/write/ general

How would a book based solely around the reader turn out? I have a book idea that includes the reader in the experience but it's based completely around assumptions. Like the protagonist is yourself and the narrator is the enemy mostly. Sort of like half manual half fiction. Has it ever been done before? Regardless i have no idea how to make a book based on assumptions about the reader work.

Sounds kinda like a choose your own adventure book

Yeah i know but it's suppose to be psychological horror where the exorcises listed have real life effects on you, like meditation on the pineal gland and lucid dreaming. The goal is to trick /x/tards into believing nonsense to spook them.

Reminds me of a collection of horror stories called "Thirteen"
There was a story in it called The Magic that was a horror thing that gave the readers instructions and tried to spook them. Got a shitload of attention because it was banned in Italy because the prime minister was scared of ghosts or some shit

If I take every thought and memory that's bothering me and put them into a novel, will it get them out of my head or will it intensify them?

Neither but you get to express yourself and if it's interesting you have something to show for it. That's what i'm learning while writing my thoughts down anyway.

I can't deal with my problems as it is and I need a way to work through them. Anyway I'll start a diary tier project. I have the general plot and concept down already, it's similar (of course) to Catcher in the Rye. Starting with a scene that's more or less my memory of crashing my car. I'll just fill in scenes as they come to me; this will be a side project I'll work on over the next year or two.
Catcher is actually far more brilliant than most people give it credit for.

They will not cease but in the sublimatory act of creating art out of pain you will gain some solace and distance and aesthetic emotion overlaying the aestheticized content. But this is truer during each moment of crafting the thing (ruminating, drafting, tweaking, destroying, recreating, etc.) than once it is "completed" which is to say frustratedly given up on or boredly abandoned.

I see. That makes sense, you're probably right. That's why just about every author ends up killing himself. Thank you.

This is not to say, though, that one cannot move from one pet project to another, sublimating different sufferings or perhaps repeatedly sublimating the same suffering via different angles, different facets of it...and this also is not to say that such sentimentalist petty intellectual projects necessarily need to solely focus on dark things, bleak things, lugubrious things. There should always be triumphant moments, too. Love, beauty, etc. What I am especially attempting to articulate is that the satisfaction is more in the production than in the product; even if an artist (most likely passingly, momentarily) feels that a specific piece is perfect, it is only one gem in the crown of their eternally incomplete oeuvre. Kafka asked upon his death that his writing be destroyed.