The Girl Who Owned a City

“[Lisa] had heard the word ‘looting’ before and knew that it was a kind of stealing […] But this wasn’t really looting, was it? Whoever owned this house would never be back to claim it.”

The first part of the novel teaches new vocabulary important to its later claims, and this is the first instance of that. The concept of looting is important for Lisa and the reader to work through because the issue of theft is so important to the book: Theft of someone else’s personal property, especially that which they have earned through their own hard work, is considered a particularly egregious sin.

“The cash register had been broken open and robbed. What will these kids do with the money? she had wondered. Money is useless now.”

Much of what Lisa and the other children must figure out involves the rules of the new society. One of the things that sets Lisa apart is her ability to recognize what is no longer important in this new world. In this case, she observes that other children treat money as if it still has value, despite there no longer being any kind of formal economy. The worthlessness of money also complicates the novel’s claims about property rights, since it isn’t entirely clear what gives property value in this society.

“The shelves of that store had not been completely emptied, though. They were well stocked with all of the things that children don’t like.”

Lisa recognizes very early the difference between the kinds of supplies she and other children want versus what they need. This store had already been scavenged, but because the earlier children were focused on what they wanted, the nutritious food necessary for survival remained on the shelves for Lisa and Todd to take. In this sense, Lisa is more pragmatic than the other children.

“Animals, [Lisa] thought, were lucky in a way. They had their instincts to help them survive. […] But for people, it wasn’t that simple. We have to invent traps and guns and learn how to raise food. People have to think to stay alive.”

Here and elsewhere the novel differentiates humans from animals in our capacity to think in order to solve problems. This is part of what makes the impulsive manner in which many of the other children, such as Tom Logan and his gang, act so problematic; in the novel’s terms, they are not behaving as full human beings.

“[Lisa] may have earned good marks in math and English, but now she was struggling to pass a frightening course in survival.”

The novel differentiates between formal education and the kinds of survival skills necessary in this new world. Formal education isn’t worthless; in fact, Lisa and Craig set up an education system in Glenbard, albeit a more utilitarian one. However, the novel does suggest that there are many important things that are not taught in school, and that by learning to reason, we can figure these things out if and when we need to.

“Things work in a certain way. If you do things right, it’s logical. When the tires were flat, I just stared at them […] Doing that wasn’t any more logical than crying or kicking the car. But you got the tire pump because you knew they needed air. That was logical!”

This is another instance of the novel introducing vocabulary key to its main themes; it also illustrates the way in which the book demonstrates and explains these concepts. Here, Todd enacted logic and then learned the word later, when Lisa recounted his steps in order to demonstrate the concept for both Todd and the reader. Since we rely on language for so much of our thinking, this vocabulary motif is key to the novel’s claims about human reason.

“In the end there would be a neighborhood militia to protect ‘individual rights’ on Grand Avenue—though she didn’t fully understand, yet, why individual rights were so important.”

Next to the importance of earning one’s own way, potentially the firmest argument the book makes concerns individual property and liberty. However, the book never does actually justify the importance of individual rights; it instead treats their necessity as a fundamental, unassailable principle.

“Lisa, look at that building over there. It’s just an old factory, and its windows are broken, too. Maybe some kids just had fun breaking windows and never bothered to look inside. Look—the doors are still shut.”

Although Lisa tends to exhibit the cool logic the novel prizes, this passage demonstrates that Lisa—and therefore anyone—can fall prey to emotional responses. Here, Lisa is so frustrated that her grand plan might not have worked that she didn’t properly assess the situation. Craig needs to step in and remind her to look at the evidence.

“If you would betray a neighbor once, you’d probably do it again. At least I’d never be sure.”

The responsibilities of communities and the members within them constitute an important issue as the children rebuild their society. The community is largely subordinated to the family and the individual, but the novel does recognize the need for community for some reasons—defense, for one, but also so as to help one another as needed, albeit not without some form of payment. At least in Lisa’s mind, the contractual nature of community makes it justifiable to exclude those who, like Tom, have “broken” the contract.

“The ideas were working, and everyone on Grand Avenue was having fun. They were proud of their work, and many of them were beginning to share Lisa’s feeling that working to survive and feeling proud of it could be a sort of happiness.”

Generally, the novel frames Lisa’s positions as the correct ones, or at least the superior ones. However, Lisa must contend with the fact that not everyone shares her view that hard work and problem-solving are fun and rewarding. When things are going well, the other children start to see things her way; when things aren’t going well, though, what sets Lisa apart is that she sticks to her conviction, whereas other children forget the lesson.

“Their first holiday was over. ‘They’ll never be as good as this again,’ [Lisa] said, and the children agreed.”

This is a unique moment because it expresses a kind of traditionalism that isn’t evident elsewhere in the novel. In much of the novel, Lisa’s ability to look forward toward better things distinguishes her; here, she’s suggesting that we must move forward even if we’ll never regain the pleasures of the past—i.e. that “progress” may not always be positive.

“It’s nice to share things if you want to. But it’s stupid to force people to share or to be nice. Those are things people have to do on their own. Otherwise it’s no good.”

Here, Lisa forcefully articulates the novel’s position on individualism versus collectivism. She does not explicitly demonize sharing; however, she prioritizes the individual right to property over the need to share with the community and those in need.

“It seemed to [Lisa] that fear was how you felt when you waited for something bad to happen, and fun was what you had when you figured out a way to make something good happen.”

Implicit in this statement is the necessity of work and action. Lisa reasons here that the way to overcome fear is to find a way to act on the problem and develop a solution. Fear is the absence of a solution, in other words, which suggests that critical thinking can eliminate or at least control it.

“[Lisa] told them that Glenbard was now her private property and that they were all welcome to stay. But she wanted everyone to do something to support the city. She wanted and needed them with her. But they had to know the rules.”

This passage reinforces the need to contribute to society, be it Grandville, Glenbard, etc. However, it also raises interesting questions about the nature of private property, and Lisa will eventually have to defend her claim on the school, which she has no prior ties to. Ultimately, both she and the novel frame the school as Lisa’s idea, and thus a form of intellectual property.

“‘What’s wrong with bars?’ asked Jill. ‘It will be awfully dark in here if the windows are all covered over. I wouldn’t like that.’ ‘It’s not what we like that counts right now,’ Craig said.”

This ties back into Lisa’s earlier recognition that the community will need to focus on needs rather than desires in order to survive, although here Craig is adopting Lisa’s earlier position. There are two noteworthy points here: First, sunlight actually is necessary for survival; second, Lisa follows up Craig’s comment by arguing for a compromise that will allow them to have their wants and needs simultaneously. It’s unclear, however, if this reflects growth on Lisa’s part or simply an ability to see a solution Craig can’t.

“‘Planning is the secret,’ Lisa said over and over again. ‘If we can anticipate problems before they happen, then we’ll succeed.’ They had never run a city before, and they learned most of their lessons the hard way. But they seemed to be making enough right decisions.”

This ties back into the novel’s argument for the value of careful thinking. Lisa is able to stay ahead of the other children largely because she devotes significant time to thinking through her problems. However, this quote also suggests an important corollary, which is that mistakes will still happen, even with the most careful plans.

“After a time, [Todd’s] tears dried, and he began to think. Was [Lisa] really dead? How could he know for sure? He had to find out for himself.”

Todd matures rapidly throughout the nearly two years the novel covers, learning from his sister every step of the way. When it counts most—after Lisa is shot—Todd is able to put her lessons into practice and think through the problem rather than breaking down into an emotional mess over his sister’s (perceived) death.

“But [Todd] wasn’t sure which window it was. Was it two windows over from the chamber tower or was it three? He couldn’t remember. I’ll have to take a chance, he thought, and climbed down.”

The novel isn’t overly clear on the need to take chances: At many points, the novel appears to argue against any kind of forgiveness or understanding of mistakes (e.g., Lisa does not forgive herself for making the mistake of checking on the dogs, but rather tells herself she deserved to lose the city). However, the novel elsewhere seems to recognize that we need to take chances sometimes.

“I suppose if I could do a stupid thing like that, I deserved to lose the city. You’ve got to be smart to earn good things. And even that’s not enough. You’ve got to be smart to keep them, too.”

Here, in contrast with the previous quote, Lisa suggests that mistakes always deserve punishment, apparently arguing against forgiveness. However, her words also warn against complacency, which is perhaps the true lesson; Lisa learned how to overcome problems to achieve her goals, but once there, she became complacent.

“[Tom] was frustrated, too, for his luck, because that’s all that this victory really was—a matter of luck.”

The novel doesn’t really acknowledge the role of luck in life; this is one of the only times it mentions it at all, and it’s telling that it does so disparagingly. Since effort is generally what produces value in the novel, anything a person gains through mere luck is worthless. Moreover, the implication here is that someone like Tom—who goes about achieving his goals the wrong way—could only succeed due to luck, and not thanks to anything he himself has done.

“This time, Craig challenged her. ‘Remember back on Grand Avenue when you said that the militia would end all our problems? You said the same thing at Glenbard, and look what’s happened. What you do, Lisa, is build valuable things that everybody wants to take away from you. So far they’ve done it every time.”

Lisa’s ideals are not challenged very often, but this is one of the most forceful arguments against her approach. It represents the major difference between Lisa and Craig, and thus two versions of a similar worldview; in Craig’s mind, Lisa’s way of life will always invite challenges, and thus she’ll never be comfortable. Lisa’s tentative response, and the argument of the novel, is that there is no such thing as comfort, and that those who work hard will always have to deal with people who try to take what they’ve earned. Therefore, the only way to survive is through ambition, not complacency.

“Just look at me, [Lisa] said to herself. I’ve lost my city and all its treasures. But the city was only the symbol of what I had. This hasn’t crushed me.”

This moment captures the fundamental paradox of the novel, which argues for the necessity of private property and earnings in a world without currency, laws, etc. The novel’s response is that property represents one’s hard work—what one has put into, and gotten out of, life. In other words, it’s not the property itself that is valuable, but the work that was put into it.

“The roads were filled with a stream of pilgrims carrying their life’s belongings and food and guns to find a leader who had come back from the dead.”

The children’s return to Lisa reinforces a kind of ineffable quality in leadership: Tom would never be a successful leader because he doesn’t have the respect of his citizens, whereas Lisa almost effortlessly commands their respect (ostensibly because of her work building the city). The timing of this event also reinforces the novel’s claim that compromise isn’t necessary. Lisa has just spent the day attempting to make a deal with a rival gang in order to regain her city; however, the children’s return demonstrates that because she is the true, worthy leader, such compromises aren’t necessary.