Content area
Full Text
Every year, when the new edition of Who's Who is published, uniform stories (presumably furnished by the publishers) appear in all the papers. This year, we are told, there will be more hairdressers, internet tycoons, or whatever, than before. Sometimes, despite these stories, rather sarcastic articles follow, saying that Who's Who is "stuffy" and does not reflect the people who are really moving and shaking our world.
These stories and reactions tend to ignore what Who's Who is. It is a work of reference. It is not supposed to be like those magazine features about how X is the next big thing in shoe design or cookery or cinema ("and suddenly, everyone wants a piece of him"). It is there to be used. It constantly amazes me that television researchers, always rushing around trying to find people, do not plunder this unbelievably helpful book or its online edition.
To be useful, such a work must be consistent in its rules. For example, if it is to include Members of Parliament - which, even in their current decadence, it obviously should - it must have all of them. And to be truly comprehensive, it must contain every living person who has ever been an MP. One of Who's Who's best rules is that no one, once in, can ever fall out of it.
As a student of modern political history,...