The Girl Who Owned a City

This section more firmly defines the novel’s core belief in individual rights and freedoms. Lisa calls for collective action by forming a militia and beginning to develop a society; however, she explicitly defines this collective action as necessary for protecting individual rights. Lisa is, as of now, unable to articulate why she believes individual rights are important; this might suggest that Lisa is simply working her way toward understanding that theory, but we could also interpret this as the author implying that there is something innate and fundamental about the right to individual freedom and personal property. In other words, Lisa feels the importance of these rights in her heart and only needs to work her way towards understanding why she feels that way.

Several other moments echo this idea. Through the sign she places outside her house, Lisa defines the purpose of setting an alarm not merely as physical protection, but as property protection. Likewise, her argument to Charlie isn’t that theft was wrong in this case, but that theft of private property is always wrong—unforgivable, even. Later, at the meeting, she grows angry when the other kids suggest she share her supplies with the gangs in order to ingratiate themselves: She tells them she’d rather burn it all than let thieves take any of it (which also foreshadows the attack on her home at the end of Part One).

This reverence of individual property rights coincides with an emphasis on what one has earned through one’s labor—e.g. the fish in the story from Chapter 2. It also explicitly contrasts with collectivist attitudes. Lisa’s arguments to Charlie echo her earlier concerns about the definition of “looting”; here, a clearer argument emerges against anyone’s ability to take what someone else has earned. Likewise, at the meeting, Steve Cole’s complaint about the rich children implicitly reflects populist or socialist arguments for wealth redistribution, but no one seriously suggests that those with more have a duty to share with those who have less. In fact, Craig implies the opposite a moment later when he says that anything he grows belongs to him and his sister, but that he will instead teach the others to grow for themselves.

A motif of vocabulary development emerges in these chapters, and in several places, Nelson models the vocabulary the novel defined earlier. For example, when Craig explains why he believes the warehouse hasn’t been looted yet, he models logical thinking: If other windows in other buildings are also broken, it’s likely that the grocery warehouse wasn’t targeted. Likewise, at the end of Chapter 6, Lisa models “strategy” by explaining her meeting strategy to Todd—importantly, after we’ve already seen it in action. As the word choice suggests, this motif of language development goes hand in hand with the novel’s emphasis on rationality.

These chapters reinforce this core argument—that children can learn to think for and thus rely on themselves— in several other key ways. Most explicitly, Lisa and the other characters think their way through problems and arrive at conclusions together, and we often see this thinking displayed on the page for us to follow; sometimes, Nelson even restates the line of thought afterwards to ensure that we understand what has just happened. The novel also offers Lisa as an example of how learning to think critically enables one to become more independent; the other children are consistently amazed at how much more mature Lisa seems now that she has begun thinking through problems instead of despairing or relying on others. Finally, the end of Chapter 6 shows two versions of self-sufficiency: Craig’s desire for a simple life versus Lisa’s desire to rebuild society. The novel frames these competing ideals as a difference in whether or not the characters believe children are capable of rebuilding society; Craig believes they are limited in what they can learn to do, whereas Lisa thinks that if they put their minds to it, they can get things back to the way they were. The militia meeting suggests that Lisa might be right, as it represents the classical depiction of democratic values—people coming together to discuss a problem from different angles and arrive at a solution.