I don't fear machine analysis draining the life of literature. Its limit would simply be a functioning similar to a human's. Rather than algorithmic analysis, w

I don't fear machine analysis draining the life of literature. Its limit would simply be a functioning similar to a human's. Rather than algorithmic analysis, we'd lump it with literary criticism. Here the computer's personal context rules on how 'vivid' or 'good' a text is. This aside, I am as decidedly pro-analysis as your comment. My claim that OP's method may as well be subjective was a criticism of his process' insubstantial description.