Who's odd
Richard Ingrams
What is the difference between these two groups of people:
(a) Nigel Dempster; Ian Botham; Bill Tidy; Richard West; John le Mesurier; Mick Jagger; Sam White; Quentin Crisp; George Best; Diana Quick; Arthur Scargill; Denis Thatcher.
(b) Harry Pout; David Baxandall; Dawn Shestopal; Sir Emile Series; Geoffrey Phalp; Sunthorn Hungladoratn?
The answer is that the first group of peo- ple are not in Who's Who* whereas the se- cond lot are. Both lists have been compiled quickly, taking names pretty well at ran- dom. They ought to be enough to demolish the publishers' claim that their fat compen- dium is 'the recognised source book of in- formation on people of influence and in- terest in all fields'. No book that glaringly omits the Greatest Living Englishman, Nigel Dempster, could possibly answer to that description.
The compilers of Who's Who have always proudly guarded their anonymity; and no one has ever defined any of the criteria used to decide who gets in. But given the random way in which the book is put together it is perhaps not surprising that those involved should wish to keep their heads down. Obviously there are certain rules relating simply to posts and positions. High Court judges, for example, seem to get in automatically as do civil servants of a certain rank; editors, as I know from per- sonal experience, are in, and so are peers (however dim). But where there are areas without any clear hierarchies there don't *Who's Who 1983 (Adam and Charles Black, L42).
seem to be any guidelines at all. Take publishing. How can they possibly justify the inclusion of John Calder, Andre Deutsch and Tom Maschler and the exclusion, at the same time, of Anthony Blond, Hugo Brunner and Carmen Callil? There is neither rhyme nor reason operating here.
What then is the use of this expensive book? Obviously, with 27,000 entries it fulfils some purpose as a work of reference. Anyone wishing to know when Mrs That- cher got married or where Michael Foot went to school will find it here. But, then again, because the entries are sent in by the subjects themselves, the information is often very scrappy. We only get what peo- ple want to tell us about themselves. You would not, for example, glean from Who's Who that William Davis is a native of Ger- many (his parents are not named). You would not know that Lord Lucan is wanted by the police, dead or alive, or that Lord Kagan (Recreation: chess) has been in prison.
All the same it is the fact that people write their own entries which sometimes makes them interesting. The inclusions and omissions can often be very revealing. There are two main groups here, the secretive and the vain. The secretive tell you as little about themselves as possible. Some, like 'Tiny' Rowland or the late Kenneth Tynan, refuse to go in at all. Others, like Anthony Wedgwood Benn, tell you virtually nothing of importance — though this year's Benn entry is if anything more informative than last year's, which was non-existent. (Press reports suggest that the new entry may have been compiled by Who's Who without Benn's knowledge.) The 1983 edi- tion is interesting because for the first thne Bernard Levin has submitted an entry. Fle
informs readers that he is the son of PhiliP
Levin and Rose (nee Racklin) and that he 'has written regularly or irregularly for
many magazines in Britain and abroad' and he has in his time won 'various awards for journalism'. Most people's reticence at taches to their private lives. David Frost does not want us to know that he was mar" ried to Lynne, relict of the late Peter Sellers
(will his new wife be in next year?), Paul Foot conceals a wife and son, not te mention the fact that he is the son of Lord Caradon (q.v.). The vain start off with the problem of describing themselves. The virtuallY unemployed Desmond Wilcox is an 'independent television producer/report' journalist and author'; Alistair Horne ,15
author, journalist, farmer and lecturer ,
Gyles Daubeney Brandreth answers the question 'Who he?' with 'author, broad- caster, journalist, theatrical producer'. (There is no such thing in Who's Who as 3 television personality or a PR man. Willi°, Camp is a 'communications consultant The disgraced ex-Solicitor-General for Scotland, Nicholas Fairbairn, whose famous recreation `making love' has Ow been changed to the curious 'being blunt and sharp at the same time', describes himself as 'author, farmer, painter, P°et' TV and radio broadcaster, journalist, dress- designer, landscape-gardener, bon-viveor and wit'. This class do their best to lengthen their entries by putting in almost anythirig they can think of. Brandreth tells us that has been, inter alia, `columnist: ganef 1968-9'. Barbara Cartland manages one °f the longest entries by listing the title .0 every single one of her books. (Anyone 'II- terested can learn that in 1981 alone she wrote no fewer than 36.) Then there are the famous'recreations which give the chance for a little la' dividuality. Some of them are PseudY' Patrick Garland goes in for 'readingViei torian novels, walking in Corsica'. Miehae Holroyd enjoys `listening to stories, avoiding tame animals, being polite, music' trying to sleep'. Others are mysterious: Libel lawyer and cult leader — but tl° reference here to his directorship of E. xtes egesis — Michael Rubinstein Its`, 'ruminating, practising'; Mr Justice JoPk's goes in for 'music (DIY)'; Barry HumPhrle puts `shopping, painting Portugal, Pr°- filing in strange concealments': Rushton 'losing weight, gaining weighal, parking'; Dennis Potter 'nothing unusulit i.e. the usual personal pleasures, soug t with immoderate fervour'. I liked hes,. Frank Keating's `bad village cricket, 'Or!! gttomlfe' for hedtPasuel! T, ortelier's, Recreations: 1'4° None of this delightful eccentriciteY; however, can make up for the deficiencir, of Who's Who. An enterprising publisheut one of those smarting from being left an perhaps, could do worse than launch alternative. He would probably make a loll ing.
Previous page
