
THE HAPPY HOLLISTERS: A Retrospective
Kid detective books are so popular and so numerous that it’s almost impossible to keep track of them all. One series that has fallen through many readers’ mental cracks is the Happy Hollisters. But do these ‘dorable detectives deserve such an ignoble fate? Let’s find out!
The Happy Hollisters series ran from 1953 to 1969. It follows a relentlessly optimistic family of seven: children Pete, Pam, Ricky, Holly, and Sue; parents John and Elaine; plus their dog, six cats, and later a donkey. After moving to the town of Shoreham, where John has acquired a hardware/toy store, the kids have all kinds of adventures. These range from finding lost treasures to dealing with bullies who really ought to be sent to reform school.
I only know about this series because my mother still has most of the books from when she was a kid. It was part of some kind of book club. (This one, I assume.) That would explain the “book club edition” notation on a lot of the dust jackets. Those that don’t have this note include the price instead: $1.50.
Out of the 33 books in the series, we’re only missing one. Since I’ve already read the 56 original Nancy Drew books, I figured why not do the same for the Happy Hollisters?
So I did. I shot through the lot in just over a month. Now I have Opinions.
Of course, you have to keep an eye out for the occasional bit of BS. In The Happy Hollisters at Snowflake Camp, a vet lets a fawn return to her mother with a bandaged, broken leg because the mother deer will somehow magically know when it’s the right time to remove the bandage. And don’t get me started on The Happy Hollisters and the Indian Treasure, where the author claims he did research on Native Americans and then employs every stereotype you’ve ever heard of.
And that brings me to my biggest issue with the Happy Hollisters books. They are…quaint. Old-fashioned. A product of their times.
Yes, they’re sexist and racist.
The sexism mostly manifests in pushing traditional gender norms. The girls always help with cooking and cleaning, and the boys always help with fishing and repairing. There are no female villains, and if anyone gets left out of a particularly exciting or climactic part of the mystery, it’s the girls. It’s eyeroll-inducing, but expected.
The racism is where this series really goes above and beyond. Despite the presence of a recurring Native American character—Edward “Indy” Roades, who works at John Hollister’s store (yes, “Indy” is short for exactly what you think it is)—the amount of anti-Native racism is astounding. Even less offensive books often feature the kids casually pretending to be “Indians,” complete with stilted speech and war whoops, or “Eskimos.” As a bonus, The Trading Post Mystery has them recreate the horrid Dutch Christmas tradition of Black Pete.
Now, as a history nerd, I like these books because they’re a(n idealized) time capsule. The Hollisters send telegrams! The airplanes have no security! The kids write—not email, not telephone, but write—to the organizers of a kite flying contest to make sure girls are allowed to enter!
Okay, obviously that last one isn’t a good thing. Still, it’s fascinating to me to see these little details of life in a different era. But all that doesn’t mean I’m about to let the racism slide because “that stuff was okay back then.” No. It absolutely was not okay, even if the author and illustrator apparently thought it was.
Speaking of the author and illustrator…
So what’s the verdict? Are the Happy Hollisters still a cheerful addition to your child’s bookshelf, or has time tarnished those eager smiles?
For whatever it’s worth, I don’t think Svenson was trying to be rude or malicious. The reason he included people of color in these books was to show that they’re nice, ordinary folks with interesting cultures worthy of study and respect. That’s more than I can say about the depiction of minorities in the Nancy Drew books. But while he clearly did research for each book, for whatever reason, Svenson never took that extra step to examine his own biases and how they undermined his point.
Obviously, good intentions can’t magic away the racism, or make it any easier for modern audiences to swallow. If you’re put off by anything you’ve read in this article, I don’t blame you. There’s no reason to read anything you feel uncomfortable with. There are plenty of junior detective books for you and/or your kids to enjoy without the problematic morals and disrespectful portrayals of minorities.
At the same time, I agree with author Candy Gourley (who in turn quotes Grace Lin) that banning such books outright is not the way to go. There is still plenty to love about books with offensive content, so long as they are placed in their proper context. You don’t have to feel bad for liking these books or being curious enough to read them; just don’t sweep their shortcomings under the rug.
If the reissued books have indeed removed the racist content, great. But if not, and if you want to give these books to your kid for any reason—whether you enjoyed them as a child, your kid likes mystery stories, whatever—know what you’re getting into. Talk to your kids about the outdated morals and terminology they contain, and why these things are not and never were okay. Who knows? Maybe the Happy Hollisters can continue to be educational in a way their creator could never have imagined.