"[I]t focuses on efficiency and effectiveness of communicating the intended idea as unambiguously". Is this true? Since the 20th century, there's been a marke

"[I]t focuses on efficiency and effectiveness of communicating the intended idea as unambiguously". Is this true? Since the 20th century, there's been a marked subset of literature dedicated toward ambiguity, absurdism, and surrealism brought on by the idea of the subconscious, the theory of relativity, WWII. In fact, most of these titles arguably don't even have an "intended idea" to impart. E.g. T.S. Eliot's "The Wasteland", Joyce's "Ulysses", Camus's "The Stranger" to name a couple off the top of my head. "'Beauty and 'inspiration' are subjective...I find simple...language much more elegant than...'literary' styles of the past" Sure, in your subjective opinion you think older literature is not as pleasing to read, but these works objectively changed the use of the English language: that's why they are regarded as literature. Canonical literature changed not only the way future authors wrote, but also how future generations behold and conceive existence. Both the ideas, and the way they are expressed are the source of many derivative bodies of text including your and my own comments. Modern works that repackage these ideas, styles, and archetypes in a more diluted way to satisfy one's personal taste and level of reading comprehension does not qualify them to be more "literary" than the original works which created those artifacts. In this sense, the idea of literature and the value of those works is well defined. To reduce literature as merely "verbose" and to quote the word as if it is illegitimate and lacking consensus is highly ignorant and, given the lack of substantive evidence or original arguments supporting it, completely asinine.