Real life is all well and good, but some of the world's most important people never had a pulse (except when they were being portrayed by thespians, but why ruin a nice introduction). Fictional characters can change lives: they can motivate and inspire, they can spark off debate and discussion, and they can teach and entertain. Those imaginary characters (and a few monsters) are the stars of this book by authors Allan Lazar (the mentor type), Dan Karlan (former analytical chemist) and Jeremy Salter (ex-computer programmer).

It's really quite simple: the authors list, rank and discuss, in one- to four-page essays, the characters they consider most influential to their culture. Note those embiggened words (yes, bolding does make words bigger, don't argue), they'll become important later. Anyway, the authors avoid religious figures, except those considered mythological by just about everyone (the Greek divinities, for example). They also don't include really real characters, except in the form of legendary figures who we know only from tall tales: King Arthur, William Tell, Robin Hood. Other than that, every beast and being from fairy tale, book, movie or whatever is fair game.

A taster of some of the figures included: Uncle Tom (11), Santa Claus (4), Pygmalion (88), Helen of Troy (59), J.R. Ewing (63), Mickey Mouse (18), Prince Charming (20), Big Brother (2), Barbie (43) and the Wandering Jew (92). To find out the other 91 characters, read the book, okay?

Anyway, the authors have a lively style, and each essay provides a brief retelling of the story of the character concerned (who they were, what they did) as well as a bit of historical context (who thought them up, the events that inspired their creation, what they've meant to the world at large). These essays are often fun and informative (who knew the Pied Piper of Hamelin had such a convoluted backstory?) and the presentation style is varied enough that it doesn't all become very boring.

Sometimes, however, the attempts at humour are just grating, and the essays can venture on strange tangents - Hansel and Gretel is presented as an anti-ageist and anti-feminist tale with profound implications on modern thought on human rights, for example, and the tale of Siegfried is seen as a powerful contributor to the World Wars, and especially to Hitler's wacky Aryan mythology. Certainly food for thought, but there’s definitely such a thing as reading too much into things, and starting to see influences that just aren’t that big a deal.

Which brings me to the obligatory rant.

Of course, nobody's ever completely happy with someone else's "best of" list - you really can't please all of the people all of the time. But since I am obviously a man of good taste, let me set out what was wrong with this list. Feel free to skip this part, if you value your sanity.

In which it is clear that Nick is a cranky bastard
A slippery word, that "influential". The authors say it's not the same thing as popularity, or sales or number of fans. Fair enough. But they never actually tell us what it is. And without that, this list is really hard to figure out.

My own off-the-top-of-my-head ideas for making the concept of "influential" a bit more rigorous would include:

•
    popularity/name brand recognition (overt influence, in other words)

•
    citation/pages allocated to the character in the appropriate texts (much like Charles Murray did with his book Excellence)

•
    number of works influenced by the character (or creators who claim to be thus influenced)

•
    some kind of modifier to account for age (older = more time to influence stuff)

Of course, that's not just the scientist in me speaking up. Yes, I would like to see some kind of objective measures thrown into it because I'd like to know who the true influences are in Western culture. But mostly, I'd like a good explanation for the fact that Buffy (of vampire slaying fame) comes in at 44, while Superman (the Man of Steel, for those who haven't yet met him) comes in at 64.

Now, I love Buffy (in a totally normal and non-crazy-person way, honest) but this makes no sense at all. Buffy is about 15 years old, and the show was great and the characters interesting, but they influenced almost nothing (handful of comics, some other shows, at most). Supes has been around for seventy years, and his influence is almost incalculable. He kicked off the Superhero (hell, it's named for him!), the quintessential expression of Americanism (patriotism, truth, justice, yadda yadda), has been featured in millions of comic pages, movies, websites, etc. and is known all over the world.

Ah, but what about that whole cultural differences thing? Well, I know I'm not American (and I love superheroes more than is probably healthy, so I may be biased) but I've spent my life immersed in reflections of the American culture. It's a sad truth, but for the most part, American pop-culture is South African pop-culture. So the whole "their culture" excuse the authors use is just a cop-out. Also, what exactly is their culture? Western culture? North American? East Coast? Highly educated people living in whichever city they happen to live in? Defining particular cultures isn't all that easy in our increasingly globalized world.

And for the record, I don't even like Supes that much a lot of the time. But he still should rank higher than the much-kewler Batman (60).

Back in Almost-Sanity Land
So my final thoughts: It's a great idea, an interesting list, and there are some witty write-ups, with much to wonder at, much to argue about, and much to just ignore. The seeds of a great book lie in this one - pity they hadn't germinated before it got published.