May 07 2008
Comments about the novel – what do you think?
This blog entry is from “The Inter-Galactic Playground”
Political Indigestion: O. T. Nelson, The Girl Who Owned a City (New York: Dell, 1975),
O. T. Nelson, The Girl Who Owned a City (New York: Dell, 1975), pb.
A very straightforward story in which post-plague (which effects adults only) a girl leads a bunch of other children to create a city. Elsewhere, other kids do the same, but in each case but this one, what they create is violent armies and gangs.
As Lisa takes control of the other children she consistently pushes a “private property” angle, but she does so in ways which are really disingenous. Nelson is a good writer, but that’s part of the problem. Every time Jill (another child) criticised Lisa I found myself nodding. One of the ironies in the final chapters is that it is Lisa’s insistence on benevolent tyranny that will allow the city to fall. Had it been a democracy, they would have had other leaders to fight for when she was kidnapped.
–
This is a survivalist book and there are lots of really good things. Lisa thinks and plans. She consideres where food might be found, and she organises a militia to protect all the “child-families” but there is never once a suggestion that they should gather together in houses so they can share the burden. The implication is that Jill has handicapped herself by taking in orphan children. Lisa herself only helps her brother. Other people’s ideas are always wrong. One thing Lisa dismisses is Craig’s long term desire for a farm, in favour of her plan to re-start civilisation, but actually, Craig’s plan is far more sensible, and as we shall see, in Lisa’s ideology, had they gone for the farm idea, the farm would have belonged to Craig. A decision that is presented as “commonsense is actually highly political.
Lisa decides she will share her knowledge, but not for free. My concern here (politically) is that this is set up as fundamentally different from the gangs’ protection racket, whereas in fact it is competitive with, but essentially just the same. Lisa is also very quick to decide that what she finds is hers. Yet as she realises earlier, what she has done is essentially to loot. Nelson frequently has Lisa see other ideas and dismiss them. Like the best of tyrants, she refuses to consider moral equivalence (she accepts the gang leader, Tom’s apology for hurting her brother, but it becomes clear she never intended to admit the gang to the group—this entire scene could have gone another way.)
Lisa is right to tell Jill that the children should co-operate in their own survival, and her decision to bargain with the kids—go work and you get a toy—isn’t stupid, but it doesn’t have to be set up in direct opposition to Jill’s notions, and it is. Later she declares, “Freedom is more important than sharing.” (135) The alternative for Craig and Jill, she says, is that they can use their freedom and leave. Frankly, all this does is demonstrate that Lisa thinks they are supine. They could, after all, always kick her out.
pp. 132-133 is the most unnerving. Jill challenges Lisa as to why she regards the city as her property, despite the fact that all the children helped build it. Lisa exerts “ownership through discovery” for both the city and the supplies. Voting can’t be countenanced because it infringes on Lisa’s “discovery-ownership”, completely ignoring that fact that the truck that brought the children and the supplies to the fort belonged to the father of one of the children, that there are now scavenger groups contributing to the structure of the fort.
Lisa tries to make it sound equal by telling Jill that when she finds a hospital it will belong to Jill, but it is clear that Jill is unconvinced. After all, will Lisa return the sweat that Jill has put into Lisa’s property?
There is no sweat equity at all. What Lisa discovers is hers. What others discover is also Lisa’s. Far from setting up a libertarian community, and in sharp contrast to Lisa’s idea that a “king” in Chicago is dark ages stuff, Lisa has set herself up as a prince who has abrogated to herself pretty much all ownership. That nice little scene where she gives children toys, is not a scene in which children acquire property ownership. If we trace what happens in the course of the book, what Lisa has recreated is vassalage in which individuals “own” property on behalf of the monarch.
And just to cap it all, she invents debt peonage as well. The Constitution reads: “Each citizen was free to leave if he or she ever wanted to. But he had to leave free of debt. There was a provision for that. Everyone had to earn his place in the city by the means decided on by both parties—Lisa and the citizen.” (137)
So what do you think? Did you read the same things into the novel that they did?
Did you like Lisa as a main character? Post your comments here.
15 responses so far
Create a free edublog to get your own comment avatar (and more!)
That was a wrong way to put the book. The book is NOT a survivalist book this is a adventure and mystery book, with lots of twists and turns. Lisa had the right to say it was her city, because she was the one who thought of the idea and called it hers. Lisa was nice to give some of the kids jobs, (Jill the hospital) she didnt have too. Lisa when she said “Freedom is more then sharing” all she is saying is that you somtimes HAVE to share but with freedom you get choices. I found the book to be a mystery novel and not about politics. I dont even see where he got that from. I really liked the novel and i hope they come up with a second book. I liked Lisa as a main character because she was a hard worker and never gave up. lisa always found the crazyist ideas and they always seemed to work. Usally people would think that a leader would be a boy but Lisa showed them wrong. This book was a joy to read in class.
I think that they really shouldn’t have gone to all of the trouble to disagree so much, because after all, It’s just a book and I definitly did not read the story and have the same point of view as them.
Also, I thought that Lisa was a very good main character.
I really liked the novel even though it did have some weak spots, but not many. I think that Lisa was a great main character considering she made many smart decisions and made just as many smart plans.
No. I did not read the same things in the novel as they did. I thought it was a good book and didn’t have anything to do with politics.
I thought that the book was pretty good and that it wasn’t about politics too much. I didn’t like Lisa as a main character because she always seemed to lose everything she had. By making to many enemies thus everyone wanting to steal all of her food because he had so much supplies.
I do not agree with what this blog entry states. I though that O.T Nelson did a good job writing this and it wasn’t to political. I didn’t have the same thoughts as ther person who posted it but I do agree that Lisa should have given the children more credit than they got for buliding the city.
Lisa was a good main character for the book. It showed that girls can survive and use their heads just as good as boys.
I liked Lisa as a main character. I thought she ran her city very well. I also think that she took care of her brother well to for only being 12 years old.
I think that he is is right about somethings. I thought is was very pollitcal. I don’t really like Lisa as the main character because she was really selfish. She would always call it her city. When she needed help she called it our city. She was kinda bossy to her citizens. I think Charlie would do a better job.
I did read the same thing as the Inter-Galactic Playground. I thought Lisa was a pretty good main character but she still had times when she could have been better.
I think the person is a fussy reader, and no didn’t read the same things. I think Lisa was a good main character because you don’t see many female leaders.
I actually totally agree with him. I think Lisa is very selfish and is trying to act way way WAY older than she is.
I thought the book was very informative and it taught us that no matter the situation you can pull through it. I think that the novel was very well written and I could easily understand it and it was not boring. I thought having Lisa as a main character was a good choice because it’s saying what a girl can do better than a guy she made a hole group of kids work together to build a civilization for themselves well the other leaders just made fear and terror.
I believe that you can give ideas and thoughts to someone, but there still should be one person who makes the decisions which was Lisa.
I feel that Lisa should have called it ‘our’ city because I mean all those children did whatever it took to help Lisa out and help themselves out by earning their keep and being safe. Lisa should have also did the amount of work everyone else did.
The ending I felt should have been written a little bit different. If the story within the book was real, I am pretty sure Tom Logan wouldn’t have walked away because Lisa hit a soft spot on him.
In the book it never really said Craig lived on the farm but if I were him I would stay on the farm. It won’t be long before the children at Gelbard will need other food then what they got from the warehouse.
I liked Lisa as a main character because she tried her best, she knew that everything was possible, and she let the children have freedom. Lisa wasn’t cruel like Tom Logan, she had her rules and you were to follow them or get out.
I think this person is just saying how they feel about the book. I didn’t read the same things that this person readand I really liked the book. I also really liked lisa as a main character.
I didn’t read the book this way, although I do agree with some views he as, like seeing Lisa as a greedy person. I understand that she found the city and it was hers, but she was calling other things hers that weren’t hers, like the cars, trucks and things. Lisa’s ideas and plans were right, and others’ plans and ideas weren’t. I think Lisa should have taken other childrens plans and ideas into consideration, and if she did, it didn’t state it in the book. Lisa didn’t want Craig to live on the farm, because she needed help, but if Craig needed help would she be there to help him with the farm. I don’t think she would, because I think she is selfish. Although I see Lisa as many negative things, she is a good main character. She is a good main character, because she seemed to know exactly what she had to do. This blog made me realize things I wouldn’t have realized before.