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', 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" 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.

[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.

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.

Spoiler

Show

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:

Spoiler

Show

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.

Spoiler

Show

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:

Spoiler

Show

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.

Spoiler

Show

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.

Spoiler

Show

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.