Well if it's all been decided by the literary academics then what's the point in asking the question

Seriously though, it is a bit of a redundant question. Art is subjective, it's not a competition. The life and experiences of the author are unique, the influences they have and the time in history they work in are all different, as are the reasons for pushing the boundaries of their writing.

Therefore it's impossible to properly compare one writer with another and what in the end does it achieve? Very little in my opinion.

Sibelius-I agree with everything you say except for saying my question is redundant! I would say that no question is redundant if it stimulates debate. I think it is important to remember for a number of reason; it can make you a better writer for example.

I'm the best writer ever.

Pleased to meet you.

...it can make you a better writer for example.

Yes, it's true that writers should read to further their craft, but it is important to read a wide range of materials - and not just novels. If one simply sticks to those novels deemed to be worthy above all others, then it will likewise narrow one's reading experience. All writers should strive to develop their own style; not just aim to copy the 'greats'.
Personally I would rate Terry Pratchett as one of the great writers of our time - comparable to Dickens in his own time.


- NaomiM

Ok..wise guys huh?
Wont be so wise when Beckett is still read a hundred years from now and your efforts are forgotten!

Wont be so wise when Beckett is still read a hundred years from now and your efforts are forgotten!

Well no. Won't be so alive either, so it's a moot point.

Isn't this question a bit daft?
I mean, as Emma says, what do you mean by 'great'?
Someone who changed the world with their writing? Someone who has sold the most stuff? Someone who has written something no-one has ever disliked?
Sorry if I sound grumpy but I'm a northerner, I've got a hangover, my son needs to get to footie trianing in ten minutes and I've only written 10, 000 words of my next book which needs to be with my publisher by Easter.
HB wanders off muttering about wrapping paper and stuffing...
HB x

Sorry if I sound grumpy but I'm a northerner,

Love it, Helen!

Helen.

Emma

Brightlad,

The way you phrased your original question was as a competition - who is the greatest writer. That kind of debate I find redundant. Much better in my opinion to debate what makes great writing.

Ok, Brightlad, for the sake of argument let's agree Becket is the best ever writer.
Now what?
How does that improve our writing?
How does studying just one person's collection of works inprove our individual style, rather than simply make us poor quality clones?
Since none of us can ever hope to be as good, or better, since the 'best ever writer' slot is already filled, I guess we may as well give up now.
Well that's not going to happen so, you see, that is why it is a futile question.

Nmott
ok , all I am suggesting is that Becketts' greatness consists in the way he was so radical in his approach to literature that he managed to 'kill-off' the traditional approach to literature. I am aware that there are some writers who are either too talentless or lazy to realize that this change in literature has come about.
Now the choice is yours; you can live in cloud literature-cuckoo land or wake up to the fact that the times they are-a changing.

Brightlad, are you his agent?

No jem, I am not his agent. I am a fan, thats all.

<Added>

Were you drinking when you made that remark, Jem?

One thing a writer knows is there is a wide range of readership out there, very few of whom would appreciate or even understand Beckett. A sad state of affairs, perhaps, but the result is a rich range of reading materials to suit all tastes.
However great the man is/was, it would be a poorer world if we were all Beckett clones.