To be frank, honestly speaking, literature is not description to my subjective impression nor objective observation, if I was asked that writing’s essence.

If my novel's appearing one is just my fovarite one, that person's descripted aspect could not be so interesting, and on the contrary, if I was asked the impression to described character's one's identity, at my really held emotion, it must be so disgusting so subjectively, but rather so my emotionally stincard must be so interesting at being written in my novel so objectively at my novel writing stance to appearing character, in other words, at this reality, novel thing is not at writing only favorite ones to me really in society in which I am belonging to, thus, very nasty and very hating one's act and reason to exist rather could be theme of my literature. In other words, literature thing must be so obejective description in the term of really socially realized aspect, rather so the one whom I hate is more suitable at desctibed character.

Then, e.g. very defiant and stubbborn dictator could be so exciting news source, then essentially this world thing is just kind of showing performance.
Then, all social things are deformation of all normalized value's aspect as caricatured exerggerated outcome, because all political claiming is functioned at the time its performance is so extremely exerggerated, so first, anybody could be understandable at meaning of claiming, then any sort of news reporting is just along with that theory and principle.

Then, if literature is needed to be defined, that must never be true nor real aspepct nor fiction, because all these things could be each one of explannable interpretation, then described contents must never be really occurring thing nor fiction, that dimensioned thing fundamentally has nothing to do with literature's essence. Because if it could be defined as only fiction, it must never be so interesting when any reader is reading it, however, that is really thing came up to somewhere, that is only disclosure, thus that discernment is not so signified reason.

If my emotion is asked at some appearing character it could be responded "I hate him (her)" and that's the end.
But probably to me, rahter so hating one is seen so interesting if the one is my character in my novel, so objectively, then that described character, and necessarily that thing could be applicable at poetry's talking subject(thus basically, novel thing and poetry thing could have no essentially diffrence at least in the term of writing actuation.).
Thereby, at describing process, all written and described character is beyond my real life's subject and my personal opinion, just at wrting all so watching them all so objectively is interesting and that method's option is my subject.

We must never be always loving only really contacting one's character and reason to be at least when we read novel or poetry.

Hence, to some extent, literature's described things are at least for me, neither fovorite thing or ones nor unfavorite it or them.

And very disgusting ones at really relevant with me could be model for the appearing character, because these ones' messing act and violent behavior could be model and very interesting at observing objectively, very messing nature could be interesting as well as animals as beasts in cages, thus literature is anytime characterized as caricature and showing aspect's description, then that essence is fundamentally based on despise and even slander.
Because literature thing must make reality according to the degree of absurdity and foolishness, and kinky deformed at difficulty of salvation, for the first time any character could drag sympathy and empathy from any reader, thus literature thing is consistently sarcasm and irony or very blackened joke otherwise parody.

In other words, I hate any character appears at my novel, but that each precise description is so enjoyable and literature writing activity is one of typical prototype for proving that we human is fundamentally so ass-hole, and if at any literature, only superior and graceful character and nature could be described, that reality is nothing but totalitarianism or kind of fasicsm. However, when we observe or witness at news-reported animation, the great ethnic's nation's naked king waring the founding father's grayed uniform could be so comical show, because, world by itself must be the intriguing show for all audience.

Yes, essentially world by itself must be nothing but show as showing performance, then that identity must be the object to be analyzed, then if literature could be analyzed so reasonably, that must be so cruel black joking or kind of savagely interpreted cynical parody or calmination.

Literature thing must be the tool to prove and confirm that we all are so atrociously inherently evil-minded and the lesson never to forget it at surely assuring that we all are besty and cruelly savage. Thus, at literature only not justifying any nature of human is justice.

And why don't we laugh loud about our so incompleted not perfect nature together through any masterpiece?

(to be continued)

July.  1st.    2021