This fictional story attempts to contradict the narrative that severe inequality is a necessary condition for a prosperous and happy society to exist, and that inequality is justified and that no one can do or do nothing about it. The details of the story are very vague, leaving much to the reader's imagination. For some undefined or non-existent reason, a single 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 behind it. How necessary is the boy's misery to allow citizens to experience joy? The author never offers an explanation, leaving the reader to come to the conclusion that the rule that he must be unhappy for his own happiness has no logical justification. The rule must be followed simply because it is a rule. Some citizens get angry or sad when they learn about the boy and his misery, but they soon forget about it. Others leave for Omelas, rejecting the rule and rejecting bliss at the expense of the boy's misery. The author is not too subtly critical...