What do you think?
Rate this book
Fake Heroes: Ten False Icons and How they Altered the Course of History
From the author of Fake History, Otto English, comes a shocking yet hilarious look at ten of the greatest liars from our past, examining these previously unquestioned idols and exposing what they were trying to hide.
Was Che Guevara really a revolutionary hero?
Should Mother Teresa be honoured as a saint?
Is Henry V actually England's greatest king?
And why does JFK's legend continue to grow?
Having exposed some of the greatest lies ever told in Fake History, journalist Otto English turns his attention to some of history's biggest (and most beloved) figures.
Whether it's virtuous leaders in just wars, martyrs sacrificing all for a cause, or innovators changing the world for the better, down the centuries supposedly great men and women have risen to become household names, saints and heroes. But just how deserving are they of their reputations?
Exploring everything from Captain Scott's reckless hunt for glory and Andy Warhol's flagrant thievery to Coco Chanel's murky Nazi past, Otto English dives into the hidden lives of some of history's most recognisable names. Scrutinising figures from the worlds of art, politics, business, religion and royalty, he brings to light the murkier truths they would rather have kept buried away, at the same time as celebrating the unsung heroes lost to time.
Fake Heroes exposes the truth of the past and helps us understand why that matters today.
Was Che Guevara really a revolutionary hero?
Should Mother Teresa be honoured as a saint?
Is Henry V actually England's greatest king?
And why does JFK's legend continue to grow?
Having exposed some of the greatest lies ever told in Fake History, journalist Otto English turns his attention to some of history's biggest (and most beloved) figures.
Whether it's virtuous leaders in just wars, martyrs sacrificing all for a cause, or innovators changing the world for the better, down the centuries supposedly great men and women have risen to become household names, saints and heroes. But just how deserving are they of their reputations?
Exploring everything from Captain Scott's reckless hunt for glory and Andy Warhol's flagrant thievery to Coco Chanel's murky Nazi past, Otto English dives into the hidden lives of some of history's most recognisable names. Scrutinising figures from the worlds of art, politics, business, religion and royalty, he brings to light the murkier truths they would rather have kept buried away, at the same time as celebrating the unsung heroes lost to time.
Fake Heroes exposes the truth of the past and helps us understand why that matters today.
495 pages, Kindle Edition
First published May 25, 2023
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 38 reviews
December 26, 2023
It's taken me a while to get to reviewing this properly because I wanted to make sure I got everything completely correct fact-wise and also because I wanted to make sure my own biases wouldn't come into play too much. WELL! Sit down pal because I'm autistic and Heroic Age polar expeditions are my life. BUCKLE UP!
I was really looking forward to this book because I loved Fake History, and for the most part this was an entertaining and informative sequel. However, as soon as I saw that there was a chapter on Captain Scott my heart sank a little bit, and I thought to myself "I bet he's only used the Huntford". Guess bloody what, I was right!
For those uninitiated, Roland Huntford's 'Scott and Amundsen' is incredibly biased against Scott, and includes falsehoods that have been debunked since, some of which have been merrily repeated in Fake Heroes. *sigh*
A little way into the chapter on Scott we are told: "In the Heroic Age, leading a grand polar expedition was a surefire path to swift promotion, medals and glory, and Scott was a hugely, hugely ambitious individual who chased after it all." Scott is presented as extremely egotistical and selfish. We are not told that the reason Scott needed to get himself promoted as quickly as possible was due to becoming financially responsible for his mother and numerous sisters, after his father died leaving bad debts resulting in the family becoming destitute.
A quote from Cherry-Garrard is then cut down to make Scott appear hopeless and emotional, the full quote being "He [Scott] cried more easily than any man I have ever known. What pulled Scott through was character, sheer good grain which ran over and under and through his weaker self and clamped it all together." We only get the bit about him crying.
The idea that Scott was "utterly humourless" might be an easy dig at his character but is not supported by facts. He is described as 'quick to laugh and with an infectious smile' in many other biographies (Huxley, Fiennes, etc etc)
Now, to the dogs: Scott took dogs on the Discovery having taken Nansen's advice, and their diet of fish was also recommended by Nansen (not Scott). According to the late great Wally Herbert, it takes a person around two years to become competent at running dogs, Scott had no chance of managing this, whereas the Norwegians would have been running dog teams for years, due to, y'know, living in the Arctic.
On the Discovery expedition farthest South, there is actually very little evidence that Scott and Shackleton fell out. This particular story only comes from Albert Armitage, who wasn't present at the time, and grew angry at Scott for trying to send him home on the relief ship Morning, to avoid a scandal at home. A myth repeated over and over doesn't make it true. Shackleton went especially to meet Scott when he arrived back from the expedition, and Scott chaired a dinner for Shackleton when he arrived home from his Nimrod expedition in 1909.
Regarding the ponies taken on the Terra Nova expedition, we are not told that the anecdotal evidence that white ponies were better for the conditions than brown, came from Shackleton, who had had great success with them on his Nimrod expedition. We are also not told that they were Manchurian ponies, used to incredibly cold, snowy conditions.
I'm unsure why the food taken on the expedition is mentioned at all - they needed enough supplies to last 65 men YEARS - of course they took a lot of food?!
In comparing the Norwegian and British teams we are told: "He [Amundsen] and his tight knit team were all properly kitted out in wolfskin and reindeer fur and had kept perfectly warm. Scott's men were dressed in Burberry weather-proof coats, provided by their sponsor, which would have been fine for a windy walk in the Fells, but which were fairly useless for Arctic conditions." - this is just plain wrong - the Norwegian team were dogsledding, meaning that they were doing much less physical work than the British team, who were manhauling (pulling the sledges themselves). If furs were worn for manhauling, the wearer would overheat and sweat, the sweat would freeze and the wearer would be at risk of hypothermia and death. The Burberry canvas smocks were breathable and avoided overheating. This is why modern day explorers do not wear furs. (Also this is the Antarctic, not the Arctic 😉)
Much is made of Scott's sentimentality around the killing and eating of dogs, as if it's a failing or a weakness. This seems incredibly odd to me, would you want to kill and eat your pets? Don't think so buddy. If anything the failing here was becoming too attached to the dogs, unlike the Norwegian team who saw them as more of a means to an end. It ends up sounding like "Scott liked animals, god what a loser!"
If it was a 'myth' that the Terra Nova expedition was foremost a scientific endeavour, it's unlikely that the men would have bothered to stop to collect rock samples on their way back from the pole. It just doesn't make sense. (The rocks collected turned out to be hugely important and proved that Antarctica was once forested, cha-ching!).
We are told that Kathleen Scott and Nansen were lovers, and that their affair was consumated in a Berlin hotel, there is absolutely no reliable evidence for this whatsoever, and it appears to have been invented by Huntford. They may have been friends, and Nansen may have had a crush on her, but hey, Kathleen was a vivacious and sociable lady, she had a lot of pals, it doesn't mean she was banging all of them, GOSH! Also I think this may have been one of the things Huntford had to apologise to the Scott family over (plus pay court costs) because it's not truuuueeeee 🤠
This idea that Scott was a failure and a bungler is one that has been debunked numerous times over the past twenty or so years, we now know, thanks to climate data collected on the expedition (y'know, the primarily scientific expedition) that that particular year was incredibly cold, a huge anomaly. This would have resulted in more energy and fuel being used to keep the men fed and warm. The fuel cans had seals that perished in this unusual cold and leaked. Scott and his men were killed by the weather and unlucky timing. This worked well for Amundsen's team as the surface was good for dogsledding and they had their wee furs (more info can be found in 'The Coldest March' by Susan Solomon, whose research on the Ozone layer is actually mentioned in a later chapter of this very book!)
The reason the Norwegians were (and still are) so good at polar travel is because it's where they live, they do it all the time, they learn to ski before they can walk. Nansen is a towering figure in Norway, and rightfully so (just don't Google his nudes). Amundsen will always be a polar hero, but he is not so highly regarded due to falling in with the likes of Mussolini and his big interest in The Fash during his later years.
If you made it this far, thank you for sticking with me!
Overall I really enjoyed the rest of this book, although I was disappointed by the one-sided research which seemed to just be from Huntford (boo!) and the 1948 film starring John Mills. I get there's a narrative to stick to but come on, Scott does not belong in a book called Fake Heroes, next to a nazi sympathiser (Coco Chanel really got up to some japes eh?).
I was really looking forward to this book because I loved Fake History, and for the most part this was an entertaining and informative sequel. However, as soon as I saw that there was a chapter on Captain Scott my heart sank a little bit, and I thought to myself "I bet he's only used the Huntford". Guess bloody what, I was right!
For those uninitiated, Roland Huntford's 'Scott and Amundsen' is incredibly biased against Scott, and includes falsehoods that have been debunked since, some of which have been merrily repeated in Fake Heroes. *sigh*
A little way into the chapter on Scott we are told: "In the Heroic Age, leading a grand polar expedition was a surefire path to swift promotion, medals and glory, and Scott was a hugely, hugely ambitious individual who chased after it all." Scott is presented as extremely egotistical and selfish. We are not told that the reason Scott needed to get himself promoted as quickly as possible was due to becoming financially responsible for his mother and numerous sisters, after his father died leaving bad debts resulting in the family becoming destitute.
A quote from Cherry-Garrard is then cut down to make Scott appear hopeless and emotional, the full quote being "He [Scott] cried more easily than any man I have ever known. What pulled Scott through was character, sheer good grain which ran over and under and through his weaker self and clamped it all together." We only get the bit about him crying.
The idea that Scott was "utterly humourless" might be an easy dig at his character but is not supported by facts. He is described as 'quick to laugh and with an infectious smile' in many other biographies (Huxley, Fiennes, etc etc)
Now, to the dogs: Scott took dogs on the Discovery having taken Nansen's advice, and their diet of fish was also recommended by Nansen (not Scott). According to the late great Wally Herbert, it takes a person around two years to become competent at running dogs, Scott had no chance of managing this, whereas the Norwegians would have been running dog teams for years, due to, y'know, living in the Arctic.
On the Discovery expedition farthest South, there is actually very little evidence that Scott and Shackleton fell out. This particular story only comes from Albert Armitage, who wasn't present at the time, and grew angry at Scott for trying to send him home on the relief ship Morning, to avoid a scandal at home. A myth repeated over and over doesn't make it true. Shackleton went especially to meet Scott when he arrived back from the expedition, and Scott chaired a dinner for Shackleton when he arrived home from his Nimrod expedition in 1909.
Regarding the ponies taken on the Terra Nova expedition, we are not told that the anecdotal evidence that white ponies were better for the conditions than brown, came from Shackleton, who had had great success with them on his Nimrod expedition. We are also not told that they were Manchurian ponies, used to incredibly cold, snowy conditions.
I'm unsure why the food taken on the expedition is mentioned at all - they needed enough supplies to last 65 men YEARS - of course they took a lot of food?!
In comparing the Norwegian and British teams we are told: "He [Amundsen] and his tight knit team were all properly kitted out in wolfskin and reindeer fur and had kept perfectly warm. Scott's men were dressed in Burberry weather-proof coats, provided by their sponsor, which would have been fine for a windy walk in the Fells, but which were fairly useless for Arctic conditions." - this is just plain wrong - the Norwegian team were dogsledding, meaning that they were doing much less physical work than the British team, who were manhauling (pulling the sledges themselves). If furs were worn for manhauling, the wearer would overheat and sweat, the sweat would freeze and the wearer would be at risk of hypothermia and death. The Burberry canvas smocks were breathable and avoided overheating. This is why modern day explorers do not wear furs. (Also this is the Antarctic, not the Arctic 😉)
Much is made of Scott's sentimentality around the killing and eating of dogs, as if it's a failing or a weakness. This seems incredibly odd to me, would you want to kill and eat your pets? Don't think so buddy. If anything the failing here was becoming too attached to the dogs, unlike the Norwegian team who saw them as more of a means to an end. It ends up sounding like "Scott liked animals, god what a loser!"
If it was a 'myth' that the Terra Nova expedition was foremost a scientific endeavour, it's unlikely that the men would have bothered to stop to collect rock samples on their way back from the pole. It just doesn't make sense. (The rocks collected turned out to be hugely important and proved that Antarctica was once forested, cha-ching!).
We are told that Kathleen Scott and Nansen were lovers, and that their affair was consumated in a Berlin hotel, there is absolutely no reliable evidence for this whatsoever, and it appears to have been invented by Huntford. They may have been friends, and Nansen may have had a crush on her, but hey, Kathleen was a vivacious and sociable lady, she had a lot of pals, it doesn't mean she was banging all of them, GOSH! Also I think this may have been one of the things Huntford had to apologise to the Scott family over (plus pay court costs) because it's not truuuueeeee 🤠
This idea that Scott was a failure and a bungler is one that has been debunked numerous times over the past twenty or so years, we now know, thanks to climate data collected on the expedition (y'know, the primarily scientific expedition) that that particular year was incredibly cold, a huge anomaly. This would have resulted in more energy and fuel being used to keep the men fed and warm. The fuel cans had seals that perished in this unusual cold and leaked. Scott and his men were killed by the weather and unlucky timing. This worked well for Amundsen's team as the surface was good for dogsledding and they had their wee furs (more info can be found in 'The Coldest March' by Susan Solomon, whose research on the Ozone layer is actually mentioned in a later chapter of this very book!)
The reason the Norwegians were (and still are) so good at polar travel is because it's where they live, they do it all the time, they learn to ski before they can walk. Nansen is a towering figure in Norway, and rightfully so (just don't Google his nudes). Amundsen will always be a polar hero, but he is not so highly regarded due to falling in with the likes of Mussolini and his big interest in The Fash during his later years.
If you made it this far, thank you for sticking with me!
Overall I really enjoyed the rest of this book, although I was disappointed by the one-sided research which seemed to just be from Huntford (boo!) and the 1948 film starring John Mills. I get there's a narrative to stick to but come on, Scott does not belong in a book called Fake Heroes, next to a nazi sympathiser (Coco Chanel really got up to some japes eh?).
July 30, 2023
I've read Fake History but the author seriously outdoes himself with this effort. Wouldn't normally buy something that tears down JFK (not that even now I'm totally onboard!) but the way he builds up to the 10 different subjects is fantastic. I'm sure there will be plenty of people out there who consider it all too 'woke', but English doesn't do anything to dismiss the various achievements - he's just not blind to their foibles either.
July 17, 2023
Really interesting stories nicely linked together, however can’t be given a higher rating due to the editing. Easily the worst proofread book I’ve read, with loads of pretty jarring mistakes and really erratic punctuation.
June 8, 2023
I found this a totally execrable book. The author fell into the trap of subjecting historical figures to modern mores and trendy sensibilities.
February 24, 2024
Let's get the problems out of the way first: this is a really inadequately edited book. There are numerous typos and other errors scattered throughout it, which no publishing house worth its salt should have let through. The writing is uneven at times and seems almost as if it was rushed, while the narrative is also fascinating in places. The overall premise of the book, however, is difficult to argue with, that 'History, much like modern life, is in short full of bullies, self-promoting charlatans, bigots, bastards, and liars.' Another way of putting it is that 'the person who shouts the loudest gets all the acclaim,' which is mentioned by way of explaining why Thomas Edison is widely regarded as the inventor of the light bulb, when it's not really that simple.
Many of the icons covered in this book lied spectacularly during their lifetimes in some manner as a means to achieving their iconic status. Some of them weren't particularly competent, and achieved wealth and fame largely on the back of the efforts of others around them.
The fact that icons aren't always very balanced, decent people doesn't come as a massive surprise: this is something most thoughtful adults will have figured out before reading this tome. A certain proportion of society's winners routinely cut ethical corners. There are even famous entertainers who have actively admitted noticing patterns among themselves and their contemporaries of these very phenomena, usually traceable back to a childhood of parental loss or emotional neglect, which creates an inordinate need for public adulation in adulthood. Of course, this is speaking very generally, and many of these individuals have a genuine moral compass to accompany their talent, but the pattern is definitely there.
Coco Chanel grew up mostly in an orphanage run by nuns. Her flair for fashion was real, and she was industrious, but as she became hugely successful, a pretty dark side to her personality emerged. She was a Nazi collaborator who treated her staff with contempt, was unethical in her business dealings, and had a string of affairs with fellow fascist sympathizers.
Captain Scott became an explorer not due to any passion for adventure and scientific discovery, but purely because arctic explorers were the rockstars of the world at the end of the 19th century and into the early 20th century. In pursuit of fame and glory, he blithely led a team of men to miserable deaths because he simply didn't have the practical knowledge that Norwegians involved in exploration had at the time. Scott never had the humility or self-awareness to acquire the requisite knowledge before embarking on his journey. Despite this, Scott remains lauded as a great leader to this day in certain quarters.
The author's problem with Andy Warhol is somewhat unclear. I mean, we know that many of Warhol's works weren't actually physically produced by Warhol himself, so this is not really new information. There was never any sense in which Andy Warhol tried to claim otherwise, as his entire artistic life was about blurring the boundaries between consumerism and art. Nevertheless, Otto English doesn't like Warhol at all, which is understandable in some ways, but not comprehensively explained.
The chapter on Henry V is a description of that king's foolhardiness in war, but then toward the end has a strange segue into Australian history, with the connection tenuous at best. It's clear the author is not a monarchist, but the writing fails to give a reason for veering into the 19th-century outback from Medieval England so suddenly. Even the comparison of Henry V to Putin makes a bit more sense.
Then there's Mother Teresa, which is controversial obviously to many, but sadly seems to have some truth to it, as many people who volunteered or who joined her order are now coming out and speaking about their experiences of the atmosphere she created around her and the shortcomings of the hospices and orphanages in her lifetime. It should be noted that there are still many people who would defend her passionately. It also seems rather churlish to bring in her spiritual difficulties as evidence of fakery. There are many names within Catholicism who have gone through dark nights of the soul, sometimes lasting years, but still continued on with their work. In fact, this is often the mark of a true saint within Catholicism.
The John F. Kennedy chapter is unsurprising. He was a voracious serial adulterer who was fulfilling the ambitions of his father by going into politics; this is already well known, but it's good that people feel more free to write about it these days. There's definitely no harm in being real about the actuality of people's lives versus the image projected by their publicists.
Some of the individuals covered in this book became icons by accident or by dint of their good looks. Che Guevara was one of these. Had his face not been made famous by the promulgation of his image across the world, he might have been just another guerilla allied with Castro whose name was only known by far-left devotees. Instead, he happened to have a face that had icon written all over it and ended up incessantly emblazoned on middle-class university student bedsit walls and t-shirts across the world, as much of a capitalist consumerist brand as Coca Cola.
Guevara himself comes across as somewhat politically naive as a young adult. His upbringing was quite well to do, and such were the class divisons in the Argentina of his day that people of his class thought nothing of the teenage Guevara routinely raping the family maid. This was regarded as a part of the function of maids at the time in Argentina, apparently. So we can dispense with the notion of the romantic revolutionary hero who loved the working classes quite readily, then.
This is the type of book I would normally think is a healthy counterpoint to our celebrity-obsessed, image-oriented culture, but as mentioned, the writing could have done with some tightening up from an editor. I'd give it four stars were it not for this fact. It's a laudable project to correct misconceptions about cultural golden calves.
Many of the icons covered in this book lied spectacularly during their lifetimes in some manner as a means to achieving their iconic status. Some of them weren't particularly competent, and achieved wealth and fame largely on the back of the efforts of others around them.
The fact that icons aren't always very balanced, decent people doesn't come as a massive surprise: this is something most thoughtful adults will have figured out before reading this tome. A certain proportion of society's winners routinely cut ethical corners. There are even famous entertainers who have actively admitted noticing patterns among themselves and their contemporaries of these very phenomena, usually traceable back to a childhood of parental loss or emotional neglect, which creates an inordinate need for public adulation in adulthood. Of course, this is speaking very generally, and many of these individuals have a genuine moral compass to accompany their talent, but the pattern is definitely there.
Coco Chanel grew up mostly in an orphanage run by nuns. Her flair for fashion was real, and she was industrious, but as she became hugely successful, a pretty dark side to her personality emerged. She was a Nazi collaborator who treated her staff with contempt, was unethical in her business dealings, and had a string of affairs with fellow fascist sympathizers.
Captain Scott became an explorer not due to any passion for adventure and scientific discovery, but purely because arctic explorers were the rockstars of the world at the end of the 19th century and into the early 20th century. In pursuit of fame and glory, he blithely led a team of men to miserable deaths because he simply didn't have the practical knowledge that Norwegians involved in exploration had at the time. Scott never had the humility or self-awareness to acquire the requisite knowledge before embarking on his journey. Despite this, Scott remains lauded as a great leader to this day in certain quarters.
The author's problem with Andy Warhol is somewhat unclear. I mean, we know that many of Warhol's works weren't actually physically produced by Warhol himself, so this is not really new information. There was never any sense in which Andy Warhol tried to claim otherwise, as his entire artistic life was about blurring the boundaries between consumerism and art. Nevertheless, Otto English doesn't like Warhol at all, which is understandable in some ways, but not comprehensively explained.
The chapter on Henry V is a description of that king's foolhardiness in war, but then toward the end has a strange segue into Australian history, with the connection tenuous at best. It's clear the author is not a monarchist, but the writing fails to give a reason for veering into the 19th-century outback from Medieval England so suddenly. Even the comparison of Henry V to Putin makes a bit more sense.
Then there's Mother Teresa, which is controversial obviously to many, but sadly seems to have some truth to it, as many people who volunteered or who joined her order are now coming out and speaking about their experiences of the atmosphere she created around her and the shortcomings of the hospices and orphanages in her lifetime. It should be noted that there are still many people who would defend her passionately. It also seems rather churlish to bring in her spiritual difficulties as evidence of fakery. There are many names within Catholicism who have gone through dark nights of the soul, sometimes lasting years, but still continued on with their work. In fact, this is often the mark of a true saint within Catholicism.
The John F. Kennedy chapter is unsurprising. He was a voracious serial adulterer who was fulfilling the ambitions of his father by going into politics; this is already well known, but it's good that people feel more free to write about it these days. There's definitely no harm in being real about the actuality of people's lives versus the image projected by their publicists.
Some of the individuals covered in this book became icons by accident or by dint of their good looks. Che Guevara was one of these. Had his face not been made famous by the promulgation of his image across the world, he might have been just another guerilla allied with Castro whose name was only known by far-left devotees. Instead, he happened to have a face that had icon written all over it and ended up incessantly emblazoned on middle-class university student bedsit walls and t-shirts across the world, as much of a capitalist consumerist brand as Coca Cola.
Guevara himself comes across as somewhat politically naive as a young adult. His upbringing was quite well to do, and such were the class divisons in the Argentina of his day that people of his class thought nothing of the teenage Guevara routinely raping the family maid. This was regarded as a part of the function of maids at the time in Argentina, apparently. So we can dispense with the notion of the romantic revolutionary hero who loved the working classes quite readily, then.
This is the type of book I would normally think is a healthy counterpoint to our celebrity-obsessed, image-oriented culture, but as mentioned, the writing could have done with some tightening up from an editor. I'd give it four stars were it not for this fact. It's a laudable project to correct misconceptions about cultural golden calves.
April 25, 2024
3.5 rounded. brilliantly written , read in stages over half a year due to the non fictional genre and learnt a lot .
January 3, 2024
I put off listening to this for a while simply because of the author’s name. Otto English, what kind of pseudonym is Otto English? Is this going to be some “cancel culture revisionist” thing? I mention all this in case you’re having similar thoughts. Let me reassure you now, your worries are unfounded. Go into this open-minded and you will be rewarded. ‘Fake Heroes’ is a must for anyone interested in history; mostly 20th Century with just one trip back to Tudor England for a dispassionate look at Henry V.
If, like me, you’ve ever wondered what was so special about JFK or what exactly Che Guevara is famous for besides that poster, or why Andy Warhol is lionised in the art world, to name three of the subjects in ‘Fake Heroes’, this book is going to expand your horizons considerably. There are, essentially, ten essays, loosely interlinked, which build up quite detailed portraits of their subjects. These essays sometimes show our heroes to be fallible human beings (like my boyhood hero Captain Scott) but sometimes we’re left with an impression of someone so warped (like Mother Theresa) that you wonder if…well, you know what, I’ll let you listen and decide for yourself. If you’re adult enough to step out of the echo chamber that is social media and be challenged, this book is an eye-opener.
I’m still not sure about “Otto English” for a pseudonym, but I doubt I will listen to a better audiobook this year.
If, like me, you’ve ever wondered what was so special about JFK or what exactly Che Guevara is famous for besides that poster, or why Andy Warhol is lionised in the art world, to name three of the subjects in ‘Fake Heroes’, this book is going to expand your horizons considerably. There are, essentially, ten essays, loosely interlinked, which build up quite detailed portraits of their subjects. These essays sometimes show our heroes to be fallible human beings (like my boyhood hero Captain Scott) but sometimes we’re left with an impression of someone so warped (like Mother Theresa) that you wonder if…well, you know what, I’ll let you listen and decide for yourself. If you’re adult enough to step out of the echo chamber that is social media and be challenged, this book is an eye-opener.
I’m still not sure about “Otto English” for a pseudonym, but I doubt I will listen to a better audiobook this year.
May 8, 2024
This book may be factually correct, but I did not enjoy reading it because it is written in a very cynical and hard edge style. The feeling I had while reading it was like being outside on a hot July day and being offered a can of beer. I opened it to discover that it is warm, Bitter dark beer, not refreshing at all. Some of the people in this book really do seem to be villains instead of heroes. However, I suspect the truth is more like that all of us have some of the hero and some of the villains in us, and sometimes we let each have its way with our behavior.
February 15, 2024
I was with it until the bafflingly furious invective in the Che Guevara chapter.
The way English describes it, Castro and Guevara were clueless, vainglorious thugs who were no better than the previous regime, and are comparable to Nazis. He claims their incompetence destroyed the island's economy and enslaved its people... but then, practically as an afterthought, he begrudgingly explains the island's surprisingly high (and in some cases world leading) quality of life indicators, pouring quite a lot of cold water on most of what he'd just argued.
It's a bizarrely angry chapter, replete with sanctimonious liberal finger-wagging (a phrase I notice at least one other reviewer has used). It read as especially strange, as in the previous chapter he'd cogently argued that the Kennedy brothers' bullheaded anticommunism was a weakness of theirs.
So after that, the trust was gone - fatal for a history book. After that I was constantly troubled by the thought that every other chapter in the book was a similarly facile, biased, and uncharitable hit piece on the various historical figures covered.
Overall there's some entertaining stories and some decent prose, but I hesitate to recommend it as I have a strong suspicion it's just as erroneous as the myths it sets out to bust.
The way English describes it, Castro and Guevara were clueless, vainglorious thugs who were no better than the previous regime, and are comparable to Nazis. He claims their incompetence destroyed the island's economy and enslaved its people... but then, practically as an afterthought, he begrudgingly explains the island's surprisingly high (and in some cases world leading) quality of life indicators, pouring quite a lot of cold water on most of what he'd just argued.
It's a bizarrely angry chapter, replete with sanctimonious liberal finger-wagging (a phrase I notice at least one other reviewer has used). It read as especially strange, as in the previous chapter he'd cogently argued that the Kennedy brothers' bullheaded anticommunism was a weakness of theirs.
So after that, the trust was gone - fatal for a history book. After that I was constantly troubled by the thought that every other chapter in the book was a similarly facile, biased, and uncharitable hit piece on the various historical figures covered.
Overall there's some entertaining stories and some decent prose, but I hesitate to recommend it as I have a strong suspicion it's just as erroneous as the myths it sets out to bust.
August 28, 2024
What a fascinating book this is! Otto English writes with humour, wit and great intelligence about people like Andy Warhol, Mother Teresa and Che Guevara. We all know about them - right? But it turns out that a lot of what I thought I knew was fiction, myth-making by the heroes themselves or their promoters.
Lovely that each chapter finishes with a real, albeit not well-known character who deserves true acclaim.
Lovely that each chapter finishes with a real, albeit not well-known character who deserves true acclaim.
July 21, 2024
Written for those (me) who skip to the ‘Controversies’ section on Wikipedia.
July 2, 2024
Intresting read
January 2, 2024
I loved his first book, Fake History, and I have to say this book surpasses that.
It is a tour de force sweeping away the sycophantic drivel told about our supposed heroes and instead gives us the facts about these individuals. It does not in any way set out to totally discredit their memories, but instead fill in the real human behind the myths. Tell the facts that have been airbrushed out of the picture for someone's benefit.
To any feminist reading this book, it will come as very little surprise as to the despicable lies, deceit and misogyny carried out against them in telling many historical discoveries.
I think if truth be told, it is at heart nothing but a tale of human failings and the skulduggery carried out in the name of propagandists and commercial interests. The lies and deceit by some are really quite disgusting if not surprising when appraised by C21's eyes and experience.
The one thing I will take away is the absolute propaganda and downright myths schools peddle in the name of history, happily leaving out the uncomfortable facts about empire, colonialism and conquest. Whether this be by dint of government requirement or collective social delusion I shall leave it to other readers to decide.
I would highly recommend reading this book, as it is not only informative but hugely enjoyable.
It is a tour de force sweeping away the sycophantic drivel told about our supposed heroes and instead gives us the facts about these individuals. It does not in any way set out to totally discredit their memories, but instead fill in the real human behind the myths. Tell the facts that have been airbrushed out of the picture for someone's benefit.
To any feminist reading this book, it will come as very little surprise as to the despicable lies, deceit and misogyny carried out against them in telling many historical discoveries.
I think if truth be told, it is at heart nothing but a tale of human failings and the skulduggery carried out in the name of propagandists and commercial interests. The lies and deceit by some are really quite disgusting if not surprising when appraised by C21's eyes and experience.
The one thing I will take away is the absolute propaganda and downright myths schools peddle in the name of history, happily leaving out the uncomfortable facts about empire, colonialism and conquest. Whether this be by dint of government requirement or collective social delusion I shall leave it to other readers to decide.
I would highly recommend reading this book, as it is not only informative but hugely enjoyable.
December 28, 2023
In perusing the jacket or sub-title of “Fake Heroes”, you might be under the impression that this book largely consists of the author relentlessly taking a machine gun to slaughter a series of sacred cows. But Otto English takes a more considered and thoughtful approach to the analysis of historical and cultural icons, and largely avoids contrarianism or foam-flecked polemics.
Instead, some of the most interesting sections of “Fake Heroes” are where Otto English shifts from iconoclasm against his ten chosen historical figures and focuses on the nature of mythologising and how – and why – society manufactures its heroes. Many of the icons in this book (Mother Theresa, JFK, the vile Nazi collaborator Coco Chanel) are “too big to fail” and tearing down these ‘fake heroes’ would do irreparable damage to the self-image of the societies that have created them. As English astutely notes, “sometimes in creating saints, society creates monsters instead.”
Instead, some of the most interesting sections of “Fake Heroes” are where Otto English shifts from iconoclasm against his ten chosen historical figures and focuses on the nature of mythologising and how – and why – society manufactures its heroes. Many of the icons in this book (Mother Theresa, JFK, the vile Nazi collaborator Coco Chanel) are “too big to fail” and tearing down these ‘fake heroes’ would do irreparable damage to the self-image of the societies that have created them. As English astutely notes, “sometimes in creating saints, society creates monsters instead.”
September 8, 2023
Debunking the myth of well known heroes takes courage. I found the JFK story interesting, the Mother Theresa one somewhat trivial. I like the way he critises the British mentality. As I think Andy Warhol is not much of a hero, I don't quite give a damn. As regards Che' story I think he is too harsh.
There are flaws in his writing. For example in the JFK chapter he sometimes use JFK and Kennedy interchangeably making it difficult to discern who he meant. Also you will find stories of other characters threw in for not so obvious reason.
He apparently has a beef about Putin but as a writer who likes to get to the bottom of fact, he should do more research.
There are flaws in his writing. For example in the JFK chapter he sometimes use JFK and Kennedy interchangeably making it difficult to discern who he meant. Also you will find stories of other characters threw in for not so obvious reason.
He apparently has a beef about Putin but as a writer who likes to get to the bottom of fact, he should do more research.
September 18, 2023
Otto English’s latest foray into the murky waters of historical deception interrogates the heroic mono-myth popularised by Joseph Campbell with a critical analysis of some key luminaries whose true life exploits fall far short of their legend. Recurrently contrasting the lives of real, often uncelebrated, heroes with lionised fakers, English employs a forensic and acerbic scalpel to question the whole notion of what heroism actually is in this entertaining and necessary book for a celebrity obsessed age.
February 14, 2024
4.5⭐️ Автор начинает книгу так ядовито и в таком разоблачающем стиле, что на мгновение кажется, будто читаешь желтую прессу с раздутой сенсацией. Но это впечатление быстро проходит. Взвешенное мнение, взгляд с разных сторон, использование многих источников - все это есть в книге, пусть и не для всех её героев.
Даже зная многочисленные факты о выбранных автором личностях интересно следить за тем, как Инглиш разворачивает свою аргументацию.
Очень понравилась структура построения содержания книги. И закончил автор её великолепно!
Даже зная многочисленные факты о выбранных автором личностях интересно следить за тем, как Инглиш разворачивает свою аргументацию.
Очень понравилась структура построения содержания книги. И закончил автор её великолепно!
October 15, 2023
Horribly edited -- if edited at all. Grammatical and punctuational errors abound, as do typos, formatting errors, spacing issues. The rambling essays are often riddled with errors, which gave me pause as to anything I was reading had merit.
Ted Kennedy did not drive off a bridge "into the ocean." He drove off the Dike Bridge and into a channel between two ponds. Jimmy Savile almost certainly never rode in 300 pro bike races; he merely said he did. These things are stated as fact.
Ted Kennedy did not drive off a bridge "into the ocean." He drove off the Dike Bridge and into a channel between two ponds. Jimmy Savile almost certainly never rode in 300 pro bike races; he merely said he did. These things are stated as fact.
January 11, 2024
Enjoyable and easy-to-follow bit of infotainment that serves as a reminder of the perils of idealising people. I'm not very familiar with modern history (medievalist here!) so this was all very fresh and entertaining. There's also some interesting discussion about heroes: what is one? Why do we seem to need them? Perhaps not incredibly rigorous (sometimes it slips into the highly subjective!) but definitely engaging and thought provoking.
January 27, 2024
I listened to this as an audiobook. It was read by the author, and he did this very well.
Each chapter deals with a different hero, or group of heroes, and aims to debunk the myths surrounding them. I found some chapters more interesting or engaging than others, which is inevitable with this kind of book, but the overall thesis is that the ´great man’ theory of history leads to unworthy characters being lauded.
I enjoyed this, but I thought that Fake History was better.
Each chapter deals with a different hero, or group of heroes, and aims to debunk the myths surrounding them. I found some chapters more interesting or engaging than others, which is inevitable with this kind of book, but the overall thesis is that the ´great man’ theory of history leads to unworthy characters being lauded.
I enjoyed this, but I thought that Fake History was better.
July 14, 2024
Boy this book is interesting. All the "dirt" on these so-called heroes. How they were managed to keep hidden away from us is rather surprising. Most shocking to me is Mother Theresa. Wasn't a philanthropist as we all thought but kept all that money and used to use other people's assets like private airplanes and the like.
The best bit is after all that downer, the author closes the chapter with a true hero. Worth reading.
The best bit is after all that downer, the author closes the chapter with a true hero. Worth reading.
September 5, 2023
This was an enjoyable read, with each chapter nicely linked together. I felt it became a bit meandering in parts which is why I dropped one star, but overall a good read that I’d recommend to a friend.
October 10, 2023
Really enjoying this book and I have to say a few of my ideas about some of the hero’s I thought were hero’s has been totally debunked. I knew about Mother Teresa and a couple of others but not all. Well narrated. Bought as a DD and worth every penny.
December 31, 2023
a very centrist take on the subject, with lots of sanctimonious and hypocritical finger wagging. It is well written in the main (although the last parts of it are not even that) and it was informative in the first few chapters, but from then on it was all down the hill
January 8, 2024
brilliant
A well written book that everyone should read. It is incredibly interesting to learn so much about these false heros but this book is so much more than that. Highly recommended.
A well written book that everyone should read. It is incredibly interesting to learn so much about these false heros but this book is so much more than that. Highly recommended.
March 21, 2024
While I agree with most of the content in this book, the writing and editing were truly appalling. It looks as though an unedited version was published, and the grammar and punctuation, especially the use of commas, is at a level that would shame a High School pupil. This really spoiled the book.
July 26, 2023
Excellent.
August 8, 2023
An interesting take on many famous historical figures. I’m glad that a couple of my heroes were left out of the firing line.
September 24, 2023
interesting tales - but editing poor and author goes majorly off track at times which means the anti-hero is torn to shreds out context!!
November 5, 2023
An excellent and surprising history book. lives of people we all know with all the less savoury bits left in.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 38 reviews