Impact of a name is debatable
It's a common practice to give a name to a newborn. While the newborns grow up, some create a name for themselves through their volume of work. Here lies the catch: the people who become famous would have some blind supporters along with critics too. Not a single eminent personality, be it Mahatma Gandhi or anyone, irrespective of era, would be lucky enough to earn kudos only. One cannot satisfy everyone, so unsatisfied souls definitely will try to defame the person by criticising one's policies and thought processes. It is a general human practice.On the other hand, except for some exceptions, people take advantage of making a name. The percentage of honest people is less than those who use their position and personality for personal gain. Thus, making a name usually comes with a tag of suspicion around their activity. Even honest beings who have proved merit and made a name in their field come across probing eyes and a judgemental approach because of the section of people who misuse their name and position. Usually, making a name leads to a blame game, irrespective of being involved in fair or unfair means.
There is another aspect of making a name: they have friends who are usually short-lived, and foes are unlimited. Maximum people around the big names are opportunists by nature. If their selfish motives remain unfulfilled, they don't shy away from back-stabbing. Becoming a famous or infamous name impacts society either positively or negatively, but one aspect is constant that is almost every popular name has more or less both impacts. So, people who have made a name for themselves are always prone to debate. Thus, Charles Churchill has rightly said: "Fame is nothing but an empty name".
My submission:
TOW Contest
