This post is part of the Nancy Drew Review Project; visit the project index here.
The Mystery at Lilac Inn is the fourth Nancy Drew mystery novel, originally published in 1931. A heavily revised version, with a completely new plot and cast of characters, was issued in 1961.
For my ongoing Nancy Drew Review Project, I read both version of the story, and I’ve summarized my thoughts below.
Although otherwise dissimilar, both versions involve Nancy’s investigating into the theft of jewelry/diamonds recently inherited by Nancy’s impoverished friend, Emily.
1931 Original Text
The Mystery at Lilac Inn is the first Nancy Drew book published after Edward Stratemeyer died and control of the Stratemeyer Syndicate fell into the hands of his daughters, and…it shows.
I was reading the Applewood facsimile edition from the 90s, which has a foreword by Mildred Wirt Benson, who wrote the original text. In the foreword, Wirt Benson is wildly defensive of the original Lilac Inn, and seems to infer that any faults in the text are the responsibility of the Syndicate’s owners, rather than her own writing. This may be true with respect to the mutilation of Nancy’s character that we see in this book, but probably isn’t true with respect to the hugely racist plot points found throughout the text. Wirt Benson further claims that “no readers ever found Nancy Drew offensive,” which is patently false—one of the reasons the books were revised in the first place was because readers were offended.
Honestly, Mildred: just own up to the truth that 60 years ago, you wrote a problematic thing. Fans of the franchise won’t “cancel” you for it. Honestly, they’d probably respect you more.
In any case, the original text of Lilac Inn opens with Nancy Drew remarking to a friend that she’s “had enough of mystery to last [her] a lifetime” and isn’t interested in solving any more cases. I…what? (insert *blinking white man gif*) Barely a few paragraphs into things, and already Nancy Drew’s been the victim of some outright character assassination.
Then, following this bizarre statement, readers are forced to endure several chapters recounting Nancy’s struggle to employ a domestic worker. Everyone the employment agency sends is all wrong! The prospective housekeepers, who are either Black, Irish, Scottish, or otherwise “dark-complexioned” are all dirty, lazy, impudent, and completely unsuitable for the Drews. I think the narrative means for readers to feel sorry for Nancy, but (a) this is a massive case of First World Problems and (b) why is it necessary to make completely clear that the rejected applicants all fall into marginalized minority groups and then go on to suggest that their unsuitability is the result of their race/ethnicity?
Answer: racism.
(This is why I think Wirt Benson bears responsibility for the text’s failings, even if the Syndicate forced her to write about Nancy’s inane domestic dramas.)
At a later point, Nancy sees the “dark-complexioned” girl while out shopping at the most expensive boutique in town and thinks to herself: “Surely a girl in her circumstances cannot afford to buy dresses in such a place at this.” THEN Nancy proceeds to “investigate” the girl with a dogged determination that was honestly astounding. It’s not illegal for a maid to wear nice clothes! But the affront, at least from Nancy’s perspective, seems to be that someone from the “lower classes” is impermissibly encroaching upon the sanctified bastions of Nancy’s upper-middle-class WASP culture. And so: she snoops.
Naturally, the narrative rewards Nancy’s suspicions, because it turns out that the girl in question really is a thief, and she’s responsible for a jewelry theft that occurred at the Lilac Inn! I should add that at no point was there any evidence tending to implicate the villain in the theft—Nancy’s prejudiced investigating just so happened to turn up the truth.
You guys…what the hell. First, the book is racist. Second, the protagonist’s actions are entirely dictated by her prejudices. Third, the protagonist’s prejudices are proven to be correct and justified! Nancy’s entire train of logic in Lilac Inn is literally as follows: “That girl is bad because she has dark skin; bad girls like that can never afford nice clothes; ergo, that girl is a criminal.”
And don’t even get me started on the fact that the jewelry theft literally only happens because a person stupidly brings $40,000 worth of jewelry (roughly $624,000 in 2021 money) to lunch with her, behaves very suspiciously in full view of the entire dining room, and then leaves the jewelry unattended on her table! In that case, you deserve to have your stuff stolen.
The idiocy of this entire book is overwhelming.
1961 Revised Text
Good news: the revised text is not racist and it’s logically consistent; bad news: the revised text is a bit wacky.
This is one of the instances where the entire plot of the book was changed during revisions, rather than simply condensing down the same storyline. In the revised text, Nancy and her friend, Helen Corning, are visiting their friend Emily, who is remodeling Lilac Inn. Nancy doesn’t have any servant problems, and the diamonds are stolen when the villain cuts off the electricity and uses a secret passageway to snatch them. All improvements! There’s also an interesting subplot involving a person who has been impersonating Nancy and is forging her signature to buy expensive clothes.
The vast majority of the revised text is pretty solid, I will admit. Certain scenes are a bit rushed (about four “startling events” happen in the first chapter alone), but the story makes sense, and the two concurrent mystery plots are well-done. Then a bomb is left in Nancy and Helen’s cottage, another bomb is used to simulate an eqarthquake inside the inn, and I started to feel that things were getting a little over the top.
In the last few chapters, Nancy is able to uncover the identity of the diamond thief, who is one and the same as the person who stole her identity. (Naturally.) And that’s when things went straight off the rails. The villain apparently is an actress-turned-felon who has a mad vendetta against Nancy’s father. She’s also part of a crime ring that has been planting bombs at the inn and using a small submarine to sneak around. Also, the crime ring has stolen “top-secret electronics parts” from a local Army missile base and are now selling them on the black market?
(once again, *insert blinking white man gif*)
Clearly, the authors realized that once the original text was stripped of all its formery bigotry, it was a little barebones, but unfortunately, they over-corrected into the realm of bananapants during revisions, and I was not a fan. I will say that the 1961 text is extremely entertaining, though.
Verdict
This was not my favorite Nancy Drew book growing up, and it certainly hasn’t improved upon this most recent re-read. The original text of The Mystery at Lilac Inn is absurd and, honestly, it’s simply not a very good mystery. The 1961 revision manages to create a better mystery element, but the big reveal is too fantastical when compared with other early Nancy Drew plots. I don’t like either version.
If forced to choose…I don’t know, folks. I suppose I prefer the revised text, because I simply cannot get over Nancy deciding to investigate a person because their clothes were too expensive.
[Disclaimer: cover art scans are from this site.]
