I do. This is not, as was said above, always a bad thing. Sometimes it's okay because of those Jesus-Christ-on-a-bike-I-can-write-better-than-that moments. (I'm looking at you, "Twilight", and I don't have my happy face on.) Other times, because it teaches me how to write better. Why is my writing falling short of this? *examines and analyzes* Ah! I see why. Jim Butcher has been serving me well in this regard lately. Of course, sometimes I do have those "Old Spice" moments. (Look at his writing, now look back to mine, now back to his, now back to mine. Sadly, my writing isn't his . . .) I'm sure we all do.
Most of the books that have impressed me are by authors way beyond my skill level, so I don't compare my writing to theirs - that would be lowering my self-esteem and confidence for no reason. Instead, I like to study their writing and see what they do that makes their writing better than mine, to improve my writing. (...By the way, famous author does not necessarily mean good writing, so one should not assume a famous book is well written. And on the other side, non-famous author does not necessarily mean bad writing, so one one should not assume a non-famous book is poorly written...)
I find it interesting when there is a contrast between a writer's technical skills and their skills as a storyteller. Or their technical skills are inconsistent. The energy of Robert E. Howard's prose and narrative could bring life to a primordial soup of amino acids, but he reuses the same old bone-tired descriptions constantly. I'm currently reading Dan Simmons and the reverse is true: excellent writer with a magnificent eye for detail, but not a very good storyteller. "Carrion Comfort" and "Terror" have all the zest of a kegger in a nursing home.
I think Lemex makes a valid point about subjectivity. Readers have different tastes and some might like your work better than one of the greats. Plus, times change and what was great 50 years ago could read as old news today. I start to get lost if I try a different voice or try to mimic. But I sometimes try to compare the impact my work would have with that of some of the greats.
If it helps you sleep at night... In all seriousness, I'd abandon this practice. Since your full-time job is likely not "novelist," you'll end up looking foolish after your quest for "famous writer camaraderie." If you get literature published, leave the comparing to the critics who have nothing better to do.
In the past, it made me feel good to be compared to Michael Crichton, for example. But now, I'd rather be just...Me.
It gives me more hope than comparing them and feeling small. Like if, in my eyes, my work is up to their standard I have better hope to be published. And it does give one reason to hope.
I get the same thing. I look at all of these amazing authors and I feel like I'm not worthy. But then that makes me inspired to do better, so I study their work and try to implement their skills into my learning. Also, if I look at terrible writers, then this motivates me a little too, because I know that I'm probably already better than them, or will be in the future.
So I've been wanting to write a story, but another book series and subsequent TV show based on a similar idea has recently come out (like within the last 5 years recently). While I want to write for my own enjoyment, ultimately I am also writing with the idea that I want it to be marketable and ideal commercially successful. What are the odds what I'm writing is a waste of time? Imagine that Harry Potter just released its fourth book and you had a story about a wizard school that you really wanted to tell, it wouldn't make much sense, would it? Or maybe it would... would publishing something similar to what's already out give me people more of what they are already enjoying (but at the same time make it less likely to strike big)? Sigh.... why does writing have to be so hard?
Believe it or not, this actually happened. The Harry Potter series was published from 1998-2007. The Charlie Bone series was published from 2002-2009. The Charlie Bone series is actually really similar... it starts off MG (middle grade) and slowly moves towards YA (Young Adult). It's about a boy named Charlie Bone, who is ten years old when the series starts. Although he initially believes he's a normal kid, he finds out he's actually an "endowed" person-- he has special magical abilities. He's sent to a magical school where he has to learn how to control his powers. The children there are divided into different groups, sort of like houses... I can't quite remember what they're called, but some children are there because they're magical (like Charlie), whereas other children are there because they're talented (musically or artistically), and they're sorted into groups based on what their abilities are. Anyway, I read it when I was a kid. A lot of critics compare it to Harry Potter. There's other similarities. Long story short, don't sweat it. No matter what story you write, it's almost guaranteed someone has done something similar before. There will always be things that make your story special and different.
It depends on how similar your proposed book is to the series that's already been written. In 1946, James Michener wrote an episodic novel about the war in the Pacific that read more like a collection of short stories, Tales of the South Pacific. Later that same year, Tom Heggen wrote an episodic novel about the war in the Pacific that read more like a collection of short stories, Mr. Roberts. Michener won the Pulitzer in 1947, and Heggen died believing that Michener had somehow done him down. But both were extremely successful. Michener's novel was made into a musical, Heggen's was made into a play, and both were made into successful films. My descriptions of the two novels are identical, but the stories, the characters and the settings are very different. And that's the point. If your idea was conceived without knowledge of the other series, then chances are that there will be many differences between yours and it. Plus, if you do get to the point where you are trying to get published, one thing agents look for when querying is comparable work.
I wouldn't say it should necessarily dissuade you from continuing with your story, but I can certainly see how it can put a real kibosh on one's creative drive concerning a story. I posted a little piece of "story dough" here in the forum in August of 2015, just an idea for a bit of urban fantasy centered in Berlin, Germany, where I lived and served in the very early 90's. I was stationed at Tempelhof AFB, and the duality of East and West was something that was all around us. Just the other day I saw that Starz has a new series called Counterpart, which contains a split universe theme, takes place in Berlin, Germany, and the opening of the trailer shows a part of Tempelhof AFB that I walked through on a daily basis in my real life those many years ago. Someone beat me to the punch.
I'm not sure... and frankly a bit disappointed. I've never read about Mr. Bone's exploits, but I have a feeling they might be subversive.