From the beginning, to novelist thing, any constancy abiding idea must never be prepared, though they try to describe novel sentences. Probably since Ancient days, the truth had been serially continued. Even at the eras whose story was not that discriminated with myth nor religious note nor so.

What makes any novelist so must be that our social matter and any kind of nature abiding environment, and any kind of our own propositional ideas and their own solution are never done, far from it, rather more and more accumulating reality only is witnessed by our eyes and in fact, almost things are never so clearly identified, from the beginning, how we should clarify any unknown matter, that idea or stance by themselves are originally contradictory and not that appropriate, we could regard so either.

Additionally, these contemporary ages days ( how can we use this vocabulary? More useful definition is now needed so appropriately, isn't it? ) have own specific nature. That is obviously no any constant idea by itself is already none in these half Century days, specifically, to me, that impression is easily appearing in mind.

In frank, any novel has no completion, nor no perfectly satisfied conclusion. Because to our own life, the typed thing must never be found nor discovered, and additionally, we should never follow that thing, from the beginning, to us, any perfection nor any completion at least in terms of life regard, we'd never find so certainly nor strictly. 

After all, to us, any useful idea is only temporarily made or kind of daringly made concoction, though to us, everlastingly clarified absolute truth must never be found, rather only the thing must be so strictly irreplaceable. 
Thus, necessarily, novel thing won't have constant principle nor consistent ideally regarded form won't be found nor done on any author's road. And it satisfies. 

By the way, to us, language by itself is never freely used, far from it, we can only use according to any habit, custom, or any kind of regulation. Though necessarily, any ideally regarded novel must be in the extent of our languages limitation as well as Wittgenstein said at his paper text. In frank, novel won't evolve. It must never be seen as perfection form or masterpiece. Rather only the thing won't be exchanged, converted forevermore.

Because novel is very carnally interpreted and read thing. No other genre is not that carnally, but more aethetically beauty can be expressed, but in novel, any beauty must never be found, rather only it must be the novel's irreplaceable fate.  

On the other hand, poetry must have some completion in formed order. But that won't be so easily made to anyone. E.g. Sir Bob Dylan's sentences of essay and lyrics of his songs are from the beginning, any ideally regarded hope nor ideas are already excluded, but only tiny wishing minded words are interpreted so certainly. 

In other words, at his words, easily sugarcoated parts are none, but rather that decisive nature rather totally makes his masterpieces own nobility, though if we find Dylan's lyrics as poetry masterpieces, only the thing is the sole imperfect part. But it's so necessity. 
Though, from the point any novel could abandon, that point must be our true starting point. 

At next occasion around mentioning novel owning nature, I will address to thinking about how we read novels from these days on, that idea will be mainly described.

(Irregularly continued)

Dec. 15th.     2023