I'm less than 20,000 words into my second proto-novel, and I'm already seeing some similarities with my first one in the way I approach things. I suppose I'll call this my writing style, although I'm not sure it's valid to draw any conclusions based on only two data points. Since that's all I have, though, I'll go ahead and explore in this space some of the characteristics I think future critics will identify in my writing.
The first is Everyman as protagonist. In both my novels so far, the main character is framed as someone the average [male] reader ought to be able to identify with. He has no extraordinary skills, knowledge, or characteristics (at least, not at the start of the story). He begins his adventure as a peer to the reader. Of course, the story changes him in extraordinary ways. I think this approach helps draw the reader in, because it makes the narrative more real and immediate; it makes it easy for the reader to imagine himself as the protagonist.
In fact, looking back at both my novels, I've never provided a physical description of any sort for my protagonists. All the reader knows is that they're male, and apparently of average build, strength, and appearance. Again, this is appropriate for the "everyman" approach.
Zelazny does the everyman-protagonist thing in Nine Princes in Amber, but he goes about it in a different way. His protagonist, Corwin, is superhuman. But at the start of the story, Corwin himself isn't aware of this fact, because he's suffering from amnesia. Zelazny builds the reader's sympathy for and identification with the character through the first quarter of the novel, until Corwin walks the Pattern in Rebma and regains his identity. By the time he reclaims his powers, he's formed a bond with the reader. This is masterful storytelling.
Another element to my own writing style is Explanations that consist mainly of more questions, and I'll talk about that one a bit tomorrow.