Is there a 'greatest' poet?

[Lost&Found]

It occured to me that many people have a favourite poet. But a lot of people refer to there being 'great' poets. How is this? Surely, this is impossible as, to my mind, poets are incomparable.
I would say my favourite poet is Simon Armitage. But how can I possibly compare him to, for example, Shakespeare? It just isn't possible is it? Their styles are totally different, the tone, rhythm, metering, vocabulary are such poles apart I can't see how one could be labelled greater than the other. I believe this is also true of poets who are from the same era. Poetry is too much of a personal thing to be able to compare poems and poets in a competition for the greatest.

I would love to hear people opinions on this so please discuss!!

[JCamilo]

If you said they are different, they you compared them, right?

It is very hard to discern a critery for a ranking, but yes, very few poets have all that makes Shakespeare famous. His influence shows his works are very relevant. But he didn't wrote for all of us, so it is very natural and reasonable to understand there is something like our preference and sometimes it is not based on historical background. So, my advice, the competition is not for the best poet, but for a great poetry. And in this compettion, the guys from different ages, countries, etc, are helping each other and everyone is a winner.

[Lost&Found]

Yes, I have compared them by saying they are different. And I think they can be compared in a Academic sense of comparison by analysing how they are structured and the like. But I don't think that this comparison can give an answer as to whether one poet is 'greater' or 'better' than the other.
If they are writing the poems from their hearts and emotions and experiences, then each poem and poet must be taken in its own context. You can't put a ranking on someone's personal emotions in my opinion.
I think I get your point about them helping each other along for create great poetry. And I guess I agree to a certain extent that some poems are greater than others. But the poets themselves are (or should be) on an equal field as far as I can see.

[MorpheusSandman]

"Greatest" implies objective criteria, and there is none for art. There are, at best, relative criteria, many of which are agreed upon by most readers, critics, artists, etc. but these criteria are nebulous and eternally mutable. About the best we can do is ask questions about influence and what lasts. Time is a relatively objective standard for greatness.

[Lost&Found]

I really like your take on this. I agree with the idea of relative criteria and the transitory nature of them.
I think I disagree with the idea of time being a standard of greatness. If a certain poet doesn't stand the test of time, does this make him a bad poet? Is he not 'great' in his own context for simply being one of the poetical fraternity? Just a thought!

[JCamilo]

If your critery is for how long they are remembered, then your critery is simple, the oldest are the greatest. But like I said, it is not competition. Sometimes, Homer is nobody for a poet, sometimes he is everything. Sometimes a poet influence vanishes for while and return... It is just not mathematically possible to do a ranking when they guys are so very close. Shakespeare being great does not make Dante small. And of course, when Dante "grows" Virgil grows with him.

[stlukesguild]

Shakespeare... or Dante...? OK. Let's flip a coin... Shakespeare. Done. Let's move on.

[Sea]

Shakespeare... or Dante...? OK. Let's flip a coin... Shakespeare. Done. Let's move on.

lol. I would have said Homer but your take is pretty much the same as mine.

[MorpheusSandman]

I think I disagree with the idea of time being a standard of greatness. If a certain poet doesn't stand the test of time, does this make him a bad poet?

This is a bit like the old "if a tree falls in the forest" question. Can a poet be great if nobody knows about them? If so, then by what standard are they great on?

[Drkshadow03]

Time is a good standard as a general assessment, but not really useful for comparing the quality of two poets.

[Lost&Found]

I entirely agree with that!!

[cacian]

I do not know I think there is a great poet in all of us only some of us let out and some don't.

[osho]

The whole idea of greatness is at issue and who is to rightly judge and who is to adhere to the judgement. Judgement cannot possibly objective and your ideas, preconditions, the things you have heard or read about the persons come as a confluence to color up it. This is subjective and if anybody tries to be conclusive it is born out of his or preconditioned mindset.

[Lost&Found]

This is a very good point, and well made. It is true that there is no consensus as to who may or may not judge and who will conform to such judgement.
I think what you are saying, is it is down to each individual as to whether they deem a poet to be great or otherwise. So can there ever be a list of 'greatest' poets, for example printed in a newspaper, or will it always be an individuals opinion?

[stlukesguild]

All opinions concerning art are subjective... but some opinions are better than others.

I think there is a great poet in all of us only some of us let out and some don't.

I rest my case.