I don’t understand how is it possible to explain that literature has many manifestations but only one way to teach it. I read and read that this technique does this and that for this effect and that outcome. I can see that hence I can learn it. I am totally contrarian to the idea of stripping art of its unconscious aspects and turn it into a mechanized tool to be toyed with. One thing was to learn that authors that I considered nearly God-like because of what they wrote to be nothing more than artisans who knew how to use a tool and hence far removed from what I would deem demi-gods of the mortal world. This was a devastating truth that I wasn’t ready to see yet I saw it. I understand it yet there is a resistance within me to believe that texts that I have enjoyed have been nothing more than Aristolean tricks to move me into pathos. There must be something called pure art, I don’t know where it is but if they say that imitation is the highest form of flattery then I will probably end up doing so as well, how tragic and dreadful it is to live in a world devoid of higher entities, realizing that the only entities we have are those very same ones we construct to believe in.

One of the biggest coups then acted upon humanity was religion making us believe that there is something else out there, we were taken away the right to deify the wooden god, an earthly being for a fantasy-like-being that doesn’t even exist, alas! At least we knew that wood was something tangible.

On the other hand, if the stream of consciousness within literature is to reflect real life then I suppose it is not entirely wrong to use said to tools to manipulate outcomes and produce effects. Real life then is a daily construction of our selves and the tricks we use to make us feel more better about ourselves. This off course, brings a disturbing question beforehand: how conscious are we then of our real lives …?