one example from history (in part, because I'm reading a series of books where the hero is based on him), there's Claus von Stauffenberg. He might have been the agent of timely change; it's one of the big "what-ifs." Certainly a patriot, he acted on his patriotism in a way that would be all or nothing. As we all know, the winners decide the labels and von Stauffenberg, like Estraven, engaged in a great betrayal in the immediate term.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gmw
I think Le Guin did a neat job here of presenting a betrayal, and seeing it punished, so that the reader is left to view the betrayal in almost any light. The story presents the dilemma but does not directly judge the outcome.
|
I love this.
I'm going to add an aside about
The People Who Walk Away from Omelas because a significant flaw in that, I thought, is that the choices were presented as an either/or; stay or go. No martyrs in Omelas!