|
Poetry are Broke-up Sentences by Li Kan Someone asked me, can you call what you're writing poetry? I asked him back, what is it, if it's not poetry? He babbled, but in the end he didn't give any solid conclusion. If he wanted to ask me, what is poetry? My answer would be that poetry are broke-up sentences. I guess he would immediately refute me: Can you call broke-up sentences poetry? I would say, yes. It's just that your broke-up sentences may not be good enough, may not be able to attract me, may not win my admiration and make me applaud for them. What is poetry? In fact, in addition to "broke-up sentences", there should be its constraints and standards. In other words, there should be a standard answer to what a good poem should look like. It's just that this standard answer, like indefinitely small and indefinitely great, is the limit; it exists but cannot be known, and can never be reached. All our efforts could only move closer to it. This is in line with Kant's philosophy. Then, are the standards of poetry said by those so-called monks, arhats, bodhisattvas and Buddhas the standards of poetry? Or are they the ultimate standards of poetry? You can say yes, or you can say no. In my opinion, they are at best only parts of the standards of poetry, neither the final say, nor the only say. If the standards of poetry exist as a whole, their words can only be part of the whole. Even the many parts added up, are only a little closer to the whole. There are more parts that need us to explore, to strive for. But no matter how we strive for them, what we get is always only a part of them, and it is still far from the overall existence of poetry. Perhaps this is where the infinite charm of poetry lies. If the standards of poetry, or the overall existence of the standards of poetry, are discovered by us and the mystery is solved (it is actually a mystery, exists but unknown), the exploration of poetry will abruptly stop, and the charm of poetry will be instantly lost. In other words, you already know what poetry is, and you can see it all through. Then, what is the motivation for the explorations and debates about poetry? Is there a necessity for their existence without a proper reason? Could they still exist? That way, what is brought is to write according to a model, and that everyone to play the same thing. Not only the readers will find it boring, but the future of poetry will also be hopeless. In fact, the charm of poetry lies in the explorations of poetry writing. Our poetry writing is actually excavating parts from the whole. It is an endless excavation, to excavate those parts that've never been excavated but are inexhaustible. That is to say, the quality of our poetry writing lies in innovation, and the most important thing is to have new discoveries. Although these innovations and new discoveries will neither be the ultimate standards of poetry, nor the overall existence of poetry (they're instead the revolution and broadening of poetry), we have already experienced the charm of poetry and at the same time gained happiness on this road of exploration of poetry standards. Therefore, I would rather poetry be just broke-up sentences. 翻譯：西楠 詩是分行文字 文：李侃 有人問我，你那是詩嗎？我反問他，不是詩又是什么？他東拉西扯，最后還是沒說個所以然。 如果他要問我，詩是什么？我的回答是，詩是分行文字。估計他馬上會反駁我，分行文字就是詩嗎？我說是。只不過你的那些分行文字未必足夠好，未必能吸引我，未必讓我肅然起敬、拍案叫絕。 詩是什么？其實除了分行，應該有它的約束和規(guī)范。也就是說好詩到底長成什么樣子，應該是有標準答案的。只不過這種標準答案像無窮小無窮大一樣，是極限，存在而不可知，永遠不可抵達，我們的努力也只能向它靠攏。這一點很是符合康德哲學。 那么，那些所謂的比丘、羅漢、菩薩、佛們言說的詩歌的標準，是不是詩歌的標準？或者是不是詩歌的最終標準呢？你可以說是，也可以說不是。我以為它們充其量只是詩歌標準的部分言說，絕不是最后言說，也不是唯一言說。如果詩歌標準是一個整體存在，他們那些言說只能是整體的一部分。眾多的部分加起來也只是向整體靠近了一點點。還有更多的部分需要我們?nèi)ヌ剿鳎幦?。但無論我們怎樣爭取，爭取到的永遠只是一部分，離詩歌的整體存在尚遠。也許這就是詩歌無窮魅力之所在。 如果詩歌標準，或者說詩歌標準的整體存在被我們發(fā)現(xiàn)了，破謎了（它原本就是個謎，存在而不可知），詩歌探索就會嘎然停止，詩歌的魅力也會瞬間喪失。也就是說詩歌是個什么東西，你都知道了，都擺在你的面前一目了然了，那么關于詩歌的探索與爭論，動力何在？沒有存在的理由還有存在的必要嗎？還可能存在嗎？如此，帶來的就是都按一個模子去套一種方法去寫，都表演同樣的東西。這樣，不但讀者覺得乏味，詩歌也會因此前路渺茫。 其實詩歌的魅力就在詩寫的探索中。我們的詩寫實際就是在挖掘整體中的一部分。是永無止境地挖掘，是挖掘從未挖掘過的而且始終挖掘不盡的那些部分。即我們的詩寫品質貴在創(chuàng)新，貴在要有新發(fā)現(xiàn)。雖然這些創(chuàng)新與新發(fā)現(xiàn)不是詩歌的最終標準，不是詩歌的整體存在（是詩歌革命，是詩歌疆域的拓寬），但是在這條奔向標準的探索路上，我們已經(jīng)體會到詩歌的魅力，同時也收獲了快樂。 所以，我寧愿詩歌就是分行文字。 |
|
|
