Is Charles Dickens England's greatest writer of all time?

Noooo! I don't like Dickens at all. He's certainly not anything on Shakespeare or on many other English writers - Charlotte Bronte, Daphne du Maurier, Ellis Peters, and so many others I'm too tired to even think of right now!

No. I like him a lot, but I don't know that he's the greatest English writer ever.

Probably not. The best English writer probably had nothing published and it's all in his/her basement.

Couldn't care in the least. I'm more partial to sci-fi.

No, I absolutely disagree. I say it's Shakespeare, becuase Shakespeare is not just far more famous, but they don't force us to study different Disckens' book every year of the High School.

Hell if I know. I don't know much about this stuff.

I would be willing to say that he's one of England's greatest novelist, but I wouldn't say that he's the greatest writer (which covers all types of literature such as fiction, non-fiction, etc.).

I've read some books - I wouldn't say he's better than Shakespeare, but maybe if I read him more deeply? I guess the people in his books depress me so I don't enjoy them as much as Shakespeare (which can be depressing too - but not so constantly depraved and miserable).

No Shakespear was better. And Enid Blyton

Surely Shakespeare is greater. Personally, I never liked Dickens that much.

No, absolutely not. Oddly enough, I'm in the middle of "A Tale Of Two Cities" right now, having recently finished "Oliver Twist". Although I enjoy Dickens, there are some outstanding flaws in his writing. His anecdotes and narrative are wonderful, yet when it comes to dialogue...well, some of it is almost painful! I'm referring specifically to his recurring tendency to portray scenes where men are rebuffed as suitors and then make lengthy soliloquies to the woman who scorned them. If these were reasonably brief, they would be tolerable, but they go on interminably! You begin to wonder why these women put up with such silliness. I can't help but wonder if Dickens was using this stuff as a form of therapy. Perhaps he was rebuffed and didn't say what he would have liked to. I don't know. I also find his political agenda lacking in subtlety. It comes across as propaganda. I can understand that his readership was probably considerably less jaded than we are, but one only has to look at authors like Johnathan Swift and even Chaucer, to see that he was preceded by social critics who didn't feel the urge to drive their point home with a sledge hammer.

Hardly. The thing that always got me about Dickens was the 'packaged' endings and the way the names of his characters gave away too much about their personalities (Mrs Lovely, Mr Slimy Bastard, etc, etc).

I think he's better than Shakespear. As for the greatest living - I'm not too sure.

"Greatest" is a bit too subjective, really. Shakespeare is probably the most well-known and most highly regarded English writer, but he was a playwright rather than a novelist. Dickens did write some really good stuff, but he also wrote a lot of mediocre stuff as well - but then, it's partly because he was one of our most prolific authors that he has left such a legacy. I can easily forgive him The Pickwick Papers, in return for A Tale of Two Cities and Hard Times, both of which are among the best books ever written in the English language. If Thomas Hardy hadn't given up novels and concentrated on poetry after writing Jude The Obscure then he'd probably have a bigger reputation than Dickens, but as it is he never wrote enough prose to be consistently among the best.

No.No. No.

Certainly NOT!

I don't know enough about English writers to comment...

There have been a lot of authors who do a heck of a good job writing. Unfortunately, I hardly ever pay any attention to authors' names.

I'd be more likely to say that Shakespeare is a better writer, but Dickens is a better story teller.