Although the question of a writer’s greatness is bound to be of perpetual concern to literati who brood and analyze to the nth degree; we’ve tried to examine the question here.
Is greatness found in the writer’s ability to write what s/he feels? What her/his heart feels? What his/her memory beholds?
Is greatness found in the writer’s ability to write within conventional, grammatical, syntax-based constructs? Is it the ability to write without thought for those constructs?Running amok on the literary canvas?
Is greatness found in the writer’s ability to get his/her point across? Is greatness found in his/her ability to make a point regardless of the evidence of the point to others?
Is greatness found in the method the writer elects to publish his/her work? (note: We find that there are many who ascribe to this belief – based upon these simple words: WE DO NOT REVIEW SELF-PUBISHED BOOKS. POD PUBLISHED AUTHORS NEED NOT APPLY.)
If a quality greatness is found within a writer, does that then, make the writer great?
Is greatness based upon commercial appeal?
Is a writer’s greatness based on appearance?
Can an overweight, mid-western woman with a mushroom hairdo win a Pulitzer if she writes the same book as the urban intellectual who wears black and sits on endless literary forum panels?
It is apparent that this question is loaded with subjectivity. The answer is relative to the writer. You will know when you have made a work that is great. Just as you the smell of literary garbage cannot be hidden; neither can the shine of a literary masterpiece. But – If you base your greatness on whether one person has read your work, or a thousand, you will never know.
