Microessay: Genre of writing, belonging to essay yet which can and must present literaty characteristics; very brief, and which, without providing arguments, expresses an idea, emotion, thought… Leading the reader into further thinking.
That’s the definition.
Which was “destroyed” (sic), from Wikipedia.
I stay still that I have created this genre of writing, being the first collection of them, Told on One Page.
And the last one, The THEIST MANIFESTO.
—I think cocaine could be useful.
—How could that possibly help me?
—It would help me, deal with this stupidity.
“No, he’s not invited”
“Why?”
“He takes paybacks, that’s just aweful, don’t you think.”
“I think you may be right…”
“You… Would’ve done this same thing, right?”
“Everyone does”.
I’ve come to a conclusion: “The collector of hearts” deserves something out of the walls. Here’s my idea: A whole new genre.
The scene goes around the funeral of a man with autism. Autistic but in a fucker-destroyer way: with psychic powers and so on, who died near being thirty years old.
He was sure he was going to die at five to one, not knowing if daytime or nighttime, and he acted recklessly, not to say suicidal, the rest of the time.
Which led him, curiously enough, to die at five to one.
On the tables, here’s the novelty: There are both actors and viewers, not knowing each viewer who is and actor or another viewer.
Scripts, or even frameworks, verse on remembering certain moments of the life of the protagonist, that must be mixed in order to reach some conlusion, and can and must be varied between performances, knowing the actors a kind of a BIOGRAPHY of the autistic man and their personas, which must be usef in order to involve the viewers.
As we are conducting a Syncretism… We must consider everything said to this date.
And everything will mean every, thing.
Jesus of Nazareth reportedly proposed we humans (“brothers”), should and must forgive everything to everyone with no, excepions.
I straight up defend this goes against the very nature of the human soul.
Let’s consider “Harry Potter”.* I am dead serious. In said books, there were mentioned some ‘unforgivable curses’ (let’s undetstand actions), which would include:
[*Sidenote: Magick does exist. And it is nothing but unshared technology… Can be found at Area51 and at certain regional shops].
Well, I would very much say Joanne was very right at heart.
Whereas magic wands do be ficcional, said actions aren’t:
You can murder another human being, torture them or… Well…
Yup, there we’d be.
Get in the shoes of the human being in the illustration. Would you forgive?
This is the conclusion:
Forgiveness can improve the world and heal the victim, but God, doesn’t obligue you. Id est, you are in your right to not forgive, to take (legal) actions, etc…
Source: The Grim Adventures of Billy And Mandy 01×06.
Thanks for reading.
“It is March the First of 2022. As I am writing these words, people gradually realize, that we are Globalized on the Higher Spheres.”
Told on One Page is a compilation of Microessay as said before.
It is, indeed, the first ever sample of this kind of writing.
‘To my great friend Mr. Socio, for not giving me yet reasons to kill him and thus keeping me from going to jail for such a shallow act.’
“Substantives
Must be the favourite kind of word of many philosophers. It is as easy as writing, or even saying one, to bring it into existence, from nothingness.
Yet substantives act not without the verb, which is preferred by people more pragmatic.
And what to say about imperative mode; Without it, people who for any reason are in a position of power, couldn’t act. Like when some bright spark takes things too far, thus giving you the right and the must to tell them off.
Although it might seem discriminatory, we are going to close on adjetives, these the chosen by people who give their opinion without any kind of consideration, that an attitide which provokes true hate and aversion when is due to afficion, and respect or even admiration when is due to their profession.”
Then again, people at Google, there’ain’t even no images in this entry.
Back one year, namely 2015, I wrote, on my very own, this extremely experimental collection in which I introduced Microessay, which I defend to be a whole writing genre.
Said book is called “Contado en una página (Told on one Page)”, and one of its 80-1 microessays goes as follows:
“Determinism, is compatible with freedom of choice, as long as you can accept choices you make are made beforehand.”
Obviosly, things evolve. People, evolve. And I ain’t no exception.
Now I firmly assert Freedom of Choice.
A Freedom of Choice of a divine nature. One of God’s almightiness limits*.
How do I prove it? I just don’t feel like it. 🙃
*Others would be:
Many things have been said. Aliens, Time Travel, Rick Sánchez.
Let’s consider what we do know:
The Architects took the secret to the grave (pun intented), and,
We now know it is a secret.
They had to put much effort into hiding the truth.
And how do you hide something? Deceiving.
If they left any “evidence” of how they wete built, we must assume something opposite to it.
And they, as the above image witnesses, talked about big stone blocks carried from far away quarries.
This is what I propose: There were never far quarries. Instead the Pyramids were built by a technique which mixed carving of something that more or less was already there, with the assambling of said hypothetic pieces.
Thanks for reading.
