The Hardy Boys - The final chapter (1998)
washingtonpost.com
washingtonpost.com
I LOVED the Hardy Boys. They felt serious for that age. The hardbacks had a classic feel. The pages were thick, the illustrations mysterious and the covers were heavy and ornate. When I finished one I felt like I accomplished something. I would put it on the shelf in between 10 others and decide on the next one - usually by coolness of cover. I vividly remember the scene in "Missing Chums" when they drove the boat into the smugglers cave. My heart was pounding. I remember I got so nervous that I hid under a table and shifted positions constantly while reading it. It may have been the first time I got completely immersed in a book.
Knowing that he called the books, "The Juveniles," and that he viscerally hated every every word of every page, is like finding out that Santa Claus doesn't exist - at age 32.
And just to twist the knife, on my birthday the author wrote in his diary: June 9, 1933: "Tried to get at the juvenile again today but the ghastly job appalls me."
Ok I just woke my girlfriend up by laughing so hard. I don't know what to think. Goodnight HN. Thank you for the best thing I've read all year.
I know it is not relevant to his main angle, but I wish he had followed up on this part: In 1959, many of the old Hardy Boy books were redone, streamlined, modernized, sterilized.
I, like many HNers, I imagine, first read the Hardy Boys in the post-1959 editions. A couple decades ago, when I learned about the rewrites, I decided to collect the originals, and compare them. It was a fascinating experience.
Weingarten's phrasing above gets to the key elements. Racial stereotypes were removed-- the old versions were quite offensive to modern sensibilities at times-- along with about 1/3rd of the text. Plots were simplified, and a much more formulaic approach to action (from one mini-cliffhanger to another) took over. Descriptive passages were omitted, more often than not.
So: if you really want to read Leslie McFarlane, be sure to check out the pre-1959 editions.
One funny thing happened with my 5th grade teacher sometime later: we realized we were both fans of Tom Swift and started reeling off titles, none of which the other recognized. He had of course read the original series about the (future) father, I was reading the 2nd focused on his son (Jr.).
My bet is that the 1959 revisions were a great contribution to the Hardy Boys' longevity. It sounds like the books were stripped down to their essence. Talk about uncelebrated. If McFarlane was at the bottom of the literary barrel, how about the anonymous hack who had to go in and clean up his work! Whoever it was, I'm on their side. Snobbish though every critic may be, you can't argue with those books' success. I don't mean success at selling copies; I mean success at captivating children, generation after generation.
Harry Potter had a similar ability to suck children into an imaginary realm and get them reading. But its popularity was more intense and perhaps short-lived. The Hardy Boys' effect has been more diffuse but extraordinarily durable. Maybe in 15 years someone will cut the Harry Potter books down to size and turn them into perennials too.
I just dug out my old Hardy Boys hardcover books from way at the back of the book shelf (behind the Saberhagen Swords books) and sure enough, mine were all from 1959.
Here's the inscription from inside th cover of book #1 "The Tower Treasure"
(c) Grosset & Dunlap, Inc. 1959
all rights reserved
ISBN: 0-448-08901-7 (Trade edition)
ISBN: 0-448-18901-1 (Library edition)
In this new story, based on the original of
the same title, Mr. Dixon has incorporated
the most up-to-date methods used by police
and private detectives.
Chapter I
The Speed Demon
Frank and Joe Hard clutched the grips of their motorcycles
and stared in horror at the oncoming car. It was careening
from side to side on the narrow road.
"He'll hit us! We'd better climb this hillside -- and
fast" Frank exclaimed, as the boys brought their
motorcycles to a screeching halt and leaped off.
Frank chuckled and sad, "After the help we gave Dad on his
latest case, he ought to set up the firm of Hardy and
Sons."
"Why not?" Joe replied with a broad grin. "Isn't he one
of the most famous private detectives in the country? And
aren't we bright too?" Then, becoming serious, he added,
"I wish we could solve a mystery on our, though."
Constraints often make creativity easier. Tell me to write a Hardy Boys novel and I won't know where to begin. Show me a cover with a lighthouse and some treasure on the beach and stories begin to suggest themselves.
1) first reading the word "rendezvous," which I never heard anyone say, so for years, my brother and I talked about secret "rend-a-visses"
2) never quite figuring out what a "jalopy" was, as chet's car was never a car, always a jalopy.
For that reason (and nothing else) I do not regret having read them.
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/146656.Hardy_Boys_Complet...
A clever writer can easily get carried away with himself - solipsistic, narcissistic - such as those quoted in the submission (the elimination pun; the parallel of temper and years.) Maybe being restrained was good for him? if you come across a passage you think particularly fine, strike it out. I actually enjoy the straightfowardness of his "bad" writing (including this image: "scattering the town's 4,000 inhabitants before its terrific blast.")
Popularity is a tricky measure of technical merit, because it has more to do with what people need than with what you have created. Perhaps the credit for mining that need here really does lie with the publisher, who specified the story.
The 60 words in the sentence preceding that clause, are not:
"A leering tornado of flame from the southwest roared down through a half mile of underbrush upon the town of Haileybury basking sleepily in the September sunlight on the shore of Lake Temiskaming early Wednesday afternoon, ate its way across the railway tracks and then, fanned by a 60-mile-an-hour gale, ripped its way to the water's edge ..."
In general the phrase "the 60 words in the sentence" and the word "straightforward" are incompatible.
Good piece on this particular subject: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/bookclub/2009/08/long-...
2. No it really doesn't create a sense of momentum, growing or not, especially when you talk about a town "basking sleepily in the September sunlight on the shore." A vaguely alliterative load of Ss does not make for an exciting sentence.
3. "mostly short anglo-saxon words and the long sentence, broken into multiple clauses" is rather in specific compared to my statement of in general anyway.
4. Tornadoes don't leer, and one would assume it was already traveling at 60 miles an hour so the momentum shouldn't be growing anyway.
5. That sentence is straight up crap.
I can understand why non-fiction should be straight forward but surely one of the joys of fiction is that you fill in the gaps and ambiguities yourself.
Incidentally, I'm not defending the sentence in question which is messy, and "it's terrific blast" may be straightforward but it's also a slightly odd choice of adjective.
I responded the way I did because it was easy and snarky. The OP claimed to prefer the "straightforward" prose that the article lambasted, and then illustrated it with maybe the worst possible quote (for the purpose) out of the entire article. Combined with:
solipsistic, narcissistic - such as those quoted in the submission (the elimination pun; the parallel of temper and years.)
Led me to feel that 10ren has no idea what solipsistic, narcissitic or straightforward mean and in general no clue. So... I snarked.
You omitted the beginning of that line, which was "A clever writer can easily get carried away with himself - " Is not clever wordplay disconnected from the external world? Is not indulging in one's cleverness narcissistic (BTW you misspelled it)?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/solipsistic http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/narcissistic
The quote I followed it with (if you come across a passage you think particularly fine, strike it out.) is from Samuel Johnson; the same basic idea is often expressed more concisely with "kill your darlings." http://everything2.com/title/Kill+your+darlings
Just to be clear: I didn't illustrate straightforwardness with that entire passage, but with one specific part: including this image: "scattering the town's 4,000 inhabitants before its terrific blast." Which I still really like, because it draws a metaphor between how humans respond to a fire and the physics of how small particles are pushed by the heated air of a fire. Maybe you disagree, but to me, a clean metaphor is a very straightforward communication.
On HN, if you suspect someone has "in general no clue", it's informative to check their comment history, rather than act on an assumption. It could be that their comment is a one-off, or that you have misinterpreted it.
Normally, I don't bother responding to snark. It's irritating, but being drawn in is just a second injury. And it's rare on HN anyway. But I'm puzzled when people are snarky, as it seems unrelated to the topic. So it's helpful that you have explained your thinking, and so I've taken the trouble to explain my original comment.
If snark comes easily to you, you might be more comfortable on reddit (though snark there is usually purely in fun.)
the elimination pun: [He passed maths] by a process of elimination, like a tapeworm
the parallel of temper and years: an elderly, crotchety lady of certain temper and uncertain years
No.
Or at least no more so than is inherent in all writing.
As for the good doctor Johnson, I would hesitate to use the inventor of the universal refutation as an authority when arguing against indulging in one's cleverness.
Faulkner is a similarly hypocritical source in a plea for clarity.
"Kill your darlings" isn't terrible advice, but taken alone it's as fatuous "write with verbs." Taken alone the basic idea is don't write anything you personally like, which is exactly the sort of life choice that quickly leads to a bottle.
Just to be clear: I didn't illustrate straightforwardness with that entire passage, but with one specific part:
One specific part preceded by a mountain of shit. I actually enjoy the straightfowardness of his "bad" writing doesn't actually work unless his "bad" writing is in fact straightforward, which is a shaky claim when the supporting evidence is a small fraction of a single very bad sentence.
And also, yes, clever wordplay intended to amuse the reader is not narcissistic.
I've read a bunch of Perry Mason books as I was very young and I remember that none of the main characters was described much. I believed even then that it's good so. I was able to imagine them as I'd like them to look like.
Doyle despised writing Sherlock stories and did not consider them serious fiction. At one point he killed Sherlock, only to revive him years later because of popular demand.
Today there are societies and museums around the world dedicated to the great detective.
German readers should probably revisit the TKKG novels for a particular disappointing experience.
What I find impossible to play today are early 3D games. So much time and effort was spent trying to make the games look cool and flashy at the cost of gameplay, and it was when most devs really didn't even know how to make a 3D game. Most first-year PS1 and N64 games are examples of this.
I think this is because good gameplay doesn't age as quickly or as harshly as good graphics. Graphics have improved greatly, while gameplay hasn't come quite so far.
My mom took the approach of just reading out loud whatever she read, so I grew up with Lord of the Rings and other good solid books. I personally read Madliene L'engle's books in 3rd and 4th grade then skipped directly up the ladder to Dune (making me the only 9 year old I've ever met that managed to make it through Dune Messiah (and man did I ever manage to miss the subtext and analogy and etc)) .
But cartoons, man I loved em all. Tried to watch GI Joe and Transformers a couple years back and could barely last an episode.
On the other hand, the Chuck Jones and Tex Avery cartoons have held up quite well, probably because the creators were doing them for themselves as well as younger kids.
The main thing I remember from those books was the feeling that I had a deprived childhood because I didn't grow up in a junkyard. (Nor have a chauffer on call, but the lack of a junkyard was the main thing I really felt.)
Is anything comparable? Children's literature that survives that long is usually regarded as classic; but these have survived whilst being regarded as trash. They keep going on the literary pleasure of children alone - an audience that can't be fooled. Each new generation just seems to discover them.
The passion of those first adventure novels only lasts a year or two before one begins to find them a little embarrassing. So even older children share McFarlane's opinion on the "juveniles". My son mocks their stilted dialogue now. But he devoured the entire series with fervor.
"Good" seems to be a combination of "quality" and "entertaining". Funny how we talk about these bad books, movies, and other media as if their literal quality were their only value.
Spamming the internet with millions of articles of marginally useful content... I have to admit it's an audacious idea.
Demand Media fares very well when compared to Mahalo.
It's not software you go bragging about in the next user group meeting, or even to your spouse or your kids or best friend. It does, however, pay the bills.
And I misspelled the series in my first post. Danny's last name is Dunn, not Dunne.
The imagination of a 12-year-old boy is generally not so hampered by skepticism. Ridiculous, implausible stories are the most fun to read, anyway. Ironically, the parts that the adult Weingarten find to be the best are the parts I didn't like as a kid. I always found Aunt Gertrude to be boring.
The comparison with Little House on the Prairie interested me, as I read both when I was young. I probably could have identified LHotP has superior fiction, but in terms of enjoyment I most certainly did not care. Reading the Hardy Boys did not ruin my ability to appreciate Laura Ingalls Wilder.
Especially, because I've read 2 Harry Potters recently and they are fairly readable. I also pick up Tintins and Asterixes from time to time and I still find them very enjoyable and appealing.
I don't want to discover Captain Haddock and Professor Calculus suck :P
He likes the cheesy dialog, but I suppose he's young enough that I won't worry about his tastes too much. I'm just glad he likes to read. It's a huge load off--like now all I have to do is point him in the general direction if something he likes.
I think I'll hold off on mentioning the article, though. :)
We're talking plots he felt made no sense, poor characters, clunky dialogue, and when he tried to improve these things he was told in no uncertain terms to stop messing about and go back to what the publisher was paying him for.
The equivalent for a programmer would be to be told to code a website with actively bad coding standards, no use of style sheets or code reuse, no normalisation or referential integrity in the database and no error handling. And every time you try to make something better, you get told to shut up and do it the way you've been asked.
I don't know about you but that would make me hate the project.
I think the Hardy Boys books do two things well: 1.) sell 2.) get kids interested in reading
No harm there...
Speaking of hackneyed writing, I laughed and cried while reading this essay. It definitely became a part of me.