New York Times X/XX/20XX

*the following is a fictional New York Times Op-Ed, presenting an argument against the "Bill of Life" at the end of the Heartland War

TOTAL INSANITY!!

The proposed so-called "Bill of Life" fails entirely to understand the basic arguments which sparked the current conflict. Nobody on the pro-choice side is there because the have a desire to abort children, and if the pro-life side is really so convinced that life is sacred, they would never consent to something as lunatic as a "safe period" followed by total ownership through the easily abused teenage years when who knows how many would be "unwound" simple because their parents got tired of dealing with moody, rebellious children? What kind of mental gymnastics does it take to believe that someone is still alive when they've been chopped up and spread around as transplants? Yes, their body parts still live, but the person they were is dead.

Unwinding the Threads of the Individual

What I find fascinating about Unwind is its suitability as an allegory for our questions on whether a utopia should, or commonly does, focus on the community's happiness compared to the individual. Minority Report allowed us to reflect on how, if a system cannot protect the rights or freedom of the individual, then it can hardly hold up to defending and protecting a communal entity. This society distributes the essence and/or the body parts of the 'few' to support and aid the many and satisfy a standstill of war (and for health or whatever else one needs new parts for). Teenagers, willingly or unwillingly, are literally pieced into empty slots, sewn into muscle in ways that ensure and reveal their importance - for whatever purpose, this is a world that needs the sacrifice of the few, the young and troublesome and abandoned, in order to function with its set rules and expectations. I am heavily reminded of Omelas, where the one poor child's suffering is merely a shackled necessity, known and winced at, but still ongoing. There are plenty of characters who seem against unwinding but are unable to dent the norm of the practice, at least not in the beginning (Lev's brother, Connor, even the boeuf boy who leans away at the reveal of Risa's situation).

This is a world in which an individual is made a commodity regardless of the 'noble' intentions unwinding serves, or however religious it is made out to be. Children who are not as perfect as others like Risa, or troublesome and below expectations like Connor, or conditioned to be a lucky chosen one like Lev, are all cogs in a wheel of reassignment and an avoidance of mortality - or at least the idea of it. I wonder if this text showcases the ongoing question we have about the goals of a utopia and whether community or individuality is more valued (look at Lev's 'bad thoughts' on page 32 as an example). I'm also curious about how much unwinding has to do with the good of others when the main message purported to the utopians is that the individual selected achieves a place of simultaneous remarkability and infinity whilst being subsumed and assimilated.