The premise of the situation is that a plague wipes out all people over the age of 12 for some reason, with the children left behind having to fend for themselves. The main character, Lisa, ends up taking charge not just of the household (she has a younger brother to take care of), but also of the entire neighborhood, establishing a "city" in their old school. But not everybody wants to do things her way, much less the violent gangs of kids who prowl the ruined town. One gang forces her out and takes over, so she has to plot how to take back her city.
Some post-apocalyptic scenarios, such as this one, require some suspension of disbelief; so I just set aside the traumatic implications of such an event and marvelled at Lisa's ingenuity and persistence. (of course, there was the other disbelief I had to suspend, which was--if this highly unlikely scenario were to occur, would children really act like this? I know they are more independent than people give them credit for, but still) It's written well enough, and the character of Lisa is a strong and intelligent female character--more of a rarity when it was first published in 1977--though the writing isn't spectacular, even overly simplistic at times.
But something funny started happening halfway through the novel, and hit me right in the face in the second part. At this point, the decision to build a city in the school had been made. The words "hard work" and "earned" were repeated ad nauseum, Lisa dismissed the concept of sharing, and called the city her property. But it all clicked in a scene when she is arguing with one of her close friends and the doctor-in-training about claiming the city as hers: "Freedom is more important than sharing." That's when I realized what the story was really about.It's pro-capitalist propaganda.
Perhaps propaganda is a strong word, but that's the only way I can describe it when the minds of the target demographic are so malleable. In any case, it endorses the values espoused by extreme libertarians, which is that selfishness is a virtue and that people should get only what they deserve. That is, rich people deserve to be rich, for they have earned their riches (to say nothing of those who were merely born into wealth), poor people deserve to be poor, and if we give them what they need they won't work to better themselves. These ideas are present in Lisa's reasoning that the city was hers, and that she has to earn her city back (although it is laughably easy), and that Jill has coddled the younger children too much. In this particular context, where of course there is no monetary system and everyone is equalized in every respect but for their ability to "use their heads" as Lisa puts it, some of these values are actually ok: using logical reasoning to sort out problems, material possessions aren't everything, and yes, the value of hard work, though Lisa comes off as inflexible and self-centered when she tells other people about these virtues. But the idea that working hard will reap its own rewards rings false in a highly unequal society. Not to mention that they didn't elect her as their leader, per se. She may be a benevolent leader, but she's still a dictator.
Of course, the dogmatic nature of the story isn't its only problem: the uneven pacing, the gaping holes in believability of both the children's behavior and the scenario, the anti-climatic ending, Lisa's annoyance with Craig for wanting to farm instead of command an army (there's also a pro-military message in this story, as well--she's hell-bent on forming an army before she can return to her city). I can't help but think that her victory was short-lived. Soon enough, the food would run out, and they would have to go to the farms. Then she better hope Craig will want to share his crops! (see, Lisa? Sharing is caring!) What is wrong with all of this is fit for another post.
Of course, the author is free to write a children's book on Objectivist philosophy, just as others are free to promote communist, democratic, and anarchic ideals in their stories (and they certainly have in children's literature). We don't have a problem unless there is only one type of philosophy allowed. But if you're going to write this kind of propaganda, at least tone down the preachiness--and make your stories more compelling. I give this book two out of five stars.
