This fictional story attempts to contradict the narrative that severe inequality is a necessary condition for the existence of a prosperous and happy society, and that inequality is justified and that no one cannot or does not do anything. about this. The details of the story are very vague, leaving a lot to the reader's imagination. For some undefined or non-existent reason, only one child must remain in deplorable conditions. His misery is necessary to ensure the happiness of the citizens of Omelas. The rule seems to have no reason to exist. How is the boy's misery necessary to enable the citizens to experience joy? The author never offers an explanation, leaving the reader to conclude that the rule that he must be in misery to be happy has no logical justification. The rule must be followed simply because it is a rule. Some citizens become angry or sad when they learn of the boy and his misery, but they quickly forget. Others depart for Omelas, rejecting the rule and rejecting happiness over the boy's misery. The author does not criticize too much subtlety...