a workshop literature in Eindhoven isn’t something that happens every day (not to me, anyway), so I left. It was extremely interesting. Several Romanians who have long been in the “Limburg Triangle” (Holland – Germany – Belgium) founded a cultural association, and this year they managed to publish a collected volume* of testimonies (stories, stories) about their own immigrant experience. My job was sort of summing up books: what went well, what was weaker, where you could have written more, where you could have written less, etc. I paid dutifully (people said they were satisfied; at least I wasn’t beaten up), then there was a second part, which consisted of discussing the success of Romanian literature. I offered them Simone Gaucho’s Fragile or Cella Serghi’s Panza de paianjen, and the latter was chosen, as they had all read it; some recently, some earlier (“Fragile” was published two years ago, and “The Web” was published in 1938. Please, this was the first edition). I am speechless.

And here’s why: the discussions about their book (collective volume) were quite technical and very balanced, no one was angry with me for the criticisms expressed (only the fact that the need to include a “point of tension” in each text was not convincing, unfortunately, no one). Instead, the discussion of Chella Sergi’s novel was extremely passionate, and arguments flew across the table like bullets in a John Wayne western; I did not even think that a century-old novel could cause such passions!

Parenthetically: I mean it’s set a hundred years ago, not 2038; what year are we in… I know that too!

I have drawn two conclusions from this experience. Not sure they are 100% correct; however, I think it’s worth sharing and discussing…if it’s worth it.

The first conclusion concerns consensus. Professor Constantin Cranganou recently revealed the reasons why he believes that the search for consensus in science is a dead end, a dead end, a closed road that leads nowhere. In order not to turn into a flatterer of the professor, I will quote only those quoted in the article**: “Let’s figure it out: scientific activity has nothing to do with consensus. Consensus is a matter of politics. Science, on the other hand, only needs one researcher who happens to be right, which means he has results that can be tested by reference to the real world. Consensus doesn’t matter in science. What matters is the reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If there is a consensus, it is not science. If this is science, there is no consensus. point” (Michael Crichton) and “I’d rather have unanswered questions than definite answers(Richard Feynman). I venture to say that it is the same in art (or, more modestly, in literature. Who knows, maybe there is art where “consensus” works, although I highly doubt it!). That is, the consensus of critics is not a criterion for confirming literary value, just like the success of the public, nor translations, nor screen adaptations (although all this together may indicate that we are not dealing with a weak card). But as the results of the scientist’s work “can be verified by reference to the real world“, I believe that the results of the artist’s work can also be confirmed by timely reporting. If a 1938 novel still moves its readers in 2023, I’d say it’s an outstanding novel: it’s passed the test. Here’s another example, a little wilder: Homer’s Iliad has stood the test of time (please make it into a film in 2004!), but Stasinus’ Cypria is forgotten and lost, even though it belonged to the same family. (stories about the Trojan War); it would have been worse, who knows! Countless other examples can be found, but I think the idea is clear: as long as it has the power to move the reader, a literary text is alive and therefore valuable. When it no longer “sounds” in anyone’s soul… here I found another case: four years ago, the entire Romanian literary market was shaken by the extraordinary success of the debut (“Defense has a word”, Petre Bellu). Despite numerous translations, today nothing remains of this book. In other words, the check sometimes confirmed “The Web” and canceled “The word is protected.” Is it possible to talk about the “consensus of time” regarding artistic products? I don’t know, I’m asking. I suggest, you decide!

The second conclusion concerns public. For the book-consuming public: master this workshop, a teacher by profession (she teaches “Levensbeschouwing” – don’t ask me what that is, I don’t know), asked me a closing question about who I am addressing when I write. I told him I meant high school students, students, and teachers (middle school, high school, and college). The very surprised teacher replied that, according to her experience, reading is an activity for young people, punishment, torment, “work” (in the Slavic sense). I’m sure he knows what he’s talking about, he only eats his food with high schoolers, day in and day out, so he knows his victims… Read full article and comment on Contributors.ro