Welcome to Gaia! ::

Like many words, depth has more than one meaning, even when applied to literature.

In terms of characters, "depth" is talking about the structure of the character. Are they stock? Are they two dimensional? Are they over idealized? Are they three dimensional? A so called "deep" character will seem like a fully realized person. A person whose adventures who happen to be reading about.

You root for them, you scream at them, and you cry for them. They are like friends, and if done correctly, cherished friends. You wait with baited breath to see if they can fall in love, or you feel your heart race when they are put in danger. The less "real" the character, the less "depth" it has, the less likely(though not impossible) it is for your readers to identify with them.

Depth in terms of the overall book, and not a particular element-like plot-, has to do with your themes.

Some books don't have much in the way of a theme, or their theme is light-hearted, shallow, or poorly executed. Nothing wrong with a light theme or one without a real deep moral point. Some things are fluff, meant to entertain but not to cause thought. However, confronting the nature of man, the moral stances of your society, the ghosts of your history, the stark realities of another's existence, that is what literature is for.

Literature, like all art, is many things, but one of its more important facets, above and beyond simple entertainment, is the creation and propagation of cultural memes, or the challenging of them. Some books seek to, or unthinkingly, forward and maintain the status quo, while others challenge it. Some pass on moral ideals to the next generation(especially common in children's and young adult literature.), while others push those same children to think.

Yes some art is for entertainment, but the "deep" art, as much as art in and of itself can have depth, sends a message. The better it sends its message the more "deep" it is, and often the more subtly the message is layered throughout the text. The more heavy the message, as commentary on the "nature of man" is a stronger ideal to wrestle with than "friendship is magical", the more depth can be lent, but darker and stronger themes need to be handled with a more subtle instead of liberal hand lest you end up in "ham" or "sledge hammer of symbolism" level bad.

Just my 17 and a half cents.

Depth is... something I don't worry about intentionally. I write with the aim of making something that's fun to read. If it makes people think, then that's great too. It's probably something I do without thinking 'Okay, how do I make depth?' Instead, I question motives, connections, plausibility vs entertainment, functions, conflicts, balance or imbalance, and so on. So, I think when you immerse yourself in the world of your story and see to it that it all works from that point of view, the story should be perceived as having depth. But more often, I find myself thinking 'Okay, how do I make this awesome?' instead.

It's also something I don't think about when reading, but I do notice it occasionally.

I feel that depth is a vague concept but one that should be acknowledge at least a bit. I feel that true depth in a tale or any work of fiction is in essence trying to capture and depict a world and all who reside in it. The actual act of writing is very two dimensional and it is the responsibility to add that third dimension to the story. This encompasses everything that the story could possibly be about. Without this, there is nothing to immerse yourself into and therefore, no depth. I could go on but I rather think this illustrates my point. razz

I have heard people call Twilight "deep". Your thoughts on that?

12-year-old girls who think the characters "speak to them in a deep and profound way" or who wish they could some day find a love "as passionate and true" as Edward and Bella.

And yet, the majority of Twi-hard fans were actually 40-year-old married women. I don't think limiting the age of exposure would fix the problem.