I just thought I'd throw this out there for shits and giggles...

Sartre wrote a very interesting essay concerning this idea (although, from my recollection, he didn't necessarily apply it as a means in understanding perfection objectively). His essay was "What Is Writing" and it mainly concerned itself with defining which example of writing is the best. And in that regard, perfect.

First, let me give some round-about knowledge in a very broad sense.

STYLES OF WRITING:
Poetic
Prose
Surreal
Experimental
Ambiguous
(...that about covers it)

SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT:
Reader/writer response--the idea that a piece of writing, the theme, entails not only what the writer meant, but also what the reader extracts. As such, the theme is virtually open to interpretation on many levels. The writer felt the theme on a personal level as being equivalent to A (say, apathy), while reader 1 felt the theme on a personal level as being equivalent to B (say, depression), while reader 43 felt the theme on a personal level as being equivalent to X13 (say, a farce).

Writer's intended purpose--pretty self explanatory.

Deconstructionism--first proposed by a French philosopher of yester-year, deconstructionism was one of the first proposals against metaphysics (to compare it to a more modern day understanding, think of behaviorism). In the literary world, deconstructionism also borderlines this philosophy in that the theme of a piece can be dissected into its literal phrases until all of its subjects have been defined.

DECONSTRUCTIONISM IN LITERATURE (an example):
I'm drinking beer.
--I'm = a pronoun in present tense indicating a certain individual (the narrator).
--drinking = a verb which indicates the swallowing of a liquid.
--beer = a particular type of drink made from barley or hops.

BUT IT DOESN'T STOP THERE...you half to then dissect each individual word in the definition (such as "a" "pronoun" "in" and et cetera) and thereby dissect all of those words, and those words, and so on and so on and so on until eventually, every word has been defined.


Now, onto the philosophy aspect.

It was Sartre's notion that of all the forms of art, writing is the best, the most perfect, and the only that can truly describe itself. For example: a dead tree. If an artist or a photographer were to capture this, that's all they've merely done. They've took an object and showed it to us. It's left to our interepretation as it's meaning. A writer, on the other hand, if he were to install this imagery, it comes without saying that it has more meaning. The dead tree can represent any number of things: society, personal reflection, the result of a dry season, et cetera. In short, a writer has more tools which can help identify the essence of a dead tree. However, depending on the style, the essence is questioned.

For example(s):

POETIC:
West of the city,
The wayward wanderer,
Slept underneath a dead tree.

What is the significance of the dead tree? Does indicate the absence of life in that a wayward wanderer often lives primatively in comparrison to modern times? Or is the tree an indication that nature can grow calm and quiet, while a city is always active and alive? Or does it indicate something entirely different?

PROSE:
The maple tree in my backyard, which was there ever since we moved into our home 15 years ago, is now dead.

The indication here is simple. A tree, which is located in a specific area (the backyard of the narrator) is now dead.

AMBIGUOUS:
Yesterday I went to the doctor. I have AIDS. That bitch! I loved her...she broke my heart. She broke my heart and gave me AIDS. Such is the way of life. To calm myself and reassure myself everything would be okay, I took my journal with me to write underneath that dead maple tree in my backyard. It's the very tree, underneath which, I first told Marie I loved her.

Again, the significance of the dead tree is open to debate. However, it's more concrete. The tree represents either (and both simultaneously) A. the death of love; B. death.


Now, going back to Sartre, it was his argument that out of all the styles of writing, prose is by far the most perfect. It is the only form which is deliberate in its aim, not open to interpretation, and yet can qualify as artistic.

Now, in keeping with our discussions, we all agree that each and all aspects are in someway perfect in themselves. Poetic phrasing is perfect for poetry which is perfect for artistic writing which is perfect in conveying a theme/emotion. But it's too figurative. Although poetry may be the perfect form from conveying an emotion, it's open to interpretation. Even then, you have many styles: slam poetry, prose poetry, lyrical poetry, haikus, epic poetry; and it encorporates a number of tools: meter, rhyme, rhyme-scheme, pure prose, structure. So, what's the perfect poem in conveying a dead tree? Who's the perfect poet?

Ergo, when writing in prose, one can only convey the literal meaning of the piece. A prose piece is perfect in not only conveying this and that, but it's the perfect form of writing in that each word can only convey this and that. It follows a set of rules (adhering to standards) and does so perfectly.