Hardy Boys Characters as Archetypes of Kierkegaardian Stages

by Brian Porick

It is my purpose in this essay to dig more deeply into what sometimes appear nothing more than trite mystery novels: The Hardy Boys Series. Written by Franklin W. Dixon (which, as many people are aware, is no more than a nom de plume for the unknown author of these books), each novel follows a series of adventures of teenage brothers Frank and Joe Hardy, as they work to solve mysteries, frequently occurring in and near the fictional East Coast town of Bayport. After a token brief explanation as to why the brothers are not in school, Dixon takes the readers on a series of plot twists (and to the cynic, blatant coincidence upon blatant coincidence), always managing to drop clues early and tie them all up in the last chapter or two of the book. The skeptic would contend that these plot lines are a bit too neat and tidy to be realistic, and perhaps he is right. However, should one approach the books as more of a character study, he then is able to discover the depth of Dixon's writing. I would propose that this is precisely Dixon's technique as he masterfully crafts characters which fit into the stages of human existence as outlined by Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard.

Known for his existentialist view points, perhaps Kierkegaard's primary contribution to the field of philosophy is his theory of the three stages of human existence: the aesthetic stage, the ethical stage, and the religious stage. In short, the aesthetic stage is one in which the individual begins in despair and seeks fulfillment through fleeting earthly pleasures, the ethical stage is marked by commitment to certain social norms, and the religious stage is the point at which one, by way of a leap of faith, discovers an absolute duty to God. For the purposes of the particular instance in which this essay is first being presented, I will examine the characters as they are presented in Hardy Boys #39: The Mystery of the Chinese Junk.

Let's take a closer look at the aesthetic stage. In Kierkegaard's work Either/Or volume I, he examines his life as it was in this stage:

This is the vulgar inartistic method, and needs to be supported by illusion. One tires of living in the country, and moves into the city; one tires of one's native land, and travels abroad. . . . One tires of porcelain dishes and eats on silver; one tires on silver and turns to gold. . . . This method defeats itself; it is plain endlessness. (E/O I, pp. 287-88)

As is evident, Kierkegaard realizes that a person, out of sheer boredom and laziness, looks to materialistic things for a way out. The character most like this in Dixon's works, and The Mystery of the Chinese Junk in particular, would be Chet Morton. We find out early on that "the last thing Chet ever wanted to do was work!" (Dixon, pp. 3) In fact, in chapter three, Dixon presents us with perhaps the clearest picture of Chet in the aesthetic stage. Having just been chased along with the Hardy boys by some suspicious characters, Dixon presents Chet's attitudes to us:

"Man, I'm bushed!" Chet panted as they paused for breath in front of a Chinese grocery. Then his expression changed. "Hey, look at all this chow!" (Dixon, pp. 25)

Chet is clearly looking out for his own immediate interests: first his own tiredness (after getting some much needed exercise for his chunky frame) and secondly his hunger. In fact, Chet is so concerned with his own interests that he is willing to drop the first concern almost instantaneously for a second new concern. This is not to say that Chet never possesses any concern for his friends and loved ones. Clearly, as one works through the book, there are instances in which Chet is looking out for more than himself, and this is only appropriate, as all humans are complex and not easily categorized. However, when it comes down to it, Chet most often falls into the Kierkegaardian aesthetic stage.

The ethical stage is the point at which a person commits to that which society values. For Kierkegaard, this point was when he decided to get married, and as a result make a commitment that kept him from only looking out for his own pleasures. A person in the ethical stage has given up on individuality but gains a certain higher plane of freedom as opposed to the perceived freedom of the aesthetic stage, which from the point of view of the ethical, is nothing more than a person being tossed to and fro by their own whims. The ethical stage possesses a certain anchoring to societal values that provides a truer freedom. The Hardy boys themselves provide us with archetypes of this stage. Frank in particular seems to care that the boys go through all the proper channels that society has set up for them. Enthusiastic to begin their boating business, Jim Hoy, Chinese-American friend of the Hardys, wonders how soon they can get to work. Frank cautions, "As soon as we find out what the law requires to carry passengers." (Dixon, pp. 37) We would guess that Chet Morton, put in the same scenario, would most likely jump with reckless abandon at the opportunity to set sail, but Frank, being grounded in the ethical stage, knows that there are certain societal criteria which must be met before their business can be called legal. Later on in The Mystery of the Chinese Junk, the Hardy boys and their friends have been caught in an unexpected rainstorm, and Frank suggests, "How about you fellows coming up to the house and drying off? . . . You can call your folks from there." (Dixon, pp. 105) Frank is not only concerned with the well-being of his friends but also has their families in mind as he proposes their next course of action. Again, this is nothing that would be suggested by someone in the aesthetic stage.

Kierkegaard's religious stage is most clearly pictured through the biblical tale of Abraham and Isaac in which Abraham is asked to take a "leap of faith" (and for those of you who are not aware, this common phrase in fact did originate with Kierkegaard) in which he must be willing to sacrifice his son (Genesis 22:1-19). This leap of faith is taken in the moment where the call of God becomes more important than even the societal values which are revered in the ethical stage. It is obvious that society would not value the slaughter of one's own son, and in fact, God's own commandment enforces that murder is against His law. It is at this point at which there is a teleological suspension of the ethical, or in other words, the supreme sacrifice of all that one has becomes, for a moment, more important to the individual than the laws which have been laid out by society and followed by the individual during the ethical stage. Kierkegaard himself admits that it is the rare individual who makes this leap of faith, because it requires living in the realm of the absurd. So rare is this individual, that he is not found in Dixon's writings at all (at least not in The Mystery of the Chinese Junk), and perhaps that is normal. Sure, there is a certain amount of blind sacrifice in the Hardy Boys characters, and there is mention of Frank and Joe attending church, but no character stands out as one who really has abandoned all in favor of a divine calling.

Nevertheless, Dixon's characters help remind us that these Kierkegaardian stages are very present and applicable, and perhaps the shortcomings of Chet, Frank, and Joe, will provide us a certain amount of encouragement as we drift between the aesthetic and ethical stages. As rare as Kierkegaard thinks that moment may be, we can hope for teleological suspension of the ethical that will propel us to ultimately take the leap of faith required to land in the religious stage in which the calling of God Himself moves us to live in the ultimate sacrificial way.