In the early 1900s, Edward Stratemeyer devised the Stratemeyer Syndicate of children’s books, where multiple volumes of the same series could be written by various authors and published under a common nom de plume. Two of its more famous alumni were The Hardy Boys by ‘Franklin W. Dixon’ and the Nancy Drew mysteries by ‘Carolyn Keene’.
Well, plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose, because The Secret Key (2018) is the first in a series that currently runs to three volumes featuring teenage sleuth Agatha Oddlow and has been produced as a collaboration between publishers HarperCollins and “literary management company” Tibor Jones. On the HarperCollins website it says:
HarperCollins and Tibor Jones – a new boutique packager – have developed the series with a talented team of new writers, who work collaboratively with a creative and dynamic approach echoing the TV script writing model. Agatha Oddly will be published under the fictional author name Lena Jones.
Given the authors featured on the Tibor Jones website, I’m crossing my fingers in the hope of this book being the co-creation of Wilbur Smith and Bernard Sumner, and nothing anyone says will make me believe any different. And just to be clear: I’m not criticising this approach at all; if anything, I’m surprised it’s not used more, especially with younger readers where the name that attracts them is the series rather than the writer. And, hey, that’s not to devalue the work done by great authors in bringing great stories to life, but I’m sure hordes of you have fond memories of reading The Hardy Boys that are in no way sullied by there being about five different people writing those books. If standards can be maintained, and it’s a way to ensure a high volume of books that young readers can get enthusiastic about, I’m all for it.
So, more importantly, is this opening salvo any good? Well…no.

“I’d better get the others, then.”
Part of the reason I was inspired to search out details about Lena Jones — and it’s not like HarperCollins are hiding this ‘written by committee’ thing, but equally it’s mentioned neither in the book itself nor on the Agatha Oddly website — was my bafflement at anyone going to the efforts of producing such a bland character and plot. Agatha herself is a loose collection of hipster quirks — oversize tortoiseshell glasses, conspicuously chewed and chipped nail polish, Breakfast at Tiffany’s poster on her quirky attic bedroom wall, scorn for all things mobile phone-related, shopping in charity shops — crammed into a 13 year-old in the sort of blithe wish-fulfilment nature that 9 year-olds crave. Add a dead parent (killed under Mysterious Circumstances…) and a me-against-them scholarship to a posh “you-don’t-belong-here” school for extra Harry Potter points and voila. The more I read, the more I felt that the book and the character had been compiled from a Buzzfeed list of What’s Hip for Young Kids and, yeah, it turns out she pretty much has. Man, Bernard Sumner’s work has really dipped in quality, eh?
This is particularly sad because of the lack of thought that’s gone into creating an interesting character for younger readers. It may be counter-culture-cool to disdain the way people wander around glued to their mobile phones, but Agatha’s problem extends to not even viewing the mobile as a source of, like, all the information in the world — something the Benedict Cumberbatch-starring Sherlock worked in brilliantly (and we’ll be returning to that version of Mr. Holmes in due course). This is like Peter Diamond in Bloodhounds (1996) by Peter Lovesey proving what an Old School Detective he is by not trusting or liking forensic science. For an apparently brilliant mind, it’s a curiously idiotic oversight. As is the fact that Agatha disguises herself when leaving the house because she might be under surveillance…but, like, anyone watching the house wouldn’t see a 13 year-old-sized person clamber out of a skylight and down a tree and think “Well, that’s obviously not who I’m after”. And if they’re not watching the skylight or the tree, the fact that she’s leaving at 11 o’clock at night when no-one of that appearance has entered the house would surely give it away, no? Have your fun, book, but be intelligent about it at the very least. Other, better authors in this genre and age group manage it.
There’s also the blatant recycling of “the words float in the air to show how deductions come together” from Sherlock, except that, y’know, they’re just printed on the page at weird angles and in funny fonts and so it loses the dynamism that television can provide:

How…exciting?
Additionally, and perhaps even more unforgivably given the sheer number of people listed in the back of the book and so responsible for making this happen, the writing is both poor and lazy. I mean…
“I’m going now. Are you coming or not?” I hiss.
…can you hiss a sentence stripped of a single sibilant sound? You might argue it’s a touch fussy of me to raise such a point, but equally the word “hiss” has a meaning and its not like there aren’t plenty of other verbs for dialogue attribution. I’ll fully admit fastidiousness being at the root of my equally disliking
“Oh…Paris.” I say dumbly.
…because you can’t say something dumbly, since “dumb” means “unable to speak” — but I have to cede that the meaning of that word is being slowly filched by American English to mean “stupid” even if, y’know, I have frankly huuuuge issues with that connotation. And aside from simply misapplications of the English language, the writing rings entirely false from a simple narrative perspective. Never mind that the notion of Hyde Park in London being abandoned at 8.37 on a weekday morning is complete nonsense (I spent a year crossing the park at that time of day, trust me) but also simple things like Agatha needing to catch a bus but “I have no money left” when every single school-age child in London has a travelcard that guarantees them free bus travel. Sure, sure, it could be some alternate London in which the Oyster card doesn’t exist, and in which Hyde Park is shut off from the public until 10am…but so little effort is put into this wider world that there’s really no reason to assume that’s the case.

“We got here as soon as we could.”
At least with the Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew books it was one author per novel as far as we can tell, not a committee.
LikeLike
I read this one and equally didn’t enjoy it. Although I didn’t know about the pen name and the reasons for having one. Good sleuthing!
LikeLike
Man, if the standard for “good sleuthing” these days is “18 seconds on Google” then we really do need a detection renaissance…!
LikeLike