Your first books of poems and this have nothing in common. What's happened to you on the road?

I didn't value the form of Surrealism of telling the things that I want to tell you now, because they're very self-centered, loaded with metaphors and images.

You wanted to be fairer.

You can never control what the reader will read, but I didn't want to be satisfied with myself. I've gone to learn from the realisms that have existed since World War I until today.

For the issues you have worked on, have you therefore rejected Surrealism?

By objectives. I've thought of this book almost as a campaign. I want to talk about these kinds of issues and I have looked for the most effective ways to do that. Sometimes I wanted to tell it first person. Maybe inventing a joke somewhere else. Next time I raped her or parodied her better in an almost mythic tone. He has been very conscious.

The little sketches, those everyday and repetitive situations, seem to me to be very appealing, and the characters are treated as puppets.

Puppets with name and surname, in any case.

Names and surnames, or letters from the alphabet, such as Mr D. These names, in themselves, want to be at the limit of anonymity.

Going back to surrealism, this time you dismissed it because it wasn't the best. Will you come back to that?

I don't think so. I am very interested in reading, but the forms of surrealism, of its substitutes and even of the later are largely completed, including my book.

On the other hand, most of those who made Surrealism were Communists, and at the ideological level I can feel very identified, but in the practices of love they ended up doing very narcissistic things. They saw the world as an object, as a fantastic object, and the objects they loved or desired. I am not interested in the explanations of what is happening in me.

It has used aesthetic, typographical resources.

And parentheses? I wanted to be clean and also have the opportunity to write banners, banners, stickers... For that, I've used square brackets, capital letters or bertsalitas, to distinguish blueprints, to make it clearer. If I had written them in the same font, I could have caused some confusion. Intrusions are identified in this way very clearly.

John Cruz Lakasta was told, “Amazing, I understood this book of poetry.” That has been one of my goals, to be understandable.

Let's talk about the title. Who is the simplist?

This word serves to prevent debate. The aim is to avoid the debate by saying to anyone that it is simplistic, or that from a position of power it is not in the right tone. It's like saying that conflict doesn't exist. If there is no such thing, there is no need for action. I like it. Throughout history, this has been done since many times, visions and scopes. You're miserable because you don't have money, which makes your nature miserable, you're not interesting. So we're miserable, we're puppets, or we're dirty black people. If that is the excuse to avoid the debate, listen, we will turn the insult on our behalf, but let's start talking.

Who have you put them in that bag?

Most people in the society I live in: toilet cleaners, web programmers, mechanics, unemployed, paperless immigrants selling little houses, violinists...

Does it show the teeth like on the skin?

It's one of the gaps in the book. It is not clear whether the dog is with the simplists or against the simplists. Probably, the dog is on both sides. I like it because it's black and white, seeing the world in a binary way is a possible beginning of complexity, at least in the West.

Your poems look like portraits made quickly in the street.

They are very domesticated, a person who is going to change telephone company, who is taking something in the bar and who has heard something that his neighbors don't like... In everyday life, there are anecdotes that work as such. It seems to me that others can describe something.

For example. “You can’t complain” is a phrase that is repeated over and over again. It is often used as an argument to avoid debate. You can't complain because you have a job, even if your job is shit. I've embodied in poems those everyday forms of dominant ideology.

Gender issues are also noteworthy. Is sex so important in our society?

That is something that has remained of Surrealism. Andre Breton said the revolution will or will not be sexual. Our society is visually very sexual, but they say that in practice it is not much more sexual than other societies before. There's a willingness to show that sex, there's no pudors. It's not a transgressive book, it's heterosexual in general, but it talks about issues that some people won't find comfortable with. For example, the anus. Today, it's used as an insult and it's very consciously treated. There are still some areas of the body that are supposed to disappear. There's a choice there.

You've made three symmetrical parts.

All poems are comic books. They could also go without structure, but structured people prefer a long list of titles, and they see it in a way. It's just a game to create a book. Among these three fragments there are two interludes, slightly longer poems, to breathe or to drown, I don't know, at least to break.

Who do you write for?

For those people that appear in the book. For those who have a bad job, for the separated parents, for those who listen to hip-hop or classical music. Or for those around you, it makes practical sense. Listening is unbearable “You can’t complain” or “Here we are better”. So for that, there's a poem. I have tried to explain the absurdity of those phrases or to put them into practice. n