friendly reminder that jungkook put tori kelly’s dear no one on his playlist. a song jimin says represents him. jungkook? put jimin on his playlist? why am I not surprised I feel like I should be more surprised but I’m not
a rundown of why omelas is so important thematically to bangtan’s entire concept
This isn’t going to be MV analysis, per se, because this is just a teaser. I’m not going to tell you who dies (there are 5000 people doing it already please guys don’t ask this of me), or what’s going on, but the theme behind the mv, and the BLATANTLY POLITICAL commentary that makes it so important.
Okay, this might seem like jumping the gun, but BTS have done criticism before on society. Heck, other than Boy In Luv and War of Hormone era, each comeback has been increasingly outspoken. Their debut MV, No More Dream, was about the extremely pressuring education system in South Korea, as was N.O. So something like Spring Day, their new comeback, wouldn’t seem too out of place. Omelas, the glowing neon sign, seems to be the false utopia whose metaphorical existence depends entirely on the suffering of the youth.
So what makes this comeback so radically different from any of the others?
Let’s look at the summary of the short story before we move on to themes, which you can read here. If you have read it already, CTRL+F to the subversion, but if you want a quick rundown anyway, look below.
Omelas is an utopian society, but not a society like, say, the original Utopia in Thomas More’s story. This utopia is almost the definition of free, has very little restrictions, and the people there celebrate life, not death. We are not explicitly told what it is like, but the writer actively encourages us to image that there are no soldiers, or kings, or even manned temples. It is a republic, of sorts - there is a discourse on what is necessary for happiness, and we are urged to imagine whatever we would see fit for it. Free wifi? Sure, why not? Orgies? Yep. What a beautiful state!
Except there’s a catch. This utopia hinges on one thing: The suffering of a lonely miserable child locked in a cage in a dark basement, given up by the entire city as beyond saving. Because saving it would mean that the whole of Omelas would crumble to dust.
(Yeah, that’s Taehyung in the Stigma short film. Are they referring to this concept that they planned earlier? You bet.)
Everyone in Omelas knows about the child, but they don’t do anything. Every child and adolescent has the concept of it explained to them before they are taken to see it, and they all recoil in disgust. And although they rage and despair, nothing can be done except to return home.
There are always exceptions, of course. Once in a while, the adolescents, or even older people who go to see the child will never return home at all and start walking away from the city into the darkness. And that is where it ends. Abrupt? Perhaps. But it gets the point across.
The next part: What do we take away from this story?
Let’s go over the main themes once.
It’s the subversion of the common morals that humankind seems to exhort others to follow.
This is interesting, because the author stresses that this is an utopia and it would never exist in real life. Yet excessive, unrestrained lust and passion are very real in our times, to the point that people whom we look up to as role models fall to corruption. It’s even more interesting when you consider that the concept of Wings itself was temptation - and in a Utopia like Omelas, there is no temptation at all, because all your wishes have already been granted. But the question is: have they truly made you happy?
Given the situation of the government in South Korea right now [Park Geun-hye’s Downfall] [Choi Soon-sil Gate Part 1] [Choi Soon-sil Gate Part 2] it’s very, VERY interesting. There’s more resources at Ask A Korean if y’all want to read up on the political situation there, some of which also come into play later.
What’s more interesting is that Namjoon - who we already know had a hand in Demian being part of the concept for Wings - has stated that he was influenced by Albert Camus’ The Stranger in this book excerpt interview that @papercrowns on twitter has generously translated for us. The Stranger has a very...pointed theme, so as to speak. In a nutshell, it’s about a man who kills another man.
To expand - it’s about a dude named Mersault who feels no despair at his mother’s funeral, and feels no guilt after killing a guy on the beach, and doesn’t even feel any emotion when he is about to be executed, except for anger at a society that does not understand him. Tl;dr according to the author, there are only two truths: we live and we die.
(The murder happens on the beach, btw. Interesting, considering Jimin is standing on the beach holding a pair of shoes, which appear next tied to a tree. Which can signify death. Huh.)
This is what Camus himself said in 1955: “I summarized The Stranger a long time ago, with a remark I admit was highly paradoxical: 'In our society any man who does not weep at his mother's funeral runs the risk of being sentenced to death.' I only meant that the hero of my book is condemned because he does not play the game.”
In short, Mersault - is not someone who should be emulated. His actions are born out of pure apathy. However, as a critic has pointed out, paradoxically - “Mersault’s ultimate vindication is in having remained true to himself and to his feelings in a society that cultivates deception and hypocrisy.”
That is essentially what Omelas is. The very concept of happiness in it is built on a lie - on the suffering of a lone child except of cherishing others. People in it cherish their family more because they know that child suffers, not despite it, and make no move to save it.
Now, we see that guilt is an unknown variable. The author writes -
“To exchange all the goodness and grace of every life in Omelas for that single, small improvement: to throw away the happiness of thousands for the chance of happiness of one: that would be to let guilt within the walls indeed.”
The children, or adolescents, who first go to see the child beneath Omelas, realize immediately how terrible its state is. However, they make no move to rescue it and start to justify to themselves why they are incapable of saving it.
Ultimately it boils down to the greater good - and the fact that the child is beyond all saving, since its mental faculties may never be recovered even if it is rescued at the cost of breaking down that entire ideal world. It has already been battered and bruised, even if it knew happiness once. What is the point?
Which is where we hit the root of the problem.
This concept is a political and social commentary.
There’s no doubt that some of this would be very familiar to us. The wretched state of the child - it could be any youth suffering in a third world country, a child dying in an underdeveloped zone, a starving boy in Africa or a homeless girl on the streets of our own city. We hear about them every single day, but none of us make any move to help, because we believe they are out of our reach.
Society has essentially been built on their blood, sweat and tears and we still want more.
So what do they prescribe to break out of it?
Let’s go straight back to the story itself. The people who leave Omelas go either west or north, towards the mountains, the Eighteen Peaks referenced in the story. I should point out that the YNWA logo looks very much like a compass, here. But I’m not a design student, and someone else could point that out better. They leave silently, and the author says -
“The place they go towards is a place even less imaginable to most of us than the city of happiness. I cannot describe it at all. It is possible that it does not exist. But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.”
There can be only one possible analysis of this powerful ending paragraph. Essentially, The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas is plotless precisely because it is a social critique. And these fortunate few in Omelas are the ones who have discovered a precious emotion that they cannot live without - guilt. The adults in Omelas are aware of that child underneath the city, but they ignore its existence and nurture their children more because they are aware of its suffering, unable to provide it succor because of their own self-preservation. They have, essentially, erased all guilt from their system.
But the ones who walk away have experienced it, and can no longer stay silent. They must protest. They must fight. And they fight in the only way they know how - not with violence, but by walking away from the constructed happiness of that society which thinks a child’s suffering is acceptable for the greater good.
And really? Haven’t they been saying that since debut? Except, what else is this but a very unsubtle reference to the peaceful protests in South Korea demanding the impeachment of Park Geun-hye?
That same head of state whose associate embezzled millions? The same head of state who was absent from duty for several hours while hundreds of children drowned?
BTS are making a political statement. They’re doing it in the only way they know how - through their music. They’re being respectful, but they’re not being subtle.
Can I tell you if this is all going to be in the music video? Nah. Can I prove that anything I said isn’t just speculation on my part? Nope. In fact, don’t go quote me on it, I definitely don’t speak for BTS or BigHit or whatever their brilliant minds are planning next.
But the fact that they chose to deliberately reference such a controversial piece of philosophical writing that actively promotes peaceful protests is more than telling. Or you know, that their album is literally called You Never Walk Alone. It’s not just about the organization, or some donation. Look.
That, I think, amply showed us that you never walk alone. Not for a good cause. You just have to take the first step.
