who do you write like?

http://iwl.me/

thought this was pretty cool. i write like david foster wallace apparently.. guess its time to finally read infinite jest.

I write like Dan Brown.

Having never read any I don't know how serious an insult this is.

david foster wallace....

Based on a forum post where I commented on the similarity between tracks on various albums by Porcupine Tree it said I wrote like David Foster Wallace.

I then tried with another forum post in which I was bitching about having to wait 3 years to get a flat in the neighborhood. Then I suddenly write like Stephen King.

I have no idea what to make of these results.

stephen king

hmmm sounds like like the number of authors it draws from is somewhat limited. too many david foster wallaces

Douglas Adams.

Arthur C. Clarke

I was going for Philip K Dick, but it was having none of it.

David Foster Wallace, Steven King, and Margaret Atwood, from three different things I wrote a few weeks ago.

Based on three longer watmm posts, I had each a DFW, a Stephen King, and a James Joyce.

hah, which post got you james joyced ?

Stephen King

Edgar Allan Poe

Forrester

Bram Stoker

Chuck Palahniuk

that was sampling a bunch of old writing....

James Joyce. Inconsistent gibberish is about right.

arthur conan doyle apparently

Stephen King.. must be all those active verbs.

  On 7/15/2010 at 10:33 PM, eugene said:

hah, which post got you james joyced ?

this post-fragment, oddly:

  Quote

"but, seriously, anyone who finishes GR on the first attempt, or says it's a breeze to get through, is just being a twat. It's probably my favorite novel, but it does require a bit of work. There's no shame in reading annotations, either. Every single word is so careful and so wrought with paranoia. . . I'd read it once just for tone and imagery and a general sense of the story, and then do a re-read with some annotations. I know that sounds pretentious as fuck, but it is what it is. . . if you don't want to get lost in GR to that extent then it's just not your kind of book, no harm, no foul.

 

And Vineland. . . it starts out wonderfully, but it doesn't sustain that sense of wonder to the end. It's kind of universally accepted to be not-great. Although I still think there's a lot to like about it. It's also pretty funny.

 

I actually think Against the Day, although massive, is a whole lot easier and more immediately likeable than GR. And Lot 49, obviously, is a great, relatively brief way to see if you like Pynchon. Edit: plus the new one, Inherent Vice, which I haven't read yet, sounds pretty straightforward and likable and funny. "

No clue why that would be the case, unless it just picked up on the fragment at the beginning and thought "riverrun", in which case . Aside from the overused ellipses, that was fairly dry, artless writing on my part. There's really nothing Joycean in this in terms of word choice or structure, although my DFW-branded post was an intentional bit of DFW/Pynchon aping on my part(and was shit, mind).

I detect the odor of Bullshit; this might work better if you feed it some genuine prose, but the only writing of mine that I have to go on at the mome is message board posts or some dry legal writing from work.

text: penis vagina in penis from penis to vagina pussy cock

  Quote

I write like

Anne Rice

Arthur C. Clarke from my latest (longish) blog post.

Ian Fleming from my latest album review.

and Ursula K. Le Guin from my favourite review.

P. G. Wodehouse

what a shit test.

Harry Harrison

(???)

yeah its bogus but who cares

Put in my best university paper and a lil somethin I was writing and got Vladimir Nabokov.

Lol one of my watmm posts is written like J.R.R. Tolkien.

James Joyce yeah

edit: what a bunch of pussies. i pasted a whole hemingway short story in and it gave me HP Lovecraft

Dan Brown

FML