A literary work that was easy to understand or a literary work that pretended to be profound, which one was more representative?
The literary works that were easy to understand and those that pretended to be profound had their own unique charm and value that could not be simply measured by whether they were representative or not. Easy-to-understand literary works are usually easier for readers to understand and accept because they focus more on expressing emotions and plots rather than overly profound images and philosophical thinking. Such works might be closer to people's lives and experiences, and could better convey the truth, goodness, beauty, falsehood, evil, and ugliness of human nature. They could resonate with the readers 'emotions and thus better represent the readers' hearts and lives. On the other hand, literary works that pretended to be profound focused more on thinking and exploring deep-seated images and philosophical thinking. Perhaps the readers needed to have a certain cultural accomplishment and knowledge background to understand and accept them. This kind of work may be more thoughtful and artistic, and can inspire readers to think and explore, so it is more representative. Whether it was a literary work that was easy to understand or a literary work that pretended to be profound, it had its own unique charm and value. They could all resonate and resonate with the readers.
