There are many seemingly conflicting views on this issue in the literary world. Pessoa, for example, supported that "the great poet writes as he feels", that is the great poet is able to express his own emotions well, and his work consists of a good presentation of those emotions. Baudelaire claims in a letter to Flaubert that "what is most important is to not look like your neighbor", meaning that a writer should first and foremost be different than the next writer.
On the other side stand quotes such as that by Kafka, and Lovecraft. Kafka seems to have been "ressurecting" his emotions by reading other writers, and many times comments that he is "lost" in his work, or is "like a sheep in the night and in the mountain, or like another sheep following that sheep". An d although this sentiment goes well beyond his literary character, it appears to present a reality of that as well.
Lovecraft at one time claimed that "there are my Poe pieces, and there are my Dunsany pieces, but alas, where are my Lovecraft pieces?". So he too was of the view that he had not found his own voice, and was (to put it in Borges' aphorism about Lovecraft) "an unwilling mimesis of Poe".
Since i also happen to be a published writer, i have pondered this issue a lot. At times it seems that my style is not really there, being mostly an amalgam of De Maupassant's, Kafka's, Borges' and of some others. I can write a complete story, but am unsure as to whether another writer could not have produced almost an identical one.
So in this thread i would like to ask you what you think of the issue of being "original" or rather "uniquely expressive", and individual as a writer