>>25179521
I think it can be subjective and objective. Y'know, like truth.

>>25179521
Deep=density.
>emotional density
>informational density
Tolkien=deep
Vladamir nabokov=deep
But in different ways

Surface level=nothing more to it than meets the eye. Less thought put into it. Less emotion.

>>25179521
I find a book deep when I can read and reread and constantly find new connections, new ways of thinking about it I hadn't though about on my previous read, new details I missed. So Finnegans Wake, Ulysses, Gravity's Rainbow, The Sound and the Fury, Moby-Dick and all that jazz. Though personally I find Finnegans Wake inaccessible without scuba diving gear and specialised training, I prefer more shallow waters, at least for now.

~25 years ago I opened a pack of baseball cards and that exact card was right on top. I was never into baseball cards or the like but they had those special limited edition cards which could be immediately resold for considerably more than you bought the pack for so you could buy something more interesting than baseball cards. It was pretty much scratch offs for people who were not old enough to buy scratch offs, but they were also a form of currency and could be traded for any number of things. Bill's card wasn't worth much but 8 year old me got a thrill out of 'fuck face,' I kept it in the playboy I had traded some cards for.

It's hard to define because anything you say about self reflection and emotional weight some fan of Rupi Kuar can say the same thing.

a deep or deep-er author is only bad,
when they are *trying* (too) hard to BE deep.
if they naturally have the vocabulary,
the philosophy and emotional language to do it,
as well as have something worth saying...
it can be good or even great.
its when they try to *force* it, it gets old quick.