Twice during 2023 Mr. Nicolae Manolescu, director of the magazine Literary Romania, devoted his leading article to the problems of literary studies. More precisely, the so-called welcome criticism. The one embodied in chronicles and published on magazine pages. Criticism, the purpose of which would be primarily to bring a certain, but much needed order in (relatively) recent productions. To first distinguish what is bad and what is good. Establish hierarchies, even primaries. Once confirmed or not.

If in Criticism of complacency, edition published in no. 6 of the magazine, sp. Manolescu was dealing only with a certain country that is becoming more and more common in the genre, that is, the unconditional division of panegyrics, a fact that means, in the end, the annulment of any point of criticism of the meeting, in the commentary in no. 12-13, a well-known teacher drew attention to a more general problem. The current criticism seems to be no longer considered attractive, and scholars no longer engage in it. As it happened, when, for example, Literary Romania, Trbuna, Steaua this column, which was considered a flag, was supported by names of the first magnitude. Marian Papahagi, Mircea Dzachiu, Nicolae Manolescu himself. And it may also be because in the context of annual evaluations of scientific and pedagogical activity it is almost no longer awarded puncture for journalistic performances of university students, the texts that appear in magazines due to some coincidence of circumstances are evaluated much more generously even by ISSI. And therefore with consequences in promotion in the didactic hierarchy.

I think that’s how it’s done because a lot of magazines say it’s interesting who’s first people of good will than sincere critics, this explains not only the inflation, but also the false premonition of blogs that bite the impressions of some people who are not minimally qualified in the field. These impressions (many signed by engineers, lawyers or doctors) make a serious impression right of wayThis isthat they are considered value judgments and quoted as such.

Are we better in the field of theater criticism? I wouldn’t say. Magazines no longer have dedicated columnists, and even if they do, their writings are published every Easter. There are as many big dailies as there are even fewer that have editions prince, the genre is no longer of interest to them for the simple reason that the theater chronicle does not increase the number of readers very much. Or hits, please. Since trips to premieres are financed from theater budgets, the independence of expression and judgment also has many limits. The theaters, that is, the directors, themselves make lists with the names of invitees, that is, with commentators, uninvited bloggers, and these are mostly engineers, lawyers or doctors, who are known from the very beginning to issue favorable conclusions. I was given the chance to hear a director who could not be more solid, who came fifty and accused of being old and too awarded, he rose to prove his spiritual youth, very confident in the opinions of bloggers. The real critics are too old. The productions of the praisers are urgently published on the websites of the theaters and are considered letters of the Gospel. And then the improvisers are thanked with dozens of bows facebook. I refrain from examples, although I know two or three champions in this field.

It is serious that some chroniclers with some education and proven skills in the field began to take their turn. So they also produce pious lies. Disguised in compositions of unspecified gender. More than half of the space of the supposed annals becomes original the meaning of my journey or a poetic-nostalgic memory of a theatrical friendship that actually turns into a pitiful exercise in egotism. The second half bites the adjective. Or fake poetry. And a link to the conclusion that guarantees a future invitation. Everything was good and, most likely, it will be even better.

There are few truly critical remarks, so that, God forbid, their signer will be accused of harassment. The reality is that a cool attitude is nothing more than a reflection of the writer’s self-doubt and inability to have an opinion. To argue them correctly. An argument based primarily on aesthetic criteria, not on representativeness, gender, age, political correctness, as a group of female critics claimed. The culmination is that the feminist disease began to make its nest in Romanian TV shows, especially those moderated by TVR Cultural, a citizen, not a professional.

The obvious deprofessionalization of the theater chronicle, which is even more surprising, since most universities have departments of theater studies, is accompanied by the desire of sailors to anthologize their productions in volumes. The launch of which is organized with great generosity by theater directors, really good masters, often even from the first league. The directors pretend not to notice that the person they direct doesn’t even know the difference between a play and a play. A question concerning a B C-profession. The corresponding compositions are then abundantly quoted in the annual reports of the same directors, reports to the guardianship forum. We are dealing with a legitimate business. With always paid debts. And again with the conclusion that everything was good and will be even better.

And if Professor Nicolae Manolescu worries about the future of literary criticism, a critic, also a professor, please, associate professor, at the Faculty of Arts, supervisor of doctoral theses, but who has repeatedly shown himself to be a stranger not only to the living history of the theater, but also to the spelling of the Romanian language, dictates that the time of the current chronicle has passed. That the time has come for syntheses. Ignoring the fact that without appropriate chronicles, which mean staged diagnoses, syntheses, monographs, essays would be completely impossible. Nothing, the man quotes all kinds of excerpts from the chronicles in his books, but, unfortunately, he does it not quite accurately, not knowing, for example, that one was Sike Alexandrescu and the other was Dan Alexandrescu, or that there were two actresses named I am Raluca Zamfirescu. The book of the mentioned person, who suffers from such confusion and abracadabran theories, was not only nominated, but also awarded by UNITER. The fact itself speaks volumes. Read the whole article and comment on Contributors.ro