双语：诗是分行文字
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.
翻译：西楠
诗是分行文字
文：李侃
有人问我，你那是诗吗？我反问他，不是诗又是什么？他东拉西扯，最后还是没说个所以然。
如果他要问我，诗是什么？我的回答是，诗是分行文字。估计他马上会反驳我，分行文字就是诗吗？我说是。只不过你的那些分行文字未必足够好，未必能吸引我，未必让我肃然起敬、拍案叫绝。
诗是什么？其实除了分行，应该有它的约束和规范。也就是说好诗到底长成什么样子，应该是有标准答案的。只不过这种标准答案像无穷小无穷大一样，是极限，存在而不可知，永远不可抵达，我们的努力也只能向它靠拢。这一点很是符合康德哲学。
那么，那些所谓的比丘、罗汉、菩萨、佛们言说的诗歌的标准，是不是诗歌的标准？或者是不是诗歌的最终标准呢？你可以说是，也可以说不是。我以为它们充其量只是诗歌标准的部分言说，绝不是最后言说，也不是唯一言说。如果诗歌标准是一个整体存在，他们那些言说只能是整体的一部分。众多的部分加起来也只是向整体靠近了一点点。还有更多的部分需要我们去探索，去争取。但无论我们怎样争取，争取到的永远只是一部分，离诗歌的整体存在尚远。也许这就是诗歌无穷魅力之所在。
如果诗歌标准，或者说诗歌标准的整体存在被我们发现了，破谜了（它原本就是个谜，存在而不可知），诗歌探索就会嘎然停止，诗歌的魅力也会瞬间丧失。也就是说诗歌是个什么东西，你都知道了，都摆在你的面前一目了然了，那么关于诗歌的探索与争论，动力何在？没有存在的理由还有存在的必要吗？还可能存在吗？如此，带来的就是都按一个模子去套一种方法去写，都表演同样的东西。这样，不但读者觉得乏味，诗歌也会因此前路渺茫。
其实诗歌的魅力就在诗写的探索中。我们的诗写实际就是在挖掘整体中的一部分。是永无止境地挖掘，是挖掘从未挖掘过的而且始终挖掘不尽的那些部分。即我们的诗写品质贵在创新，贵在要有新发现。虽然这些创新与新发现不是诗歌的最终标准，不是诗歌的整体存在（是诗歌革命，是诗歌疆域的拓宽），但是在这条奔向标准的探索路上，我们已经体会到诗歌的魅力，同时也收获了快乐。
所以，我宁愿诗歌就是分行文字。