Was the "postscript" at the end of the article a writing instruction independent of the novel, or was it an integral part of the novel? Please share your views and reasons based on the full text.

Whether the "postscript" at the end of the article was an independent writing instruction or an integral part of the novel needed to be considered in conjunction with the full text. If the novel was a complete story, then the "postscript" was usually a supplementary explanation of the novel's background, characters, plot, and the main turning points in the story's development so that the reader could better understand the novel's content. Therefore, the "postscript" was usually a writing instruction independent of the novel. However, if the novel is not a complete story or there are some plots or characters that do not appear in the novel, then the "postscript" may be an integral part of the novel. In this case, the postscript could reveal the characters and plot in the novel so that the readers could better understand the theme and meaning of the novel. In addition, the postscript could also provide a summary and review of the novel so that readers could better understand the background and history of the novel. In conclusion, whether the "postscript" was an independent writing instruction or an integral part of the novel depended on the specific situation of the novel. In some cases, the "postscript" is independent of the novel, but in other cases it may be an integral part of the novel.