Ransom Riggs
The “New” Wonders of the World
by Ransom Riggs - July 9, 2007 - 7:22 AM

Ever wonder what all the fuss about these “seven wonders” is over? After all, it’s pretty darn subjective — the original Greek list of “wonders,” most of which were destroyed by earthquakes and fires more than a thousand years ago, were all clustered around the Mediterranean; hardly a comprehensive study. What’s more, “wonders” is translated from the Greek “theamata,” the meaning of which is closer to “must-sees,” which sounds more like a Travel Channel special (Top Ten Vegas Hotel Pools!) than something requiring an exhaustive proto-religious hejira to experience. But we continue to compile such lists, most recently alast week’s “New Seven Wonders.” em_giza.jpg

After a years-long international online vote, 200 potential candidates were whittled down to 21 finalists, including the usual suspects plus surprises like the most photographed building in Germany, Neuschwanstein Castle; the city of Timbuktu and the Statue of Liberty (yeah, it’s impressive, but can it really stack up to the Pyramids of Giza?). The only real surprise on the list of seven winners was the sort-of-recently constructed statue of Christ the Redeemer which famously overlooks Rio de Janeiro; again, it’s worth a daytrip, but it’s not Machu Picchu or the ancient city of Petra! You can check out the winners here, and tell us what you think.

« Previous Post   -   Next Post »
Click here to get a Risk-Free issue of mental_floss magazine
Comments (10)

  1. As a peruvian… I felt overwhelmed when the announcers said Machu Picchu and the whole stadium started cheering… Man! That was INCREDIBLE!
    And when they announced it as the fourth elected wonder… Everyone in my neighborhood celebrated it… It’s really amazing…

    posted by Mariella on 7-9-2007 at 8:47 am

  2. I was unimpressed with the vote. Only one European site won, and that is a ruin (Colosseum) which has comparatives that are much better and in better condition in France and elsewhere.

    The Alhambra in Spain (which I have visited) is amazing, and is more of a wonder of human achievement than Machu Picchu (which I have not seen except in pics.)

    I found the results disappointing, and more a result of various countries good marketing than any sort of real value judgment.

    posted by John on 7-9-2007 at 8:55 am

  3. This list makes as much sense as AFI’s best movie list. It’s all up to one’s taste. I believe that a real “wonder” would have to be something that was a major engineering or artistic challenge that encompassed extreme difficulty or originality.

    On a personal basis, I find it odd that the George Washington Bridge in New York never gets kudos alongside other “wonder” bridges like the Brooklyn Bridge or the Golden Gate. However, the GWB has one record that all experts agree can never be equaled in the future; the greatest percentage increase in span over the previous record holder. The GWB was almost twice as long as the previous greatest span. No other bridge since has even come close to that increase. To me, its builder, Ottman Ahmar (who built the 6 longest spans in New York City, including the Verrazano narrows) was a wonder maker.

    posted by jmchez on 7-9-2007 at 9:20 am

  4. the voting for this list doesn’t sit right with me. in the faq itself it says that a person is allowed to vote as many times as they like! not that it would be easy or even possible to set it up to be unique across the world.

    as jmchez said, it is very subjective. i, for one, would still like to see niagara falls on the list for example. and i think john was right when he said it was more of a result of marketing, because i know i have heard very little about it and didn’t even know it was being decided.

    posted by alan on 7-9-2007 at 11:44 am

  5. the jump took me to a fox movies website

    posted by Brenda Easter on 7-9-2007 at 12:16 pm

  6. How can the pyramids NOT be one of the 7 wonders of the world? Christ the Redeemer is impressive, but cmon, its the PYRAMIDS!

    posted by mrbenn on 7-9-2007 at 12:39 pm

  7. If it’s okay to vote for new wonders, why is it mandatory that they stop at seven? Why not the Eleven Wonders of the World? Why not the entire original list of 200?

    The whole exercise seems silly to me. Unless, of course, the seven winners get additional funding for maintenance and security or some similar award. Then it makes sense to limit it.

    posted by Bill T. on 7-9-2007 at 1:30 pm

  8. If I remember right, the Pyramids are “grandfathered” in by virtue of being still standing since the original list. So it’s really “The seven wonders + Pyramids”, was my understanding. I imagine they went for seven on the list for the same reason we pick the top 100 movies and Dave Letterman nightly lists the Top Ten whatever. It just sounds better that way.

    posted by StckFigure on 7-9-2007 at 3:34 pm

  9. If I had realized that I could vote multiple times, I surely would have! Christ the Redeemer? And not Stonehenge? Or Angkor Wat?

    posted by Barbara on 7-9-2007 at 9:45 pm

  10. Very disappointed in the results. The “wonders” elected (most of them) are not really wonders at all. Stonehedge – how, why is it there? Same with the Easter Island statues. Wonders. Big cross on a hill? Not so much.

    posted by Shannon on 7-10-2007 at 9:58 am

Comment

commenting policy