32 CHICAGO READER | OCTOBER 7, 2005 | SECTION ONE Books By S.L. Wisenberg O n the first page of The Clue in the Diary, perhaps the only Nancy Drew book I’ve ever read, there’s a mystery. And just in case some reader might miss it, Nancy says, “It’s very mysterious.” What’s mysterious is that her new friends, the poor but proud Mrs. Swenson and “that darling Swenson child” (whose clothes are faded but clean, of course), haven’t received money orders they expected from Mr. Swenson, who left home to find work. Nancy muses, “I wonder if his letters—containing money orders—were stolen.” Some 100 pages later—and only after Mr. Swenson’s been seen in some mighty suspicious circumstances to throw clueless readers off track—we find out that Nancy’s hunch is right. In the introduction to her recent book Girl Sleuth: Nancy Drew and the Women Who Created Her Melanie Rehak writes, “Grab your magnifying glass, because this is a mystery story.” She too is right, but not in the way she means. The mystery is why this book was published. Oh, I’m being disingenuous. The reason it was published is that Nancy Drew has become that overused word pair, an American icon. Even people who’ve never read a Nancy Drew mystery know who she is. Millions upon millions of books of her adven- tures have been sold, starting in 1930 and continuing through her retooling for successive genera- tions, including the Campus series that debuted in 1995. She’s even inspired parodies— the surest sign of ubiquity. There’s Mabel Maney’s 1993 The Case of the Not-So-Nice Nurse, in which Nancy Clue makes love at first sight with Cherry Aimless in a San Francisco motel. (Maney also wrote A Ghost in the Closet, a Hardly Boys mystery.) In Chelsea Cain’s novel Confessions of a Teen Sleuth, published this spring, Nancy ages, drinks and drives, and falls for a Hardy. In the often-staged 1978 play The Clue in the Old Birdbath (which ran for six months at Stage Left in 1993) the characters drop double entendres by the pound. “Jeepers! Let’s go for some tramps in the wood,” Tansy True suggests. (Incidentally, what is it about gays and Nancy, not to mention the Hardy Boys? According to Michael Bronski, writing in the Gay & Lesbian Review, it’s the bondage—the periodic tying up of the young sleuths by various bad guys. Bronski finds subli- mated sex everywhere, especially in a 1932 adventure in which Nancy notices a “hair-like crack” in a table that leads to a com- partment that’s six inches long.) Nancy, the titian blond from upscale, homogeneous River Heights, doted on by her suc- cessful lawyer widower father, Carson Drew, and kindly house- keeper, Hannah Gruen, has also inspired conferences and schol- arly articles—and not only because scholars will deconstruct almost anything. Nancy is fun! And studying her is such a fun way to help get tenure! Anyway, what Rehak means by her reference to mystery is that no one’s delved into the true, secret history of the women behind the 56 original Nancy Drew adventures, Mildred Augustine Wirt Benson and Harriet Stratemeyer Adams. You may recollect a long obituary a few years ago for an intrepid nonagenarian columnist for an Ohio paper who was the author of the Drew books. That was Mildred, the first person to write under the pseudonym Carolyn Keene. Rehak thinks we need to know more. We need to know about the chautauqua assembly in Mildred’s native Ladora, Iowa. We need to know her father’s favorite quote, read the headlines of the articles she wrote for the Daily Iowan as a student, read Clueless Melanie Rehak’s history of the women who wrote the Nancy Drew books is a heap of facts in search of a thesis. GIRL SLEUTH: NANCY DREW AND THE WOMEN WHO CREATED HER MELANIE REHAK (HARCOURT) Melanie Rehak WHEN Tue 10/11, 7:30 PM WHERE Women & Children First, 5233 N. Clark PRICE Free INFO 773-769-9299 continued on page 34
Transcript
32 CHICAGO READER | OCTOBER 7, 2005 | SECTION ONE
Books
By S.L. Wisenberg
On the first page of TheClue in the Diary, perhapsthe only Nancy Drew
book I’ve ever read, there’s amystery. And just in case somereader might miss it, Nancy says,“It’s very mysterious.” What’smysterious is that her newfriends, the poor but proud Mrs.Swenson and “that darlingSwenson child” (whose clothesare faded but clean, of course),haven’t received money ordersthey expected from Mr. Swenson,who left home to find work.Nancy muses, “I wonder if hisletters—containing moneyorders—were stolen.” Some 100pages later—and only after Mr.Swenson’s been seen in somemighty suspicious circumstancesto throw clueless readers offtrack—we find out that Nancy’shunch is right.
In the introduction to herrecent book Girl Sleuth: NancyDrew and the Women Who
Created Her Melanie Rehakwrites, “Grab your magnifyingglass, because this is a mysterystory.” She too is right, but not inthe way she means. The mysteryis why this book was published.
Oh, I’m being disingenuous.The reason it was published is
that NancyDrew hasbecome thatoverused wordpair, anAmerican icon.Even peoplewho’ve neverread a NancyDrew mystery
know who she is. Millions uponmillions of books of her adven-tures have been sold, starting in1930 and continuing through herretooling for successive genera-tions, including the Campusseries that debuted in 1995.
She’s even inspired parodies—the surest sign of ubiquity.
There’s Mabel Maney’s 1993 TheCase of the Not-So-Nice Nurse, inwhich Nancy Clue makes love atfirst sight with Cherry Aimless ina San Francisco motel. (Maneyalso wrote A Ghost in the Closet, aHardly Boys mystery.) In ChelseaCain’s novel Confessions of a TeenSleuth, published this spring,Nancy ages, drinks and drives,and falls for a Hardy. In theoften-staged 1978 play The Cluein the Old Birdbath (which ranfor six months at Stage Left in1993) the characters drop doubleentendres by the pound. “Jeepers!Let’s go for some tramps in thewood,” Tansy True suggests.
(Incidentally, what is it aboutgays and Nancy, not to mentionthe Hardy Boys? According toMichael Bronski, writing in theGay & Lesbian Review, it’s thebondage—the periodic tying upof the young sleuths by variousbad guys. Bronski finds subli-mated sex everywhere, especially
in a 1932 adventure in whichNancy notices a “hair-like crack”in a table that leads to a com-partment that’s six inches long.)
Nancy, the titian blond fromupscale, homogeneous RiverHeights, doted on by her suc-cessful lawyer widower father,Carson Drew, and kindly house-keeper, Hannah Gruen, has alsoinspired conferences and schol-arly articles—and not onlybecause scholars will deconstruct
almost anything. Nancy is fun!And studying her is such a funway to help get tenure!
Anyway, what Rehak means byher reference to mystery is thatno one’s delved into the true,secret history of the womenbehind the 56 original NancyDrew adventures, MildredAugustine Wirt Benson andHarriet Stratemeyer Adams. Youmay recollect a long obituary afew years ago for an intrepidnonagenarian columnist for anOhio paper who was the authorof the Drew books. That wasMildred, the first person to writeunder the pseudonym CarolynKeene. Rehak thinks we need toknow more. We need to knowabout the chautauqua assemblyin Mildred’s native Ladora, Iowa.We need to know her father’sfavorite quote, read the headlinesof the articles she wrote for theDaily Iowan as a student, read
CluelessMelanie Rehak’s history of the women who wrote the Nancy Drew books is a heap of facts in search of a thesis.
GIRL SLEUTH: NANCY DREW AND THE WOMEN WHO CREATED HER MELANIE REHAK (HARCOURT)
Melanie RehakWHEN Tue 10/11,7:30 PMWHERE Women &Children First,5233 N. ClarkPRICE FreeINFO 773-769-9299
continued on page 34
CHICAGO READER | OCTOBER 7, 2005 | SECTION ONE 33
34 CHICAGO READER | OCTOBER 7, 2005 | SECTION ONE
Books
her application letter and miscel-laneous other letters sheexchanged with her employers.We need to know that—mygoodness!—she was pregnantwhile pounding out some ofNancy’s adventures and nevermentioned it. We need to knowas much as possible, because,because—because the mountainof paper is there! As a friendonce told me, anyone’s life isinteresting if you know how tocut. Rehak doesn’t.
But I’m getting ahead of thestory. In 1929 EdwardStratemeyer proposed a seriesabout a girl sleuth to Grosset &Dunlap. He’d conjured up thepopular Hardy Boys a few years
earlier, and the publisher enthusi-astically accepted his five plot out-lines. He offered the writing job toMildred. Less than two weeksafter the first Nancy Drew bookwas published he died, and hisdaughter Harriet, a Wellesley-educated wife and mother, tookover the Stratemeyer Syndicate.With the help of the company’slongtime secretary and her sister,she became a shrewd and success-ful editor and CEO and eventuallytook over the writing of the books.
Rehak details all this, step byplodding step, attempting to livenup the material by inserting a fewparagraphs from Women’sStudies 101 about Rosie theRiveter, women’s college enroll-ment, the postwar societal return
to domesticity, and the secondwave of feminism. To her credit,she depicts the way the plots weredeveloped by the Stratemeyers,reports on the outrageously lowpayment for the books ($175 each,lowered to $125 during rockytimes following Edward’s death),and shows the writers signingaway all their rights. She includesbrief accounts of in-house cri-tiques of Nancy and her friends:tomboy George is called too boy-ish by editors, Nancy’s language isseen as too adult, she becomesmore of a “sissy” in a manuscriptan exhausted Mildred wrote whileher husband was suffering onestroke after another. Rehak alsodescribes Harriet’s business dis-agreements with her sister and a
court fight over who ownedNancy, and she briefly mentionsmagazine parodies and a 1993University of Iowa conference onNancy. But these are all just tid-bits. As Gertrude Stein once said,“There’s no there there.” The truthis, Nancy, despite her lack of char-acter development, is much moreinteresting than her ghostwriters,at least as they’re presented here.
Rehak isn’t even trying toshape all this information intosome larger cultural thesis. Sheoffers almost no analysis of theway race and class are portrayedin the novels, though she men-tions complaints about racialand ethnic prejudice in theHardy Boys books and describesan ill-fated Stratemeyer attempt
to market a series about a blackfamily in the late 60s. She quotessome feminists here and there,and we do learn that as Nancywas being revised in the 60s, theconservative Harriet made hermore demure and modest, evenin the illustrations.
This is not to say these bits ofinformation aren’t sometimestantalizing. In 1926, beforebecoming Carolyn Keene,Mildred had been hired to write anovel in a series about actressRuth Fielding, a fictional moderngo-getter. “It was no accident thatRuth Fielding was turning into adetective of sorts,” Rehak writes,“for a nationwide craze for mys-tery novels was on.” She cites thework of Agatha Christie, Dashiell
continued from page 32
CHICAGO READER | OCTOBER 7, 2005 | SECTION ONE 35
Hammett, Erle Stanley Gardner.But why was there a craze? Werereaders trying to escape the grimrealities of the Depression? If so,why detective pulp and not, say,utopian fantasies? Did the popu-larity of PIs have something to dowith the quest for individuality inan increasingly mass-producedworld? The cynicism that fol-lowed World War I? Did thesenoir novels play into readers’ fearof cities, densely packed withimmigrants and lowlifes?(Maybe, though that does noth-ing to explain small-town Nancyor the Hardy brothers). Howwere all these lone detectivesdifferent from the eruditeSherlock Holmes?
But larger cultural lessonsaren’t the concern of Rehak, who’speering through her magnifyingglass at minutiae. She seems tohave taken on her subject with alight heart, writing in the intro-duction about the pleasure shetook in the mysteries as a child,reading them by the gleam of thehallway light outside her bed-room. She started with “alluringyellow [book] spines,” then appar-ently tumbled into the archivesand was overwhelmed. Thatdamned magnifying glass! v
Ink Well by Ben Tausig
MoonlightingACROSS 1. They’re shot on playgrounds6. Stayed good
10. Self-satisfied14. Red state?15. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s
land16. Poi ingredient17. Mike20. Bender21. Forever, seemingly22. Out for surgery23. Org. with drills on campus25. Lady’s man27. Neil32. If one is white, it’s no big deal33. Like dictation34. Yellow Teletubby36. “That’s ______ ask”38. Seek apples, perhaps40. Agrees, apparently41. Poker posts44. $5.15, at minimum47. Tuck partner
48. Minnie51. Devon Avenue bread52. “Sugar ______” (Sonic Youth song)53. From the top56. 1040 filers58. Tear apart62. Karen65. Ex-Cub Moises66. Shoulder67. Frequent South Park presence68. Clear sheet69. It may come to a head70. It’s a cold world
DOWN 1. No Pulitzer candidate2. Biblical masturbator3. Tyrant4. Russian modernizer known as
“the Great”5. Steppenwolf sign, say6. Dangerous catch7. Buffalo body8. You can’t do it when you go to jail9. Dynamite relative
10. One who falls for a star11. Anti-DUI acronym12. Jones13. Attendee18. Western19. Coup group24. Siouan speaker26. Subj. for immigrants27. Author Cather28. Cross splinter, e.g.29. Clears a fall in winter30. Stag31. Rock bottom32. Mr. Wizard’s milieu35. Venomous serpent
LAST WEEK: AUNTIE EM
54. Desert “monster”55. One who shall remain nameless?:
abbr.57. Whittle (down)59. Caesarean phrase60. How Scotch may be taken61. “One million dollars, Mr. Bond”
speaker63. Diamond stat64. Uncommon sense
37. Pique39. Unhappy returns?42. Speak monotonously43. Having everything one needs45. Clutch46. Walter Benjamin article49. Incited canine hostility50. Of spring53. Quickly, quickly
