The House on the Cliff: Franklin W. Dixon's Examination into the Life of Crime

by Brian Porick

What is it that makes the bad guy bad? Why can't he stop being the bad guy if he so chooses? Are criminals always inherently bad people, or would it shock us to discover just how many of them start out as normal folks like us? These are questions that are sure to cross the mind of any reader of literature who encounters a character who is the antagonist in a given story. Readers of the Hardy Boys mystery series will certainly ask these questions at some point as well. It only makes sense to wonder, "Where did Franklin W. Dixon come up with all these bad guys anyway?" "Am I really to believe that Bayport is teeming with low-lifes whose sole purpose is to create havoc with which our teen sleuths Frank and Joe Hardy have to deal?" Thankfully, a chronological read of the Hardy Boys series will dispel these lingering questions quickly, as book number two, The House on the Cliff, is nothing less than Dixon's treatise on those people who fall into the life of crime. In this volume, Dixon lets his readers know that these characters are not necessarily of a different breed than the Hardys themselves, that they are ensnared in a authoritarian system, but that they can ultimately be redeemed.

Early on in The House on the Cliff, the reader discovers a conversation between the Hardy boys and their parents, Fenton and Laura Hardy, around the family dinner table. Frank and Joe have been examining a house formerly owned by the now deceased Felix Pollitt. They suspect that a smuggling gang run by Felix Snattman is operating out of this house. The property has been left to Mr. Pollitt's nephew, who is wanted for burglary. Clearly, the nephew has not stepped forward to claim the property, as he realizes he'd be opening himself to arrest and subsequent jail time instead of immediate possession of the house. Fenton suggests that the nephew may not necessarily be a "worst case scenario" criminal, to which Frank puts forth the idea that the nephew could step forward, serve his potentially brief jail sentence and continue to live his life as a normal law-abiding citizen. Mr. Hardy, however, points out the fallacy in Frank's logic: "'The trouble is, so often when a young man joins a group of hoodlums or racketeers, he's blackmailed for the rest of his life, even though he tries to go straight. . . . The best way to avoid such a situation is never to get into it!'" (Dixon 38). It is incredible that Dixon lays forth this degree of complexity and moral ambiguity for his generally young reading audience. Conventional wisdom would suggest that Dixon should keep the characters in his stories as either all good or all bad. However, in this brief explanation, Dixon makes his readers aware that many of the bad guys are good people who are locked in a nearly inescapable situation. At the same time, he explains that it's no accident that some of the bad guys are that way. In fact, to avoid becoming a criminal, one simply must refrain from associating with crime.

Dixon later gives the reader a glimpse of how authoritarian the leadership structure in a group of criminals can be, further propelling the idea that the system is set up to retain its members. While in hiding in the smuggling operation's storeroom, Frank and Joe overhear two of the gang's lesser members arguing about retrieving some extra smuggled fabric so they can make more money by higher volume in sales. The one member replies to the other, "'I can tell you ain't been with this gang long. You never get any thanks around here for thinkin'. . . . My idea for the rest of us in this gang is to do just what Snattman tells us to and no more'" (Dixon 109). Clearly, Dixon is demonstrating to his readers a system in which all but the man on top are encouraged to be "yes-men". This is further seen when Snattman himself talks down to two of his underlings who are uncomfortable with the idea of allowing the captured Hardy boys and their father to starve. He says, "You guys are gettin' awful righteous all of a sudden, aren't you? Look out or I'll dump the lot of you!" (Dixon 129). Here we see Snattman berating his colleagues for thoughts that aren't as hard-edged as his own, and he immediately plays his power card, threatening them to be cut out of any profits in their criminal activities. Of course, this threat is something of a rhetorical comment, as the two underlings know full well that they cannot be cut out of the system. The crime itself acts as a bonding agent between Snattman and those under him.

The House on the Cliff ends no differently than most Hardy Boys books; the bad guys are all caught and order is restored. Typically, Dixon allows the antagonists to have their say in the last chapter, where they fill in all the unanswered questions about the mystery and always seem to confirm that Frank and Joe's intuition was right all along. In this book, though, Snattman not only offers an explanation about how his smuggling ring was run, but he also talks about the factors early in his life that led him to his life of crime as well as expressing remorse for the life he has lived. Snattman remarks, "'I envy you, Mr. Hardy. It's because you brought up two such fine boys and they got swell friends. Me-I wasn't so lucky. My father died when I was little. I was pretty headstrong and my mother couldn't manage me. I began to make the wrong kind of friends and after that-you know how it is. My uncle, who owned this place, might have helped me, but he was mean and selfish and never gave us any money'" (Dixon 177-178). In this explanation, Dixon contrasts the good upbringing that Frank and Joe have had with Snattman's. In fact, he seems to recognize that there are uncontrollable influences that can make one more or less prone to a life of crime. Things such as a good father and swell friends are likelier to lead one toward law-abiding detective work than the early loss of a parent, the wrong friends, and stingy relatives. At this stage, it would be tempting for Dixon's impressionable young readers to think that he is giving Snattman a valid excuse for his criminal activities. Instead, Dixon portrays Snattman as feeling remorse and putting actions in place that will help steer boys with rougher upbringings such as himself in the right direction. The reformed criminal comments that "'I'm going to ask those executors to use my uncle's money to run this place as a boys' home-I mean a place where boys without proper home training can come to live'" (Dixon 178). Not only does Snattman recognize his wrong-doing and is willing to accept the consequences of it (in his case, a healthy jail sentence), but he goes out of his way to help make things right for others who might find themselves in a similar predicament.

The House on the Cliff, then, offers a model for the back story of the criminals in the remainder of the Hardy Boys canon. Dixon realizes that he perhaps will not have time to explore each future antagonist as thoroughly, so he leaves his readers with some ideas about the life of crime. First, it is something that can ensnare anyone who has made some poor initial choices. Second, the system itself is set up to retain its members; often there is no easy escape from it. Most importantly, the life of crime has its consequences, and although rooted in early factors, each person who chooses to participate in it is responsible to own up to their actions. With these ideas in mind, the Hardy boys reader is sure to have a richer experience as he continues to explore the adventures of Frank and Joe and their striving to snuff out the actions of the characters involved in the life of crime.