OhJohnNo said:
Waffle_Man said:
I love how everyone describes these "deep" stories with one or two lines. Or that people seem to assume referencing other works, throwing a ton of complexities in, or simply having ambiguity makes something automatically "deep."
Well, considering I've yet to receive an answer to my question of "what exactly is depth", perhaps you could help me out here.
The trouble here is that, semantics being what they are, my exact definition isn't going to be the same as everyone else's. However, I can somewhat confidently say what depth isn't.
Depth is not how convoluted a work is. I could make a painting with a hundred different colors, but it would only matter if people could see the difference between those colors. Id est, a painting that consists of several slightly different shades of blue with identical vibrancy is unlikely to evoke anything but confused looks.
Depth is not a synonym for ambiguity. Ambiguity is a tool that allows the audience's imagination to fill in a gap. However, the interpretation is entirely of the audiences making. A white piece of paper can have the most complicated interpretation in the world if the right person sets out to do so. Every work ever "can be interpreted." Just because a work "can be interpreted" doesn't make it deep. A deep work must be able to actively foster challenges to ideas, rather than being a canvas for every thought the audience can come up with.
Depth is not created solely by referencing another work, at least not in and of itself. A reference is capable of giving short hand for an idea that it wants to contrast another idea with. If a work simply draws parallels with out making a distinction, it is simply reiterating an old idea, which is not depth. In short, simply pointing out things is not depth.
I can't say an actual definition, as depth is a qualitative characteristic. Indeed, some works may be found deep by some but not deep by others. In any case, a work is not deep because of the above reasons. The only semblance of a definition I would give to depth is
Challenge to given or expected premises. That is, depth is created when an idea is contrasted with another idea in terms of concept while maintaining some sort of internal consistency.
This definition isn't perfect, as it still leaves open a lot of room for abuse. One problem is when symbolism is thrown around. It fits under the category of "depth is not referencing another work," or in this case, idea. Sure, we can say that just because this one character is likened to Jesus and this character likened to hitler that the work is "deep," but this in no way in and of itself challenges any audience preconceptions or asks any hard questions. This could create depth in a story where a character is made out to be a hero, only have the work start drawing parallels to Stalin, but not if it's just used to say "the hero is good and the villain is evil."
With the death of the author and all, I'm sure someone should come up with a reason for any work being deep, but that's perfectly fine so long as people take the time to actually explain the depth without the intellectual laziness that infests a great deal of discussion.
