The Girl Who Owned a City

Another key theme in the novel is the importance of individual rights and possessions. This manifests not only through the notion of private property, but also in claims about what someone can force another to do. At each turn, the novel argues for the importance of individual and property rights not only as an ideal, but as fundamental human rights—

rights that, importantly, continue to exist even after the fall of society and the disappearance of currency.

The importance of property recurs in several significant—even potentially conflicting—ways. Lisa first questions the nature of property when she considers the meaning of the word “looting” while scavenging in an abandoned home , concluding that she is not stealing because the former owners are no longer around to use their possessions. Later, once she fortifies her own family home, she includes a sign defining it as her and Todd’s private property—a concept she passes onto the other children once they form Grandville. Things become more complicated after the family home is burned down; the house is arguably Lisa’s property through inheritance, but she then claims the school as her property as well, describing it as a form of intellectual property. All of this must also be considered alongside the nature of property itself in a post-currency world. Given the novel’s setting, it isn’t entirely clear what it means for Lisa to “own” Glenbard, or how one can verify or pass along ownership now that money no longer has any value.

The novel also considers individual rights more broadly; these include, but extend beyond, private property rights. At several points, the novel reinforces its argument against collectivism on the grounds that it infringes on people’s personal liberty. For example, Lisa, the most skilled scavenger, is only willing to share her supplies if she gets something in exchange, and Craig likewise isn’t willing to share his bounty from gardening but only to teach others how to garden. Later, Lisa and Jill debate the value of sharing; Jill insists that sharing is important, but Lisa argues that sharing should never be required of people for any reason. At each turn, people are at least nominally given a choice in matters, even when their actions will affect the broader community. Lisa (mostly) recognizes that she can’t force anyone to do anything, and instead finds ways to convince people of the necessity of the course of action—at least until she claims ownership of the community.

This isn’t to say that the novel stands firmly against any form of community. In fact, it clearly defines the different forms and degrees of social obligation we have within our community. Where the novel appears to differ from more collectivist models is how it ranks these obligations; we owe something to our neighbors, but we owe our neighbors less than we do our family or ourselves. (It might even be more accurate to say that we exist in a constant compromise or exchange with our neighbors, rather than that we inherently owe them something.) It’s worth reiterating here that the novel was published during the Cold War, making this more than just a philosophical question. Rather, in arguing for the importance of individual and property rights, the novel is arguing for a Western, capitalist ideology over Soviet communism—something that may not be as clear for contemporary readers. 

Related to the first two themes, the novel explicitly and frequently argues for the value and necessity of earning one’s own way instead of simply being given things—or worse, stealing them. This comes up in relation to the question of sharing: Lisa’s argument to Jill isn’t only that it’s useless to force the children (or anyone) to share their toys or property, but that the children will never be satisfied until they feel they have earned their toys. Likewise, in every group they form, Lisa insists on finding ways for participants to earn their place in society, regardless of their situation. For example, she tells Jill that the children, most of whom are only around five years old, must agree to serve as night sentries for the neighborhood in exchange for medicine; when Jill reminds her of the children’s age, Lisa remains largely unmoved. In Lisa’s mind, anyone can earn their own way, which ties back into the novel’s claim that children can be productive members of society.

This theme culminates in the opposition between Lisa and Tom Logan. From the start, Lisa refuses to steal from others and finds the gang’s approach to survival abhorrent. It is this foundational difference that leads Lisa to reject Tom’s offer to compromise; she tells Tom that it’s because she can’t trust him, but this is partly because the two are fundamentally at odds as to how to survive. Lisa is ultimately more successful, reinforcing the novel’s argument for the importance of earning one’s own way, but she is frequently challenged—most often by Tom, but by other gangs, as well. In the end, Lisa proves victorious not only because she has the support of the children, but because she demonstrates that she has the moral high ground compared to Tom, exposing his actions as weakness rather than strength.

The rationale for the novel’s claims about the subjective, emotional importance of earning one’s way is less clear than its insistence that people not be obligated to support those who don’t work to earn their own survival. One possible explanation centers on the idea that it’s a person’s labor that gives property its value; anything that one hasn’t earned is therefore quite literally worthless. This idea gains traction from the fact that the novel takes place in a world without money (i.e. it’s not clear what other form of ”value" property could have), but it’s a theory that once again dates back to the Enlightenment. That said, it isn’t immediately obvious why Lisa’s efforts count as “work” and Tom’s do not, which suggests this theory may be inconsistent or incoherent.

Whereas many of the other themes reflect a straightforward (if debatable) ideological viewpoint, the novel is more ambivalent regarding idealism and practicality. At different times, Lisa embodies both of these. On the one hand, Lisa is much more practical than the other children, at least at the start; whereas other kids subsist on candy and junk food, forgetting almost entirely about the need for medicine, Lisa recognizes right away that she needs to find medicine and nutritious food for her and Todd to survive. She isn’t alone in this—Craig likewise recognizes the importance of gardening—but Lisa and Craig have to convince the other children that they must pay attention to their practical needs: that what they want isn’t the most important thing when they’re trying to survive.

On the other hand, Lisa is extremely optimistic and idealistic in her plans: whereas Craig just wants to figure out a way to consistently survive, Lisa wants to get the whole world running as it was before. This becomes a point of contention between the two—in Craig’s mind, Lisa’s approach is extremely risky, causing constant conflict with gangs and a corresponding lack of security; ultimately, this is what drives Craig to remain on the farm. Lisa, though, argues that their safety is always at risk—e.g., that Craig will almost certainly have to deal with invaders once he harvests his crops. In a way, this complicates the novel’s ideas about individualism and collectivism, as Lisa is essentially arguing that there is strength in numbers, showing that she relies on the hundreds of Glenbard citizens. If so, this suggests that rebuilding society may actually be the pragmatic course; though it may pose more difficulties and risks in the short term, it’s the only way of safeguarding one’s rights in the long run.