The Three Investigator Series - In Order

I loved this series when I was a young girl and I have been re-reading it as an adult for fun and still enjoy them today... even if they 'feel' more simplistic and formulaic to me. I recommend them for children ages 9-13. The series has been written by few different authors; the most prolific are Robert Arthur, William Arden and M.V. Carey. This series had a great appeal when it was originally being written and was translated into several languages and countries. These stories feature three male teenagers who form a club to investigate mysteries they discover in their communities. The boys- Jupiter Jones, Bob Andrews and Pete Crenshaw each have different strengths and knowledge which compliment each other as they work together on the 'puzzles' they discover- their motto is "We Investigate Anything.". Alfred Hitchcock, the famous movie director was also a character in the books as a mentor to the boys in the first two dozen titles, but never actually have much to do with the books- he was simply paid to have his name and image put on them. However, I will admit that I love reading his dialogue with the boys... even if it really isn't his words at all. :)

1. The Secret of Terror Castle
2. The Mystery of the Stuttering Parrot
3. The Mystery of the Whispering Mummy
4. The Mystery of the Green Ghost
5. The Mystery of the Vanishing Treasure
6. The Secret of Skeleton Island
7. The Mystery of the Fiery Eye
8. The Mystery of the Silver Spider
9. The Mystery of the Screaming Clock
10. The Mystery of the Moaning Cave
11. The Mystery of the Talking Skull
12. The Mystery of the Laughing Shadow
13. The Secret of the Crooked Cat
14. The Mystery of the Coughing Dragon
15. The Mystery of the Flaming Footprints
16. The Mystery of the Nervous Lion
17. The Mystery of the Singing Serpent
18 The Mystery of the Shrinking House
19. The Secret of Phantom Lake
20. The Mystery of Monster Mountain
21. The Secret of the Haunted Mirror
22. The Mystery of the Dead Man's Riddle
23. The Mystery of the Invisible Dog
24. The Mystery of Death Trap Mine
25. The Mystery of the Dancing Devil
26. The Mystery of the Headless Horse
27. The Mystery of the Magic Circle
28. The Mystery of the Deadly Double
29. The Mystery of the Sinister Scarecrow
30. The Secret of Shark Reef
31. The Mystery of the Scar-Faced Beggar
32. The Mystery of the Blazing Cliffs
33. The Mystery of the Purple Pirate
34. The Mystery of the Wandering Cave Man
35. The Mystery of the Kidnapped Whale
36. The Mystery of the Missing Mermaid
37. The Mystery of the Two-Toed Pigeon
38. The Mystery of the Smashing Glass
39. The Mystery of the Trail of Terror
40. The Mystery of the Rogues' Reunion
41. The Mystery of the Creep-Show Crooks
42. The Mystery of Wreckers' Rock
43. The Mystery of the Cranky Collector
Extra : The Three Investigators' Book of Mystery Puzzle

If you have also enjoyed this series, which book was your favorite? Any particular critique? I have started to collect the books again and have been introducing them to Bug and hoping he will start to explore them as well... he may not as they do not tend to have enough animals in them. So I'll have to enjoy them on my own. :)





pictures from: http://www.threeinvestigatorsbooks.com/index.html, http://www.threeinvestigatorsbooks.com/Greenghost.html

Attila the Hun and the Rise of the Catholic Church... and a Touch of 'Vandal-ism'

When the Huns and the Vandals came upon the Roman empire, a few changes had happened from the beginning of the Empire. The Roman empire had been too large to control between one person in the form of an Emperor and so it had been divided into two sections – the Eastern empire and the Western empire. Rome had also changed its major religion and the pagan religion had fallen slowly from the top of the heap to be suffocated by Christianity. The Huns offered other groups the opportunity to live in a society that was similar to the Roman past of a few generations previously. They offered a society that was rich in wealth, militarily strong, and a culture that still worshiped Pagan gods without harassment or trouble. It seems that the Huns could be seen as a different political group than the Romans and charged no taxes. So many people and groups would join this 'anti- Roman' alliance even though this lifestyle was tougher in theory. It is beginning to be thought that there was no actual “Hun Nation', but there were groups of Huns... and so you could join the 'group' but it wasn't the same thing as the leadership under the Roman empire (it sounds sort of like converting to Judaism... it gives you a new culture and lifestyle, but not necessarily a new land. However, if you were already pagan, then the Huns allowed you to practice the religion that you had been practicing anyway.) At first, the Huns lived peacefully in the lands near Rome and in Rome. Sometimes, Roman officials would pay for the use of the Hun's military groups in their own boundary battles. Under the reign of Attila the Hun, this relationship changed and this leader used the Hun armies to devastate and take power of many cities in the Eastern part of the Roman empire... causing enough devastation and fear that the Roman leaders agreed to pay Attila the Hun 150,000 solid gold coins a year if he would stop the military campaign. This gold payment kept Attila as the leader of the Huns and he used the gold to pay his armies and warriors and to also help his groups and their cities/civilizations thrive- Attila had developed a system in which he could profit from Rome whether they were at war of peace and he depended on the constant supply of Roman gold. Attila took great care to stay out of the Roman empire and he took great pains to keep his people out as well. One Roman diplomat, Priscus, was sent to negotiate with Attila the Hun at one point and he has given us a good description of the Hun court. His description included his difficulty in actually finding the Huns because of the 'one hundred mile dead zone', a camp that was surrounded by polished wood that was clearly for decoration and appearance, wonderful feasts where individuals drank out of gold goblets and used silver plates (although he states that Attila used wooden dishes and that Attila seemed to be a soul of 'temperance'), and the enclosures had bath houses. Attila also unmasked a Roman assassination plot and instead of killing the individuals that were involved, he gave them their freedom and sent them back to Rome. There is some evidence that members of German tribes imitated the Huns in their culture. In a graveyard that was found in Hungary, many bodies were found that 'looked' like the bodies of Huns due to the elongated heads, but all the artifacts and evidence around the bodies was German. This evidence helps to suggest why we cannot find huge areas of Hun artifacts... as the culture and society of the Huns was assimilated into the groups who already lived in the lands they conquered – in this case the Germans. In essence, the Huns didn't slaughter everyone around them and built up their groups by assimilating nearby groups of people that were willing and interested in joining- Germans, Goths, Iranians and even disaffected Romans. Attila the Hun, after finishing up with the Eastern Empire and was collecting an obscene amount tribute, he turned his attention to the Western Roman Empire and attacked the land of Belgium. With the legitimate excuse of trying to rescue a (Roman) emperor's sister who had written for help, he attacked and quickly took over large cities in Belgium and Italy as well. It was at this time in 452 CE, a Pope of the Catholic church negotiated with Attila the Hun and ended the fight. Pope Leo I negotiated a peace and Attila and his armies withdrew- it has been suggested in some sources that the negotiation probably also came with a large sum of gold and other tribute- other sources suggest a combination of events including food shortages, plague, other military actions, and that Attila was already overladen with plunder and this strategy would allow him to take it home and save face … and then come back and fight. (It should also be stated that this was a 'temporary' peace and that Attila agreed to a basic 'ceasefire', but was quite open with the fact that if he didn't have all of his demands met, he and his armies would be back.) Because of the successful negotiation of the Pope with Atilla (and a good deal of wonderful traditional propaganda about the angel/apostles Peter and Paul coming to fight against the Huns who then promptly turned tail and ran), the Pope gained more political clout than the Roman emperor. For the next 1000 years, the Pope became the unquestioned leader of the Roman Catholic church and a real political force that had to be reckoned with by all secular leaders and rulers of European lands. Pope Leo one became the first pope to be called 'the Great.' It can be stated that the creation of the Pope and his 'power' was, in essence, created by Attila the Hun and is Attila's only lasting legacy to our modern world. A few years later, Pope Leo I tried to negotiate with King Gaiseric... with less success (I guess the angels were busy that day...? ; ) The Vandal King refused to leave, but he did agree to keep the bloodshed and destruction low. He conquered Rome and returned to North Africa flush with treasure and plunder. It must be stated that the Roman empire's collapse was really caused by quite a few factors, including the political prominence of the Roman Catholic Pope, the actions of Attila the Hun... and the actions of Gaiseric and the Vandals. King Gaiseric was born around the time of the birth of Attila and his childhood was spent living as a refugee in these tough times. He rose to rule his community which were called the Vandals- which meant the wanderers. Eventually the Vandals arrived in southern Spain and in 429 King Gaiseric and his followers numbered at 80,000 people sailed across the sea to Northern Africa. Once there, he and his army conquered these rich, fertile lands from the Roman empire and these areas included Carthage... which was the city that the Romans used to transport all the riches, growth, oil and wheat grown in Africa to the rest of the empire. Much of this grain was given to the male citizens of the empire for free to keep them from revolting against the emperor. By taking over Carthage, the vandals found themselves in a land that was plentiful and had huge political ramifications. It gave the Vandals almost full control of the Mediterranean Sea. Roman lost the fertile lands of Africa as well as the huge tax moneys and it was this loss that caused the already cracking empire to crumple into the dust. The Catholic church survived and thrived and the Latin language is the language in which we get most of our history. As the winners of the 'battle', all other groups became monsters and barbarians in their eyes....and these thoughts and 'truths' have been passed down to us today. The Vandals were considered worse than the 'pagan' barbarians (by the rulers and members of the Roman empire) because the Vandals were 'Christians' but the wrong sort of Christians. Roman Catholicism believes that Jesus Christ and Heavenly Father were equal in status and both of the same essence. Vandal groups tended to believe in a form of Christianity that was known as Arianism- developed by Arius who taught that Jesus Christ was subordinate to the Heavenly Father as the 'son' was created by God... so they in necessity must be distinct and different. The Pope also saw himself as God's man on earth and in many ways equal to God. So if you are Catholic, you know you need to follow the Pope because he is God's man. Being a member of Arianism, you are stating that not only do you believe differently but you are probably not following the political rules as set by the pope and his allies as well. One Roman bishop described the Vandals as 'worse than Jews and pagans; inspired by the devil', but most North Africans saw the Romans/ Catholic church as 'corrupt and vicious.' King Gaiseric gave freedom of religion to the people in his lands for everyone except the elite of his government- which were required to follow Arianism. He was not know for torturing or prosecuting people of different beliefs and when Catholic members were looking for ways to complain about King Gaieric's ill treatment toward them, one of the few ways they could find was to complain that the King would not allow them to sing their hymns.

God's Punishment?

Most human beings throughout time have tried to come up with explanations for why bad things happen to others. In my opinion, it seems to be part of the human condition to attempt to rationalize, to find fault in others, to find a 'reasonable' reason why Heavenly Father has allowed something bad to happen. If someone is raped, maybe they were dressed for it or even in the wrong situation... If someone is murdered, than maybe they were in a place they shouldn't have been or had bad behavior... If a child dies in an accident, we suspect the parents could have been more vigilant or responsible. Excuses are even found in a positive vein- “They were so good that God took them home” or “God really knew what he was doing when he gave you this challenge- I could never have done as well as you!” It appears that we come up with excuses that make us feel more comfortable.... not the afflicted If people have bad things happen to them because of something they did, then we are safe, we do not have to worry... it could never happen to us because we wouldn't do 'that'.

I read a study a few years ago that talked about the dichotomy of how human beings think. We are able to rationalize our own behavior and when bad things happen to us we are able to give ourselves the benefit of the doubt- after all, we know why we failed at something. We forgot, or had an emergency, became too busy, etc... but most human beings are unable to give others this same benefit of the doubt. Part of this may come from the idea that we cannot know their mind and so we cannot know why something happened. But people tend to be suspicious and fearful and so we tend to think that when people have trouble, then it must have been something that they did. This allows us to justify bad opinions of them, good opinions of ourselves, and to feel comfortable with the idea that those same 'bad things' will not happen to us. After all, how fearful could we become if we realized that most of the bad things that happen in life are random/non personal because of someone else's agency and only a small amount of bad things are truly due to our own agency?

I have a hard time understanding why people (including myself) cannot find a way to figuratively step back and give our fellow brothers and sister's more tolerance and understanding in all circumstances. Why we are not able to take a small amount of time (and even prayer) to try and see into the hearts and minds of our fellow human beings and give each other the 'benefit of the doubt'? Why can we not assume that people are usually not genuinely out to hurt us... that mistakes, misunderstandings, and bad things can happen? We can truly err without full knowledge and harm others by our behavior and judgments in ways that we ourselves may be unable to fathom.

While I am really struggling to understand why we as human beings are unable to be more tolerance and understanding of each other, I am truly unable to understand why some people use their intolerance and fear as 'scatter-shot'; spewing forth their rationalizations as a shot in the face to those individuals that they wish to express their fear and anger against, but also hitting dozens and hundreds of individuals that were not their original targets. The most recent case in point that I can think of are the words of Republican Bob Marshall from Virginia at a press conference last week...

“The number of children who are born subsequent to a first abortion with handicaps has increased dramatically. Why? Because when you abort the first born of any, nature takes its vengeance on the subsequent children. In the Old Testament, the first born of every being, animal and man, was dedicated to the Lord. There’s a special punishment Christians would suggest.”

So, assuming that all first time abortions are elective and have no reasonable need or reason, Heavenly Father has set it up so that these families and innocent children will suffer his vengeance? (Please do not make me waste time with statistics or friend's accounts showing that this assumption is void and untrue- I am hoping that it is obvious.) Doesn't take much of a stretch for like-minded individuals to decide that all parents with disabled children have had abortions or other pertinent misdeeds that they are being punished for. I wish that I could say that this gentlemen said something that most individuals would consider crazy and not true. But I have heard these explanations for most of my life. A parent told me when I was younger that my aunt was being 'punished' for marrying a non member of our church. So her punishment was for her son to have autism. My son has difficulties and I married a non member... so clearly I should have known better. ;) I have friends who have willing adopted those who are disabled, hoping to enrich the lives of these individuals as well as their own. The lives of individuals with disabilities and their families already have a difficult walk on this earth. They willingly take up the mantle that Heavenly Father has given them. They struggle, they fight real and figurative battles daily in the hopes that their children will have an easier life, understanding the reality that their children will face prejudice, hatred and fear in their life for many reasons not of their own making. In my opinion, Heavenly Father does not punish individuals for another's sins on purpose and disability is not a punishment for a parent's sin!

I believe that Heavenly Father allows some individuals to come this this world with differing challenges – let's face it, we allall will have challenges. Some of our challenges will be more obvious than the challenges of others, but I can not stress enough we will all have challenges, troubles, problems and heartache. No one -no matter how good and perfect- will have a perfect, challenge free life. The most perfect of us all (as Christians believe) is Jesus Christ and if we read the scriptures we make no mistake- he faced challenges and heartache. But our Loving Father allows people to come with bigger challenges for the good of all. We are all here on this earth to learn and help each other. So that we may lift each other up and take joy in our difference -not tear each other down in fear and intolerance.

This legislator claimed that disabled children are a punishment from God for past misdeeds. He is not alone by far in his beliefs. I find this claim to uphold unborn life as sacred, but in the same breath to dismiss and trivialize born, breathing life as distasteful and hypocritical. I can't help but wonder...why do almost all those individuals that claim to speak for God, end up sounding more like the Devil and his angels rather than our loving Father?