Standards for Depth and Detail in Prose

     When you talk about prose, you think of classic works. The reasons these works qualify as classics are nothing more than beautiful language and profound insights, qualities most prominent in works from the May Fourth Movement period. Works like Zhu Ziqing's "Lotus Pond by Moonlight" and "Green" have been included in middle school textbooks for generations, demonstrating their widespread representativeness.

    What constitutes the depth of these prose pieces? The standard answer in textbooks focuses on the emotional and life experiences conveyed. The emotions we perceive are merely the springtime on Earth, with writers observing flowers and grass and offering a few reflections. "Lotus Pond by Moonlight" is a prime example, from the exquisite description of lotus leaves in the pond to the delightful use of synesthesia in the violin, all reflecting on the feelings after observing flowers and grass. This is the depth of classic works and life experiences that they tout. In essence, this depth is nothing more than the alienation of emotion and the specialization of life experience. Why was this considered the depth of prose at that time? I have read some articles that describe Western cultural propaganda towards China at that time. Tagore's *Stray Birds* was something that intellectuals worshipped back then. It was full of novel synesthesia. Now, it seems like nothing more than a collection of morbid sentences. Is the moon in foreign countries always rounder? Is the alienation of emotions and life experiences the same as profound depth? Just like flowers and grass growing on the earth's surface in spring, how can that be described as deep? I would say that only a well can be called deep. So, besides the alienation plots that were accepted for historical reasons at the time, are there any other standards for judging the depth of prose? I think what attracts you to an article is not just its novelty; it has many aspects, such as knowledge, philosophy, etc. Of course, prose is not expository writing, nor is it novelty. The knowledge in prose, like emotions and life experiences, also has a new element. Knowledge, according to the essential standards of depth during the May Fourth Movement, can certainly be called depth. The philosophical elements commonly used in novels have also been used in prose in the new era, such as Yu Qiuyu's *The Shadow of a Dynasty*. Can you say that it has no depth? Judging the quality of an article by its novelty as a form of depth is merely judging it from the perspective of readability. Does an impactful article necessarily equate to a good article? Does moving you necessarily make it a good article? Ultimately, an article is good as long as the writer enjoys it. It's said that an article is like the author's child, and naturally, one's own child is the best. An article is like a comedy routine or a movie—it's for enjoyment and entertainment (primarily referring to essays). A good article is one written with heart; it may lack the depth of worldly talk or the contrived gimmicks, but it possesses its own inspiration and its own ideas. Like Lin Yutang and Lin Qingxuan, it flows from the heart, written in one go.

    Recently, there was an article in *Reader's Digest* by Momo called "Be a Person Who Can Tell Details," also influenced by the May Fourth Movement and Western cultural propaganda against China at the time. It positions details within the context of unusual emotions and "abnormal" life experiences. Is this the only kind of thing that can move you? Can't the beauty under the sun move you? The morbid writing style in China is so deeply rooted!