I think the 'greats' are extremely overrated and essentially meaningless.
What makes most of the greats great? They happened to be born a hundred years before any of us? Does that somehow make their work worth something? At least half of what I have read from what would be considered 'great authors' is too complex, wordy, poorly written or just plain bad to have any real meaning.
I personally love everything I have read by Charles Dickens. He is considered one of the greatest writers of the english language. Do I like him for his reputation as a master? No, I like him because his writing is amazing.
Too many of the authors in lists of "greats" wrote really uninteresting crap. Really. I have read 7 shakespeare plays, written about them, compared them to other things, watched enactments of them...my conclusion? Shakespeare is absolute tripe. Wretched. I have no possible understanding of where people come off truly believing that Shakespeare is the world's 'greatest' writer of the English language. Fine, he gave birth to modern theatre, and is deserving of an enormous amount of praise and historical credit for the achievement, however actually comparing him to modern authors and giving his works a modern context is pointless.
Compared to other writers, throughout history, Shakespeare's characters are blandly formulaic, and the plots are a waste of paper, simple entertainment for crowds from 400 years ago. Honestly. People lost in a world of ******** academia might somehow value Shakespeare's work as something to be applied to people, events, emotions and works of literature today...what compels them I'm not sure.
A majority of (even well above average) people would say that the historical literature they have been forced to read in high school was hard to read or understand, but that it's great literature even if they didn't understand it. How, I ask, is something 'great literature' if it has no meaning to anyone other than the most academic of academics, lost in their own world of the written word? Who decided for the people of the western world what 'great literature' is?
A good novel, as far as I'm concerned, is any one that builds a world so elegantly put together than you wish there was more to read when you finish it. A great novel will create a world of words so deep and fluid you feel as if you're part of it, experiencing every last element alongside the characters, not letting you put the book down until it's finished. A great author is someone whose pen creates these worlds, dead or alive, deemed worthy by the academia-police or not.
It's not that I don't have an appreciation for the importance, power and quality of some historical literature, it's that much of what is labeled 'great' is rarely given a second thought.
Sorry for the rant.
As for Harry Potter, the new name is a little bland...though not terribly bad. The Half Blood Prince name was pretty bad until you read the book and understood where it came from, which was interesting. I'm sure the "Deathly Hallows" will wind up having a lot of meaning in the story and therefore making the name more worthwhile.
Harry Potter also holds a special place for me, because as each of the books have come out, I have been roughly the same age as Harry. I was 10 when the first book came out in the U.S, 11 when I first read it, and now as the 7th book is coming out, Harry and I will both be 18 (I might be 19 by then but close enough).
As for J.K. Rowling's skill at portraying the characters at each changing age, it's perfect. The subtle elements of each character's personality is incredible.
