Rating: 
Summary: Hart Should Continue to Pursue E.T. Instead...
Review: I am pursuing my PhD in History, and am disturbed by the bad "history" applied in this book. Hart is an intelligent, educated (in the areas of science) man who at the very least offers a book to stir up debate. Asking questions is how one finds answers. Michael Hart's incredibly biased approach tends to contradict itself. He wants to present the 100 most influential people, but addresses his "disgust" at adding Adolf Hitler. It's not a matter if you like him or hate him. The fact of the matter is he has changed History in a major way. Hart states that "The influence of a political leader - or anyone else - is determined by the *effect* of his actions, not by his intentions." I guess this doesn't apply to Hitler. I'm rather startled that Jesus Christ was not listed #1. Michael Hart offers very weak reasoning in his defense however. Basically, Jesus wasn't a political leader. The influence of person does not stop within ones lifetime. Christianity would later be adopted by the Roman Empire, and be instrumental in the very formation and preservation of the Western World. The very means we measure Time has been changed by this Man's life, death, and resurrection! Even a book by Carl Sagan, Karl Marx, and Charles Darwin acknowledge Christ. I might recommend Dr. Kennedy's book WHAT IF JESUS HAD NEVER BEEN BORN? The book is a handy reference book, that presents biographies of important people. I don't agree with the premise and the decided order, but as a Lover of History, I am hopeful that people will read this, and form their own opinions. More shocking than the author's lack of Historical context, is the opinion of a reviewer who claims that Steven Spielberg should be placed on this list and St. Augustine removed. His reasoning is that CONFESSIONS is a low selling book. Typical of a supporter of this type of "history" to misplace the importance of History. TV Guide is the best selling magazine, so maybe we should have students read from it instead of Newsweek. Since when does low sales, or majority rule decided what is true? If a million people believe a lie, a lie is still a lie. Truth can be known by only one, such as the location of a hidden treasure. You don't find Truth by counting noses. Lastly, Jesus Christ is not an arbitrary title, but one given to the Son of God who died so that you may live...
Rating: 
Summary: This book is one of the best books i have ever read
Review: This book changed the way I looked at history. Hart has included both famous and obscure people in his fabulous work. There is no bias towards anybody which I have seen in lots of books. The bios were both informative and interesting. Even though I do not agree with Hart on some people he provides his reason for their ranking in the book. I read his previous edition and I agree on his points more in this new edition. This is a great book that changes the way you look at people and history. Hart provides the best book of influential people that I have ever read and I strongly recomend it to people who like an interesting book on history.
Rating:
Summary: Indispensable for understanding influence.
Review: In all the hoopla surrounding the merits and defects of The 100, it surprises me that no one has mentioned its marvelous potential as a textbook. It's polemical format gives it the zest to succeed where run-of-the-mill textbooks fail, i.e., in breaking up the formidable stolidity of today's student. By the time they've thrown it down in disgust at the non-inclusion of, say, the inventor of the Weedeater, it's too late. They've already been drawn out and into the great debate over who is important, who is powerful, who is ethical...who is influential. They have already received a dose of perspective as inoculation against narrowmindedness and conformity. When they pick it up again to rebuke Hart, learning commences. There are problems with the book, but with a topic as broad as this, how could there not be? Much could be done to improve it simply by increasing the frequency of its new editions. Make it biennial. That way, corrections could be made and rankings reconfigured as new data becomes available. For example, in the times I have spoken to Dr. Hart, I have sensed a profound, though unspoken, regret at have ranked Mikhail Gorbachev over Ronald Reagan. This, as we now know, is a gaffe comparable to ranking Wyle E. Coyote ahead of Roadrunner in the upcoming Animated 100. If The 100 were to come out every two years, the mistake could be quickly corrected and soon forgotten. Perhaps the most difficult aspect of Hart's task is that there is no gauge to measure the extent of influence in different human endeavors. Comparing Newton to Galileo to Machiavelli to Mao to Hitler is like comparing apples to oranges to ravioli to moldy rice to poison mushrooms. It's not practical, but we do it anyway because it's fun. Like anyone else, I would like to add my thoughts on who deserves to be ranked higher and who should be correspondingly demoted. James Hutton, the Scottish geologist, should be raised from honorable mention to 70 or 80th. His theory of uniformitarianism forms the very groundwork of modern geology, which is the foundation for the oil industry, which in its turn is the basis for some of today's most important wars and polyester products. In addition, his time scale for geologic events showed the Bible to be a fairy tale a full half century before Darwin, who is usually given credit for that service. Hutton should displace John Kennedy, who should be booted from 81st to near anonymity. The notion of this slick playboy being afforded a place among people of consequence simply because he squandered billions of tax dollars sending rockets to the moon, is ludicrous. Martin Luther King and Mohandas Gandhi should be lifted into The 100 because both led peaceful revolutions of far reaching effects, King in the most powerful nation on earth on behalf of arguably the most discriminated-against race in history, and Gandhi in the second most populous nation on earth. Simon Bolivar and Franny Pizarro are the two who ought to be dropped in favor of these giants, Bolivar because the extent of his accomplishments was to preside over a superficial change of governments in South America (nothing really changed), and Pizarro because he was a terrorist who accomplished nothing that would not have happened anyway. Confucius and Malthus should be dropped, Confucius because he never existed, as has been irrefutably shown by Lionel Jensen in Manufacturing Confucianism (available from Amazon.com), and Malthus because the theory he's known for has been proven wrong. (People can and do produce food faster than babies. Besides, any fool could see that overpopulation was bound to become a problem.) To replace Confucius, I nominate Charles Dickens. Who has been more widely read in the dominant language of the globe than he? Indeed, his skill surely contributed to English's popularity. He is proof personified that an empire is not vital without moral and creative force. Spanish spread over a vast amount of real estate, but that empire remains a literary, economic, and cultural backwater to this day because they had no professional storytellers. The Chinese are populous enough to people several empires, but very little is known of their culture because they have had virtually no writers of any stature. Dickens set the standard for the modern fiction industry, and by extension, movies and television. I would surely put him ahead of Shakespeare, who is by this time largely relegated to academe. And either one of Leo Tolstoy's blockbusters has had more influence than the theory of Malthus, whom he must surely replace. Tolstoy, like Dickens, presented moral theories such as monotheism, monogamy, and agrarian monoculture in a palatable, even attractive form that even licentious pagans could enjoy. Finally, Steven Spielberg should be exalted at the expense of Augustine. The director has been a pioneer in the discovery and worldwide marketing of cute and cuddly things. While this may not seem important to kings and popes, its value to women and children and sensitive men cannot be overestimated. And the sales figures do seem to tell the same story. ET remains the most popular film in history, while Augustine's Confessions in hardcover languishes at 66,863rd on the Amazon.com sales rank listing. I drop the "Saint" from his name because that appears to me to be a very subjective title. Hart ought to do the same with "Great" and "Christ". What to use as a surname for Jesus? How about Jesus of Nazareth? That would distinguish him from all the Jesuses in Puerto Rico.
Rating:
Summary: A good historical talent wasted
Review: Although the bios of some of the most influential people in world history are well-written and insightful, the ranking and even choice of influential persons is sickening. Trying to prove a knowledge of more obscure figures in history, Hart overlooks some people who have acheived fame because of their powerful and awsomely influential lives. For example, he includes an obscure possibility for the inventor of paper in the top 10, the founder of Manacheanism in the top 100, but no mention is made of people such as the following: Ghandi, FDR, Abraham (Jesus Christ is #3)or even Susan B. Anthony! These people have had unbelievable influence in everyday life, much more than scientists or thinkers such as Leuwenhowek or Shih Huang Ti. Also, people who have expanded on scientific theories (e.g. Kepler) are listed, but the actual founders of the theories are not (e.g. Ptolemy)Whenever I am frustrated I pick up this horrendous book, which, needless to say has been very uninfluential in my own life.
Rating: 
Summary: A great book with crummy pictures.
Review: This book is great for you History Nuts, and even entertaining for those that are not. I read it to write a paper on who I thought the ten most influential people in history are. Hart argues his point well and you may change your mind on a few of your once-fixed ideas. The pictures, in my opinion, could have been better, but it was overall a decent book.
Rating: 
Summary: Fascinating and great addition to the bookshelf
Review: This should definitely be on your bookshelf. Packed with fascinating information and saved me a great deal of thumbing through other books. In terms of biography(per se)it doesn't have the ability to reach the inspirational levels of something like "THE Autobiography of Jesus of Nazareth and the Missing Years" by Richard Patton, but then few books do. For the limited area it addresses Hart's book is a must.
Rating:
Summary: A very quick tour through some interesting lives
Review: The utility you derive from reading this book depends upon what you expect to get out of it to begin with. I was not particularly interested in the ranking itself, since quantifying and comparing the relative influence on the world of, say, a philosopher vs a scientist vs a religious leader vs a politician, seems to me a rather foolish (if not pedantic) excercise to begin with. However, I did enjoy reading this book for its "other" content, the brief biographies of people whom, irrespective of their relative impact on the world, led darn interesting lives. It's a classical 90's book (although its first edition appeared in the 70's): compressed information designed to give you just the minimum necessary to avoid looking like a fool if involved in a semi-intelligent conversation. When somebody talks to you about, say, Mohammed or Guttenberg or Newton (or some other, more obscure fellas), you'll at least have a couple of neat data bits to carry on.
Rating:
Summary: This is One Great Book.
Review: Aside from Shakespeare's Collected Works and the Bible, there is no book in my (3,000-book) library that I
value more than "The 100." Hart is erudite and insightful and I venture to suggest that no one is
truly educated until he sees the world through the words of Michael Hart and through the perspective of
his choices for the 100 Most Influential People. It is an education in science, literature, war, politics,
mathematics, . . ., in short, everything that has formed our world. This 1992 update of his late '70's version betrays some tendency on Hart's part to get taken up into transient events but remains a classic of
thought and open-mindedness. The writing is concise and entertaining and the overall effect is one of awe,
for the achievements of these men (and a few women) and for Hart's ability to capture so much in one volume. (Sorry about
duplication: the TextBox failed to appear the first time.)
Rating:
Summary: Good biographical summary
Review: First off, this book is recommended simply because it is a useful resource of biographical sketches and analyses of the respective impacts these individuals had on history. It is a good conversation starter and always thought provoking. What disappoints me, however, is that he doesn't take a "hinges" of history approach to the concept. In theory you can take this to the extreme--for example, who's more influential, Muhammed or the woman who gave birth to Muhammed? However, there are key characters in world history who do not even make the "near miss" list, yet alone the Top 100. What about Themistocles, whose foresight in investing in an Athenian navy helped to save Athens from the Persian invasion? No Themistocles, no Greek victory, no Greek hegemony, likely no Socrates, no Aristotle, no philosophy. Or Scipio Africanus, who saved Rome from Hannibal by basically inventing the scorched earth military tactics and taking the battle to Carthage while Hannibal owned Italy. Scipio was an original tactician. No Scipio, no Roman conquest of Spain and North Africa, no doorway into Egypt and Palestine (and we know how important Roman influence is around 30 C.E. in Palestine), no Roman hegemony of the Meditareanian, no economic monopoly of Med trade, no Roman empire, thus no Ceasar, and possibly no Rome, period, as Hannibal probably could have destroyed Rome if not for Scipio's victories in Spain. Or Woodrow Wilson, who got the U.S. into the first World War (and thus helped to win it), who helped to form the modern world as we know it, who helped to create the map of the Middle East which is giving us such headaches (not to mention Yugoslavia), who helped to craft the post-WWI world which directly contributed to WWII? Or James Madison, who wrote the Constitution, a legal document that lawyers are still fighting over how to interpret the 1st, 2nd, 10th Ammendments? No Constitution, duh, no United States. He should be ranked ahead of Jefferson, not a "near miss". Or Pope Gregory the Great, who basically formed the political role of the papacy in Europe for a 1000+ years. No Attila the Hun? He played a critical role in empowering the papacy AND weakening the Roman empire. Or Columbanus, who helped to keep European intellectualism from completely falling into barbarianism during the 7th/8th Centuries by building intellectually rigorous monasteries across the continent, planting the seeds for scholasticism, and thus, eventually, science (although it takes a couple of centuries). Or Muawiya, who contributed to the split in Islam between Sunni and Shi'a, and we know how much impact *that* has had on world history, especially the past 25 years. Or Emperor Meiji, who modernized Japan in the 19th Century? In fact, Hart basically jumps from St. Paul to Guttenberg w/o mentioning anyone of note during the middle ages when the seeds of Modern Europe and Japan were planted (the G8 countries are all European in origin, except Japan and maybe Russia). Mani? JFK? Guy who invented birth control? No, no, NO! Kick them off the list, and pick any if not all of the aforementioned figures! It will be interesting to see what an updated list would have. Reagan would probably be listed higher, considering he transformed the U.S. economy and helped to defeat the USSR. Ossama Bin Laden? George Bush? The person who defined Wahhabism? David Ben Gurion? Kemal Ataturk? Watson and Crick?
Rating:
Summary: JFK and not Lincoln and FDR?
Review: It would help if such a historical list were written by a historian. Mr. Hart's degrees are in science, and his bias toward scientists in the list is overwhelming. He lists JFK because of his starting the mission to the moon. Certainly Lincoln, FDR, Teddy Roosevelt, Truman, and Reagan would rank as more influential U.S. presidents. And Madison as Father of the Constitution and the U.S. government has certainly had significant and long-lasting influence given the number of democracies in the world today. The effort to create such a list is certainly interesting, everyone will have different opinions, and the discussion promotes historical learning which is in such short supply today. But it would be better for an accomplished historian to create such a list rather than an author so taken up with scientific efforts to the detriment of other areas of human achievement.
|
