depth vs, clarity

[Thomas Winslow]

one of the reasons I am addicted to 6s despite checking other writing sites is that there are so many good authors doing both here.

however I found on another site a short poem of less than 50 words with over a thousand responses with people raving about how deep the author was etc.etc as well as a link to a five page explanation that illustrated what each phrase meant.

I prefer to tell a story rather than merely convey a mood.Is this shallow? I mean to me a story should illuminate and provoke thought for the reader am i wrong?

 

here at 6s most writers do both. I find elsewhere what seems a shallow attempt of being deliberately obscure is regarded as "deep" "thought  provoking" while i find myself finding it confusing and arrogant to throw a few "ere Eros brought death a cold smile" as smacking of arrogance on the authors part to mimic old style phrasing and it may be shallowness on my part but I swear I could just string together a few sentences with words emotionally laden with a specific feeling or mood and use antique phrasing and gain the same result.

 

is depth and clarity mutually exclusive in writing? i was constantly gaining detention for arguing that character X in a story was merely a character not " representative of mans lust for power" etc. because no teacher ever showed me a article by the author stating they intended that interpretation.

i have long suspected the deepest works of literature illustrate such examples by accident rather than design..

perhaps i read to many Aesops fables and Twain as a child.

 

I suspect I am merely to shallow to "get" so called deep writing but I want the opinion of 6ers, people whos writing both provokes and illuminate my thought when i read so what are you thoughts gang?

[Robert McEvily]

I tried to shake off pretension a long time ago. I'm a big fan of simple storytelling. When I was younger, I'd like to leave copies of The Paris Review lying around - good for the image. (Then I'd stay up at night reading John Irving and Stephen King.)

[Elliott Cox]

I agree with you completely. There is a difference between provoking thought and confusing people.

[Sandra Davies]

Slightly at a tangent, and a sweeping generalisation I admit, but confirmed by Rob McE's "when I was younger" I suspect that the younger the members/participants of a site the more pretentious it is - you need a certain amount of self-confidence to denounce as bunkum what others are praising to the skies.

There ARE exceptions of course - and these folk are probably on 6S ;)

[Brittany]

I read and write for the experience. I want to laugh with you... cry with you... I want the written words to be descriptive and combined in a way that takes me for an emotional ride. I don't want to drown in a sea of words, to me that is a bit shallow.

[Robert Crisman]

If all a story can do is "convey a mood," there's no mood to convey because nothing happens. Stories are, by definition, about something that takes place. There are yokels who would argue to the contrary, having attended Literature Studies and taken them for gospel and they themselves as sophisticates thereby, but they can be dismissed with a wave of the hand.
If something is not clear, how can one gauge its "depth"?

[Jenny]

Couple thoughts, but not sure how "deep" they are! For me, the constraints of 6 sentences prevents a full story, although many here do achieve that. Part of the opening of the fountain (referred to by Bill Lapham in his 6 on the summer school teacher demanding complete sentences) is at work here, I think, in the 6s that do explore mood and feeling and how to get them on the page.

The skills and life experience the writer has at hand are so varied. What works for a more youthful reader may seem superficial and dull to another. Does the reader want Romance, Sci-fi, or a philosophical exploration.

Hmm, think I am wandering. Yes, I believe you can have both depth and clarity in writing. Yes, I believe that the human psyche is populated with feelings and figures (Jung's archetypes) which can be unwittingly OR deliberately invoked. Yes, I think not all writers equally skilled - either in composing a story - or in bringing depth to it.
nuf said.

[Thomas Winslow]

g tried to reply comment was deleted oddly enough it wont let me do the same

[Adam Byatt]

Depth and clarity are not mutually exclusive, in my opinion. Clarity is important, regardless of depth that the author wishes us to wade into.
Story or narrative is an artistic way to examine human character and behaviour, a way of trying to understand the world in which we live. Therefore, there are characters who are stereotypes and characters who are archetypes, and those who break every literary rule. An author's purpose can determine how much depth they want to give their narrative (literary fiction for example, where the character might represent "man's lust for power" or "man's depravity"), or to skate the surface in terms of characters and issues and focus on the plot (genre fiction for example). There is, of course, a lot of crossover, and no rules are certainly fixed. In this post-modern world, the author's intent and purpose is often left undiscovered for the sake of the reader's own understanding and perspective that they bring to the text.
That being said, 6S provides a forum where clarity is paramount; the depth will depend on the content, context and author's intent. For me, I like to capture a mood or emotion in my sixes, through a specific context, character or situation, like a photograph. Yet I often want to point to something deeper through that same snapshot. I want there to be an emotional connection through my sixes with the reader, and therefore clarity is essential. The depth that the reader finds will be up to them. That's why I tend to comment on the purpose behind what I post, but not always. The reader will make up their own mind.