I'm going to write an essay on writing.
Part One: REVIEWS.I feel completely unable (or unwilling) to be affected by reviews. For a few reasons.
(1) Because a person who would write a review already has a worldview that is distorted, or 'narrowed' (not all-encompassing). Distorted because they view art in terms of 'good' 'bad' 'important' etc. Which is distorting because art (to most people) encompasses everything, and everything has no rules, worldview, or philosophy. Therefore when I see a review and let it affect me (whether the person says the writing is 'good' or 'bad') it is like going to a calculator that is broken and gives wrong answers and using those answers to do concrete things in real life with.
(2) Increasingly I feel that writing has only two, or maybe three, uses that aren't anti-itself, distorting, or unbased in reality. One reason is to write alone, and read it alone, in order to dispel irrational angers or anxieties, to console oneself from death or depression, or to allow oneself to see a situation objectively and therefore become a 'better' person. Another reason is to do those three things to people you are in contact with every day and/or in a relationship with. The third reason is for money. Reviews do not affect the first two things. They affect 'money' I guess, but 'money' cannot console (in a long-term way; though life is short-term, so maybe money can solve all problems) against death, depression, or dispel irrational angers, anxieties, etc. so it comes as a secondary thing; and so you can't change the reviews without compromising the first two reasons.
Here are the other reasons that people say writing is 'good'; and why they don't make sense to me.
So I can achieve immortality.
(This is immoral, it doesn't even take into account the pain and suffering of others; also it has no basis in reality and you can only want this if you haven't thought very hard objectively at any time in your life.)
So I can be a great writer.
('Great' has meaning only in your own head. When you live your life with goals that have meaning only in your own head you are denying that other people exist, feel pain, or suffer.)
So I can achieve my dreams.
(Really, you have no dreams. Your dreams are there because in 2nd grade they talked about astronauts and heroes and things like that. 'Dreams' is a word that means 'distorted version of reality.' So that sentence is 'So I can achieve my distorted version of reality.' This is bad. To live morally a person should base their life off reality, not base reality off their life. 'Reality' meaning either from all perspectives equally or from no perspective, meaning with no preconceptions or all preconceptions equally. I can use the word 'should' in that sentence because I said 'To live morally,' and earlier I defined 'morally.')
So I can console others.
(This is a very complicated thing to accomplish. To publish a book you need to use a lot of energy. Books need to be printed. Books need to be shipped. Ink, etc. Corporations will profit from this. The environment will suffer, etc. No one knows if consoling one human for whatever amount of time is morally equal to or greater than killing one tree or bird. This, like the word 'great,' is something able to gain meaning only in one's own head. Therefore if you think you are consoling people (net consolation) with your writing you are like the person who wants to be a 'great' writer. Your actions show that only you exist, that pain and suffering does not exist for others, etc. And after you solve that problem, if it's possible, you then need to take into account animals, plants, computers, artificial intelligence, etc.)
Okay, those were the few reasons. Two reasons.
Part Two: STRIPPERS Strippers consume very little resources to do what they do.
They use only what they concretely own. Their own body and face. If 'ownership' means that it exists inside your own skin, that only you can feel if things are happening 'within' it, and that other people cannot 'know' it.
Ownership in literature is very strange to me. In the current moment, in the universe, if you take a photo of it, or a recording of the atoms in it, you will see many humans and many books and many poems. You cannot point at a person in this 'photo' or 'recording' of the moment and point at a poem and concretely link the two. You cannot 'tell' who 'created' what. There is nothing that links the poem and the brain.
Why is there ownership? So the 'identity' can assert itself, so that a person's consciousness can justify itself. I don't know what that means. I'm just going to type some more sentences. So that corporations can make money even off non-concrete things.
Strippers. Strippers don't use up resources. They can explain what they are doing. They are relieving pain and suffering concretely, without taking 'false' 'ownership' of anything. I don't know. Strippers are better than writers, is what I'm saying. They don't distort reality, they are able to justifiably think in terms of 'good' 'bad' or 'better,' they are able to explain themselves, they do not want to acheive 'immortality' with what they do, etc.
This essay is fucked. Just read what I already typed and don't think about it then go away. Don't argue with me. I admit most of this was wrong. It was a waste of my time and yours if you read it. Just go away quietly and go to sleep. Thank you. Good night.