What makes an author/writer/poet great?

Thoreau’s words has never struck much of a pleasant chord with me, and for him to say, “the works of the great poets have never yet been read by mankind, for only great poets can read them,” as he is quoted in the Howard article, really makes me question his own command of the language. For how can one be “great,” yet not have a large affect on mankind? Shouldn’t a “great” poet be one that is accessible to people of all walks of life; their work is so relatable and of importance that both readers of “low” and “high” literature marvel at it? I think perhaps what Thoreau meant when he said “great” is a poet who can maximize and pull together characteristics from a small number of similarly “great” works that are read incestuously by the intelligentsia of “high” literature.

I similarly draw back a step to question whenever I’ve encountered a literature teacher that Howard describes in the closing of this article. Howard states that, “students are imagined as having lowbrow reading tastes that must be elevated,” indicating that we are treated as those who have never really “read” the work of the “great poets.” I certainly agree with Howard that student are “placed not on the shoulders but in the shadow of [literary] giants,” for I’ve never encountered a student that has felt at least the potential to be one of these “great” poets someday. Though, then again who would want to be one of these types of authors? One who knows many words, and complex arrangements to maximize the essence, or some other similarly cheesy word, of an expression only to have a few relatively narrow minds decode the meaning from your “genius”? Wouldn’t one rather aspire to be a great communicator? One that shapes the peoples’ lives around them whether poor or rich, highly educated or minimally, fan of literature or not, and create works that speak to people instead of making people attempt to lean into the meaning of one’s writing?

For me, someone like Hemingway encapsulates what it means to be a “great” author. His simple prose, yet complex movements underneath the text offer many of the same things for both members of “high” and “low” literature, if there are such classifications. A twelve year-old kid can emulate Hemingway’s simple, yet direct style, and never be the wiser to the stir of emotions lingering under the words he reads. Then when read again later, much more is noted, much more is appreciated, and yet still one doesn’t have to be a “great poet” to understand.

Thoreau may have never envisioned a writer with such capabilities, and believe me by no means do I mean Hemingway is the only one. Thoreau was a product of his time and place of ideally incestuous intelligentsia, and perhaps he does know that the greatest of “poets” can really only be understood by their own kind, much like the “best” chefs make some of the weirdest tasting food and are really only understood and appreciated by chefs of the same caliber. However I tend to believe when we read works included in the literary canon, their reputation must be abandoned, if possible, and must be looked at to see if their message is conveyed clearly, eloquently, and with justification just as much as one would look at any other work to determine if it is great. For a teacher, or any other authoritative figure, to say one work contains more genius that another, and thus is in the literary canon, is to perpetuate the idea that only the great communicate with the great; which is something I just can’t buy into.