About the art of a writer, mine has been a long way towards stripping the word: from the very first attempts to write, when he was young in a variegated prose, full of words that today I am ashamed, until I come to a language that I want to be more and more clear, simple, and therefore more complex, because simplicity is the daughter of a complexity of creation that is neither noticeable nor noticeable. One feels first that intellectual work consists of making the simple complex, and then one discovers that the intellectual work consists in making the complex simple. Y a case of simplification is not a blunder; it is not a question of simplifying intellectual level or to deny the complexity of life and literature as an expression of life. On the contrary, it is a question of achieving a language that is capable of transmitting electricity of life by suppressing everything that is not worthy of existence. For me, it has always been fundamental the lesson of the teacher, a great a writer who died recently, who guided me the first steps. He always said to me: "you remember what the Chinese said (I think the Chinese do not they said that, but the old man had invented it to give prestige to what he said); the words that deserve to exist are words that are better than silence. " when I write, I ask myself: are these words better than silence? Do they really deserve to exist? I make a version, two or three, fifteen, twenty versions, each time shorter, more tightened: editing corrected and decreased. Word inflation the problem of monetary inflation in Latin America is very serious, but word-of-mouth inflation is as serious as monetary inflation or worse; there is an excess of atrocious circulating. Some countries have succeeded in the fight against inflation monetary, but the word inflation is still there. What I would like, modestly, is to help a little bit in that fight against the word inflation. That is, to be able to go undressing the language. It is the result of a great effort, and not finished because it is born every time: it is difficult for me to write now as much as when i was 15 or 16 years old and wept at the blank sheet of paper because he could not.

Literature always has a function, although it does not know that it has it, and although it does not want to have it I am grateful to writers who say that literature has no social function. From the moment that someone writes and publishes is doing a social function, because it is published for others. If not, it is quite simple: I write in an about and I send it to my own house, I put "letters of love to myself" and I receive them. But it is a masturbatory circle (I do not want to talk bad about masturbation, has its advantages, but love is better because people are known, as the old man said joke). It is impossible to imagine a literature that does not fulfill a social function. Sometimes the meets, and is fucked, in a numbing sensation, sometimes is a literature of fatalism, resignation, which invites you to accept reality rather than change it, but sometimes it is a revealing literature, revealing the thousand and one hidden faces of a reality that is always more dazzling than one supposed. On the other hand, it seems to me that the social literature is a redundancy because all literature is social. Many times a good love novel is more revealing and helps more people to know who it is, from where it comes and where it can get, what a bad novel of strikes. I do not share the criterion of a political literature which, moreover, is generally boring.