I don’t care who some expert system thinks I “write like.”
My style comes from all those years of reading people like Herman Wouk, Saul Bellow (the early work–Henderson the Rain King, Adventures of Augie Marsh), even Allen Drury (Advise and Consent, followed by many book-length rants). And reading the classics. And reading Donald E. Westlake, Harlan Ellison, Robert Heinlein, Zilpha Keatley Snyder, C. S. Lewis, J. R. R. Tolkien, and Mark Twain. I do tend to write for the inveterate reader rather than the new crowd of readers (the ones who seem to want a screenplay written down with no internal monologue at all), but that comes out of enjoying that sort of book myself. I like character-driven works that may not be page-turners for the rest of the world. I also appreciate densely plotted works that bring it all to a satisfying conclusion.
But the expert system that analyzes your style . . . well, I don’t give it a lot of credit. It’s an expert system because it uses heuristics to match your word length, sentence length, sentence structure, punctuation choices, word choice (diction), and so forth to the models someone built of Henry James, Shakespeare, and all those greats. When I worked at the big E, I helped to code and implement a rudimentary expert system. They’re only as good as the rules they’re kicked off with and the resulting rules they build. That’s one reason I wanted to use one in SONG. I could have rules that seemed OK on the surface but that caused side effects that snowballed. They’re not like a conscious mind that can catch those side effects and realize what they’ve done. I suppose the AI people are working towards that, but I doubt they’re very close yet.
So. I write like Benchley, Thurber, Wouk, and “Laura Lee Hope” . . . but so what?
I guess I just didn’t see the point of that one. *shrug*