长久以来我就有一种偏见,以为那些杰出的、致力于虚构(诗和小说)的作者,一定有能力写出同样杰出的非虚构作品(比如随笔或文论),这样的例子俯拾皆是,在有些情况下会有看似完全专注虚构的作者如波拉尼奥,其实也只是不愿意将非虚构和虚构作截然的划分罢了。对我而言,这个偏见更具实用性且被一再验证夯实的,是它互为等价的逆否命题,即那些在随笔、文论以及访谈中充斥平庸见解的作家,其虚构作品就整体水准而言也一定不会是第一流的,每每只是凭借天分和模仿而开出的一时之花。因为所谓文体乃至才能的强硬分工只是一场现代性阶段的短暂潮流,在更为古老和正在到来的时 For a long time I had a prejudice that those outstanding writers dedicated to fictional (poetry and fiction) must have the ability to write equally outstanding non-fictional works (such as essays or literary criticism) In some cases, there may be seemingly completely devoted authors such as Polaño, which are in fact only reluctant to categorize non-fiction and fiction. To me, this bias is more practical and is reinforced by the repeated verification that it is an inverse problem of equivalence to each other, that is, writers filled with mediocre ideas in essays, literary theories and interviews, and their fictional works as a whole The standard is also not necessarily the first-class, often just by virtue of talent and imitation and out of temporary flowers. Because the so-called hard-line division of style and ability is only a temporary trend of the modern stage, at a more ancient and coming