The Great Man theory and Fictional Worlds

[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" 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, 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, 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 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 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 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.