The Hardy Boys Crawling with Zombies!

[SDLagent]

I don't think Original Frank and Joe would smoke in their teens but when they got a bit older I'm sure they would. In those days everybody smoked.

As for drinking, yeah, I don't think Original Frank and Joe would drink because, like Mac says, is was illegal in the 20 and 30s. I could see Casefiles Frank and Joe having a drink, though. I definitively can't see them getting drunk but I'm sure they'd have a little to drink once and awhile.

[MacGyver]

I don't know about that. At 17 and 18, Frank and Joe are still underage for drinking, at least in America. It may be different in other countries though.

[hardygirl847]

Would smoking be contradictory to their "wholesome"/hero type images though? I totally see why you think that considering the time period and all.

I just don't see it though. I'd like to think of them as untainted. Just like they don't mention more than kissing. lol Some fanfic that includes sexual references just makes me want to skip that part. I don't wanna know! Lol

As they got older, in an alternate universe or AU, I could see them drinking socially but not to excess at the proper age. I wrote a story where Frank tries a drink or two but doesn't like it. His buddies, on the other hand, were more into it. Not crazy or drunkards but...more than Frank. Obviously Joe wasn't invited because of his age difference. That part of the story was only in there because it starts the whole ball rolling, sorta. Otherwise, I wouldn't have even used it.

Either way, the originals and the Casefiles, didn't have that and I'm glad.

It's a very interesting subject though...

Also, I could see Fenton with a pipe. A pipe is more distinguished and could be casually lit without really being smoked if he was in the company of Carson or someone else that had one.

[MacGyver]

The bottom line is still that Frank and Joe are 18 and 17, respectively, and in the USA are legally underage for drinking. Technically, Frank is of legal age for smoking, but I really don't think he and Joe ever would. I daresay most every time you see them with any drink anywhere, whether in the Originals, Digests or Casefiles and hopefully the UB, the book specifies that it is a soda. Because the primary audience for these books is way underage for either one of these things and the writers and publishers are certainly not going to set a bad example for kids. This is also why Frank and Joe shouldn't curse because it sets such a horrible example for kids. I know the concern that they come off as being unrealistic goody two shoes is there, but honestly- kids have enough bad examples. They can use all the good ones they can get. And Frank and Joe do have character flaws that they deal with- Joe is impulsive and hot-headed and loses his temper sometimes. So does Frank for that matter, but sometimes he can get a little too callous or prideful. Kids can see them as realistic brothers who deal with these kinds of things but still function together well as a team, loving and forgiving each other. I definitely see them as teetotalers (if that's spelt right- i.e. non-drinkers) and non-smokers.

[SDLagent]

Would smoking be contradictory to their "wholesome"/hero type images though? I totally see why you think that considering the time period and all.

Well in the era of the early Original continuity smoking wasn't considered a bad thing so it wouldn't go against the boys' "hero status". Actually, I could see Joe not smoking just to be different or a little rebellious.

[hardygirl847]

The bottom line is still that Frank and Joe are 18 and 17, respectively, and in the USA are legally underage for drinking. Technically, Frank is of legal age for smoking, but I really don't think he and Joe ever would. I daresay most every time you see them with any drink anywhere, whether in the Originals, Digests or Casefiles and hopefully the UB, the book specifies that it is a soda. Because the primary audience for these books is way underage for either one of these things and the writers and publishers are certainly not going to set a bad example for kids. This is also why Frank and Joe shouldn't curse because it sets such a horrible example for kids. I know the concern that they come off as being unrealistic goody two shoes is there, but honestly- kids have enough bad examples. They can use all the good ones they can get. And Frank and Joe do have character flaws that they deal with- Joe is impulsive and hot-headed and loses his temper sometimes. So does Frank for that matter, but sometimes he can get a little too callous or prideful. Kids can see them as realistic brothers who deal with these kinds of things but still function together well as a team, loving and forgiving each other. I definitely see them as teetotalers (if that's spelt right- i.e. non-drinkers) and non-smokers.

I totally agree. Well said.

Well in the era of the early Original continuity smoking wasn't considered a bad thing so it wouldn't go against the boys' "hero status". Actually, I could see Joe not smoking just to be different or a little rebellious.

Perhaps in the Originals it would have made more sense but as the series continued, it would become less likely that they would include smoking.

Joe would probably be rebellious like that. I can't see Frank doing it though either.

Now, they are both heavily into sports. Do you think this would have something to do with their not smoking or drinking? Most coaches are strict about that nowadays. I don't know how they would be back then, but I would assume that they would want to stay healthy for the sake of their work (running around the country solving crimes, running away from bad guys, chasing bad guys, lol) and for their sports as well.

I realize that the harmful risks of smoking or drinking weren't known or a concern, but I still think their active lifestyle might play a role in their choice not to smoke or drink.

[MacGyver]

I'm sure athleticism plays a role in it as well as just their own personal moral convictions of course. And maybe because Fenton said he'd skin them alive if he ever caught them doing either one.

[JoeHardyRocks]

I read this book and I thought it was pretty good. They kinda worked too hard at Frank calling Joe "Little Brother." It was an interesting story though.

[SDLagent]

Now, they are both heavily into sports. Do you think this would have something to do with their not smoking or drinking? Most coaches are strict about that nowadays. I don't know how they would be back then, but I would assume that they would want to stay healthy for the sake of their work (running around the country solving crimes, running away from bad guys, chasing bad guys, lol) and for their sports as well.

I realize that the harmful risks of smoking or drinking weren't known or a concern, but I still think their active lifestyle might play a role in their choice not to smoke or drink.

Or not.



Babe Ruth. The best baseball player in the 1920s.

[MacGyver]

Babe Ruth is definitely not the best example for athletic sportsmen- lol. And honestly, there's not nearly as much athleticism required for baseball as there for other sports. (Which is not a knock against baseball, since I enjoy playing that too- being the American pastime and all. )

[SDLagent]

Maybe, so, but it was commonplace for hockey players to have smokes and drinks together after the game well into the 40s.

[hardygirl847]

I read this book and I thought it was pretty good. They kinda worked too hard at Frank calling Joe "Little Brother." It was an interesting story though.

I honestly think they were just trying to set up the Break Up storyline so you had reason to believe they would be on the outs. Glad you liked it though. Are you looking forward to their (hopefully temporary) separation?

Or not.

Babe Ruth. The best baseball player in the 1920s.

This makes a point and I don't think Mac or I are denying that smoking and/or drinking were commonplace back then. Personally, I do not smoke (although I will admit to trying it) and I only drink once in a great while. I did marry a smoker though who quit over 4 years ago.

So putting that aside, I still don't think Joe or Frank would've been into that.

Originals -maybe
RT of Originals-maybe but probably not
Early Digests-maybe
Later Digests-no
Casefiles-no
UBs-no
Crossovers-no because I can't see ND doing that either.
GNs, etc.-no

To me it's for similar reasons as to why they don't talk about them having sexual relationships. It's not part of the Hardy world. Of course we're talking about them in hypothetical situations, but that's not something they would have done because of their moral foundations.

Plus, I think Aunt Gertrude would kick their butts...maybe even before Fenton. lol

I wish we could ask Leslie about it but he's gone and didn't care for them like we do. So I'm not sure what kind of response he would have had. I could ask Larry Mike Garmon but he wrote some of the Casefiles. By the time of the Casefiles, smoking and drinking issues were different than in the 20s.

[SDLagent]

Originals -yes
RT of Originals-maybe but probably not
Early Digests-no
Later Digests-no
Casefiles-no
UBs-no
Crossovers-no because I can't see ND doing that either.
GNs, etc.-no

So we're pretty much on the same page, here.

[hardygirl847]

Pretty much, yeah. The only reason I say "maybe" for the Originals and even maybe the earliest Digests is based on time period. If the writers at the time were going to have them do that, it would have been during the 20s-30s.

Actually after considering it further, I would agree with you that the early digests wouldn't have been that long ago...and therefore probably not a "maybe" or "yes".

In any event, I am glad that the Hardys don't swear, talk about sexual relationships, smoke, or drink. They are very intelligent, morally grounded, adventurous, upstanding teenagers. Definitely good role models...unlike some of the books/movies/tv shows currently available.

They do break in or a break a rule now and then....but nothing major.

[MacGyver]

Just for clarification, the "Digests" started in 1979 as a continuation of the Original 58 books that Grosset & Dunlap printed after Simon & Schuster got the copyrights. So I would definitely have to say no on that count.