What do you think?
Rate this book
The Lady Investigates: Women Detectives and Spies in Fiction
Probes the genre of detective fiction to examine the changing roles of women as author, victim, and investigator
252 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1981
1 person is currently reading
73 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 - 4 of 4 reviews
April 11, 2016
Some fun facts I learned from The Lady Investigates: Early lady-detectives were almost always blond (including Nancy Drew.) It didn’t take long, however, for redheads to make an appearance in the genre and completely take over. For a long time, almost every female detective had at least a reddish hue. Also, girl detectives emerged in girl magazines in England and America at roughly the same time. But where in England girl detectives usually had a trusty dog as a sidekick, American girl detectives were much more likely to have boyfriends!
The Lady Investigates was interesting, but not as good as The Golden Age of Murder by a long shot. Partially this is because it is dated (the book was published in 1981) and partially because the authors feel the need to make a judgement about every character and book they reference. (Which I tolerated until they mocked Sir Peter Wimsey!) They are repetitive and switch from England and America and from decade to decade so often I found it difficult to follow. The chapters loosely organize the groups of detectives but also muddle the line of "when" more.
The authors also seem to want to make a firm statement about feminism but outside of a dislike for "womanly intuition," their brand of feminism was hard to follow.
Still, a very historically interesting book. It is fun to see where favorite characters - like Nancy Drew and Miss Marple - came from.
The Lady Investigates was interesting, but not as good as The Golden Age of Murder by a long shot. Partially this is because it is dated (the book was published in 1981) and partially because the authors feel the need to make a judgement about every character and book they reference. (Which I tolerated until they mocked Sir Peter Wimsey!) They are repetitive and switch from England and America and from decade to decade so often I found it difficult to follow. The chapters loosely organize the groups of detectives but also muddle the line of "when" more.
The authors also seem to want to make a firm statement about feminism but outside of a dislike for "womanly intuition," their brand of feminism was hard to follow.
Still, a very historically interesting book. It is fun to see where favorite characters - like Nancy Drew and Miss Marple - came from.
October 4, 2016
I don't hold to the idea of not judging a book by its cover; I invest enough in my personal library to place some value on the attractiveness of a book's appearance, the texture of the pages, and the aesthetics of the font choice. Unfortunately, sometimes this admonishment holds true. I grabbed this book from a library shelf purely based on the cover art, which is a reproduction of a 1909 illustration. I blame that eye-catching art entirely for the fact that I spent this much time slogging painfully through over 200 pages of some of the most clumsily written literary criticism I've read.
Actually, I'm not sure it is literary criticism. I can't pinpoint what this book was trying to accomplish, which makes it difficult to gauge its success. On the surface, it's an overview of female investigators throughout the entire history of fiction (up to the 1981 publication date). It's confusingly organized, though, and mixes detectives, spies, vamps, film stars, schoolgirls, and country marms. Among others.
Each chapter technically explores a specific theme, introduced by lengthy titles such as "Six Wonderful Old Women: And Other Lady Detectives in England: the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s" and "Career Girls Against Crime: 'She-dicks' in America from the 1920s to the 1960s." The titles don't necessarily relate to the content, though - which were the six wonderful old women? I couldn't tell you; it seems to have simply been a catchy phrase - and the jumbling of time periods means the authors provide a constant, muddled, repetitive barrage of information, with some of the least adept transitions between discussions of various authors' works that I've ever read.
It should be a fascinating overview. I'm particularly fond of the mystery genre, and I have a deep interest in digging into the roles of women in literature. I should have enjoyed it, at least in part. I didn't, and by the last few chapters, I was forcing myself to keep turning the pages, out of pure stubbornness, because I hate leaving things unfinished.
This book is badly written. It also covers a topic for which the authors seem to hold an oddly deep disdain. Initially, I assumed their heavy criticism of every work they mentioned was due to the slow progression of the genre; after all, early attempts at detective fiction were often lumbering or inanely fanciful, in equal measures. But their vitriol gains steam as they plow through the decades, and I'm fairly certain there were no more than two or three authors whose work Craig and Cadogan didn't roundly shred.
Each chapter, in essence, became an excuse for them to rail against the presentation of the women, who often chose to sacrifice their investigative careers for the love of some charming man they'd met along the way. I understand the frustration. I sympathized with some of it, relying on the authors' presentation of "facts" for the works I haven't read. I agreed, for instance, about the astounding lack of literary merit for the Nancy Drew series, which I hadn't known was created by a man using a female pseudonym. This was one area that caught my interest: in the heyday of "schoolgirl papers" fiction, created to feed off the success of similar boys' stories, many female-centered works with a woman's name on the cover were, in fact, written by men.
This topic was oddly glossed over, as the authors dropped that information on the page and then plunged ahead in listing as many characters and titles as they could resentfully cram into a chapter. It's overwhelming. It's badly presented. I mostly gathered the sense that a lot of writing had happened in these decades, that most of it had been fairly terrible and offensive to women, and that the authors love using the word bathos.
And, at the end of each chapter, the authors stopped to breathe for a moment, then wrote a couple of saccharine paragraphs relating how much progress had been made in literary depictions of women during the time period they'd just resoundingly lambasted.
I lost all patience by the time I reached the chapter entitled "Home Sleuths: The Wives of Some Famous Detectives." This chapter opens with a haughtily inaccurate takedown of the Peter Wimsey and Harriet Vane books, which were written with incredible sensitivity and immense literary merit by Dorothy Sayers. Oh, I realized at this point, it's not necessarily that all the books they're discussing are universally bad; it's that they're apparently determined to hate everything. Their analysis, if it can be termed that, of Busman's Honeymoon entirely misses the emotional thrust of the story and willfully misinterprets the characters' relationship and growth over the preceding novels.
Criticism is a delicate sword. It becomes meaningless if you cut down everything in your path, or only pull back to offer brief, insincere statements about the value of a genre you've spent an entire book vilifying.
I agree that women haven't always received fair treatment in novels (nor in day-to-day life). But when you swipe at a character as intelligent and nuanced as Harriet Vane with the same level of vitriol as at a female spy described as appearing bare-chested on "the garish cover pictures" of "he-man books," you lose a certain degree of credibility.
"We have tried to keep literary judgements to a minimum," the authors state in the introduction.
They failed.
Actually, I'm not sure it is literary criticism. I can't pinpoint what this book was trying to accomplish, which makes it difficult to gauge its success. On the surface, it's an overview of female investigators throughout the entire history of fiction (up to the 1981 publication date). It's confusingly organized, though, and mixes detectives, spies, vamps, film stars, schoolgirls, and country marms. Among others.
Each chapter technically explores a specific theme, introduced by lengthy titles such as "Six Wonderful Old Women: And Other Lady Detectives in England: the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s" and "Career Girls Against Crime: 'She-dicks' in America from the 1920s to the 1960s." The titles don't necessarily relate to the content, though - which were the six wonderful old women? I couldn't tell you; it seems to have simply been a catchy phrase - and the jumbling of time periods means the authors provide a constant, muddled, repetitive barrage of information, with some of the least adept transitions between discussions of various authors' works that I've ever read.
It should be a fascinating overview. I'm particularly fond of the mystery genre, and I have a deep interest in digging into the roles of women in literature. I should have enjoyed it, at least in part. I didn't, and by the last few chapters, I was forcing myself to keep turning the pages, out of pure stubbornness, because I hate leaving things unfinished.
This book is badly written. It also covers a topic for which the authors seem to hold an oddly deep disdain. Initially, I assumed their heavy criticism of every work they mentioned was due to the slow progression of the genre; after all, early attempts at detective fiction were often lumbering or inanely fanciful, in equal measures. But their vitriol gains steam as they plow through the decades, and I'm fairly certain there were no more than two or three authors whose work Craig and Cadogan didn't roundly shred.
Each chapter, in essence, became an excuse for them to rail against the presentation of the women, who often chose to sacrifice their investigative careers for the love of some charming man they'd met along the way. I understand the frustration. I sympathized with some of it, relying on the authors' presentation of "facts" for the works I haven't read. I agreed, for instance, about the astounding lack of literary merit for the Nancy Drew series, which I hadn't known was created by a man using a female pseudonym. This was one area that caught my interest: in the heyday of "schoolgirl papers" fiction, created to feed off the success of similar boys' stories, many female-centered works with a woman's name on the cover were, in fact, written by men.
This topic was oddly glossed over, as the authors dropped that information on the page and then plunged ahead in listing as many characters and titles as they could resentfully cram into a chapter. It's overwhelming. It's badly presented. I mostly gathered the sense that a lot of writing had happened in these decades, that most of it had been fairly terrible and offensive to women, and that the authors love using the word bathos.
And, at the end of each chapter, the authors stopped to breathe for a moment, then wrote a couple of saccharine paragraphs relating how much progress had been made in literary depictions of women during the time period they'd just resoundingly lambasted.
I lost all patience by the time I reached the chapter entitled "Home Sleuths: The Wives of Some Famous Detectives." This chapter opens with a haughtily inaccurate takedown of the Peter Wimsey and Harriet Vane books, which were written with incredible sensitivity and immense literary merit by Dorothy Sayers. Oh, I realized at this point, it's not necessarily that all the books they're discussing are universally bad; it's that they're apparently determined to hate everything. Their analysis, if it can be termed that, of Busman's Honeymoon entirely misses the emotional thrust of the story and willfully misinterprets the characters' relationship and growth over the preceding novels.
Criticism is a delicate sword. It becomes meaningless if you cut down everything in your path, or only pull back to offer brief, insincere statements about the value of a genre you've spent an entire book vilifying.
I agree that women haven't always received fair treatment in novels (nor in day-to-day life). But when you swipe at a character as intelligent and nuanced as Harriet Vane with the same level of vitriol as at a female spy described as appearing bare-chested on "the garish cover pictures" of "he-man books," you lose a certain degree of credibility.
"We have tried to keep literary judgements to a minimum," the authors state in the introduction.
They failed.
April 24, 2019
An interesting review of women in detective and spy fiction from the Victorian era up to the very early 1980s. I learned about quite a few series that I'd never heard of, and I heartily wished that this paperback contained a bibliography so that I could more easily track down some of them.
I also wished that the book were more up-to-date, because so much has happened since then, especially with the multiplication of female heroines that has taken place since the advent of self-publishing. And there was often a tone to their analysis that, although avowedly carried out in a feminist spirit, was very much 1970s feminism as opposed to the 21st-century version. In fact, at times it almost seemed anti-feminist--but I remember the 70s, and we really have come a long way from then.
Still, not bad given that they survey a number of different kinds of fiction over several decades, showing the various manifestations of the woman adventurer: jolly-hockey-sticks hearty types, slinky femmes fatales, butch heroines with lesbian overtones, openly lesbian sleuths, dotty old ladies with minds like steel traps, and that peculiarly British breed, the sensible, forthright heroine with a dash of pure courage. Both American and British detective and spy fiction are covered, in a somewhat rambling way at times.
I got the impression that different chapters were written by different authors, and that one of them disapproved strongly of anything that isn't absolutely pure detective fiction. Any introduction of romance was especially sneered at.
But--overall, I would recommend this to anyone who wants to explore the history of detective fiction in a bit more detail. There just aren't enough books about it.
I also wished that the book were more up-to-date, because so much has happened since then, especially with the multiplication of female heroines that has taken place since the advent of self-publishing. And there was often a tone to their analysis that, although avowedly carried out in a feminist spirit, was very much 1970s feminism as opposed to the 21st-century version. In fact, at times it almost seemed anti-feminist--but I remember the 70s, and we really have come a long way from then.
Still, not bad given that they survey a number of different kinds of fiction over several decades, showing the various manifestations of the woman adventurer: jolly-hockey-sticks hearty types, slinky femmes fatales, butch heroines with lesbian overtones, openly lesbian sleuths, dotty old ladies with minds like steel traps, and that peculiarly British breed, the sensible, forthright heroine with a dash of pure courage. Both American and British detective and spy fiction are covered, in a somewhat rambling way at times.
I got the impression that different chapters were written by different authors, and that one of them disapproved strongly of anything that isn't absolutely pure detective fiction. Any introduction of romance was especially sneered at.
But--overall, I would recommend this to anyone who wants to explore the history of detective fiction in a bit more detail. There just aren't enough books about it.
February 26, 2019
Very well-written, very pleasant read.
It's not an introductory reading to crime fiction, detective fiction, and especially to detective fiction where the protagonist is a woman or where the author is a woman. So you need to know the basics of the genre before picking up this book.
This is a gallery of women detectives from different sub-genres, including spies, nun detectives, girl detectives,spouses, secretaries and partners of male detectives, etc.
I didn't read most of the works described and commented by Craig and Cadogan, and I still understood most of what they wanted to convey. C&C are very helpful in offering brief summaries of what they want to focus upon before offering their comments. This is why I can recommend this book to anyone who wants to read a summary of the history of women detectives in fiction up to the 1980s.
It's not an introductory reading to crime fiction, detective fiction, and especially to detective fiction where the protagonist is a woman or where the author is a woman. So you need to know the basics of the genre before picking up this book.
This is a gallery of women detectives from different sub-genres, including spies, nun detectives, girl detectives,spouses, secretaries and partners of male detectives, etc.
I didn't read most of the works described and commented by Craig and Cadogan, and I still understood most of what they wanted to convey. C&C are very helpful in offering brief summaries of what they want to focus upon before offering their comments. This is why I can recommend this book to anyone who wants to read a summary of the history of women detectives in fiction up to the 1980s.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews