>Sometime in 1930's Mozafer Sherif conducted following experiment. First he
>asked the subjects to rank ten different authors. Than he gave them what he
>told were excerpts from those authors and asked to rank those excerpts. In
>reality all of the excerpts were from one author, Stevenson. You know the
>rest.
This all seems like an idiotic exercise. What's the point of "ranking" authors in the first place? But the sort of stuff you doesn't prove much of anything: you select snippets of things, prose or visual art, with no evidence that they're representative in any way, and try to play "Gotcha!" with the results. I'm sure you could play similar games with Shelley, Dickinson, Joyce, or Sidney Sheldon. What's the point?
Doug