The 'content' of a text is its centre and the stance that it is committed to, so something which is merely 'represented' or 'formal' without reflecting content is hence actually something opposed by the text. Hence, it relates to content negatively. The illusion that this 'formalism' can take a central place, as such, is merely the illusion of a viewpoint which is at the same time inherently not a viewpoint - an ambiguity dear to apathetic liberalism. Hence, it is the 'hope' for a sort of 'moderateness' where all political ideas give up their partisan or fervent nature. This may be a 'hope,' but it is not of course a concrete political viewpoint or situation. All usual 'conservatism' moves in this direction as well, in its hope to abscond political ideas (in favour of positivism) while still seeming political. Hence, there seems like an influx of 'formalism,' however it is a tautology to assert that this is not an actual stance. It is rather merely a result of the interaction of for instance political content with apolitical 'tolerance,' which through it tries to appear political. 'Formalism' is merely a negative assertion that tries to avoid content and ultimately maintain the status quo if anything, yet to actually assert something apart from the 'content' of the text is to assert something that is opposed.
A text can seem 'deep' in a real sense, or in a received sense. In the real sense, it is an introspective complex of internal connections. It hence takes a 'systematic' approach where aspects of the text are linked together to form a unity. However, this merely implies that the single author of the text concretely holds to their individuality, which is advocated and realised. This is usually not the case, certainly not in a capitalistic economy which was inimical to it. It is nonetheless the logical development of telos in the context of a text. The 'received' sense of depth is merely when the text seems to have apparent 'implications' which are deep - that is, when the internal connections are merely posited as made by the reader, instead of a part of the text itself. Hence, the reader themselves brings the text into artificial connections, then this seems like 'depth.' This is akin to a riddle-maker, or one who wishes to chase their own tail. These are the main senses in which a text can have 'depth.'
A text can aim for 'depth,' however this must actually form a trait of the person themselves. Hence, through positing it as merely a 'textual' task, the person externalises their own traits and hence constructs obstacles to this 'depth.' They hence seem to encounter themselves as another.
There is the apparent existence of critique of a text merely for 'length.' This is a lie. It seems like formalism, however 'formalism' is fine with a text so long as it has the right 'formal traits' or overall aesthetic. Hence, it does not attack a text for merely existing at some point. This is not, in itself, to say anything of the text's traits. Hence, it is a sort of vulgarised, pretend 'formalism'. It seems to hence ignore not only content, also formalism's focus. It hence is to criticise a text 'blindly,' without reference to the text. Hence, it is akin to a 'rig,' an action which only seems to concern the text due to a pre-defined action applied to it. This is a nuisance, however not a valid stance in this context.
There are other forms of pseudo-formalism. If a text is aimed at reception, it hence tries 'formalism.' However, this is not a coherent formalism. Rather, it is open to all manner of conflicting demands and preferences. It is hence empty, while aiming at a deceptive 'appearance.' However, while formalism aims for 'form,' this is nonetheless an attempt at a coherent aim. In lieu of this, one may have only an aim without a coherent form. It never congealed into a concrete aim, hence it also seems to occur only via pre-defined or 'rigged' actions. Hence, the economy takes such a form in this way or other. Further, 'accessibility' is to evade criticising a text by citing someone else's (usually hypothetical) preference. It is automatically invalid: the author was seemingly capable of finishing it, so this is in no way an inherent trait of the text. People have different viewpoints which can't neatly tie into such a category. Other such forms often centre around arbitrary 'roles,' where things like 'good' and 'evil' are to be portrayed in a given balance regardless of what they might involve.
However, texts which are 'deep' will tend to eschew 'formalism' of a general sort. Nonetheless, they will seem highly discriminating around form. It is 'taken up' in the vortex of internal relations, which leads to each element having meaning. Hence, it all comes to relate to the central content.
