Labyrinth Method

    Yesterday, I brought up the idea of the Labyrinth Method and said that was something that I have all ready talked about, but let's look at what LM is to see how it works. LM is a way of describing the way that a particular author references his own work. So if an author uses LM, then that author would use other authors to show how he understands the pathways between their influences. So it would be helpful here to look at a different way of looking at things. Another writer's method might be to write about whatever is on her mind. Let's say just for the sake of argument that this author writes about her children, for example. So she writes about her daughter Sue and her sons Bob and Eric, but at no point in her own writing does she reference, Virginia Woolf, Hemingway, or John Ashbery because none of those persons are her children. She sticks to what is on her mind, you see.

    My method is hard for me to explain because of the split between word-stories and literary-stories. So let's say that both of these are WE and LC, which are ways of telling you how to navigate the links between how both linguistic and literary stories operate. One question that may arise is why should WE and LC require a symbology for us to understand them? These symbols help the user to understand these concepts about linguistic meaning. They mark what other users of linguistic meaning tell you about how they talk about things like words, books, and other authors. But I am trying to mark what these limits are, which cannot be done, since then we would need to look at both sides of how language is put together to form the literary cannon, which comes to us as a whole.

    It is conveyed like the way that Wittgenstein put his idea of how we cannot talk about the limits of linguistic reality. So, I work in a literary reality, where there is linguistic meaning to my content, but my concern is also for the reader to find her way around of how other authors have contributed to my method. Once the question about the topic of what I write or what writing is comes up, I pause, and then ask what about my work is the subject mater of your concern. Notice that I did not give an answer like, I am writing about a restaurant review that I intend to publish because things like service and the taste of the food are not my interests at this moment. So I cannot write about those things.

    Thus, you have authors who are important enough to be included in the canon that has shaped my writing style, which mimes their way of writing, but not their subject matter, but rather how they have shown themselves to be influential as a writers regardless of race, class, or gender. But once you invoke RCG, the question about how should my writing promote this part of RCG or that part of RCG will not provoke me into either side of the issue that you may wonder about. So I think that LM is beyond the issues of any idea of political concern, which is important but unworthy to be considered here because such conveyances would be misplaced.