But I have to ask: what is great about him? In over 500 pages of material that I've read from the man, I've seen pretty much no insight, no real ability with imagery (over-describing something is not the same thing as having a way with imagery), no compelling narrative or characters, just a lot of pseudo-intellectual posturing, over-use of cliches (which he attempted to mitigate by claiming that cliches have a "great truth" in them, a justification that I find quite hollow), and BS.
I will say that he and Eggers (the Eggers I've read, anyway) are at least notable in their badness, which is worth at least something, I guess.
What was so surprising about the Eggers for me was that I recall thinking "Where the Wild Things Are" was pretty good. Then again, that was mostly in the acting and visuals, now that I think about it; the actual script was so-so.