Tales from the arXiv: Dickens versus Bulwer-Lyton

The following paper showed up on the arXiv mailing list this morning:

Title: Scientific evaluation of Charles Dickens

Author: M.V. Simkin

Abstract: I report the results of the test, where the takers had to tell the prose of Charles Dickens from that of Edward Bulwer-Lytton, who is considered by many to be the worst writer in history of letters. The average score is about 50%, which is on the level of random guessing. This suggests that the quality of Dickens' prose is the same as of that of Bulwer-Lytton. Previously I reported similar results for the case of Modern Art (physics/0703091).



I have several comments:

1. This was posted under 'physics and society'. I looked at the paper. Where is the physics? (I have no issue with applying physics techniques to such things---obviously, because I do that myself quite a bit---but I just see a survey and simple statistics here.)

2. The results are interesting, but in what way does this constitute a scientific evaluation of Charles Dickens. The title is very misleading. I think doing this kind of study is worthwhile, but be careful about what you can actually conclude from it!

3. Statements such as "Edward Bulwer-Lytton is the worst writer in history of letters." are not exactly scientific in nature. That's pure opinion---the bad fiction contest be damned.