So who is 'Someone' these days?

[french frank]

I've just had an email from OUP revealing who has been added this year to the updated Dictionary of National Biography (people who died in the past year are now eligible): it includes JG Ballard (of course), Harry Patch (interesting) and Jade Goody.

What struck me was how the choices themselves actually cast a light on changes in our basic attitudes, how the characteristics and priorities of our own times are reflected in those choices.

I felt the same when I bought the new Cambridge Biographical Encyclopaedia in 1998 (the people here didn't have to be dead and included - I see, checking randomly - the Beach Boys, Michael Portillo, Kevin Keegan). What are the likely criteria for inclusion? How do those criteria differ from those of Leslie Stephen when he prepared the first edition of the DNB? Will some entries be removed by the time the next edition is prepared?

[amateur51]

I've just had an email from OUP revealing who has been added this year to the updated Dictionary of National Biography (people who died in the past year are now eligible): it includes JG Ballard (of course), Harry Patch (interesting) and Jade Goody.

What struck me was how the choices themselves actually cast a light on changes in our basic attitudes, how the characteristics and priorities of our own times are reflected in those choices.

I felt the same when I bought the new Cambridge Biographical Encyclopaedia in 1998 (the people here didn't have to be dead and included - I see, checking randomly - the Beach Boys, Michael Portillo, Kevin Keegan). What are the likely criteria for inclusion? How do those criteria differ from those of Leslie Stephen when he prepared the first edition of the DNB? Will some entries be removed by the time the next edition is prepared?

Do we really need these august tomes in up-dated editions now that we have wikipedia?

[french frank]

Do we really need these august tomes in up-dated editions now that we have wikipedia?

Speaking as someone who has contributed to the DNB - yes. For one thing, it is original research - Wiki can only cite the research, quoting a precise reference. It uses the published research, which it couldn't do if it didn't already exist! Out-of-date research means out-of-date Wiki.

[amateur51]

Speaking as someone who has contributed to the DNB - yes. For one thing, it is original research - Wiki can only cite the research, quoting a precise reference. It uses the published research, which it couldn't do if it didn't already exist! Out-of-date research means out-of-date Wiki.

A fine answer, french frank!

Does it need to be in hard-copy tho', now that all libraries are to become IT centres

[french frank]

A fine answer, french frank!

Does it need to be in hard-copy tho', now that all libraries are to become IT centres

I find my 1980 edition of Grove quite useful. I can sit and browse through a long article in comfort. But, in general, hard copies must be out. I was horrified to find my local library had thrown out (where did it go, I wonder?) the latest hard copy of the Enc. Brit. (the one complete with Micropaedia) The excuse was that children came to the library to do their school homework, and it didn't do to provide them with 'Out of date' information. I protested that the vast mass remained very useful: it wasn't that the vast mass of information in it had been changed and was now inaccurate, just that more had been added.

[french frank]

By the way, it included those who died in 2009, not the past year. Silly me!

"New lives added in January 2013

This January the lives of 225 men and women who died in 2009 are added to the Oxford DNB. Writers J.G. Ballard, John Mortimer and Keith Waterhouse join football manager Bobby Robson, actress Wendy Richard, and the television celebrity Jade Goody. Also included are the biographies of Harry Patch, Henry Allingham, and Bill Stone, the last surviving veterans of the First World War."

[JFLL]

Does it need to be in hard-copy tho', now that all libraries are to become IT centres

It is also available, like Grove, OED and several other essential reference works, free online (to access at home) via local libraries. But perhaps you knew this, Am, and meant that since it was also available online there was no additional need for a hard-copy version?

[amateur51]

It is also available, like Grove, OED and several other essential reference works, free online (to access at home) via local libraries. But perhaps you knew this, Am, and meant that since it was also available online there was no additional need for a hard-copy version?

Thanks for this JFLL - the latter is how I meant it.

As someone who worked in an advice centre in the 1970s/80s using the CAB's Information System I remember well the hours we spent up-dating it each month, a proper cut'n'paste job. This was a vital task because out-of-date information is often worse than useless and sometimes downright dangerous. Scroll forwards twenty years and the system was online and instantly updatable via a secure server, a great relief all round.This is what people, staff, volunteers and the public alike expect now.

[salymap]

There's always a quotation from WS Gilbert that fits. In this case 'When everybody's Somebody,Then No one's Anybody'

[french frank]

There's always a quotation from WS Gilbert that fits. In this case 'When everybody's Somebody,Then No one's Anybody'

I was originally wondering what sort of entries were the older equivalents of Jade Goody. The DNB certainly has many obscure people whose names are little known today - but 'celebrities'? Of course it's reflected in people's contemporary obsession with celebrities, and a much wider interpretation of 'culture'. But does including such people simply prolong 'ephemerality' artificially? (And, as I say, perhaps in different manifestations, that has always been the case: it just wasn't TV celebs and footballers.)

I can't really see that 'being famous/celebrated/notorious for 5 minutes' will, in the longer run be considered worth inclusion in a biographical dictionary of British worthies. But electronic space and efficient search facilities are convenient (and cheaper?) compared with hard copy and publications getting heavier and heavier.

[VodkaDilc]

Do we really need these august tomes in up-dated editions now that we have wikipedia?

I would say yes, since, I believe, wikipedia can be changed by anyone who feels so inclined.

An unrelated question: does anyone know if a new revision of the New Grove is planned - or is that the end of the road for a reference copy? I know I can consult it online via my library ticket - but I never do! If I could ever afford it, I'd love a set on my shelves - endless hours of serendipitous browsing.

[Serial_Apologist]

I was originally wondering what sort of entries were the older equivalents of Jade Goody. The DNB certainly has many obscure people whose names are little known today - but 'celebrities'? Of course it's reflected in people's contemporary obsession with celebrities, and a much wider interpretation of 'culture'. But does including such people simply prolong 'ephemerality' artificially? (And, as I say, perhaps in different manifestations, that has always been the case: it just wasn't TV celebs and footballers.)

I can't really see that 'being famous/celebrated/notorious for 5 minutes' will, in the longer run be considered worth inclusion in a biographical dictionary of British worthies. But electronic space and efficient search facilities are convenient (and cheaper?) compared with hard copy and publications getting heavier and heavier.

Prematurely demised rock and pop stars such as Brian Jones?

[Flosshilde]

I was originally wondering what sort of entries were the older equivalents of Jade Goody. The DNB certainly has many obscure people whose names are little known today - but 'celebrities'? Of course it's reflected in people's contemporary obsession with celebrities, and a much wider interpretation of 'culture'. But does including such people simply prolong 'ephemerality' artificially? (And, as I say, perhaps in different manifestations, that has always been the case: it just wasn't TV celebs and footballers.)

I can't really see that 'being famous/celebrated/notorious for 5 minutes' will, in the longer run be considered worth inclusion in a biographical dictionary of British worthies. But electronic space and efficient search facilities are convenient (and cheaper?) compared with hard copy and publications getting heavier and heavier.

I've just tried the website to see what the criteria for inclusion are. When I clicked on 'About the DNB' I got this message - "Site Unavailable at Present. The server is currently unable to handle your request due to a temporary overloading or maintenance of the server. "

Obviously it's suddenly got very busy with all the R3 Forum people visiting it

[french frank]

Prematurely demised rock and pop stars such as Brian Jones?

Which exact bit was that a response to, S_A? - should he be in? he should be in? that was criterion in the old days? Certainly, being a rock or pop star is a criterion now, if a big enough star, prematurely demised or not.

[Anna]

Which exact bit was that a response to, S_A? - should he be in? he should be in? that was criterion in the old days? Certainly, being a rock or pop star is a criterion now, if a big enough star, prematurely demised or not.

Well, Brian Jones, being a former Stones, is somewhat famous and died in a noteworthy manner.
Jade Goody, on the other hand was foul a mouthed racist (allegedly) and two biscuits short of a Jammy Dodgers. However, she did raise the profile of cervical cancer in the UK. Apart from the latter I do not see why she should be included.