Andrei Pleșu, Dilema.ro: Notes, states, days

February 1, 2026

In the last week's issue of Dilema, echoes of a celebratory gathering at the Central University Library appeared, dedicated to the awarding of the title of "Man of Dilema" (once a year) to the wonderful essayist and professor Alexandru Călinescu from Iași. Both the honoree and I – as hosts together with Sever Voinescu – talked about humor. With examples of all kinds that amused the audience. One of the themes was "the humor of misfortune," which often transformed jokes, irony, and mockery into forms of sharp confrontation with the communist regime. In other words, humor as a species of dissent (together with – or alongside – the minor radical political dissent). Both Mr. Călinescu and I mentioned this dimension of "humor," but the first to bring it up was Mr. Călinescu. I also revisited the topic in question, present in the preparatory pages of the dialogue in my file. However, the magazine stated (rather unnecessarily) that I was the one who opened the subject, with Alexandru Călinescu taking it up later. I wasn't attentive to this "assertion," but I am ready to admit that the guest had priority. It should only be added that the theme outpaces both of us. In the notes I had in hand, I had even collected illustrative quotes: Ben Lewis, for instance, a well-known Australian actor and singer: "Communism – a machine for producing humor." There exists the category of "tragicomedy," there exists the mockery of "the world upside down," there exists "buffoonery" as an unamendable impertinence, etc. "There is no humor in Heaven," Mark Twain also noted, thus suggesting that, without structural derailment, without the acute presence of Evil, "the (hilarious) play" cannot find its place. The "fallen" ambiance, the impure environment produces rather "black" humor, "dry" humor, than euphoric pink humor...

In short, I thank Alexandru Călinescu for provoking and motivating my rhetoric. And one more thing: from the examples, both Sandu and I had the moral instinct to risk bitter dissent (not "cheerful," not partying, not metaphorical) when Mircea Dinescu became a victim of the dictatorship. I didn't do much, but I stood, explicitly, alongside him and endured some uncomfortable consequences... I did well! We will talk more about humor!

Without a date

I watch a lot of television. It is a subtle kind of infirmity. I move uncomfortably, without the desire and sufficient power for more dynamic activities, I respond more and more slowly and radically to numerous requests – however flattering – to collaborate abundantly on all sorts of public "debates"; reading has lost some of its allure, and friendly chatter, once nourishing and amusing, has become mere "socializing"... So, to the exasperation of the doctors, who push me, increasingly bored, towards "dynamism," comforting socialization – I prefer to sit in a comfortable armchair, in front of the media spectacle. But this experience also tends to demobilize me. There is much to say, but I quickly note two "irritations":

a) The abundance of bad news. It is probably a technique to maintain a broader presence of a wider category of viewers, bored by sleepy "normalities," predictable platitudes, "nothing new." And then, daily catastrophes must be inventoried: for the tireless viewer, the world is painted in the regime of horror films: floods, earthquakes, murders, railway disasters, plane crashes, train and car collisions, criminal children, sexual aggressors, bloody or dizzy politicians, criminal subversions, etc. After all, we can't always look at the starry sky, at cheerful gardens, at lovable grandparents, and at the precocious genius of local schoolchildren... I beg, the subject deserves a more nuanced analysis, but for that, it must, at least, be signaled.

b) Support for televised "debates" is becoming increasingly difficult: a group of colorful guests visits the studio of a host, journalist or journalist, to show that they are right, that they know everything they need, that they can contradict harshly or rudely any opponent. In turn, the host amuses themselves, distractingly, and shows us, skillfully, that they dominate the scene, that they know better than their dialogue partners what the correct answers and reactions are. Everyone casually ignores some rules of good faith: the most accessible is the verbal avalanche over other speakers, the reply delivered before the question, the unstructured chatter of a "conversation" in which almost everyone speaks simultaneously, lively destroying coherence, clarity of the debate. The other day, I saw an interview with the prime minister, in which the questioning journalist showed that she knew the "correct" answers to her questions better than the one being questioned. An irritating proof of not very good faith...

February 2, 2026

I hear that we are neighboring a debate about the necessity of appointing a director of the National Theater in Bucharest. Obviously, this is not a decision at hand. As far as I am concerned, I still have in mind an appropriate and unanimously plausible decision. I don't think it is necessarily needed, an actor or director, usually directly involved in the immediate artistic performance. An expert is needed, knowledgeable about contemporary theatrical life, a career analyst of the domestic performance, competent without prejudices and private adhesions in judging domestic theatrical life. I allow myself, without authoritative claims, but also without conjunctural hesitations, to make a proposal of common sense. How come the opinions of "specialists" do not lean towards the most accessible option: Marina Constantinescu? I have read, for years, her professional reviews in Romania literară, I know all the domestic and transnational performances, confirmed, for years, by the press, institutions, and experts, and it seems to me that her nomination for the direction of the National Theater would be wise, intelligent, and natural. I vote!

https://www.dilema.ro/situatiunea/note-stari-zile_3490