/lit/ - Literature

Is it acceptable to be juggling ten books at a time?

How do I commit myself to only reading one book? Because my attention span is really horrible tbqh.

I read as fast as I can talk, I think. Don't everyone do that?
If I try to read faster I feel my tongue twisting and my thoughts with it.

So, I've been reading a lot of Borges lately and decided to have a crack at writing a short story about labyrinths.

The protagonist finds an article in some encyclopedia about a mythical labyrinth city in the Middle East. Intrigued, he googles it for more information, but finds nothing. He starts researching in libraries, asking around, and so on. Eventually he finds some references about old books that may or may not exist and manages to track one of them down. That leads to another book, then to another, with some of them being dead ends, until after a long time he comes across someone's diary detailing their own search for the city.

This diary tells how he found an analysis of the labyrinth city myth. The analysis, in turn, refers to an article where all is explained: the city was located in the desert and lured adventurers in search of glory or enlightenment (no one was really sure what was actually in the center). Sometimes they did reach the center, and reportedly nothing was there. According to them, the hard part was really getting out, and the few who succeeded ended up dead (covered with scratchmarks). Finally one adventurer got tired of wandering around in the maze and burned it to the ground (killing himself). The author then asks the reader to burn the book.

The article basically just states that this city might simply be a later version of the maze of Crete. In both cases the point was not just to reach the center, but to get out alive; in both cases the victims served as sacrifices to the labyrinth, with the difference that, instead of being mandatory like the greek one, the labyrinth actively lured adventurers with the promise of glory. Furthermore, it might actually not have been a physical labyrinth, but a literal one, since no remains have been found, and the longer people write about it the longer it will stay active. Then he apologises for writing this.

The diary concludes that the labyrinth is indeed real, and hunts for its victims. The writer of the analysis was found dead with scratchmarks and bites, and after some research, so was the writer of the diary, who finishes by saying he's sorry and the labyrinth made him write this. Now will you please burn the diary (although it's obvious by now that it's not going to happen).

Finally, I apologise to the reader and end the story there.

I'm not sure if this is too clumsy and if the references to Borges were too open. Also, why would the victims lure other victims by leaving their own account of the search?
Also, it should be noted that only those who do reach the center are hunted, and that the hunt for the story is the labyrinth itself (with all the dead ends, etc.), with the article being the center; like in the myth, there is nothing there but doom.

Thanks for reading.

>The Road