h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Hey, let's be fair, the mad old boot achieved loads-mass unemployment, the destruction of British industry, untold economic hardship in the poorest parts of society, dividing the nation against itself.

That's a hell of a lot to achieve in only fifteen years. Just because you and me think it's all negative...

Although on the positive side she did do wonders for the popularity of Scottish and Welsh Nationalism. Can't knock that.

That's what we about you Blue Shark. *You* always see the good side in everything

One man's hero is bound to be someone else's satan.

Anyway they have to include some modern day 'heroes' as some of the younger generations won't be familiar with some of the dead heroes on the list.Robbie,Bono and Boy George do stick in my craw too.

Love Incog.

P.S. I was going to use the throwing tomato smiley but it's gone.

What I want to know is, what the heck is King Arthur doing in the list? He may not even have existed - he certainly didn't exist as the person that the stories make him out to be.

And what did Princess Diana do that was so great? Or Beckham and Robbie Williams, for that matter. I have a whole heap of objections to the names included and excluded from the list. The people who compiled it claim that it hasn't been dumbed down. Then we see that Laurence Olivier has dropped off the list, and yet hasn't been replaced by somebody like Kenneth Branagh (Richard Burton was good, but not in the same league). Wordsworth is off the list, replaced by J K Rowling, for crying out loud!

The problem with this kind of list is the same as the problem with other 'great' lists, be it films, film stars, whatever. Joe Public has their own idea of what is great and little idea of history and/or culture. So the lists get skewed to the last 20 - 30 years and to people (or whatever the list is about) that have been in the public eye a lot.

So maybe it isn't that the list has been dumbed down, but rather that society has. Or at least the compilers

Wasn't Enoch Powell a bit, erm, controversial though? In a bad way that is? Or do I just not know the full story?

I think he did a lot to increase the popularity of the Labour party...

I'm pleased to see the Yorkist cause exonerated by the inclusion of Richard III but not Henry VII.

Not enough people have been looking at the new fivers, since Elisabeth Fry got missed out.

Oh, and stop being mean about JK Rowling - she's much better than Blyton. Whether that makes her one of the 100 greatest Britons ever is another matter.

Excuse me but why does it have to be either Rowling or Blyton?I like them both.I also like A.A.Milne and Phillip Pullman.
I think that Heroes is perhaps the wrong word.It should have been the top 100 Britons who influenced the world.


Incog.

Oh it doesn't, but Ictoan earlier commented that it should be Blyton instead of Rowling.

Hmm, I think I agree with Incog there. By making it heroes they've laid it open for people to name their favorite person, rather than someone who had an effect on the planet and/or will be remebered years hence. I did like John Peel's comment that it is probably a wind up
I suppose everyone has their own opinion of what is a hero, geeky me liked to see Tim Berners Lee and Charles Babbage and I was very happy to see the inclusion of The Unknown Soldier, even though he probably shouldn't technically count.

I still think Guy Fawkes must be a wind up (much like John Peel maybe ).

I wonder if in 300 years time, the Americans will consider Lee Harvey Oswals a great American?

Powell does tend to get rememberee for the 'river of blood' soeech an nothing else.

The unknown solider is valid- for what he represents- all the unsung heroes that saved the country.

Which I guess is where King Aurthur comes from.

But surely the Unknown Soldier is an abstraction of a very real body of men?

Arthur is just a myth. I don't see the two as comparable at all.

Gosh, there was some terrible typing in that post

As to Guy Fawkes- I guess there must be plenty of Papists out there who really do consider the bloke a martyr- which is sort of a hero.

Alternatively, he was a sap set up by the protestants in order to stir up anti-catholic feeling.

Perhaps not quite so heroic, then.

"Arthur is just a myth. I don't see the two as comparable at all."

Nobody knows if Arthur is a myth or not. He may have been a real person. There's some evidence he was.

I saw the list. I thought Bono was Irish . My main objection was the Queen Mother being there - I have no idea what was "great" about her. Margaret Thatcher I can't stand, but she could arguably be described as "great" (as could Hitler or Stalin).

There is *some* evidence to suggest that after the Romans left Briton, a powerful warlord rose, probably half-Roman himself, and spent some time kicking seven bells out of various northern invaders. He probably wasn't called Arthur and the reality falls someway short of the myth, anyway you cut the cake.

If the historical reality has been named one of the 100 greatest Britons, then, like Peely, it must be a wind-up. If the myth has been named, then it's farcical.

wot!!?? ...no Chris Cockrell??

i think it's the compilers who were dumbed down...

are compilers related to moderators??

Bagpuss, although I did go on to explain that what I meant was 'if JK Rowling then why not Enid Blyton'. Personnally I think Rowlings stuff is highly derivative and not worth a second look. It was barely worth the first. I suppose in the interests of research I really should read the rest of the books. But life is too short and there are far, far better books out there (some of which are even original).

I think it's called a difference of opinion and I won't be changing mine as I'm sure you won't be changing yours.