What do you think?
Rate this book
The Nancy Drew Scrapbook: 60 Years of America's Favorite Teenage Sleuth
Discusses the real authors behind the name Carolyn Keene, changes in the series, and screen adaptations of the series
179 pages, Paperback
First published November 28, 1993
2 people are currently reading
62 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews
January 22, 2025
If you have a fondness for Nancy Drew, this book is an absolute must-have! The author's analysis of Nancy and her reader-impact is very fascinating, but even more fascinating is the carefully researched history on the series' evolution from its beginning to the 90's. Many interesting tidbits of “backstage” information are crowded into the pages. We learn about the writers, publishers, and other people that brought the girl sleuth to life.
The scope of this volume even covers Nancy's television appearances, and it gives a fun overview of some Drew collectibles that have been produced through the years. This is followed by a comprehensive price guide for books and memorabilia. Admittedly, the price guide is thirty years outdated, but that cannot be helped since the book was never reissued.
Since I am a big Nancy devotee, the Scrapbook was a delightful Christmas present. Don't pass over it!
The scope of this volume even covers Nancy's television appearances, and it gives a fun overview of some Drew collectibles that have been produced through the years. This is followed by a comprehensive price guide for books and memorabilia. Admittedly, the price guide is thirty years outdated, but that cannot be helped since the book was never reissued.
Since I am a big Nancy devotee, the Scrapbook was a delightful Christmas present. Don't pass over it!
June 24, 2018
This was such a cool book! It is exhaustively researched, and full of facts and secrets that I knew nothing about.
When my best friend and I formed our Nancy Drew Club as kids, we kept a record after every book of how Nancy's hair color was described and which car she was driving, as well as what mishaps she got into with said car. So, imagine my delight when I read the chapter that tried to figure out what color Nancy's hair really is, and how many car accidents she has been in! Turns out that a lot of fans have wondered about these things throughout the years, and knowing that my friend and I were a part of that is just really cool.
My only complaint with this book is that it was published in 1993! That would be right about the time I was reading these for the first time, but so much has changed in the Nancy Drew world since I was a kid. I would have loved to hear the author's take on the new series that puts her in the modern world with (gasp!) cell phones, and especially her thoughts on the truly horrible movie from a few years ago.
But all in all, this was just a blast to read. And now I am definitely itching to keep re-reading Nancy Drews!
When my best friend and I formed our Nancy Drew Club as kids, we kept a record after every book of how Nancy's hair color was described and which car she was driving, as well as what mishaps she got into with said car. So, imagine my delight when I read the chapter that tried to figure out what color Nancy's hair really is, and how many car accidents she has been in! Turns out that a lot of fans have wondered about these things throughout the years, and knowing that my friend and I were a part of that is just really cool.
My only complaint with this book is that it was published in 1993! That would be right about the time I was reading these for the first time, but so much has changed in the Nancy Drew world since I was a kid. I would have loved to hear the author's take on the new series that puts her in the modern world with (gasp!) cell phones, and especially her thoughts on the truly horrible movie from a few years ago.
But all in all, this was just a blast to read. And now I am definitely itching to keep re-reading Nancy Drews!
August 16, 2018
I absolutely loved this book! It covered every aspect of Nancy Drew fans could ever wonder about! 5/5 stars. There were descriptions on River Heights, all characters, books through the ages, and collectible merchandise. I also loved the price guide, where the author valued certain Nancy Drew items.
April 15, 2021
I liked the first chapter, which had history and information which I thought was really cool. But the later chapters were more of an interpretation of Nancy, and that's where I have problems. I have read these books for years and years, so needless to say, I have a strong idea of my Nancy Drew. This book offers up a different Nancy Drew, which is OK, but Ms. Plunkett-Powell's interpretation was quite different from mine, so I found myself continually annoyed reading that part of the book. Also, I am NOT a Files fan, and the Files were frequently cited, which bothers me, because I don't believe them to be real Nancy Drew books. And then, there were many, MANY actual technical errors in the book. I have listed them below.
On page 58, where it lists some of Nancy's rewards from her cases, it says "An Oriental vase from Lei and Moy Soong to Nancy Drew, for saving them from the 'evil dragons' Ching and Mr. and Mrs. Carr. (The Clue of the Leaning Chimney, 1967.)" Actually, the vase is given to her by ENG Moy and Lei. It is Mr. Soong who asks Nancy to help find the ENGs, but they are NOT related to him and do NOT have the last name Soong. Their last name is Eng.
Also, why say 1967? The book was revised that year, but it was originally written in 1949. Why give the date of the revised text when the original is the same story and came first? The revision is just an offshoot of it. You should only give the date of the revision if you are mentioning something that happens in, say the 1961 "Mystery at Lilac Inn", which is a completely different story from the 1930 original and thus Nancy would get a different reward and it would be necessary to specify which version.
On page 68 in the section detailing Nancy's house, it says:
"Nancy is in her element on the cover of 'The Clue in the Jewel Box'." Huh? In that cover, Nancy is at Madame Alexandra's house, not her own!
On page 57, it says:
"Nancy assists an elderly woman in a wheelchair on the cover of "The Password to Larkspur Lane." Well, yes, but there's so much more to it than that!
Page 95 shows the original 1942 frontispiece to "The Quest of the Missing Map". Under it, the caption is:
"The dynamic 'six-some'--Nancy and Ned, George and Burt, Bess and Dave--work together in 'The Quest of the Missing Map'."
Full stop. Excuse me? Burt Eddleton and Dave Evans are not even in "Missing Map"!!!! Their first appearance is in the next book, 1943's "The Clue in the Jewel Box", and it takes a few years even after that for them to become regular characters and Bess and George's steady dates.
Page 94's paragraph on George's name was interesting, but there was a lot of information it skimped on. "The Moonstone Castle Mystery" should have been named, and I think that her name was changed to George from Georgia in PC copies of "Old Stagecoach" because "Moonstone Castle" came in in 1963, and George is said to be her full name, so the "original' text of 1960's "Old Stagecoach" was edited to be in line with that. And then in 1978's "Crocodile Island", it is said that George's real name IS Georgia (but I don't take that seriously). This all should have been clarified.
On page 65, there is a funny application for car insurance that lists all of Nancy's accidents. It says things like "1937: Applicant claims foreigner backed into borrowed car while pulling out of service station.", and lists certain accidents from 1932-1949. It was funny, but here is my problem: "Applicant's age: 18." "At the age of 18, applicant has already had seven accidents." "Date: April 1, 1949". Nancy did not turn 18 until book 31 in 1953! She is 16 in all of these books, and would have been 16 if she filed the claim in 1949!
On page 63, it is said that book 5, "The Secret at Shadow Ranch" was four volumes after book 2, "The Hidden Staircase". Huh? It's only 3 books after! The editors really should have caught THAT one. It's just simple math.
Page 64 says "In 'The Clue of the Whistling Bagpipes' (1964) we learn that Nancy has a photographic memory--a handy asset that allows her to make mental pictures of notes, maps, and so on and memorize them, usually before they are stolen or blown to smithereens." Because Nancy Drew had been around for 34 years and no one had a clue that she might have a photographic memory. Of course she does!
The illustration section split Nancy up into three groups:
1930-1949: Classic Ethereal Nancy (all Tandy covers, except for 11)
1950-1965: Bobby-Soxer Nancy (Gillies and Nappi)
1965-1979: Trendy Nancy (Nappi)
1980-present (1993); Debutante Nancy
Nancy really started to be a "Bobby soxer" in 1949. You can't disregard that just because the 1949 cover was illustrated by Tandy.
"Trendy Nancy" should be from 1966-79 instead of 1965, if she was supposed to be a bobby-soxer in 65.
My biggest problem is with the "Debutante" part. Page 51 claims that during the transition to paperbacks, "a flurry of artists, including Ruth Sanderson, Paul Frame, and Glen Hastings, illustrated Nancy during her metamorphosis."
First of all, Paul Frame only did internal illustrations. He was important, but that fact should have been specified. But the bigger problem is: why mention Glen Hastings?! He did two covers: the original cover for 1988's "The Secret at Shady Glen" and a REVISED cover for "The Twin Dilemma", both of which were published AFTER this "metamorphosis", which I don't think was THAT big of a change to be called a metamorphosis. I think that Hector Garrido should have been mentioned instead of Hastings. He did a lot of work on the series during that time.
Besides that, I can't stand it when people call Nancy a debutante. She never was! A debutante stays home to practice being a lady. I can't imagine a real debutante doing half of the things that Nancy does.A few paragraphs later, it says that "The covers of the new Nancy Drew mysteries now reflect Nancy as a wealthy, privileged sleuth who look pretty and alert."
Not in my opinion. What I specifically like about the Nancy of this exact period is that she doesn't look like a gorgeous, rich debutante. She looks like any normal late 80's/90's teenager. She doesn't appear to be wearing a lot of make-up or have her hair styled fancy, she isn't overly beautiful but is good-looking, and wears very practical, casual clothing, usually opting for jeans and a t-shirt or sweatshirt, very rarely "ball gowns", as mentioned in the book.
Page 52 spotlights Tricia Zimic, an artist for the Files, and even has a big picture of her. Ms. Zimic's covers are my favorites out of all of the ones in the Files series, but since I don't think of the Files as real Nancy Drew books, I don't think of Ms. Zimic as a real Nancy Drew illustrator, even though her work is pretty good. How about a picture of Aleta Jenks, the current illustrator of the real series at the time and tied with Tandy as my favorite-ever Nancy Drew illustrator? I LOVE Ms. Jenks's covers and I would really like to know more about her and see a picture of her with her work. Please?
The last chapter talks about collectibles, which is cool. But it has the "current values" of every item, which was an odd move since the values of these items fluctuate regularly AND inflation should be taken into consideration. Most of the values, even adjusted for inflation in 1993, seem low to me.
At the end, there is a chapter with a checklist, which is very handy, but I wish that the original and revised texts of 1-34 were on a separate list and not right after each other, I think that that would be more useful, at least to me. The list gives you columns with a tiny line for a description, "dust jacket? no/yes" and "cost/buying guide". It is helpful, but from 1962 and on, when books were no longer published with dust jackets, it still has the "dust jacket? no/yes" column, which I think should have just been taken out to add an extra centimeter on the "description" column, which might make all the difference. I check "yes, dust jacket" on all of the post 1962 books, just for fun (it is somewhat helpful if you have any Wanderer hardcover editions, but I only have two since they are very scarce, so I doubt that it is all that useful).
On page 152, regarding blue board styles, it says, "No silhouette, just title and author, appeared on the covers of volumes 1-5, Old Clock to Shadow Ranch." No! That format was in print until 1932, last appearing on "The Clue in the Diary". A real fan should know this!
The endpaper table on page 153 puzzled me. It should be:
Blank ends: 1930-1932, NOT 31, since book 7 had blank endpapers and was published in 1932.
Orange silhouette: 1932-46, NOT 48, since I have never come across a post-1946 book with orange endpapers. If they exist, it should be mentioned that they are scare, since I have never heard of them.
1947-1948: it should be specified that only a few, not many books with the Dana Girls endpapers were published. It should also be mentioned that these WERE the Dana Girls endpapers, the way it is written makes it seems that these were intended to be Nancy Drew endpapers.
1952-1957, NOT 58: digger endpapers. Digger ends were replaced by the blue multis in 1957, not 58, I have not seen any post-1957 copy with digger ends (except a copy listing to book 36 that has them, but this is an anomaly as far as I know, and I have never seen another book like that. Post-1957 books with digger endpapers exist, but I have only ever seen too. If you are going to say that they were in print up until 1959, you should specify that they are scarce).
1957: It should be mentioned that there were TWO different cuts of blue multi endpapers, one in print in 1957 and 1958, and the more common one in print from 1958 on. From the books I have, I feel like the two different cuts may have been in print at the same time, but fewer of the first cut were printed. The information about different cuts was not mentioned in the book. It should have been.
1958-1961: Blue multis.
It does not mention the endpapers of the non-dust jacketed books, which is annoying since those are just as important and it makes no sense to exclude them. And the non-dust jacketed books only had three different original endpapers, anyways. Not counting the blue multis, which were used on original text books still in print into the 70's, there were the 60's black and white multis, in print from 1962-early 1969, the second style of black and white multis, in print from 1969-1982, and the ovals, in print on matte books from 1982-1987, and on some early glossy flashlight books.
Page 4 had many flaws. 1984 was given as the start date for the Files, when it was really 1986. It is not mentioned that the "Be A Detective" series includes the Hardy Boys. And "1962: the first revisions of books 1-34 appear in bookstores". No, those started in 1959 and lasted until 1977! 1962 is when the first matte PCs were printed.
On page 156, there is a box discussing "The Mystery of the Missing Volume of Larkspur Lane". Last time I checked, collectors are satisfied that the interesting publishing history on the copyright page of the first printing of "Larkspur" belonged to an entirely different G&D book altogether, that they inserted in since it sort of matched, and there was no August 1932 printing of "Larkspur". I could be wrong, but that is what I have heard.
On page 60, a section about the police said that
"Once in a while, a female police officer appeared, but only if she was in charge of the juvenile department or involved in less taxing cases such as investigating the theft of rosebushes in Nancy's neighborhood."
It's easy to look at it that way in 1993, but how about "In 1945, having a female police officer in a book was awesome AND Nancy flies a plane in that same book."
Reading about Lieutenant Masters in "The Clue in the Crumbling Wall", I felt that not only could women be detectives, but they could also be police officers. I was so happy to see it that I didn't care what role she was in.
That police section mentioned John Ryan from the Files, but failed to mention much more-important Officer Brody, who first appeared in book #100. I can't stand it! The original series has the right-of-way over the Files, in my opinion.
All of the photos in this book--and there are a lot of them--are printed cheaply in black-and-white. A book like this should have color pictures. Sure, it's more expensive, but it would look AMAZING and not as tacky and cheap.
The romance section was, in my opinion, too long and boring. It reads too deep into the Files and Ned, and I don't think that we needed an ENTIRE chapter on it.
Also, there was a mistake on page 108, where it says "In 'The Bluebeard Room' (1985) we learn that 'Nancy and Ned had had one or two romantic encounters which struck sparks, but Ned remained always in the back of her mind as someone safe and rocklike and comforting--someone she could always count on to turn to, no matter how the shifting winds of fancy might blow.' " That quote was from "The Phantom of Venice", page 10. Come on!
I do not like front cover of this book. "Old Attic" has such a nice cover, but zooming in this much and making it extremely pixelated makes it look weird and a little creepy. A better cover could have easily been done.
The huge indentations are a terrible waste of paper. It made me cringe.
Also, there were a LOT of things that I think should have been clarified (like the two different cuts of blue multi endpapers that I wrote about above) but were probably dropped for space. How about using up those indentations to clarify important details?!!!!!!
I was not very interested in the history of Nancy Drew films and TV since I feel like none of them are true enough to my Nancy, but the chapter was good and informative, based on what I know. It did talk about the Pamela Sue Martin problem, which made me remember how much she disappointed me.
Page 1 shows the original "Old Clock" cover, but it is the Applewood facsimile, so it has the Applewood logo on it, which spoils the effect. It wouldn't have been that hard to find an original edition without the logo. The caption on the next page mentions Sara Paretsky's introduction. I have the Applewood edition, and I thought that the introduction was pretty good, but I still wished that they had mentioned Applewood at another time and had an original cover on the first page.
This book is OK, but I feel like every time I read it, I find something else wrong with it. It has more technical errors that the original text of "The Quest of the Missing Map"! I have updated this review many times to add everything I find. So,I have run out of space, thanks to the character limit. I feel like a real fan and collector would not make so many mistakes, and a real editor would catch them.But it has some good information, so if you can find it for a good price, it is good to have, as long as you do your research and don't take everything it says as the truth, since its errors may throw you off in collecting.
On page 58, where it lists some of Nancy's rewards from her cases, it says "An Oriental vase from Lei and Moy Soong to Nancy Drew, for saving them from the 'evil dragons' Ching and Mr. and Mrs. Carr. (The Clue of the Leaning Chimney, 1967.)" Actually, the vase is given to her by ENG Moy and Lei. It is Mr. Soong who asks Nancy to help find the ENGs, but they are NOT related to him and do NOT have the last name Soong. Their last name is Eng.
Also, why say 1967? The book was revised that year, but it was originally written in 1949. Why give the date of the revised text when the original is the same story and came first? The revision is just an offshoot of it. You should only give the date of the revision if you are mentioning something that happens in, say the 1961 "Mystery at Lilac Inn", which is a completely different story from the 1930 original and thus Nancy would get a different reward and it would be necessary to specify which version.
On page 68 in the section detailing Nancy's house, it says:
"Nancy is in her element on the cover of 'The Clue in the Jewel Box'." Huh? In that cover, Nancy is at Madame Alexandra's house, not her own!
On page 57, it says:
"Nancy assists an elderly woman in a wheelchair on the cover of "The Password to Larkspur Lane." Well, yes, but there's so much more to it than that!
Page 95 shows the original 1942 frontispiece to "The Quest of the Missing Map". Under it, the caption is:
"The dynamic 'six-some'--Nancy and Ned, George and Burt, Bess and Dave--work together in 'The Quest of the Missing Map'."
Full stop. Excuse me? Burt Eddleton and Dave Evans are not even in "Missing Map"!!!! Their first appearance is in the next book, 1943's "The Clue in the Jewel Box", and it takes a few years even after that for them to become regular characters and Bess and George's steady dates.
Page 94's paragraph on George's name was interesting, but there was a lot of information it skimped on. "The Moonstone Castle Mystery" should have been named, and I think that her name was changed to George from Georgia in PC copies of "Old Stagecoach" because "Moonstone Castle" came in in 1963, and George is said to be her full name, so the "original' text of 1960's "Old Stagecoach" was edited to be in line with that. And then in 1978's "Crocodile Island", it is said that George's real name IS Georgia (but I don't take that seriously). This all should have been clarified.
On page 65, there is a funny application for car insurance that lists all of Nancy's accidents. It says things like "1937: Applicant claims foreigner backed into borrowed car while pulling out of service station.", and lists certain accidents from 1932-1949. It was funny, but here is my problem: "Applicant's age: 18." "At the age of 18, applicant has already had seven accidents." "Date: April 1, 1949". Nancy did not turn 18 until book 31 in 1953! She is 16 in all of these books, and would have been 16 if she filed the claim in 1949!
On page 63, it is said that book 5, "The Secret at Shadow Ranch" was four volumes after book 2, "The Hidden Staircase". Huh? It's only 3 books after! The editors really should have caught THAT one. It's just simple math.
Page 64 says "In 'The Clue of the Whistling Bagpipes' (1964) we learn that Nancy has a photographic memory--a handy asset that allows her to make mental pictures of notes, maps, and so on and memorize them, usually before they are stolen or blown to smithereens." Because Nancy Drew had been around for 34 years and no one had a clue that she might have a photographic memory. Of course she does!
The illustration section split Nancy up into three groups:
1930-1949: Classic Ethereal Nancy (all Tandy covers, except for 11)
1950-1965: Bobby-Soxer Nancy (Gillies and Nappi)
1965-1979: Trendy Nancy (Nappi)
1980-present (1993); Debutante Nancy
Nancy really started to be a "Bobby soxer" in 1949. You can't disregard that just because the 1949 cover was illustrated by Tandy.
"Trendy Nancy" should be from 1966-79 instead of 1965, if she was supposed to be a bobby-soxer in 65.
My biggest problem is with the "Debutante" part. Page 51 claims that during the transition to paperbacks, "a flurry of artists, including Ruth Sanderson, Paul Frame, and Glen Hastings, illustrated Nancy during her metamorphosis."
First of all, Paul Frame only did internal illustrations. He was important, but that fact should have been specified. But the bigger problem is: why mention Glen Hastings?! He did two covers: the original cover for 1988's "The Secret at Shady Glen" and a REVISED cover for "The Twin Dilemma", both of which were published AFTER this "metamorphosis", which I don't think was THAT big of a change to be called a metamorphosis. I think that Hector Garrido should have been mentioned instead of Hastings. He did a lot of work on the series during that time.
Besides that, I can't stand it when people call Nancy a debutante. She never was! A debutante stays home to practice being a lady. I can't imagine a real debutante doing half of the things that Nancy does.A few paragraphs later, it says that "The covers of the new Nancy Drew mysteries now reflect Nancy as a wealthy, privileged sleuth who look pretty and alert."
Not in my opinion. What I specifically like about the Nancy of this exact period is that she doesn't look like a gorgeous, rich debutante. She looks like any normal late 80's/90's teenager. She doesn't appear to be wearing a lot of make-up or have her hair styled fancy, she isn't overly beautiful but is good-looking, and wears very practical, casual clothing, usually opting for jeans and a t-shirt or sweatshirt, very rarely "ball gowns", as mentioned in the book.
Page 52 spotlights Tricia Zimic, an artist for the Files, and even has a big picture of her. Ms. Zimic's covers are my favorites out of all of the ones in the Files series, but since I don't think of the Files as real Nancy Drew books, I don't think of Ms. Zimic as a real Nancy Drew illustrator, even though her work is pretty good. How about a picture of Aleta Jenks, the current illustrator of the real series at the time and tied with Tandy as my favorite-ever Nancy Drew illustrator? I LOVE Ms. Jenks's covers and I would really like to know more about her and see a picture of her with her work. Please?
The last chapter talks about collectibles, which is cool. But it has the "current values" of every item, which was an odd move since the values of these items fluctuate regularly AND inflation should be taken into consideration. Most of the values, even adjusted for inflation in 1993, seem low to me.
At the end, there is a chapter with a checklist, which is very handy, but I wish that the original and revised texts of 1-34 were on a separate list and not right after each other, I think that that would be more useful, at least to me. The list gives you columns with a tiny line for a description, "dust jacket? no/yes" and "cost/buying guide". It is helpful, but from 1962 and on, when books were no longer published with dust jackets, it still has the "dust jacket? no/yes" column, which I think should have just been taken out to add an extra centimeter on the "description" column, which might make all the difference. I check "yes, dust jacket" on all of the post 1962 books, just for fun (it is somewhat helpful if you have any Wanderer hardcover editions, but I only have two since they are very scarce, so I doubt that it is all that useful).
On page 152, regarding blue board styles, it says, "No silhouette, just title and author, appeared on the covers of volumes 1-5, Old Clock to Shadow Ranch." No! That format was in print until 1932, last appearing on "The Clue in the Diary". A real fan should know this!
The endpaper table on page 153 puzzled me. It should be:
Blank ends: 1930-1932, NOT 31, since book 7 had blank endpapers and was published in 1932.
Orange silhouette: 1932-46, NOT 48, since I have never come across a post-1946 book with orange endpapers. If they exist, it should be mentioned that they are scare, since I have never heard of them.
1947-1948: it should be specified that only a few, not many books with the Dana Girls endpapers were published. It should also be mentioned that these WERE the Dana Girls endpapers, the way it is written makes it seems that these were intended to be Nancy Drew endpapers.
1952-1957, NOT 58: digger endpapers. Digger ends were replaced by the blue multis in 1957, not 58, I have not seen any post-1957 copy with digger ends (except a copy listing to book 36 that has them, but this is an anomaly as far as I know, and I have never seen another book like that. Post-1957 books with digger endpapers exist, but I have only ever seen too. If you are going to say that they were in print up until 1959, you should specify that they are scarce).
1957: It should be mentioned that there were TWO different cuts of blue multi endpapers, one in print in 1957 and 1958, and the more common one in print from 1958 on. From the books I have, I feel like the two different cuts may have been in print at the same time, but fewer of the first cut were printed. The information about different cuts was not mentioned in the book. It should have been.
1958-1961: Blue multis.
It does not mention the endpapers of the non-dust jacketed books, which is annoying since those are just as important and it makes no sense to exclude them. And the non-dust jacketed books only had three different original endpapers, anyways. Not counting the blue multis, which were used on original text books still in print into the 70's, there were the 60's black and white multis, in print from 1962-early 1969, the second style of black and white multis, in print from 1969-1982, and the ovals, in print on matte books from 1982-1987, and on some early glossy flashlight books.
Page 4 had many flaws. 1984 was given as the start date for the Files, when it was really 1986. It is not mentioned that the "Be A Detective" series includes the Hardy Boys. And "1962: the first revisions of books 1-34 appear in bookstores". No, those started in 1959 and lasted until 1977! 1962 is when the first matte PCs were printed.
On page 156, there is a box discussing "The Mystery of the Missing Volume of Larkspur Lane". Last time I checked, collectors are satisfied that the interesting publishing history on the copyright page of the first printing of "Larkspur" belonged to an entirely different G&D book altogether, that they inserted in since it sort of matched, and there was no August 1932 printing of "Larkspur". I could be wrong, but that is what I have heard.
On page 60, a section about the police said that
"Once in a while, a female police officer appeared, but only if she was in charge of the juvenile department or involved in less taxing cases such as investigating the theft of rosebushes in Nancy's neighborhood."
It's easy to look at it that way in 1993, but how about "In 1945, having a female police officer in a book was awesome AND Nancy flies a plane in that same book."
Reading about Lieutenant Masters in "The Clue in the Crumbling Wall", I felt that not only could women be detectives, but they could also be police officers. I was so happy to see it that I didn't care what role she was in.
That police section mentioned John Ryan from the Files, but failed to mention much more-important Officer Brody, who first appeared in book #100. I can't stand it! The original series has the right-of-way over the Files, in my opinion.
All of the photos in this book--and there are a lot of them--are printed cheaply in black-and-white. A book like this should have color pictures. Sure, it's more expensive, but it would look AMAZING and not as tacky and cheap.
The romance section was, in my opinion, too long and boring. It reads too deep into the Files and Ned, and I don't think that we needed an ENTIRE chapter on it.
Also, there was a mistake on page 108, where it says "In 'The Bluebeard Room' (1985) we learn that 'Nancy and Ned had had one or two romantic encounters which struck sparks, but Ned remained always in the back of her mind as someone safe and rocklike and comforting--someone she could always count on to turn to, no matter how the shifting winds of fancy might blow.' " That quote was from "The Phantom of Venice", page 10. Come on!
I do not like front cover of this book. "Old Attic" has such a nice cover, but zooming in this much and making it extremely pixelated makes it look weird and a little creepy. A better cover could have easily been done.
The huge indentations are a terrible waste of paper. It made me cringe.
Also, there were a LOT of things that I think should have been clarified (like the two different cuts of blue multi endpapers that I wrote about above) but were probably dropped for space. How about using up those indentations to clarify important details?!!!!!!
I was not very interested in the history of Nancy Drew films and TV since I feel like none of them are true enough to my Nancy, but the chapter was good and informative, based on what I know. It did talk about the Pamela Sue Martin problem, which made me remember how much she disappointed me.
Page 1 shows the original "Old Clock" cover, but it is the Applewood facsimile, so it has the Applewood logo on it, which spoils the effect. It wouldn't have been that hard to find an original edition without the logo. The caption on the next page mentions Sara Paretsky's introduction. I have the Applewood edition, and I thought that the introduction was pretty good, but I still wished that they had mentioned Applewood at another time and had an original cover on the first page.
This book is OK, but I feel like every time I read it, I find something else wrong with it. It has more technical errors that the original text of "The Quest of the Missing Map"! I have updated this review many times to add everything I find. So,I have run out of space, thanks to the character limit. I feel like a real fan and collector would not make so many mistakes, and a real editor would catch them.But it has some good information, so if you can find it for a good price, it is good to have, as long as you do your research and don't take everything it says as the truth, since its errors may throw you off in collecting.
November 10, 2019
When I was younger, the world seemed older. Maybe that's a strange way to describe it, but while reading this book and remembering my childhood, I feel as if I entered the 21st century several years later than most. My family did not own a home computer till 2006; my parents didn't both own cell phones till around 2011. I can't recall when we first got a DVD player, but I think it was also around our second move in 2006; I distinctly recall the What's New Scooby Doo DVD Route Scary 6 as being one of the first that I owned. Most importantly, and relevant to these recollections were the books I read, which I didn't think much of at the time (when you are young, everything feels concurrent, because you haven't lived long enough to have a conception of history), but, from my 22 year old standpoint, it seems that before Harry Potter and Eragon grabbed me in the fall I entered third grade, I had not read any books that were 21st century works (and even still, they were fantasy, and thus not really timely in the same sense). Before then, my chief diet had been school library books on fables and myths and series chapter books like The Bailey School Kids, Horrible Harry (both published primarily in the early 90s), and, of course Nancy Drew (I also read the Hardy Boys somewhat, but I could never get into them - they bored me in a way that Nancy didn't). I have distinct memories, the kinds that come to you like snapshots, of leaving second grade the year before I moved to get a Nancy from the school library and walking in as the class inside was watching a movie and the lights were dimmed (I could still tell you, if that library existed as it had, which it doesn't, where the Nancy Drew and Hardy Boys books were located, as well as a fairy tale book bound in blue that haunts my memory and which I know I will never find), of standing in the Beaumont library at the copy machine around the corner from the teen section, photocopying the list of the 56 original Nancy Drew mysteries out of the back of The Clue of the Whistling Bagpipes so that I could check them off as I read them, of the crowded shelves of the Morgan Adams used bookstore on Leestown Road where I got a copy of The Mystery of The Moss-Covered Mansion (and to this day, no used bookstore, as much as I love them, has smelled quite the same or evoked quite the same feeling as that one once did), and, vaguely, of the small library in Lewisburg, PA, where I lived for my third grade year, and where, to my delight, an almost complete collection of Nancy Drew Mysteries was kept, allowing me to finish my checklist completely (or at least I did so in my recollection; it may be that I did not, but I choose to remember it this way). Nancy Drew was a formative influence in my life, even though I recall little of the exact details of her many cases; she was a comfort, perhaps an inspiration, a character that elicited some feeling of connection with me (a feeling that I also felt with Sherlock Holmes and, to a greater and more lasting extent, with the Scooby Doo franchise; it does interest me that though I no longer gravitate toward the mystery genre, so much of my childhood reading was deeply washed with it). Perhaps this feeling was necessary, a way to sublimate my anxieties about my move from Kentucky to Pennsylvania, from Lexington to a town not so different from River Heights, a town with a downtown bisected by a river and where the primary attraction was a series of three antique stores, a place where I was further cast backwards into time, as the 21st century briefly took to its feet and ran on without me; perhaps they were just enjoyable reads, as intriguing to me as they had been to readers of my mother's, grandmother's, and great-grandmother's generations. I'm not sure what it was exactly that I took from Nancy Drew, but I know it was important, and to this day, I still like to think about her every so often, always ready to solve another mystery, to provide entertainment for my nine year old self for a handful of brilliant hours.
As to this book itself, it's fine. The history of the Nancy Drew idea is well done, but everything else is mildly unsatisfying - it's nice to remember Nancy's character traits, her friends, her relationship with Ned, and her father and housekeeper though Plunkett-Powell's summaries, but it feels inessential, and the fourth section, on how to build and maintain your Nancy Drew collection, is all but irrelevant since the advent of the Internet (this book, published in 1993, is so pre-Internet, it's a wonder that my library system still has it in circulation; 26 years is a long time for a public library book to last). I would have liked more on the revisions that went into the first half of the series when they were rereleased in the 50s sans many sections that were then (and would be so even more now) considered racially insensitive, but Plunkett-Powell mentions that only in passing; it is clear this is first and foremost the work of a fan rather a historian or literary critic, and while that's certainly fine, it's not quite what I wanted. Nevertheless, it was nice to stroll down Nostalgia Lane, even if for only a few hours.
As to this book itself, it's fine. The history of the Nancy Drew idea is well done, but everything else is mildly unsatisfying - it's nice to remember Nancy's character traits, her friends, her relationship with Ned, and her father and housekeeper though Plunkett-Powell's summaries, but it feels inessential, and the fourth section, on how to build and maintain your Nancy Drew collection, is all but irrelevant since the advent of the Internet (this book, published in 1993, is so pre-Internet, it's a wonder that my library system still has it in circulation; 26 years is a long time for a public library book to last). I would have liked more on the revisions that went into the first half of the series when they were rereleased in the 50s sans many sections that were then (and would be so even more now) considered racially insensitive, but Plunkett-Powell mentions that only in passing; it is clear this is first and foremost the work of a fan rather a historian or literary critic, and while that's certainly fine, it's not quite what I wanted. Nevertheless, it was nice to stroll down Nostalgia Lane, even if for only a few hours.
June 29, 2019
A great history of Nancy Drew and the writing/revising of the series, as well as information on collecting the books. Wonderful book!
July 9, 2024
4/5 stars. This is probably a bit of a generous rating for a book from 20 years ago that's pretty out of date, but I gotta respect this author's seriously impressive summary of all things Nancy Drew. It was also a bit interesting reading a book that comes before the entire Her Interactive line of PC games, the ill fated 2007 movie, the barely-related-to-ND CW show, and the embarrassing-looking 2019 film.
What this book does well, and which was still enjoyable to a modern reader, was summarize the history of ND books, and the myriad characters, plot devices, and settings utilized during the original series run. I really cannot emphasize the level of detail enough, considering this is a breezy read that falls under 200 pages. The author is clearly a true ND lover and her enthusiasm shines through on every page.
I really enjoyed this cozy review of all things Nancy, and if you stumble upon a copy on your travels you should consider picking it up for a weekend's read.
What this book does well, and which was still enjoyable to a modern reader, was summarize the history of ND books, and the myriad characters, plot devices, and settings utilized during the original series run. I really cannot emphasize the level of detail enough, considering this is a breezy read that falls under 200 pages. The author is clearly a true ND lover and her enthusiasm shines through on every page.
I really enjoyed this cozy review of all things Nancy, and if you stumble upon a copy on your travels you should consider picking it up for a weekend's read.
July 23, 2018
Basically this is a history of the Nancy Drew series, from its first conception by Edward Stratemeyer up through the date of publication of this compilation (1993). This historical information if fascinating, especially if you are an avid fan, especially of the earlier works. This is followed by information on collecting the books, some of which is obviously out of date, with the advent of the internet.
October 11, 2021
This book delved a bit more into analysis of the actual series than Girl Sleuth did, but it was still incomplete and somewhat unsatisfying. Not only that, but I doubt its accuracy, as it claimed that George Fayne’s favorite expression is “yikes!”
Hypers!
Hypers!
February 1, 2023
A solid, concise roundup of the Nancy Drew universe and publishing history. Enjoyable nostalgia!
January 24, 2019
This book is superficial compared to Girl Sleuth: Nancy Drew and the Women Who Created Her as far as information about the creator of Nancy Drew, the sisters who ran the company for so long, and the writer's who were hired to write the books in the series. But this book also contains chapters with information for collectors of the Nancy Drew books and other memorabilia. There is also a simple explanation of when and why the books were updated and a list of Nancy Drew books in the back of this book with dates for the different covers on the books.
There is an amusing story on page 141 about the writer becoming so involved that she leaves a can of sweetened condensed milk on the stove so long that it explodes. I had to laugh because the same thing happened to me and my Aunt Nickie when we were following a recipe for caramel.
Nit picking: On page 204 the author explains that they changed Nancy Drew to Alice Roy in France because the French can't pronounce Nancy Drew. This is nonsense. The French are perfectly capable of pronouncing Nancy Drew. Do you honestly think that people who can pronounce Hurcule Poirot can't pronounce Nancy Drew?
There is an amusing story on page 141 about the writer becoming so involved that she leaves a can of sweetened condensed milk on the stove so long that it explodes. I had to laugh because the same thing happened to me and my Aunt Nickie when we were following a recipe for caramel.
Nit picking: On page 204 the author explains that they changed Nancy Drew to Alice Roy in France because the French can't pronounce Nancy Drew. This is nonsense. The French are perfectly capable of pronouncing Nancy Drew. Do you honestly think that people who can pronounce Hurcule Poirot can't pronounce Nancy Drew?
Read
February 7, 2010My Name is Molly Hoffman.. I lived across the street from Karen...for many years.. we played Barbies..(of which we had few),,, she was always fun.... Then we grew up and kinda had to split.. she , from St. CeCilia's.. me to J.F.K. middle school. Karen never lost her humanness...... I bow my had many days to my friends lovingness. please pass this on to her MOTHER and hus and............and please would he tell me .........bout my friend......and I am sointerbout Rosemarie....her mother////////// {;eas
July 10, 2014
My book of women in their 40s and 50s like to read a light book in July, often choosing a favorite from our childhood. This summer, we're each reading a different Nancy Drew. We were prompted by recent articles about the Iowan who wrote most of the first in the series. This scrapbook is a good, quick look at the Stratemeyer syndicate, Mildred Wirt Benson and Harriet Stratemeyer Adams who wrote most of the series, the history of the series through the '90s, and a bit about the movies, TV series, and collectibles.
April 23, 2007
Another book about Nancy Drew. I love learning about how Nancy was created, her history, and trivia.
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews