I keep thinking about what Mark said via Deleuze in The Barthes of Parties,
"... if superficiality is defined as lack of depth, is depth not defined as lack of surface?"
Hemingway's 'Iceberg Theory' seems as though it could be argued from either side. All surface and no depth, or all depth and no surface. The former because the depth's implied so all you have is surface, the latter because all the value comes from that implied depth and the surface itself is unremarkable.
That being said, I dunno that it's necessary or possible to separate style from content, so I'm probably tying myself in knots for the sake of it.