I honestly think a great book is a book that is actually read. I rarely read Stephen King so he's not a great author to me, but is a great author to many other people. That doesn't make me wrong. It doesn't make them wrong. It means that, for me, Stephen King is not a great author, and I don't care that I'm in a minority on that point. The fact is that great books are determined over time. Shakespeare was not the greatest author of his time...but he is an author that survived over time. It remains to be seen if Stephen King's popularity will outlast his lifetime. The interesting part is that none of us will know if he is judged great by the ages or if his celebrity is what determined his "achievement." I live in California...I've learned to be suspect of fame by celebrity (look who we have for a new governor if you wonder why I'm a cynic). I don't think anyone should write with the idea of greatness or celebrity in mind....to me, you should write because you would write if no one read you, because you have no choice. If you are writing for fame, then perhaps what you are looking for is to be famous rather than to have written something meaningful or satisfying. It isn't wrong to write for fame...but it is necessarily right either. Just my two cents, written under the influence of wine. And, as it has been pointed out, who the heck am I anyway. Take care all.