First introduced in 1927, The Hardy
Boys Mystery Stories are a series of books about the adventures of brothers
Frank and Joe Hardy, teenaged detectives who solve one baffling mystery after
another. The Hardy Boys were so popular among young boys that in 1930 a similar
series was created for girls featuring a sixteen-year-old detective named Nancy
Drew. The cover of each volume of The Hardy Boys states that he author of the
series is Franklin W. Dixon; the Nancy Drew Mystery Stories are supposedly
written by Carolyn Keene. Over the years, though, many fans of both series have
been surprised to find out that Franklin W. Dixon and Carolyn Keene are not
real people. If Franklin W. Dixon and Carolyn Keene never existed, then who
wrote The Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew mysteries?
The Hardy Boys and the Nancy Drew
books were written through a process called ghostwriting. A ghostwriter writes
a book according to a specific formula. While ghostwriters are paid for writing
the books, their authorship is not acknowledged, and their names do not appear
on the published books. Ghostwriters can write books for children or adults,
the content of which is unspecific. Sometimes they work on book series with a
lot of individual titles, such as The Hardy Boys and the Nancy Drew series.
The initial idea for both The Hardy
Boys and the Nancy Drew series was developed by a man named Edward Stratemeyer,
who owned a publishing company that specialized in children’s book.
Stratemeyer noticed the increasing
popularity of mysteries among adult, and surmised that children would enjoy
reading mysteries about younger detectives with whom they could identify.
Stratemeyer first developed each book with an outline describing the plot and
setting. Once he completed the outline, Stratemeyer then hired a ghostwriter to
convert it into a book of slightly over 200 pages. After the ghostwriter had
written a draft of a book, he or she would send it back to Stratemeyer, who
would make a list of corrections and mail it back to the ghostwriter. The
ghostwriter would revise the book according to Stratemeyer’s instructions and
then return it to him. Once Stratemeyer approved the book, it was ready for
publication.
Because each series ran for so many
years, Nancy Drew and The Hardy Boys both had a number of different
ghostwriters producing books; however, the first ghostwrites for each series proved
to be the most influential. The initial ghostwriter for The Hardy Boys was a
Canadian journalist named Leslie McFarlane. A few years later, Mildred A. Wirt,
a young writer from lowa, began writing the Nancy Drew books. Although they
were using prepared outlines as guides, both McFarlane and Wirt developed the
characters themselves. The personalities of Frank and Joe Hardy and Nancy arose
directly from McFarlane’s and wirt’s imaginations. For example, Mildred Wirt
had been a star college athelete and gave Nancy similar athletic abilities. The
ghostwriters were also responsible for numerous plot and setting details.
Leslie McFarlane used elements of his small C fictional hometown.
Although The Hardy Boys and Nancy
Drew books were very popular with children, not everyone approved of them.
Critics thought their plots were unrealistic and even far-fetched, since most
teenagers did not experience the adventures Frank and Joe Hardy or Nancy Drew
did. The way the books were written also attracted criticism. Many teachers and
librarians objected to the ghostwriting process, claiming it was designed to
produce books quickly rather than create quality literature. Some libraries –
including the New York Public Library – even refused to include the books in
their children’s collections. Ironically, this decision actually helped sales
of his books, because children simply purchased them when they were unavailable
in local libraries.
Regardless of the debates about
their literary merit, each series of books has exerted an undeniable influence
on American and even global culture. Most Americans have never heard of Edward
Stratemeyer, Leslie McFarlane, or Mildred wirt, but people throughout the world
are familiar with Nancy Drew and Frank and Joe Hardy.
Which of the following best
describes the structure of this passage?
I am writing in response to response
to the article “Protecting our public spaces” in issue 14, published this
spring in it, the author claims that “all graffiti is public spaces.” I would
like to point out that many people believe that graffiti is an art from that
can benefit our public spaces just as much as sculpture, fountains, or other,
more accepted art forms.
People who object to graffiti
usually do so more because of where it is, not what it is. They argue, as your
author does, that posting graffiti in public places constitutes an illegal act
of property damage. But the location of such graffiti should not prevent the
images themselves from being considered genuine art.
I would argue that graffiti is the
ultimate public art form. Spray paint is a medium unlike any other. Though
graffiti, the entire world has become a canvas. No one has to pay admission or
travel to a museum to see this kind of art. The artists usually do not receive
payment for their efforts. These works of art dotting the urban landscape are
available, free of charge, to everyone who passes by.
To be clear, I do not consider
random words or names sprayed on stop signs to be art. Plenty of graffiti is
just vandalism, pure and simple. However, there is also graffiti that is
breathtaking in its intricate detail, its realism, or its creativity. It takes
great talent to create such involved designs with spray paint.
Are these creators not artists
just because they use a can of spray paint instead of a paintbrush, or because they
cover the side of a building rather than a canvas?
To declare that all graffiti is
vandalism, and nothing more, is an overly simplistic statement that I find out
of place in such a thoughtful publication as your magazine. Furthermore,
graffiti is not going anywhere, so might as well find a way to live with it and
enjoy its benefits. One option could be to make a percentage of public space,
such as walls or benches in parks, open to graffiti artists. By doing this, the
public might feel like part owners of these works of art, rather than just the
victims of a crime.
In this passage, the writer argues
that graffiti
