The Great Man theory and Fictional Worlds

[BRC]

I was popping into the Honor Harrington thread, when I saw this post


Incidentally, whenever people accuse Honor of Suedom, I laugh and point at the existence of White Haven. Honor at least gets to earn her awards and victories 'on-screen', pretty much everything WH does/has is basically just handed to him narratively and we have to take the author's word that he deserves all of it. Not that I think he doesn't, but he is the best in-narration counterpoint available.


For that matter, the whole thing is an interesting comparison between Weber and another historian-turned-author I'm incredibly fond of, Eric Flint. Flint is bluntly on record as saying he does not back the 'Great Man Theory' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Man_theory), rather favoring the counter-argument that societies and circumstances are the primary shaping factor and specific individuals only tweak the needle a bit. Looking at Weber's bibliography - Mutineer's Moon, Harrington, and Safehold primarily - I get the impression that he leans the other way. Honor, and a few of her peers/opponents, are the Great Men whose influence shapes history around their actions.

And it raised an interesting question. I don't know much about Honor Harrington (Read two books), so I figured it was worth making a separate thread.

If you are telling a story of epic scope, one dealing with the fate of nations, with your protagonists directly involved in those events (The story of Kings and Generals, rather than the story of a foot soldier swept up in the conflict), do you inherently bias the reader towards a "Great Man" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Man_theory) view of the events in question?


Consider, for example,A Song of Ice and Fire, where most of the events of the books have been based on the whims,schemes, and abilities of a handful of characters.

Great Man Theory is summed up by saying "The history of the world is but the biography of great men", and the aSoIaF books certainly seem to agree, at least as far as Westeros is concerned. While Martin drops into smaller-scale stories, much of the big moments of the plot follow the decisions of a handful of powerful individuals. Daenerys Targaryen fits the mold the best, a charismatic leader with strong principles and extraordinary abilities (And Dragons), reshaping the world according to her designs.

I guess my real question is, could you write a series like Honor Harrington or A Song of Ice and Fire, focusing on people like Honor Harrington or Daenerys Targaryen, without giving the impression that they are the primary movers of the events in question?

[Friv]

I would actually argue that the Song of Ice and Fire mostly runs counter to the Great Man Theory. While the whims of the nobility direct the plot and actions in Westeros, GRRM seems to generally argue that the nobles themselves have been shaped by Westerosi society to the point that their actions were always going to result. People like Twyin, Cersei, and Littlefinger are the natural result of societal pressures, rather than single-handedly directing and shaping the society that they find themselves in.

The key to Great Man Theory, as I understand it, is the belief that those great men use their immense personal abilities to decide how society will behave, and society shapes itself to match. By contrast, the opposing theory argues that "great man" are created by their societies, and their actions are the natural result of those societies existing.

I think action fiction tends towards Great Man, because it's easier for us to see one person's effect on the world, and it's more dramatic if there are those moments where everything hangs in the balance. But you also have a lot of stories where a hero is a stand-in for society as a whole, which can look like Great Man on the surface, but is actually quite different.

[HandofShadows]

While the Honor Harrington novels plays with the Great Man theory, it also subverts it, Hard at times. Sometimes talented people in the right place can make huge changes even though they are not the "Great Men" (Harkness, Shannon and her "Oops" and a few).

As for the theory itself it's both right at times and wrong in others. Sometimes a very talented person can have a huge influence of society. Other times not matter how talented and powerful a person is they can't do a damn thing to change society. It all depends on the situation.

[Ruslan]

I guess my real question is, could you write a series like Honor Harrington or A Song of Ice and Fire, focusing on people like Honor Harrington or Daenerys Targaryen, without giving the impression that they are the primary movers of the events in question?

I believe you could. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharpe_(novel_series))

[Flickerdart]

Aren't the CIAPHAS CAIN, HERO OF THE IMPERIUM books a good fit for "protagonist is not the primary mover of the events in question"? The entire Grim Darkness of the Future is very much anti-Great Man, given that the Emperor is dead and Chaos is, well, Chaos.

[BRC]

I would actually argue that the Song of Ice and Fire mostly runs counter to the Great Man Theory. While the whims of the nobility direct the plot and actions in Westeros, GRRM seems to generally argue that the nobles themselves have been shaped by Westerosi society to the point that their actions were always going to result. People like Twyin, Cersei, and Littlefinger are the natural result of societal pressures, rather than single-handedly directing and shaping the society that they find themselves in.

The key to Great Man Theory, as I understand it, is the belief that those great men use their immense personal abilities to decide how society will behave, and society shapes itself to match. By contrast, the opposing theory argues that "great man" are created by their societies, and their actions are the natural result of those societies existing.

I think action fiction tends towards Great Man, because it's easier for us to see one person's effect on the world, and it's more dramatic if there are those moments where everything hangs in the balance. But you also have a lot of stories where a hero is a stand-in for society as a whole, which can look like Great Man on the surface, but is actually quite different.

As I was typing up the OP, I was kind of thinking the same thing, at least as regards ASoIaF.

Ned Stark's Honor influences the course of events, and most of the North seems to hero worship the Starks for being Honorable. We could read Ned Stark as just an example of the sort of grim, honor-and duty bound people that the North produces (Anti-Great Man), or as a Super Honorable Hero, whose extraordinary nature makes the rest of the North seek to emulate him (Great Man), or as something of a metaphor for northern/traditionally heroic values.

Plus, the whole Westerosi plotline has so many characters, that it defies the idea of a single "Great Man" (or Woman) being the primary mover of events.

That's why I used Daenerys as the example. She can't really be said to be a "product of her society", because, at least as she's presented, no single Society can take credit for her views the same way The North can be said to have shaped Ned Stark or Jon Snow, but that's another topic.



So, we could take the Westerosi/War of Five Kings plotline as an example of a popular story with epic stakes that does not lean towards the Great Man theory. By jumping between plot lines Martin prevents the reader from identifying any specific character as the Great Man who is shaping these events, and the Cast of characters is wide enough to avoid the neat story of a few specific Great Men clashign against each other.


I believe you could. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharpe_(novel_series))

I'm going to say that, while I haven't read the Sharpe series, as Historical Novels they don't quite count for this question. Since the big "Fate of Nations" type decisions are already a part of the Historical Record (Napoleon himself is the classic "Great Man"), the reader is never really going to come away saying "Man, the story of the Napoleonic Wars is the story of Richard Sharpe".


Aren't the CIAPHAS CAIN, HERO OF THE IMPERIUM books a good fit for "protagonist is not the primary mover of the events in question"? The entire Grim Darkness of the Future is very much anti-Great Man, given that the Emperor is dead and Chaos is, well, Chaos.

I would take the Cain books as the opposite, if anything. Traditionally the Military "Great Man" is somebody like Napoleon or Ceaser, the high commander in charge of all the armies. Ciaphas Cain is not in charge of the armies, but the stories tend to follow a similar pattern, where the outcome of whichever conflict is covered in that book ultimately comes down to something Cain or one of his companions (Usually Jergen) does personally.

Ciaphas Cain kills the Warboss, thus allowing the Imperium to win the war. Sure, there were other battles, but the REAL story about that war is the story of Ciaphus Cain.

Ciaphas Cain discovers, and destroys, the Genestealer nest. Ciaphas Cain leads the raid on the Cultists, and has Jergen kill the demon.

If Great Man theory is "The Story of [Significant event] is the Biography of [Significant Individual]", then I would argue that the Cain series is an Ur-Example, since its literally presented as an autobiography. Ciaphas Cain, Hero Of The Imperium, is such a Great Man that despite not necessarily wielding the most power, he is STILL Personally Responsible for the epic events in question.

Now, the Editor routinely says "Cain, as usually, doesn't get into anything that didn't involve him personally", and brings in other sources, but even those other sources tend to bring the story back to Cain. So, rather than indicate that Cain's story is just a small part of a larger situation, the interludes do the opposite, reinforcing the idea that this limited story (Cain's personal experiences), are the really important part of these events.

[Flickerdart]

Makes sense.

What about 1984, then?

[BRC]

Makes sense.

What about 1984, then?

1984 doesn't match the nature of the question, since Winston Smith is ultimately inconsequential in the story of global events, and exists as a lens for the reader to learn about the world. One could argue that Winston Smith's story is far more important in our world that it is in his own. Obviously, Winston Smith is important in his own story, but his own story is a small one, all things considered.


This is a question of Presentation. Great Man theory (At least in my view) oversimplifies complex historical events by boiling them down to the story of a single individual or group of individuals. Saying that "The story of Europe during the Napoleonic Wars is the Story of Napoleon" implies that everybody else is inherently less important than Napoleon. It casts Napoleon as the protagonist of these events, with everybody else as mere supporting cast for his grand epic. In the Story of Napoleon, the most important thing about Russia is that Napoleon lost an army trying to conquer it.


Now, apply that to a novel, where everybody else literally IS supporting cast to the Protagonist's grand epic. The war exists so that Honor Harrington can win it, because she's a fictional character in a book about herself winning a war.

So, if I invent a protagonist, invent an Army for them to be in charge of, an enemy for them to defeat, a nation for them to lead, and a world for them to inhabit. What does it mean to tell the story of this protagonist, with their army, nation, enemy, and world, without presenting the protagonist as the classical Great Man.

[Flickerdart]

Hm.

Then I nominate Joe Abercrombie's First Law trilogy. The protagonists are ultimately just dudes, despite being (or ending up in) in positions of substantial leadership.

They are ultimately manipulated by an ancient wizard in his own struggles, but the wizard isn't really a protagonist.

[Dienekes]

1984 doesn't match the nature of the question, since Winston Smith is ultimately inconsequential in the story of global events, and exists as a lens for the reader to learn about the world. One could argue that Winston Smith's story is far more important in our world that it is in his own. Obviously, Winston Smith is important in his own story, but his own story is a small one, all things considered.


This is a question of Presentation. Great Man theory (At least in my view) oversimplifies complex historical events by boiling them down to the story of a single individual or group of individuals. Saying that "The story of Europe during the Napoleonic Wars is the Story of Napoleon" implies that everybody else is inherently less important than Napoleon. It casts Napoleon as the protagonist of these events, with everybody else as mere supporting cast for his grand epic. In the Story of Napoleon, the most important thing about Russia is that Napoleon lost an army trying to conquer it.


Now, apply that to a novel, where everybody else literally IS supporting cast to the Protagonist's grand epic. The war exists so that Honor Harrington can win it, because she's a fictional character in a book about herself winning a war.

So, if I invent a protagonist, invent an Army for them to be in charge of, an enemy for them to defeat, a nation for them to lead, and a world for them to inhabit. What does it mean to tell the story of this protagonist, with their army, nation, enemy, and world, without presenting the protagonist as the classical Great Man.

It would most likely have the story imply or outright state that despite all of the heroes actions the world would keep going on without them, that ultimately to the grand scale of things whether their war is victorious or a defeat the common lives will be unchanged, the world will keep spinning, and the economic changes will be far more influential than anything they actually are able to do.

Actually, it might be because I have the game on my mind, but I think one of the more interesting examples for this would be the Dark Souls game, at least the first one:


If you play the game "straight' you will have a story where your character is "The Chosen Undead" a hero of prophecy who will re-light the flames of creation and keep the entire world from falling into darkness. In essence you are the single most important being since Lord Gwyn, who, for all intents and purposes is a god.

But, if you actually go through all the clues, details, and descriptions, you realize that is all bunk. The prophecy was created by a few of the old gods to keep undead warriors throwing themselves at the desired outcome until one of the bumbling pseudo-immortal imbeciles re-lights the thing. The outcome is somewhat inevitable, society has been shaped for a the Chosen Undead to eventually arise by shear law of probability. You just happen to be playing as that character. Now you could make the claim that the prophecy creators are then the "great men" but, Gwyndolin and Frampt are really just reacting to the nature of the overly oppressive setting. Only an undead has a chance of fulfilling everything that needs to be done, so they have gotten an undead to do it. Everything comes back to why the setting is forcing the actions of the protagonist and everyone else.



Hm.

Then I nominate Joe Abercrombie's First Law trilogy. The protagonists are ultimately just dudes, despite being (or ending up in) in positions of substantial leadership.

They are ultimately manipulated by an ancient wizard in his own struggles, but the wizard isn't really a protagonist.

Even then, while I agree Abercrombie definitely likes to throw the pointlessness of heroics into his protagonists faces. We do see hints that a few of them actually are directly altering history:


It just usually is all about what they are doing before or after they interacted with Bayaz. Take Logan Ninefingers for example, he basically forged an entire kingdom with his own bloodstained hands with the help of his one friend. Which is actually a pretty huge deal. Then there is ‎Monza Murcatto who took her kingdom and finally stepped away from the control of Bayaz completely.

I'd also argue against it being a real true case of being against the Great Man Theory, since basically the entire setting is a playground for Bayaz and Khalul to fight over, and before them Almighty Euz and his sons basically ran the entire world.

[BRC]

I
Even then, while I agree Abercrombie definitely likes to throw the pointlessness of heroics into his protagonists faces. We do see hints that a few of them actually are directly altering history:


The Characters directly altering History doesn't neccessarily make them a Great Man. Napoleon existed, and certainly directly altered history, nobody debates that. The question is, do we view him merely as an influential actor in these events, or do we view him as the primary, perhaps sole important reason FOR these events.

The Characters directly altering history on an epic scale is a prerequisite for this question. The important thing is, does the story present them as Extraordinary Individuals, whose extraordinary nature and deeds are the most important thing in the story?

[Kitten Champion]

Hm.

Then I nominate Joe Abercrombie's First Law trilogy. The protagonists are ultimately just dudes, despite being (or ending up in) in positions of substantial leadership.

They are ultimately manipulated by an ancient wizard in his own struggles, but the wizard isn't really a protagonist.

I would argue the exact opposite, The First Law books express how the world is run by a few powerful individuals and the systems and ideologies that are built around them are simply hollow constructs they manipulate to their own benefit and everyone who'd try to change the status quo is ultimately screwed. That those characters aren't the protagonists doesn't change the wider narrative of the world, the "dudes" are either the result of or part of the machinations of these powerful beings actions -- which is the point of seeing it from their perspective.

[HandofShadows]

Now, apply that to a novel, where everybody else literally IS supporting cast to the Protagonist's grand epic. The war exists so that Honor Harrington can win it, because she's a fictional character in a book about herself winning a war.


Not really. Spoiler for how Honor's story was supposed to end. Honor was supposed to be killed at the Battle of Manticore and her kid was supposed to finish the story. But some of the other writers kicked up the story timeline and brought Mesa Alignment storyline out a lot sooner than Weber had originally planned. So Alistair McKeon was killed instead.

[golentan]

Ever read the Vorkosigan Saga?

The primary character for most of the series (Miles Vorkosigan) is a tremendously influential person who has used his wealth, noble lineage, and intellectual gifts to shape the fate of worlds, affecting millions of lives and changing planetary governance. His father was the head of a regency government of three planets which, again, changed the course of history. His mother both influenced the course of an invasion of another world, helping prevent a hostile military takeover, and ended a... rival claimant's civil war by as it were cutting the head off the snake. His foster brother is the undisputed supreme ruler of that empire. His grandfather led the resistance army against an even larger interstellar empire, freeing their backwards planet from becoming a minor tributary in the accounting of a very powerful force indeed.

He is also quoted a number of times as being against the great man theory. He mentions that he wouldn't be able to do a tenth of what he has accomplished if he didn't have thousands of loyal subordinates with skills of their own, he claims that leadership consists of finding a group of people marching somewhere and putting yourself at the head of the column, and both he and his liege Emperor Gregor have basically referred to the process of reform and change as using the existing levers of power with enough care that they don't break off in your hands and cause a revolution (Gregor is fond of pointing out that despite being a monarch with hereditary absolute power, the key check on his ability to speak things into law is the possibility of assassination or revolution should he treat his job as an entitlement rather than a service position).

Heck, when Miles is meeting with the descendant of a general who lost a war due largely to the resistance movement led by Miles' grandfather, he says "I am not a proponent of the hero-theory of disaster. General Yenaro had the misfortune to be the last of five successive ghem-generals who lost the Barrayaran War, and thus the sole inheritor of a, as it were, tontine of blame."

One of the key messages of the stories seems to be "If you're in the right place at the right time, you can put some spin on the die, but the throw is made by societal pressures and factors, and the big thing that changes those is the use of information and technology to best effect."

[Dienekes]

The Characters directly altering History doesn't neccessarily make them a Great Man. Napoleon existed, and certainly directly altered history, nobody debates that. The question is, do we view him merely as an influential actor in these events, or do we view him as the primary, perhaps sole important reason FOR these events.

The Characters directly altering history on an epic scale is a prerequisite for this question. The important thing is, does the story present them as Extraordinary Individuals, whose extraordinary nature and deeds are the most important thing in the story?

For Murcatto? Yes. For Bayaz and Khalul? Yes. For Ninefingers? It's lesser, but I'd still argue yes. He is pretty constantly shown to be extraordinarily unique with his talking to spirits, his berserking rage, that allows him to shape the world. To admittedly, a lesser extent than the others. However, of the other protagonists he is somewhat unique, Jezal and Glokta are very much tied directly to what is being forced upon them.

That said, what is being forced upon them is directly in the hands of a very powerful wizard who has been controlling half the world since time immemorial.

[BRC]

Ever read the Vorkosigan Saga?

The primary character for most of the series (Miles Vorkosigan) is a tremendously influential person who has used his wealth, noble lineage, and intellectual gifts to shape the fate of worlds, affecting millions of lives and changing planetary governance. His father was the head of a regency government of three planets which, again, changed the course of history. His mother both influenced the course of an invasion of another world, helping prevent a hostile military takeover, and ended a... rival claimant's civil war by as it were cutting the head off the snake. His foster brother is the undisputed supreme ruler of that empire. His grandfather led the resistance army against an even larger interstellar empire, freeing their backwards planet from becoming a minor tributary in the accounting of a very powerful force indeed.

He is also quoted a number of times as being against the great man theory. He mentions that he wouldn't be able to do a tenth of what he has accomplished if he didn't have thousands of loyal subordinates with skills of their own, he claims that leadership consists of finding a group of people marching somewhere and putting yourself at the head of the column, and both he and his liege Emperor Gregor have basically referred to the process of reform and change as using the existing levers of power with enough care that they don't break off in your hands and cause a revolution (Gregor is fond of pointing out that despite being a monarch with hereditary absolute power, the key check on his ability to speak things into law is the possibility of assassination or revolution should he treat his job as an entitlement rather than a service position).

Heck, when Miles is meeting with the descendant of a general who lost a war due largely to the resistance movement led by Miles' grandfather, he says "I am not a proponent of the hero-theory of disaster. General Yenaro had the misfortune to be the last of five successive ghem-generals who lost the Barrayaran War, and thus the sole inheritor of a, as it were, tontine of blame."

One of the key messages of the stories seems to be "If you're in the right place at the right time, you can put some spin on the die, but the throw is made by societal pressures and factors, and the big thing that changes those is the use of information and technology to best effect."
That's perhaps the most direct answer to the question I could imagine. Have the Protagonist explicitly reject the idea that they are an Extraordinary Individual shaping the world with their Extraordinary Skills.

[Lethologica]

Foundation is both example and counterexample, in that the great men of the story are merely the faces of psychohistorical forces playing out across generations, but there was still one particular great man (Seldon) who appeared at the crux to set those forces in motion. (How this plays out across the rest of the series is another story, especially once the likes of R. Daneel Olivaw get involved.)

[Bohandas]

Makes sense.

What about 1984, then?

I think that depemds on whether we take Big Brother to be a real person or just another fabrication of the Ministry of Truth

[Lord Raziere]

Foundation is both example and counterexample, in that the great men of the story are merely the faces of psychohistorical forces playing out across generations, but there was still one particular great man (Seldon) who appeared at the crux to set those forces in motion. (How this plays out across the rest of the series is another story, especially once the likes of R. Daneel Olivaw get involved.)

Except for The Mule, who Great Mans his way into nearly derailing the entire plan Seldon sets into motion. Though mostly through his psychic emotional powers.

[BRC]

I actually realized that, of all things, Star Wars, or at least the Original Trilogy, pulls off a story of Epic Scale, with Extraordinary Individuals being directly involved, without lending itself to a Great Man perspective.


In the Original Trilogy, the two big moments that alter the fate of the Galaxy are the destruction of the first death star, and to a greater extent, the destruction of the Second and the death of the Emperor.

With the first Death Star, while Luke is a good pilot, and is ultimately the one who pulls the trigger, the story doesn't present him as an Exceptional pilot, and surviving the trench run and hitting the exhaust port, while an impressive feat, is presented as something that any of the X-Wing pilots could have done. Luke just happened to be the last pilot standing, and even then he only made it because Han showed up.

With the Second, while Luke resolved Skywalker Family Drama and is technically responsible for the Emperor (and Vader's) Death, his involvement was ultimately basically meaningless, as far as the bigger picture was concerned. The Rebels took down the shield generator and blew up the death star. The Emperor and Vader would have died in the explosion regardless of Luke's efforts.

Han and Leia led the assault on the shield generator, but their victory isn't painted as the result of any extraordinary abilities on their part. There is no genius strategy, or amazing display of combat ability. If anything C-3PO get the credit for getting the Ewoks on their side.

So, while Star Wars is the story of extraordinary people, directly responsible for and involved with dramatic events, it's hard to view those events through a Great Man perspective.

[Legato Endless]

That's why I used Daenerys as the example. She can't really be said to be a "product of her society", because, at least as she's presented, no single Society can take credit for her views the same way The North can be said to have shaped Ned Stark or Jon Snow, but that's another topic.

But even Daenerys still fails the second aspect, which is to say, even as an alien outsider she's impotent without societal forces treading in her direction. The entire Mereen plotline is a rebuttal to the idea the the great man, especially as conquerer, can simply step in and reshape society to their will, at least not without burning to ash everything that came before. Danny, even with super weapons, utterly fails to change things on a substantive level for average people in the city, the institutions she came to overthrow keep on ticking under different labels.

Honor definitely plays the theory straight, because even when it's not the preeminent protagonist, it's still the various pulpy character inflicting their will upon the cosmos. Just because the Great Man isn't the famous guy center stage doesn't change that he exists. The fact that Honor originally had a successor doesn't change that.

A frankly better subversion for something non historical would be the Hunger Games trilogy. Katniss' values are extremely narrow and pedestrian, and she can't by intent or accident single handedly change anything on her own, at best she survives and only with an extensive support network. Her only real power is as symbol and feedback loop for the various societal castes, inspiring/reinforcing them into doing things they were already supremely motivated for. And these only rarely coincide with what she wants, she's only potent on anything other than a personal level when she's the flag various cultural forces reads what they want into. The completely interchangeable nature of the antagonists reinforces this, as Snow, Coin, and everyone in-between are just expendable byproducts of their milieu.

[BRC]

A frankly better subversion for something non historical would be the Hunger Games trilogy. Katniss' values are extremely narrow and pedestrian, and she can't by intent or accident single handedly change anything on her own, at best she survives and only with an extensive support network. Her only real power is as symbol and feedback loop for the various societal castes, inspiring/reinforcing them into doing things they were already supremely motivated for. And these only rarely coincide with what she wants, she's only potent on anything other than a personal level when she's the flag various cultural forces reads what they want into. The completely interchangeable nature of the antagonists reinforces this, as Snow, Coin, and everyone in-between are just expendable byproducts of their milieu.
Oh Yeah, The Hunger Games is a fascinating approach.

The In-Universe histories would almost certainly paint Katniss as the "Great Man", whose Charisma and leadership are responsible for the rebellion, but the books themselves make a huge point of painting her as a puppet, both of other people, and of the situation she's in. Her role as a leader, even a figurehead, is less to do with her Charisma than her PR team.

[Dienekes]

Foundation is both example and counterexample, in that the great men of the story are merely the faces of psychohistorical forces playing out across generations, but there was still one particular great man (Seldon) who appeared at the crux to set those forces in motion. (How this plays out across the rest of the series is another story, especially once the likes of R. Daneel Olivaw get involved.)

Foundation is interesting since the very beginning of the book says their was an age ruled by great men doing great things. But by the power of math the prophet guy knew that age was ending.

[Razade]

While it's a movie (based on a book), would Forrest Gump not count?

[Aedilred]

While it's a movie (based on a book), would Forrest Gump not count?

It's been a while since I've seen it, but weren't Forrest's exploits essentially presented as dumb luck? He's the feather caught in the breeze from the film bookends, with no real control over his direction and just happening to bump into things and alter situations by the mere fact of his presence. Moreover (again, as far as I'm aware) he only achieved one thing of really history-altering significance, which was (accidentally) exposing Watergate. The (accidental) invention of the smiley face might count on a memetic level but was hardly world-changing.

For everything else he was a bystander, a relatively minor participant in other people's accomplishments, or the outcome only significantly affected him and his immediate circle. Even by the time he becomes incredibly rich and thus has the ability to affect the world meaningfully and deliberately, he basically goes into effective retirement as a lawnmower. He donated a lot of his money but we don't know what causes he donated to or what they did with them: it doesn't seem to have made much of a difference to the world as far as we can tell, nor did Forrest likely expect it to.

[Razade]

It's been a while since I've seen it, but weren't Forrest's exploits essentially presented as dumb luck? He's the feather caught in the breeze from the film bookends, with no real control over his direction and just happening to bump into things and alter situations by the mere fact of his presence. Moreover (again, as far as I'm aware) he only achieved one thing of really history-altering significance, which was (accidentally) exposing Watergate. The (accidental) invention of the smiley face might count on a memetic level but was hardly world-changing.

For everything else he was a bystander, a relatively minor participant in other people's accomplishments, or the outcome only significantly affected him and his immediate circle. Even by the time he becomes incredibly rich and thus has the ability to affect the world meaningfully and deliberately, he basically goes into effective retirement as a lawnmower. He donated a lot of his money but we don't know what causes he donated to or what they did with them: it doesn't seem to have made much of a difference to the world as far as we can tell, nor did Forrest likely expect it to.

Pretty much, the book doesn't portray him in quite the same way but the movie does. But isn't that exactly the question of the thread? It's Forrest's story but he isn't the most important or even an important to the events going on around him. Forrest isn't a Great Man. He's just a man.

[BRC]

Pretty much, the book doesn't portray him in quite the same way but the movie does. But isn't that exactly the question of the thread? It's Forrest's story but he isn't the most important or even an important to the events going on around him. Forrest isn't a Great Man. He's just a man.

Not quite. Nobody would ever consider Forrest a Great Man. This isn't about Books with Humble Protagonists, there are plenty of those.

This is about Stories where the protagonist COULD be portrayed as a Great Man, as the Unique, Extraordinary Individual Shaping Their Age, but the story does NOT paint them as such.

[Razade]

Not quite. Nobody would ever consider Forrest a Great Man. This isn't about Books with Humble Protagonists, there are plenty of those.

This is about Stories where the protagonist COULD be portrayed as a Great Man, as the Unique, Extraordinary Individual Shaping Their Age, but the story does NOT paint them as such.

Oh, then I suggest Banewreaker and Godslayer by Jacqueline Carey.

[Telonius]

I would actually argue that the Song of Ice and Fire mostly runs counter to the Great Man Theory. While the whims of the nobility direct the plot and actions in Westeros, GRRM seems to generally argue that the nobles themselves have been shaped by Westerosi society to the point that their actions were always going to result. People like Twyin, Cersei, and Littlefinger are the natural result of societal pressures, rather than single-handedly directing and shaping the society that they find themselves in.

The key to Great Man Theory, as I understand it, is the belief that those great men use their immense personal abilities to decide how society will behave, and society shapes itself to match. By contrast, the opposing theory argues that "great man" are created by their societies, and their actions are the natural result of those societies existing.

I think action fiction tends towards Great Man, because it's easier for us to see one person's effect on the world, and it's more dramatic if there are those moments where everything hangs in the balance. But you also have a lot of stories where a hero is a stand-in for society as a whole, which can look like Great Man on the surface, but is actually quite different.

It depends on the style of writing, I think. If you're writing a tragedy it can certainly be action-packed, but modern "action" doesn't tend to tragedy. (Somebody write this term paper: audiences went to The Matrix sequels expecting heroic action and got disgusted when they discovered a tragedy).

[BWR]

Foundation is both example and counterexample, in that the great men of the story are merely the faces of psychohistorical forces playing out across generations, but there was still one particular great man (Seldon) who appeared at the crux to set those forces in motion. (How this plays out across the rest of the series is another story, especially once the likes of R. Daneel Olivaw get involved.)

I'd argue even Seldon was more of a counterexample, because the math would likely have been discovered at one point anyway, and whether you like the prequels or not, they did show that he was far from alone in actually developing psychohistory, even if he was the first to propose something like it.
The Mule is a much better example of a Great Man because his existence was a fluke, he was never predicted and he messed up the predictions.

[Lethologica]

I'd argue even Seldon was more of a counterexample, because the math would likely have been discovered at one point anyway, and whether you like the prequels or not, they did show that he was far from alone in actually developing psychohistory, even if he was the first to propose something like it.
The Mule is a much better example of a Great Man because his existence was a fluke, he was never predicted and he messed up the predictions.
Seldon's signal contribution isn't developing psychohistory per se, it's setting in motion all the events of the series. The idea that one man made a decision that singlehandedly manipulated the social forces of generations to come and thereby cut the interregnum from 30,000 years to 1,000 years is a Great Man idea. And to me, the fact that Seldon's psychohistoric lineage (in the form of Second Foundation) triumphs over the Mule shows that Seldon's Great Man status was the truer, even though the Mule upset Seldon's original predictions.

[HandofShadows]

It depends on the style of writing, I think. If you're writing a tragedy it can certainly be action-packed, but modern "action" doesn't tend to tragedy. (Somebody write this term paper: audiences went to The Matrix sequels expecting heroic action and got disgusted when they discovered a tragedy).

The end of the Matrix series was much more a bittersweet and a Gainax Ending than a tragedy. But people clearly didn't expect that either.

[Legato Endless]

The end of the Matrix series was much more a bittersweet and a Gainax Ending than a tragedy. But people clearly didn't expect that either.

The final fight scene was definitely a tragedy to cap any action series.

[Bohandas]

The end of the Matrix series was much more a bittersweet and a Gainax Ending than a tragedy. But people clearly didn't expect that either.

There's also the issue of the sci-fi getting much softer in the sequels. The fantastic elements of the first film can be explained away as sloppy research, bad math, believing old wives tales, and studio meddling, but with Neo's acquisition of telekinesis and the ability to connect to the matrix telepathically the sequels were explicitly in the realm of science-fantasy (unless you believe the interpretation that Zion and the rest of the "real world" were actually another simulation)

[kraftcheese]

What do you folks think about Paul and his kids in Dune?

Sure, Paul and Leto II could be percieved as "great men" but the coming of a full precog at some point has been engineered by the Bene Gesserit for centuries, and the inevitability of the kwisatz haderach's predictions pretty much make it so he's carrying out predetermined actions, none of his choices matter because he knows what he's going to do!

[Dienekes]

What do you folks think about Paul and his kids in Dune?

Sure, Paul and Leto II could be percieved as "great men" but the coming of a full precog at some point has been engineered by the Bene Gesserit for centuries, and the inevitability of the kwisatz haderach's predictions pretty much make it so he's carrying out predetermined actions, none of his choices matter because he knows what he's going to do!

It gets weird with God Emperor of Dune, since Leto II sees a horrifying future and personally uses his powers to change history into his Golden Path.

But, Leto II isn't the protagonist of God Emperor of Dune, it's Duncan Idaho. And Duncan's actions, and, in truth, all the actions of every society and every interaction are all very much analyzed by how societal pressures force them to go about. Leto espouses how the pressures of civilization are what make them do everything.

So, Dune could be seen as both Great Man and not, depending on what you want to focus on. Leto II being really the only counter-example in the series. And Leto II has things about him that arguably no longer qualifies him as a man, more an inscrutable godlike object that through endless time and knowledge can shape those societal pressures.

[Legato Endless]

Dune rejects the formative independence aspect of the Great Man Theory, but it's too concerned about the power of the Hero to deny their potency versus society. The genetic determinism of Dune means that Great Men in some way exist, although they are decidedly the product of long breeding programs and as beholden to their circumstances as anyone else. However, humanity's instinctual desire to give up their independent thinking to 'one greater' gives heroes undo power to reshape much according to their own desires. History isn't merely the biography of Great Men in Dune, but once they step onstage they can still do a lot more than merely tweak the needle.

[Rakaydos]

both he and his liege Emperor Gregor have basically referred to the process of reform and change as using the existing levers of power with enough care that they don't break off in your hands and cause a revolution (Gregor is fond of pointing out that despite being a monarch with hereditary absolute power, the key check on his ability to speak things into law is the possibility of assassination or revolution should he treat his job as an entitlement rather than a service position).

I think this has the right approach. A story is a Great Man story if the existing levers of power are up to the task of whatever the Great Man needs doing. But if socital pressure is too strong, the levers too weak, one cannot be a proper great man- you're limited to doing what you can to divert a raging river.

[The Glyphstone]

Personally, I'd consider the Vorkosigan Saga to in fact be a story of a Great Man, just a very humble one who insists he is otherwise. For all that Miles talks about being dependent on his subordinates, almost every novel has him personally bringing about some massively impactful event through raw charisma and manic determination.

[Rakaydos]

Miles, sure. But is Mark? In Mirror dance, Mark tries to use Miles' tools, his levers of power, to accomplish something MARK wants done, breaks them, is saved by Miles intervention, at the cost of miles own life*, and is swept off to a home he never knew by societal pressures.
*(and letting his frozen-but-revivable body be a maguffin for plot)

Or Ivan, in his standalone novel? Or Cordelia, in any of her stories? The societal pressures of barrayar are major plot points in all of them, that cannot be so easilly swayed.

Miles might be an archetypal Great Man, but not all Vorkosigan stories are great man stories.

[The Glyphstone]

Sure, I'll grant that. When LMB delves into the world of side characters, they're not Great Men. But the Saga as a whole is still that of a Great Man and the people who orbit around him - Mark's entire existence is literally defined by that of Miles, either when he was impersonating him or when he was struggling to be someone other than 'the clone of Miles Vorkosigan'. Ivan, fair enough, is just an ordinary person, and Cordelia as well - she's an extraordinary individual, but doesn't shape the fate of empires the way her son does.

[Olinser]

I was popping into the Honor Harrington thread, when I saw this post



And it raised an interesting question. I don't know much about Honor Harrington (Read two books), so I figured it was worth making a separate thread.

If you are telling a story of epic scope, one dealing with the fate of nations, with your protagonists directly involved in those events (The story of Kings and Generals, rather than the story of a foot soldier swept up in the conflict), do you inherently bias the reader towards a "Great Man" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Man_theory) view of the events in question?


Consider, for example,A Song of Ice and Fire, where most of the events of the books have been based on the whims,schemes, and abilities of a handful of characters.

Great Man Theory is summed up by saying "The history of the world is but the biography of great men", and the aSoIaF books certainly seem to agree, at least as far as Westeros is concerned. While Martin drops into smaller-scale stories, much of the big moments of the plot follow the decisions of a handful of powerful individuals. Daenerys Targaryen fits the mold the best, a charismatic leader with strong principles and extraordinary abilities (And Dragons), reshaping the world according to her designs.

I guess my real question is, could you write a series like Honor Harrington or A Song of Ice and Fire, focusing on people like Honor Harrington or Daenerys Targaryen, without giving the impression that they are the primary movers of the events in question?

I think what you are trying to get at is known as Peripheral Narration (in video games it is known as Non-POV Protagonist), where the POV character for narration is not really one of the 'main' characters, but merely a bystander to the true conflict taking place.

On the literature front, Moby **** and Twenty Thousand Leagues Under The Sea are classic examples of this style. In both cases, the narrator does effectively nothing to affect the course of events. Ultimately, the books are the stories of Captain Ahab and Captain Nemo, NOT Ishmael or the Professor.

On the move front, V for Vendetta is the biggest example of this off the top of my head. Probably 90% of the story follows the detective and Evey Hammond - and yet none of them actually DOES anything to affect the course of events until the very end of the story.

Fight Club also did something similar - where for 95% of the movie Edward Norton is effectively a bystander to Durdon's plans (until the twist ending, of course).

[The Glyphstone]

Big Trouble In Little China, perhaps? Jack is a sidekick who thinks he's the hero, the protagonist but not the main character.

[HandofShadows]

Big Trouble In Little China, perhaps? Jack is a sidekick who thinks he's the hero, the protagonist but not the main character.

Jack is the main character of the movie, but not the story (If that makes sense). And as you say he thinks he's the hero when he isn't. Or course there is the "Reflexes" bit at the end which I think muddies things a little.

[BRC]

I think what you are trying to get at is known as Peripheral Narration (in video games it is known as Non-POV Protagonist), where the POV character for narration is not really one of the 'main' characters, but merely a bystander to the true conflict taking place.

On the literature front, Moby **** and Twenty Thousand Leagues Under The Sea are classic examples of this style. In both cases, the narrator does effectively nothing to affect the course of events. Ultimately, the books are the stories of Captain Ahab and Captain Nemo, NOT Ishmael or the Professor.

On the move front, V for Vendetta is the biggest example of this off the top of my head. Probably 90% of the story follows the detective and Evey Hammond - and yet none of them actually DOES anything to affect the course of events until the very end of the story.

Fight Club also did something similar - where for 95% of the movie Edward Norton is effectively a bystander to Durdon's plans (until the twist ending, of course).


Big Trouble In Little China, perhaps? Jack is a sidekick who thinks he's the hero, the protagonist but not the main character.

Let me restate the premise of the thread, because I think some people are missing it.

The "Great Man" is not merely the protagonist, or hero, of a story, although it's telling that people are assuming that every protagonist must be a "Great Man".

The Great Man is similar to the theory of the Ubermensch. They are an individual of extraordinary talent, ability, and will. According to Great Man theory, history just kind of sits around until a Great Man appears to change the status quo, and the rest of the world is forced to respond. For the classic political/millitary examples, think about people like Napoleon, Ceaser, Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, ect.
So, the story of a Great Man must be a story of epic scope, one concerning the fate of nations. Moby **** is about a single captain's quest for revenge, and the destruction of a single ship. Were it a real event, not recorded by Hermann Melville, it probably wouldn't have been a blip on the global radar. Captain Ahab may be the true protagonist of Moby ****, but he's not a Great Man.

Forrest Gump is not a Great Man, neither is Sherlock Holmes, Jack Burton,John McClane, James Bond, or Indiana Jones. Their stories are all too small. They simply don't wield enough power.

Nobody denies that Napoleon was a powerful leader, but Great Man theory implies that Napoleon was not JUST a powerful leader, but that the events of Europe in the early 19th century are largely the result of Napoleon's impact, rather than Napoleon in addition to the complex social, political, economic, and geographical situation in which he found himself. Great Man theory takes the story of an Era, and centers it around one man.

Consider, by contrast, the Events of Die Hard. The story of Die Hard is small enough that it is perfectly reasonable to center a story around one man. John McClane personally beat up the criminals, snuck around the tower, and shot the guns. Saying "The Story of Nakatomi Plaza is largely the story of John McClane" is a perfectly reasonable statement, because Nakatomi Plaza is one night, and there were maybe thirty people in the tower. John McClane may have been the only person in that tower who could do what he did, but, at least in the first movie, he wasn't painted as being an extraordinary individual overall. In fact, that was kind of the point, he was the everyman hero. Had you replaced John McClane, NYPD, with Bob Gunbullets, Navy SEALS, you could have had basically the same story.

James Bond doesn't count either, sure he thwarts schemes to take over the world, but the Great Man is always a force for change, and Bond defends the status quo for the most part. Had his villains succeeded, they could be considered Great Men, but they failed.

I would put Dune as a classic Great Man story. Yes, Paul Atreides was the result of generations of breeding, and had Bene Gesserit pre-laced myths behind him, but that's just a sci-fi take on the prophesied "Chosen One". From how I recall the book (It's been years since I've read it), it was very much Paul's personal abilities and charisma that lead to the overthrow of the Emperor and the establishment of a new type of power in the universe. The implication is that without Paul Atreides, nothing of the sort would have happened.

This thread is about stories that COULD paint their protagonist (Whether or not that's the viewpoint character) as a Great Man, but do not. Hunger Games was brought up earlier, and I think that's a great example. The books could have painted Katniss as a charismatic rebel leader leading a popular uprising, rather than as a figurehead puppet being presented as a charismatic rebel leader, while actually doing very little of the Leadership.

Star Wars makes Luke Skywalker directly involved with the Empire's downfall, but doesn't imply that he is the only one who could have done it. Luke Skywalker, despite being directly involved in events of Massive Scale, simply isn't presented as having enough power to be painted as a Great Man. Had we seen Luke as the leader of the Rebellion, personally responsible for formulating plans of attack, or even if the Emperor wouldn't have been killed five minutes later when the Death Star exploded, then we could say that Luke Skywalker Brought Down the Empire. Instead, the Rebellion Brought Down The Empire, and Luke was there. Luke's role in the Skywalker Family Drama is significant, sure, but that's not the Epic Scope plotline.


TLDR: For this thread, the story must

1) Be of Epic Scope. The events of the story, if they really happened, would show up in the history books.

2) Feature a Protagonist who is directly connected to, and responsible for, those events.

3)The Protagonist must, by nature, wield some sort of great power, whether personal or political.

and finally
4) The story must NOT present the protagonist as a Great Man. Somebody who was uniquely capable of achieving what they did, not just by circumstance, but by ability. If the story implies that only THIS PERSON, in THIS SITUATION, could have achieved what they did, then it is a Great Man Story (as opposed to some other person that could reasonably be assumed to exist, in the same situation).

[georgie_leech]

The Wheel of Time takes an interesting spin on things. While much of the plot is driven by the various protagonists, and many of them are in-universe regarded as Big Deals, the setting makes the point that they basically had to exist. Trying to avoid spoilers here, but for instance there was a rash of Fake Chosen Ones before the actual Chosen One shows up, because for lack of a more detailed/spoilery discussion, the universe and/or fate is "trying" to make the chosen one exist. So on the one hand there are clear examples of Great (Wo)Men in the story, but on the other they're also painted as more or less being forced into the role by forces outside of their control, not always cultural ones.

[Bohandas]

...not a Great Man, neither is...Jack Burton

Lo Pan may have been though, possibly Egg Shen as well as Lo Pan's defeat is actually mostly attributable to him.

[Legato Endless]

The Wheel of Time takes an interesting spin on things. While much of the plot is driven by the various protagonists, and many of them are in-universe regarded as Big Deals, the setting makes the point that they basically had to exist. Trying to avoid spoilers here, but for instance there was a rash of Fake Chosen Ones before the actual Chosen One shows up, because for lack of a more detailed/spoilery discussion, the universe and/or fate is "trying" to make the chosen one exist. So on the one hand there are clear examples of Great (Wo)Men in the story, but on the other they're also painted as more or less being forced into the role by forces outside of their control, not always cultural ones.

Wheel of Time is basically The Great Man Theory: An Allegory (with a side of gender politics). Ta'vern are simply explicitly identifiable great people, endowed by the World-Spirit (the Pattern) to fulfill or correct the intended future, whose presence and personal attributes warp all the lives around them.

The greatest among them, the Dragon Reborn is a textbook example of...

... only THIS PERSON, in THIS SITUATION, could have achieved what they did, [thus making it] a Great Man Story.

Divine Providence creating the Great Man doesn't subvert this, it's one of the general justifications for why Great Man supposedly exist.

[georgie_leech]

Wheel of Time is basically The Great Man Theory: An Allegory (with a side of gender politics). Ta'vern are simply explicitly identifiable great people, endowed by the World-Spirit (the Pattern) to fulfill or correct the intended future, whose presence and personal attributes warp all the lives around them.

The greatest among them, the Dragon Reborn is a textbook example of...


Divine Providence creating the Great Man doesn't subvert this, it's one of the general justifications for why Great Man supposedly exist.

It's not that divine providence creates them, it's that the universe genuinely doesn't let them do anything else. It's like a Railroading DM trying to get the players back on the rails, ta'veren are explicitly called out as not being able to go against their purpose, at least in the broad strokes. The Dragon Reborn will be the Dragon Reborn, regardless of how much they want to not be that and their efforts against it. One of them gets roped into fulfilling their part despite their explicit attempts to do the exact opposite, or at least run from it as hard as possible, and fortune (see what I did there, people that read the books?) takes an almost gleeful delight in stringing them along. Is it really Great Man-ing if they change the world despite their best efforts to the contrary?

Heck, Buddhism in real life really can be largely traced back to one individual, and the Buddha Allegory in the books results in everyone caring about the tree he meditated under instead of the Buddha himself.

[Legato Endless]

It's like a Railroading DM trying to get the players back on the rails, ta'veren are explicitly called out as not being able to go against their purpose, at least in the broad strokes. The Dragon Reborn will be the Dragon Reborn, regardless of how much they want to not be that and their efforts against it. One of them gets roped into fulfilling their part despite their explicit attempts to do the exact opposite, or at least run from it as hard as possible, and fortune (see what I did there, people that read the books?) takes an almost gleeful delight in stringing them along.

That just makes them Great Men in a deterministic world, it doesn't change their fundamental nature. Being a Great Man doesn't necessitate you have perfect freedom, just that society and the world bend to your cataclysmic actions.


Is it really Great Man-ing if they change the world despite their best efforts to the contrary?

Yes. The reluctant world changer is an old trope, and slots perfectly into Great Man Theory. Napoleon exploited it for propaganda.

Hegel takes the viewpoint that a Great Man does nothing more than reveal the inevitable future. And furthermore, that this creates a great deal of misery in them:


Great men have formed purposes to satisfy themselves, not others. Whatever prudent designs and counsels they might have learned from others, would be the more limited and inconsistent features in their career; for it was they who best understood affairs; from whom others learned, and approved, or at least acquiesced in — their policy. For that Spirit which had taken this fresh step in history is the inmost soul of all individuals; but in a state of unconsciousness which the great men in question aroused. Their fellows, therefore, follow these soul-leaders; for they feel the irresistible power of their own inner Spirit thus embodied. If we go on to cast a look at the fate of these World-Historical persons, whose vocation it was to be the agents of the World-Spirit — we shall find it to have been no happy one. They attained no calm enjoyment; their whole life was labor and trouble; their whole nature was nought else but their master-passion. When their object is attained they fall off like empty hulls from the kernel.
-The Philosophy of History

The only twisting divergence here is that the Pattern is insufferably/comically blatant about this, so people get to make more overtly futile acts of rebellion, and the compulsion doesn't manifest internally, it gets imposed on you from on high for added drama. So normally the DM is subtler and assigns your character a passion/compulsion, but the *Pattern is a lazy/apathetic jerk in this role-play metaphor, but you still qualify for the Great Man prestige class, whether you wanted to or not.

*Which isn't to criticize the device itself in the novels, just that, I don't think anyone would want a DM like that.

Here, if I might make an example by way of video games:

In Civilization, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization_(video_game)) you are a Great Person. The Immortal Tyrant who essentially decides the course of your country with little exception beyond the occasionally road block you can workaround, and the story of the world is of you and a few other Great People deciding history. Occasionally other Great People show up in a looser sense of the term, and they grant you some bonuses.

In Democracy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_(video_game)), you are again the leader of a nation, but you are not a Great Man. You rule, but only at the sufferance of various factions whom you must spend a great deal of time appeasing, and you are very disposable.

[georgie_leech]

I suppose my understanding of Great Man theory is that the Great (Wo)Men are shaping history by their choices and direction. That is, they are altering the world deliberately. Usually not just for the sake of change, but to accomplish some end. It seems odd to ascribe Great Man status to those that are accidentally changing the world, or otherwise aren't trying to make an impact. Like, whichever poor soul first brought the Plague to Europe clearly had a huge impact on the entire continent, but they just as clearly weren't trying to do so.

To put it another way, Great Men are Great Men because they stand tall over the forces of society around them and change them according to their will. I have a hard time viewing someone deliberately trying to avoid making waves of any sort and getting involved in grand events despite their best efforts to be trying to change the world in any meaningful way.

[Bohandas]

The Wheel of Time takes an interesting spin on things. While much of the plot is driven by the various protagonists, and many of them are in-universe regarded as Big Deals, the setting makes the point that they basically had to exist. Trying to avoid spoilers here, but for instance there was a rash of Fake Chosen Ones before the actual Chosen One shows up, because for lack of a more detailed/spoilery discussion, the universe and/or fate is "trying" to make the chosen one exist. So on the one hand there are clear examples of Great (Wo)Men in the story, but on the other they're also painted as more or less being forced into the role by forces outside of their control, not always cultural ones.
Like Rincewind from Discworld?

(Oh, speaking of Discworld, I think Lord Vetinari qualifies.

[georgie_leech]

Like Rincewind from Discworld?

(Oh, speaking of Discworld, I think Lord Vetinari qualifies.

Exactly. He's clearly getting involved with all sorts of shenanigans and major events, but he's also just as clearly not involved with any of it by choice.

[lt_murgen]

...Star Wars makes Luke Skywalker directly involved with the Empire's downfall, but doesn't imply that he is the only one who could have done it. Luke Skywalker, despite being directly involved in events of Massive Scale, simply isn't presented as having enough power to be painted as a Great Man. Had we seen Luke as the leader of the Rebellion, personally responsible for formulating plans of attack, or even if the Emperor wouldn't have been killed five minutes later when the Death Star exploded, then we could say that Luke Skywalker Brought Down the Empire. Instead, the Rebellion Brought Down The Empire, and Luke was there. Luke's role in the Skywalker Family Drama is significant, sure, but that's not the Epic Scope plotline.


TLDR: For this thread, the story must

1) Be of Epic Scope. The events of the story, if they really happened, would show up in the history books.

2) Feature a Protagonist who is directly connected to, and responsible for, those events.

3)The Protagonist must, by nature, wield some sort of great power, whether personal or political.

and finally
4) The story must NOT present the protagonist as a Great Man. Somebody who was uniquely capable of achieving what they did, not just by circumstance, but by ability. If the story implies that only THIS PERSON, in THIS SITUATION, could have achieved what they did, then it is a Great Man Story (as opposed to some other person that could reasonably be assumed to exist, in the same situation).

So, in theory, Palpatine would be the Great Man of the prequels? Without his personal, direct influence, none of the events in the movies would have happened.

[BRC]

So, in theory, Palpatine would be the Great Man of the prequels? Without his personal, direct influence, none of the events in the movies would have happened.

Nothing Theoretical about it. Palaptine is an archetypal Great Man.

[lt_murgen]

Nothing Theoretical about it. Palaptine is an archetypal Great Man.

In that case, yes, you can write a novel about a Great Man without biasing the reader towards that person.

[Wardog]

James Bond doesn't count either, sure he thwarts schemes to take over the world, but the Great Man is always a force for change, and Bond defends the status quo for the most part. Had his villains succeeded, they could be considered Great Men, but they failed.


I agree with most of what you say, but I don't think this is correct.

My understanding of the Great Man Theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Man_theory) is not so much "a single person changes the world", but the slightly more general "the course of history is down to the actions of powerful individuals".

In Bond, the fate of the world repeatedly comes down to the conflict between Bond and Blofeld (or Drax, or whoever is the villain of the film).

If Bond didn't exist, the world would be conquered/nuked/rebuilt by some super-villain or other. If those super-villains didn't exist, Bond wouldn't be necessary. The Villains are Great Men, because it is their plots that potentially conquer/destroy the world. Bond is a Great Man because he is the one that stops them.

[Legato Endless]

In that case, yes, you can write a novel about a Great Man without biasing the reader towards that person.

Very true. Also not BRC's query though.

[Bohandas]

I agree with most of what you say, but I don't think this is correct.

My understanding of the Great Man Theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Man_theory) is not so much "a single person changes the world", but the slightly more general "the course of history is down to the actions of powerful individuals".

In Bond, the fate of the world repeatedly comes down to the conflict between Bond and Blofeld (or Drax, or whoever is the villain of the film).

If Bond didn't exist, the world would be conquered/nuked/rebuilt by some super-villain or other. If those super-villains didn't exist, Bond wouldn't be necessary. The Villains are Great Men, because it is their plots that potentially conquer/destroy the world. Bond is a Great Man because he is the one that stops them.

Which goes back to what I said about Lo Pan and Egg Shen from Big Trouble in Little China

[BRC]

I agree with most of what you say, but I don't think this is correct.

My understanding of the Great Man Theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Man_theory) is not so much "a single person changes the world", but the slightly more general "the course of history is down to the actions of powerful individuals".

In Bond, the fate of the world repeatedly comes down to the conflict between Bond and Blofeld (or Drax, or whoever is the villain of the film).

If Bond didn't exist, the world would be conquered/nuked/rebuilt by some super-villain or other. If those super-villains didn't exist, Bond wouldn't be necessary. The Villains are Great Men, because it is their plots that potentially conquer/destroy the world. Bond is a Great Man because he is the one that stops them.

That raises an interesting point.

I think of Great Man theory as saying "History waits for a Great Man to show up and make things happen", so Bond doesn't count, because he maintains the status quo.

But, if we use a more general definition of a Great Man, Bond almost certainly counts.


Great Man Theory, like all historical theories, is only meant to be used with the benefit of hindsight.

So, using Bond as an example. Blofield is going to take over the world by, let's say, seizing control of the global nuclear arsenal with a computer virus and crowning himself global emperor. Bond shows up to stop him.

Are we now in a situation where the story presents two Great Men? The Stakes are high enough that, regardless of the outcome, History will be changed. Either Emperor Blofield will ascend, or he will not. Only Blofield has the cunning and power to engineer this scheme, so he's a Great Man, and only Bond has the skills to stop him, so Bond is also a Great Man. Are they both Great Men, or does only the winner get to leave their mark on history.

I suppose the test could be "If Events could not have gone as they did without Person X, then Person X is a Great Man".
Without Blofield, there would have been no plot, so Blofield counts.

Without Bond, Blofield's plot would have succeeded.

[Flickerdart]

Without Blofield, there would have been no plot, so Blofield counts.
Without Bond, there would still have been a plot. Does that mean Bond shouldn't count?

I suppose the question can be extended to Wellington, Blucher, and Kutuzov in the Napoleon example. They're undoubtedly great men, but are they Great Men because they defeated Napoleon? Or are they part of the general history, since they sought to maintain the status quo?

I suppose the logical conclusion of the Great Man theory is that there really isn't such a thing as history at all, only Great Men that act upon the world to set it into some kind of state. In this case, both Wellington and Bond are Great Men. In fact, this makes Bond the supreme Great Man - the entire state of the world is the state of the world that Bond desires, and he repeatedly triumphs over those who would change it.

[BRC]

Without Bond, there would still have been a plot. Does that mean Bond shouldn't count?

I suppose the question can be extended to Wellington, Blucher, and Kutuzov in the Napoleon example. They're undoubtedly great men, but are they Great Men because they defeated Napoleon? Or are they part of the general history, since they sought to maintain the status quo?

I suppose the logical conclusion of the Great Man theory is that there really isn't such a thing as history at all, only Great Men that act upon the world to set it into some kind of state. In this case, both Wellington and Bond are Great Men. In fact, this makes Bond the supreme Great Man - the entire state of the world is the state of the world that Bond desires, and he repeatedly triumphs over those who would change it.

By "Plot" i'm referring to Blofield's scheme. Poor choice of words.

Napoleon, despite his eventual defeat, is still remembered as the arch typical Great Man, while those who defeated him are relatively small in the popular memory. I suppose the argument could be made that it takes less Greatness to preserve the status quo than to change it, that defeating Napoleon is easier than BEING Napoleon.

I mean, the whole thing reeks of historical determinism, the idea History was going to go one way, then the power of the Great Man forces it on a different path, which is a terrible way to look at real history, but we're talking about fictional worlds.

So, in stories about maintaining the status quo, I suppose the question is, how is the villain's scheme presented in-universe? Is it an overwhelming force, against which only the Great Person can hope to stand, or is it a precarious, if competent, attempt, that the Protagonist happens to be stopping.

[Aedilred]

Without Bond, there would still have been a plot. Does that mean Bond shouldn't count?

I suppose the question can be extended to Wellington, Blucher, and Kutuzov in the Napoleon example. They're undoubtedly great men, but are they Great Men because they defeated Napoleon? Or are they part of the general history, since they sought to maintain the status quo?

It's funny too how Napoleon (one of the Greatest of modern Great Men) bends history around him to that extent. While Wellington was best known for his fighting against Napoleon, he was also an influential political figure after the end of the Napoleonic Wars, twice Prime Minister, one of the key figures in the late Tory party, and the dominant figure in the military establishment until his death. Undoubtedly some of that was because of the prestige of having defeated Napoleon, but his family was already influential and both his elder brothers held major political positions even before his ascendancy. Blucher meanwhile was something of a legend in his own lifetime, being about 250 years old and a veteran of the Seven Years War (for comparison, that's a career corresponding with a current general having served prior to the Bay of Pigs); one of the greatest German soldiers of all time. That he's now known primarily for his role in defeating Napoleon possibly robs his limelight more than it adds to his lustre.

I think however that it's worth remembering the Great Man theory in most historiographical writing is a bogeyman the writer seeks to attack, rather than a particularly well-formulated theory in its own right. The idea goes right back to Plutarch and possibly earlier, but relatively early in the modern historiographical tradition (even before Carlyle coined the "great men" label) historians were beginning to criticise the model. I won't go so far as to claim that the classic view of the Great Man is made of straw, but I do think it has feet of clay, if only because almost all serious, reputable historians of the last 200 years have never shut up about how they want to get away from it. In fact almost as soon as history starts to develop as a truly independent academic discipline, people start taking a bat to the Great Man.

(Prior to that, when polymath academics were more common, so was the Great Man theory. Even since then, philosophers have seemed more enamoured of it than historians, but I think that's down in part to a difference in discipline: the history of philosophy is inevitably the history of philosophers, while history itself is not the history of historians, and the academic tradition can thus free itself more easily from a reliance on singular figures).

As such I wonder whether a debate over whether such-and-such truly qualifies as a Great Man is to put more stock in the theory than it really deserves. I would argue that, the merits of the theory aside, the principal defining characteristic of a historical Great Man is that historians have paid attention to them. Their own personal achievements need only to be enough to attract the interest of an historian; there is no objective measurement, minimum criterion or set of circumstances that qualifies one.

I think, though, to answer the question I quoted, the true Great Man adherent would take the view that the Napoleonic Wars were a clash of Great Men: Napoleon, Pitt and Alexander I; Nelson, Wellington, Blucher and Kutuzov. (I read an interesting quasi-biography of Spencer Perceval recently which fairly persuasively argued that he is possibly the most overlooked individual in the course of the Wars). The peace which succeeded the Wars was created and held by Great Men (Metternich, Castlereagh, Talleyrand) and so on. Napoleon, though eventually defeated by the Great Men opposing him, is the most significant and fascinating among them, with probably the largest and most lasting impact, hence why he attracts so much scholarly opinion, but he was not the only one, just as Caesar was not.

[Wardog]

I think, though, to answer the question I quoted, the true Great Man adherent would take the view that the Napoleonic Wars were a clash of Great Men: Napoleon, Pitt and Alexander I; Nelson, Wellington, Blucher and Kutuzov. (I read an interesting quasi-biography of Spencer Perceval recently which fairly persuasively argued that he is possibly the most overlooked individual in the course of the Wars). The peace which succeeded the Wars was created and held by Great Men (Metternich, Castlereagh, Talleyrand) and so on. Napoleon, though eventually defeated by the Great Men opposing him, is the most significant and fascinating among them, with probably the largest and most lasting impact, hence why he attracts so much scholarly opinion, but he was not the only one, just as Caesar was not.
That's my understanding of the Great Man interpretation of history:
"Napoleon almost conquered Europe because he's just that awesome. Noone else could have done what he did. He was stopped because he came up against other commanders awesome enough to stop him. Noone else could have done so".

The opposite view of history would be:
"Napoleon conquered most of Europe, because the political, economic, and social situation was such that a competant and charismatic commander could rise to power and conquor multiple weaker states. His ultimate downfall was because it wouldn't actually be possible to conquor all of Europe, but the sort of person who would conquor most of Europe is the sort of person that would eventually do something stupid like invading Russia and/or provoking too many enemies at once".

[Flickerdart]

I suppose that brings up the sort of question that's usually asked about unsuccessful conquerors - if Napoleon had stopped conquering, would Coalitions keep forming to bring him down? Would he be able to maintain internal stability of the French Empire? In effect, would he be a Greater Man for realizing his limitations?

[Scarlet Knight]

Let me restate the premise of the thread, because I think some people are missing it.

This thread is about stories that COULD paint their protagonist (Whether or not that's the viewpoint character) as a Great Man, but do not. Hunger Games was brought up earlier, and I think that's a great example. The books could have painted Katniss as a charismatic rebel leader leading a popular uprising, rather than as a figurehead puppet being presented as a charismatic rebel leader, while actually doing very little of the Leadership.

TLDR: For this thread, the story must

1) Be of Epic Scope. The events of the story, if they really happened, would show up in the history books.

2) Feature a Protagonist who is directly connected to, and responsible for, those events.

3)The Protagonist must, by nature, wield some sort of great power, whether personal or political.

and finally
4) The story must NOT present the protagonist as a Great Man. Somebody who was uniquely capable of achieving what they did, not just by circumstance, but by ability. If the story implies that only THIS PERSON, in THIS SITUATION, could have achieved what they did, then it is a Great Man Story (as opposed to some other person that could reasonably be assumed to exist, in the same situation).

May I suggest Lord of the Rings? One way to read it is Gandalf could be considered the Great Man, but another would be Frodo, the everyman who did what Great Men could not.

[Aedilred]

May I suggest Lord of the Rings? One way to read it is Gandalf could be considered the Great Man, but another would be Frodo, the everyman who did what Great Men could not.

As I mention above, I think trying to boil every story down to a singular Great Man is to misunderstand the already rather thin theory. While there may be a singular individual who stands above others, rarely is there only one Great Man in play at any one time. Indeed the presence of one Great Man can naturally lead others to realise their potential greatness in rising to confront him.

The Greatest Man of the Lord of the Rings is the title character. He sets the overarching plot in motion, to the point of having been arguably the dominant single figure of the past couple of millennia, and the cause of the Wizards coming to Middle-Earth in the first place. Much of the supporting cast are lesser, but still Great, individuals: not just Gandalf, Aragorn and co, but Elrond, Glorfindel, Galadriel; Saruman and the Witch-King; if we include the events of the prologue as part of the story, then Elendil and Isildur too.

However for all that the story still arguably stands as a subversion in that the decisive figures of the story are ordinary, unimportant folk: Frodo, Sam and (debatably) Gollum. The question one has to ask, and this is where the flimsiness of the theory really becomes apparent, is whether the agency of these individuals is sufficient to qualify them as Great Men despite their absence of other credentials, or whether the ordinariness of these characters underlines that they are merely exemplary and that Sauron was always doomed one way or another.

Given that The Lord of the Rings is intended to be taken as a legend in its own right and the epic traditions on which Tolkien drew to create it, even notwithstanding the details of the story as told, I think that the former is more likely. That most of the hobbits struggle to return to an ordinary life thereafter suggests in itself that by the end of the story they are no longer ordinary. Even Sam, the most well-adjusted of the hobbit protagonists, and also the most ordinary, is regarded as, if not a Great Man per se, then at least a Great Hobbit.

But I also think that it's unlikely Tolkien, erudite as he was, sat down and contrived to write a fictional Great Man theory, and not only because the theory had been largely discredited by the time he was writing. I think he sat down to write Epic Prose, and featured great heroes changing the world simply because that's the genre he was writing in.

[Legato Endless]

The opposite view of history would be:
"Napoleon conquered most of Europe, because the political, economic, and social situation was such that a competant and charismatic commander could rise to power and conquor multiple weaker states. His ultimate downfall was because it wouldn't actually be possible to conquor all of Europe, but the sort of person who would conquor most of Europe is the sort of person that would eventually do something stupid like invading Russia and/or provoking too many enemies at once".

Even that doesn't go far enough. Part of Napoleon's success was because he fine-tuned and inherited from the French Revolution a system of organized mass mobilization that made the other Great Power's small professional mercenary backed aristocratically led armies outdated the moment it appeared on the battlefield. The Grand Army's sterling reputation was much more than having an accomplished commander lead it. By the time he solidified power, he'd already beaten every other Great Power except Britain, so provoking too many enemies was never an issue. The fact that he was out of power for a decade while they copied French innovations was much more problematic. And while the Russian invasion was definitely a massive mistake, it's merely the aftereffect of other issues. Talleyrand sabotaging the diplomatic talks with Czar Alexander, or alienating the other heads of State with an invasion into a province merely to punish a political assassination. More importantly, even an Emperor can't alter the economy of Europe to his liking, or make Britain stop being an island with a century long foreign policy of preventing what he was doing.

[Closet_Skeleton]

Great Men don't have to 'start' history in motion, they can just shape the direction by taking advantage of various social and economic forces. 'Anti-Great Man history' is usually social history or economic history. So an anti-great man inspired fiction story would be about a wide caste dealing with social change.

So maybe something like Victor Hugo's Notre Dame de Paris or any story that focuses on setting over any one character.


I suppose that brings up the sort of question that's usually asked about unsuccessful conquerors - if Napoleon had stopped conquering, would Coalitions keep forming to bring him down? Would he be able to maintain internal stability of the French Empire? In effect, would he be a Greater Man for realizing his limitations?

Napoleon did stop conquering. Most of the Napoleonic Wars were defensive attempts to preserve the French Empire that emerged from the Revolutionary Wars. The Napoleonic Wars were started by Britain and continued because Britain refused to make peace. The various coalitions against Napoleon were formed by the continental powers making alliances with Britain.

Most of Napoleon's post 1803 expansion was him re-ordering territories put under French control in earlier wars.

Napoleon invaded Russia because Russia broke the peace treaty. Napoleon's strategy was always to achieve a decisive victory as quickly as possible and make peace as quickly as possible. Napoleon never tried to 'conquer' Russia any more than he tried to conquer Austria. Russia was just as expansionist as Napoleonic France and any of the territory they would have lost if Napoleon had defeated them would have been land Russia had only gained in the preceding 20 years.

Napoleon's number 1 goal for the 12 years he ruled France was pretty much to maintain and consolidate his existing empire.

[Aedilred]

Great Men don't have to 'start' history in motion, they can just shape the direction by taking advantage of various social and economic forces. 'Anti-Great Man history' is usually social history or economic history. So an anti-great man inspired fiction story would be about a wide caste dealing with social change.

So maybe something like Victor Hugo's Notre Dame de Paris or any story that focuses on setting over any one character.



Napoleon did stop conquering. Most of the Napoleonic Wars were defensive attempts to preserve the French Empire that emerged from the Revolutionary Wars. The Napoleonic Wars were started by Britain and continued because Britain refused to make peace. The various coalitions against Napoleon were formed by the continental powers making alliances with Britain.

Most of Napoleon's post 1803 expansion was him re-ordering territories put under French control in earlier wars.

Napoleon invaded Russia because Russia broke the peace treaty. Napoleon's strategy was always to achieve a decisive victory as quickly as possible and make peace as quickly as possible. Napoleon never tried to 'conquer' Russia any more than he tried to conquer Austria. Russia was just as expansionist as Napoleonic France and any of the territory they would have lost if Napoleon had defeated them would have been land Russia had only gained in the preceding 20 years.

Napoleon's number 1 goal for the 12 years he ruled France was pretty much to maintain and consolidate his existing empire.
I think this is debatable. While most of the directly-held territories had been conquered under the Republic, Napoleon pursued a policy of subjugating potential foes and turning them into client states right the way through the imperial period. Napoleon never set out to conquer Austria, but he did conquer the Holy Roman Empire, dissolve it and reorganise most of it into French protectorates. It's hard to distinguish between the "hot war" with Britain - and Britain was remarkably persistent in assembling coalitions to fight Napoleon - and the trade war which was in many ways something else entirely but which was also both a function of and a cause of the open hostilities that frequently erupted. The invasion of Portugal, which led to the the conquest of Spain and reopened open hostilities with Britain, was essentially a French military response to the ongoing trade dispute: Portugal had until that point been neutral.

It's also the case I think that Britain's persistence in agitating against Napoleon, which led to many of the outbreaks of open warfare, was at least in part driven by concern over his expansionist tendencies (especially since Britain had friends and royal possessions on the continent which France had already conquered or threatened). France had expanded its borders before 1799 but the biggest expansion drives were under Napoleon himself, initially at the head of the Republic. Napoleon may have been partly driven by a desire to protect his existing territories but his preferred method of doing so was to invade his neighbours (or neighbours of his neighbours), overthrow the existing order and install a client ruler (preferably a member of his own family), and he would do this with relatively little provocation (refusal to accede to his protectionist trade system; harbouring of refugees). It was empire-building which paid little regard for established international norms and on a massive scale, in a way not really seen in western Europe for a thousand years.

[Closet_Skeleton]

I think this is debatable.

Well duh.


It's also the case I think that Britain's persistence in agitating against Napoleon, which led to many of the outbreaks of open warfare, was at least in part driven by concern over his expansionist tendencies (especially since Britain had friends and royal possessions on the continent which France had already conquered or threatened).

I was kind of deliberately exaggerating a counter opinion since everyone was so deeply going with the biased pro-British perspective.

Britain was concerned with French expansionism because it was also expansionist and had interest in the same areas (North America, India, flanders). They may have at times been trying to return to a status quo but they always took more when there was an opportunity.

Napoleon didn't break any more norms than the partition of Poland did. 'Britain was responding to Napoleon' would be a really strong argument if Britain hadn't been behaving that way towards France for 80 years already.

The result of the Napoleonic Wars is a massively expanded British Empire in Africa, India, Malaya and the Mediterranean and constitutional rule in Europe being delayed 33 years. Its hard to say 'Britain defeated an expansionist tyrant' from that viewpoint.

[kraftcheese]

Well duh.



I was kind of deliberately exaggerating a counter opinion since everyone was so deeply going with the biased pro-British perspective.

Britain was concerned with French expansionism because it was also expansionist and had interest in the same areas (North America, India, flanders). They may have at times been trying to return to a status quo but they always took more when there was an opportunity.

Napoleon didn't break any more norms than the partition of Poland did. 'Britain was responding to Napoleon' would be a really strong argument if Britain hadn't been behaving that way towards France for 80 years already.

The result of the Napoleonic Wars is a massively expanded British Empire in Africa, India, Malaya and the Mediterranean and constitutional rule in Europe being delayed 33 years. Its hard to say 'Britain defeated an expansionist tyrant' from that viewpoint.

Well, I guess Britain DID defeat an expansionist empire...it's just that Britain was ALSO an expansionist empire.