{"id":7330,"date":"2012-08-27T08:38:23","date_gmt":"2012-08-27T08:38:23","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.marianagurza.ro\/blog\/?p=7330"},"modified":"2012-08-27T08:38:23","modified_gmt":"2012-08-27T08:38:23","slug":"marin-sorescu-si-contracultura","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.marianagurza.ro\/blog\/2012\/08\/27\/marin-sorescu-si-contracultura\/","title":{"rendered":"Adrian Dinu Rachieru &#8211; Marin Sorescu \u015fi contracultura"},"content":{"rendered":"<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong><a href=\"http:\/\/www.marianagurza.ro\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/08\/adrian-dinu-rachieru.jpg1_.jpg\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-7332 alignleft\" title=\"adrian dinu rachieru.jpg1\" src=\"http:\/\/www.marianagurza.ro\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/08\/adrian-dinu-rachieru.jpg1_.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"194\" height=\"259\" \/><\/a>La Sorescu mali\u0163ia ascunde \u015fi protejeaz\u0103 vulnerabilitatea fiin\u0163ei, fragilitatea \u201etrestiei g\u00e2nditoare\u201d. Scutul ironic-parodic ne ap\u0103r\u0103 de comedia obiectelor, de propria noastr\u0103 reificare; percepem \u201edulcea g\u00e2ngurire a lucrurilor\u201d, diferen\u0163a de nivel dintre ideal \u015fi real. Scindat, Sorescu nu devine un dezabuzat.<\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\" align=\"justify\"><strong>Recent, \u00eentr-un articol din Cultura, sub un titlu imprudent, derutant chiar (v. Contracultura lui Marin Sorescu, nr. 22\/7 iunie 2012), Cosmin Borza punea \u00een discu\u0163ie poetica sorescian\u0103, pornind de la Tinere\u0163ea lui Don Quijote, volumul din 1968 \u015fi, mai ales, invoc\u00e2nd celebra Postfa\u0163\u0103, pescuind acolo posibile \u201eelemente de contracultur\u0103\u201d. Subliniind, desigur, \u201ecosmologia relativit\u0103\u0163ii\u201d, rescrierea parodic\u0103, clivajul etc., \u015fi conchiz\u00e2nd c\u0103 r\u0103spunsul sorescian nu putea fi dec\u00e2t \u201esceptic\u201d. Dar, firesc, ne \u00eentreb\u0103m: putea fi vorba de o contracultur\u0103 \u00een contextul unei societ\u0103\u0163i opresive, ideologizat\u0103, \u00eendoctrinat\u0103, supus\u0103 unui control capilar? Orice Dic\u0163ionar de Sociologie ne l\u0103mure\u015fte: contracultura propune simboluri, norme, valori, moduri de via\u0163\u0103 \u00een opozi\u0163ie cu cultura dominant\u0103, ajung\u00e2ndu-se chiar, dincolo de evaziune, marginalizare, conflict, ruptur\u0103, la criminalitate (contre-culture criminelle, dup\u0103 Gilles Ferr\u00e9ol). Ca fenomen de disiden\u0163\u0103 cultural\u0103, ea se poate radicaliza politic sau e\u015fueaz\u0103 \u00eentr-un \u201ehedonism confuz\u201d, sfid\u00e2nd integra\u0163ionismul, normele instrumentale (acea \u201era\u0163iune instrumentalist\u0103\u201d, denun\u0163at\u0103 de freudo-marxistul Marcuse), produc\u00e2nd efecte disfunc\u0163ionale; sau reverber\u00e2nd prin capacitate inovativ\u0103, anun\u0163\u00e2nd schimbarea. \u00cen fond, calea artei, ne reamintea acela\u015fi H. Marcuse, este subversiunea estetic\u0103 permanent\u0103, o \u201etradi\u0163ie a protestului\u201d care ar sluji dialectica eliber\u0103rii (manipulare, \u00eendoctrinare, reprimare). Dar acest poten\u0163ial subversiv, \u00eempins \u00een desublimare, grotesc, ironie etc., nu s-a convertit \u00een frond\u0103 programatic\u0103, radical\u0103, de\u015fi unele voci, exager\u00e2nd, pledau \u2013 \u00een cadrele literaturii noastre \u2013 pentru un optzecism antisistemic, cu rol detonator. Nu e cazul, aici, de a ad\u00e2nci chestiunea. Cert e c\u0103 aceast\u0103 putere a negativului, viziunea criticist\u0103 (tolerabil\u0103 \u00eentre anumite limite), tenta\u0163ia subversivului rimau cu nonconformismul sorescian, refuz\u00e2nd rutinizarea. Poetica sorescian\u0103 a suportat muta\u0163ii (bricol\u00e2ndu-i identitatea), dar poetul n-a fost un exclus, ci un nume charismatic, legalizat, intrat \u00een circuitul \u015fcolar, r\u0103sf\u0103\u0163at pe pia\u0163a bunurilor culturale. A\u015fadar, din interiorul culturii oficiale, beneficiind de capital simbolic \u015fi ilustr\u00e2nd ceea ce, nejustificat, s-a numit, eroizant, rezisten\u0163a prin cultur\u0103 (salv\u00e2nd esteticul \u015fi, rareori, est-etica). Deseori \u00een r\u0103sp\u0103r fa\u0163\u0103 de sloganurile propagandistice, pendul\u00e2nd \u00eentre demitizare \u015fi remitizare, p\u0103c\u0103lind (cu succes variabil) v\u0103mile cenzurii, scrisul sorescian refuz\u0103 \u201ecomanda\u201d, prefabricatele, conformismul; poetul acuz\u0103 frigul \u00een \u201ec\u0103ma\u015fa de litere\u201d, falsitatea lumii (\u00een \u201edes-fiin\u0163are\u201d, cu \u201esfin\u0163i r\u0103sfin\u0163i\u0163i\u201d) \u015fi recomand\u0103, pe calea progresului, clamat \u201eeuforic\u201d \u00een epoc\u0103, \u201eextirparea mir\u0103rii\u201d. Solitudinea ofer\u0103 discursului parodic un timbru agonic, sus\u0163inut \u00een anii ultimi de filonul tragic. Oricum, \u201eindica\u0163iile\u201d (de lectur\u0103) soresciene nu rimau cu preceptele \/ constr\u00e2ngerile ideologice. Poetul ne \u00eendruma \u201espre cel\u0103lalt sens\u201d, la o lectur\u0103 \u201epe dedesupt\u201d, refuz\u00e2nd poezia \u0163eap\u0103n\u0103, cea care \u201esufer\u0103 de lumbago\u201d. \u00cenc\u00e2t \u201eanti-canoanele\u201d lui Marin Sorescu, asupra c\u0103rora st\u0103ruia tot Cosmin Borza (v. Cultura, nr. 16\/26 aprilie 2012) se confirm\u0103 din plin.<\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>S\u0103 ne amintim c\u0103 Sorescu trezise interesul marelui C\u0103linescu, criticul subliniind insolitul acelor texte de june\u0163e (v. Un t\u00e2n\u0103r, \u00een Contemporanul, 1964). Acea \u201e\u015ftampil\u0103 august\u0103\u201d (cf. Alex \u015etef\u0103nescu), evident, l-a consacrat ca poet. Arunc\u00e2ndu-\u015fi ochiul pe \u00eencerc\u0103rile soresciene, \u201edivinul critic\u201d \u2013 cu o intui\u0163ie de zile mari \u2013 descoperea fantasticul lucrurilor umile \u015fi latura imens\u0103 a temelor comune; s\u0103 recunoa\u015ftem, observa\u0163ii de uz ob\u015ftesc acum, prefigur\u00e2nd acea nou\u0103 formul\u0103 liric\u0103, ie\u015find din negurile dogmatismului, submin\u00e2nd conven\u0163iile \u015fi \u00eenvior\u00e2nd lirismul autohton. Adev\u0103rat, debutul s\u0103u nu a fost str\u0103lucit. Cum primul volum (Singur printre poe\u0163i, 1964, cu o Prefa\u0163\u0103 de Marcel Bresla\u015fu) era o colec\u0163ie de parodii \u00een registru minor, reconstituind (\u201ecaricatural\u201d, sesiza Ion Pop) stilurile unor poe\u0163i \u00een vog\u0103, persifl\u00e2nd uzan\u0163ele confortabile, securizante, veritabilul debut se va consuma un an mai t\u00e2rziu (Poeme, 1965). Dar poetul se exprimase deja ca epigramist (Via\u0163a studen\u0163easc\u0103, 1957) \u015fi era angajat al sec\u0163iei de critic\u0103 de la Luceaf\u0103rul (1963-1965); mai mult, un manuscris (schi\u0163e) fusese retras de la o editur\u0103, anterior apari\u0163iei volumului de parodii, trec\u00e2nd \u00een revist\u0103 o deconcertant\u0103 parad\u0103 de stiluri. De\u015fi Singur printre poe\u0163i r\u0103m\u00e2ne, prin titlu, o promisiune nerespectat\u0103 (cf. Mihaela Andreescu), tocmai poetul absent\u00e2nd (ca voce singular\u0103), Sorescu a fost de timpuriu aproape de el \u00eensu\u015fi, ne asigura Marian Popa, cercet\u00e2nd acribios, \u00een masiva sa Istorie, poeziile de \u00eenceput (\u00eendeosebi, \u00een Ia\u015ful literar). Astfel de digita\u0163ii stilistice, sub aparen\u0163a facilit\u0103\u0163ii, bucur\u00e2ndu-se de complicitatea publicului au impus, prin pana sorescian\u0103, critica parodistic\u0103. Fiindc\u0103 parodia, negre\u015fit, r\u0103m\u00e2ne un exerci\u0163iu de critic\u0103 literar\u0103 (sur\u00e2z\u0103toare), vestejind stiluri, ticuri \u015fi conven\u0163ii. Interesat de r\u0103spunsul publicului (feed-back), obsesiv preocupat de a (se) comunica, poetul se va adapta din mers, propun\u00e2nd ingenios volume \u201e\u00een schimbare\u201d. De unde \u015fi mul\u0163imea etichetelor aplicate: neomodernist, antitradi\u0163ionalist, post-modernist, experimentalist, deconstructivist etc. \u015ei acum, iat\u0103, posibil de a fi inclus pe lista celor care au \u201ealimentat\u201d contracultura autohton\u0103. Care, se \u015ftie, n-a existat \u00een intervalul comunist. Oricum, distan\u0163\u00e2ndu-se de \u201ejocul demiurgic\u201d al congenerilor, el folose\u015fte texte anterioare (hipo-texte) pentru a savura, \u00een ipostaz\u0103 deconstructivist\u0103 (cf. Maria-Ana Tupan, M. Ene), mimo-texte, pe suport parodic. Spiritul parodic, fie el \u015fi respectuos, \u201ede \u00eencurajare\u201d, caracterizeaz\u0103, de fapt, \u00eentreaga literatur\u0103 sorescian\u0103. Iscodelnic, proiect\u00e2ndu-se \u00een Altul, poetul \u00ee\u015fi devoaleaz\u0103 temperamentul nonconformist, repudiind autoritatea conven\u0163iilor literare. \u015ei impune o direc\u0163ie polemic\u0103, cu o dubl\u0103 raportare: fa\u0163\u0103 de text \/ autor, dar \u015fi fa\u0163\u0103 de \u201elume\u201d (context), inclusiv sub unghiul recep\u0163iei, parodierea fiind, reamintim, o practic\u0103 intertextual\u0103.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Vorbim, desigur, de o metafizic\u0103 \u00eenv\u0103luit\u0103 sub n\u0103vala prozaicului, de materia prim\u0103 \u201eumil\u0103\u201d folosit\u0103 (reg\u00e2ndind locul comun \u015fi inventariind spaime, g\u00e2nduri, triste\u0163i), de inocen\u0163a pierdut\u0103, ren\u0103sc\u00e2nd ca simplitate a posteriori (cf. S. Marcus). \u201eCapcanele\u201d sorescianismului au pus \u00een \u00eencurc\u0103tur\u0103 comentatorii. Pe bun\u0103 dreptate s-a vorbit de o dubl\u0103 mi\u015fcare, antren\u00e2nd \u201emecanismul silogistic\u201d \u015fi masc\u00e2nd tragismul prin bravad\u0103; adic\u0103, de o denudare la scara cotidianului \u015fi, complementar, de o investire cu poten\u0163e magice, sub inciden\u0163a fabulosului (Iulian Boldea). Poetul-\u015faman, parodistic, ins simplu, marginal, de o modestie netrucat\u0103 \u00een via\u0163a obi\u015fnuit\u0103, inventiv, \u00eentreprinz\u0103tor, mobil, iubea spectacolul subversiv, demistific\u00e2nd actul creator \u015fi submin\u00e2nd mitul marii poezii. S-a vrut un scriitor complet, anexionist, dovedind proteism stilistic, \u00eencerc\u00e2ndu-se \u00een proz\u0103, critic\u0103, dramaturgie \u015fi traduceri, cheltuind inteligen\u0163\u0103 \u015fi umor. Curios, de o mare timiditate, st\u00e2njenit \u00een \u201esocietate\u201d (nefiind om \u201ede lume\u201d), s-a bucurat de o imens\u0103 popularitate, intr\u00e2nd, nemeritat, \u00een eclips\u0103 \u00een epoca postdecembrist\u0103.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Jubilativ, digresiv, vervos, Sorescu se manifesta liber, chiar dac\u0103 \u2013 m\u0103rturisea \u00eentr-un interviu \u2013 rela\u0163ia autor-cenzur\u0103 a fost \u201eo rela\u0163ie permanent\u0103\u201d. Citit, adaptabil, permeabil, imprevizibil, neceremonios, taciturnul \u015fi timidul Sorescu brusca, trec\u00e2nd grani\u0163a antipoeziei, tabieturile de percep\u0163ie. Curios, \u00eentreb\u0103tor (neav\u00e2nd timp de r\u0103spunsuri), inventiv \u015fi derutant, spiritul sorescian nu iubea fixismul \/ fixarea; iubea comunicarea, cultiva dialogul complice, prezidat tiranic de \u201evoin\u0163a efectului\u201d (poanta). Fire\u015fte, sub masca aparentei simplit\u0103\u0163i, a ironismului sprin\u0163ar, surdinizat, insolit, apt de regenerare; ca dovad\u0103, \u015fi doctoratul s\u0103u t\u00e2rziu (Insolitul ca energie creatoare, 1992), explic\u00e2nd, astfel, sursa crea\u0163iei sale. Acest \u201ecinic al poeziei\u201d (cum l-a v\u0103zut Mircea Martin), pictor de succes (confundat chiar cu Picasso!), avea s\u0103 ne surprind\u0103, iar\u0103\u015fi, prin ciclul La lilieci (1973-1998), tras \u00een \u015fase volume, fructific\u00e2nd experien\u0163a \u201erural\u0103\u201d a autorului. Ne \u00eent\u00e2lnim cu o lume v\u0103zut\u0103 \u201edin p\u00e2ntecele ei\u201d, preciza poetul, prezent\u00e2nd realist-naiv, ca \u00eentr-un veritabil documentar etnografic, spectacolul vie\u0163ii. O poezie oral\u0103, epicizat\u0103, aglutinat\u0103, concret\u0103, limbut\u0103, antiliric\u0103, purt\u00e2nd ecouri biografice; o narativitate pletoric\u0103, \u201eplebeian\u0103\u201d, cu iz evocator, invit\u00e2ndu-ne \u00eentr-un univers muzeistic (expresii idiomatice, obiceiuri, porecle), \u00eenchipuind o monografie sentimental\u0103. De unde poeticitatea oral\u0103, anecdotist\u0103, explicit\u0103, cu enumer\u0103ri fastidioase, monografiind satul-cetate, aduc\u00e2nd la suprafa\u0163\u0103 \u201elava nevalorificat\u0103\u201d a Bulze\u015ftiului. Sunt pove\u015fti \u00eenflorite, meli\u0163ate, zeflemitoare (pomeni de viu, \u201epulsul modei \u00een ad\u00e2nc\u201d), c\u00e2nd bulze\u015ftenii \u201estau la tain\u0103\u201d. Poetul, str\u0103in de jubila\u0163ia demiurgic\u0103, prive\u015fte lumea \u201e\u0163\u0103r\u0103ne\u015fte\u201d, oferindu-ne autobiografia unei colectivit\u0103\u0163i; o lume suficient\u0103 sie\u015fi, \u00een care moartea (cu lumea ei invizibil\u0103, cimitirul) nu \u00eensp\u0103im\u00e2nt\u0103 iar via\u0163a satului oltenesc, transcris\u0103 aici, frem\u0103t\u00e2nd\u0103, colc\u0103itoare, g\u0103l\u0103gioas\u0103 (\u00een care \u0163a\u0163a Veta preluase comanda) aduce a pictur\u0103 naiv\u0103, contrapus\u0103 universului conven\u0163ionalizat, inautenticului, vie\u0163ii \u201etip\u0103rite\u201d. \u015ei poate c\u0103 Mircea Iorgulescu, survol\u00e2nd integrala sorescian\u0103, avea dreptate: ea nu e at\u00e2t expresia unei lumi, ci \u201ea unui fel de a privi lumea\u201d. Pe care Sorescu, sedus de succesul re\u0163etei, era dispus s\u0103 o exploateze interminabil, prelungind deruta criticii. Ne \u00eentoarcem, astfel, la opinia Mihaelei Andreescu care descoperea (1983) o \u201epecete genetic\u0103 a atitudinii fa\u0163\u0103 de lume\u201d, asigur\u00e2nd coezivitatea corpu-sului sorescian, de o mare diversitate, perceput secven\u0163ial, cu un lirism estompat, camuflat, prozaificat, expediat de folclorul critic sub eticheta ironismului sprin\u0163ar, golit de metafizic\u0103. Or, \u00eenc\u0103 Moartea ceasului (1966) anun\u0163a puseele anxioase iar Desc\u00e2ntoteca (1976) vorbea despre o domesticitate potolit\u0103. \u015ei Poezii alese de cenzur\u0103 (1991), invit\u00e2nd \u2013 mai degrab\u0103 \u2013 la o lectur\u0103 \u201epolitizat\u0103\u201d, \u015fi Traversarea (1994) \u015fi, \u00eendeosebi, Puntea (1997, adun\u00e2nd postumele) eviden\u0163iaz\u0103 schimbarea dramatic\u0103 de accent; \u00een pofida asigur\u0103rilor (\u201em\u0103 \u00eentorc repede\u201d), poetul \u015ftia prea bine c\u0103 intr\u0103 \u00een \u201epe\u015ftera f\u0103r\u0103 sf\u00e2r\u015fit a nop\u0163ii\u201d, adulmec\u00e2nd \u201eo planet\u0103 nou\u0103 a durerii \/ Sf\u00e2r\u00e2ind prin eter t\u0103ciune\u201d (v. Rug\u0103ciune). El a schimbat \u201econdeiul pe un toiag\u201d \u015fi, spectator \u00eengrozit, preg\u0103tit de marea c\u0103l\u0103torie, afl\u0103 \u00een poezie puntea spre lumea din afar\u0103, ultimele zile oferindu-i o \u201eesen\u0163\u0103 de tortur\u0103 \u015fi chin\u201d. Sunt versuri de o sinceritate nud\u0103, vorbind cu economism \u015fi religiozitate despre iminen\u0163a mor\u0163ii; totu\u015fi, cu o ultim\u0103 grimas\u0103 ironic\u0103, poetul contempl\u0103 neputincios Scara la cer (o capodoper\u0103, acest text minuscul), a\u015ftept\u00e2nd ca sufletul (\u201ep\u00e2\u015f-p\u00e2\u015f\u201d) s\u0103 \u201eo ia \u00eenainte\u201d\u2026<\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>La Sorescu mali\u0163ia ascunde \u015fi protejeaz\u0103 vulnerabilitatea fiin\u0163ei, fragilitatea \u201etrestiei g\u00e2nditoare\u201d. Scutul ironic-parodic ne ap\u0103r\u0103 de comedia obiectelor, de propria noastr\u0103 reificare; percepem \u201edulcea g\u00e2ngurire a lucrurilor\u201d, diferen\u0163a de nivel dintre ideal \u015fi real. Scindat, Sorescu nu devine un dezabuzat. Senin\u0103tatea dezinvolt\u0103 a unui anxios (\u00een fond) ia \u00een st\u0103p\u00e2nire lumea prin disimulare (\u00een form\u0103); medita\u0163ia asupra condi\u0163iei umane nu \u00eembrac\u0103 haina de gal\u0103 a solemnit\u0103\u0163ii retorice. Cerebralitatea se deghizeaz\u0103, p\u0103trundem spre miezul Fiin\u0163ei \u015fi pe c\u0103r\u0103rile absurdului. Resping\u00e2nd metafora, \u201evis\u0103logeala\u201d, poetul locuie\u015fte \u00een luciditate. \u00censcen\u00e2nd f\u0103r\u0103 a mima jocul superior al spiritului, el va spera c\u0103 \u201eprostia va dispare \/ \u00een cur\u00e2nd \/ pe calea pa\u015fnic\u0103\u201d. Flec\u0103reala, suculen\u0163a pot fi un antidot la acea posibil\u0103 vreme a Nordului unic, calculat \u015ftiin\u0163ific, la pericolul prolifer\u0103rii \u201eoamenilor mecanici\u201d.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>\u00cen fine, client statornic al cenzurii, protagonist al momentului transcendentalist (a\u015fa s-a n\u0103scut, probabil, Dispozitivul), poetul ne-a oferit, \u00een 1991, un volum reunind textele \u201ealese\u201d (mai bine zis, respinse) de cenzur\u0103. N. Manolescu l-a suspectat de \u201e\u00een\u015fel\u0103ciune\u201d, \u00eentreb\u00e2ndu-se dac\u0103 ele, realmente, au fost refuzate sau dac\u0103 poetul, prudent, le-a dosit \u00een sertar, fiind nepublicabile. Taxate drept \u201eantipatice\u201d de c\u0103tre acela\u015fi critic, negre\u015fit incomode, poemele iau \u00een r\u0103sp\u0103r cli\u015feele, retorica ideologizat\u0103 (v. Eu, neab\u0103tutul), develop\u00e2nd imagini ale degrad\u0103rii prin \u015ftiuta-i tehnic\u0103 subversiv-aluziv\u0103, devenind \u2013 \u00een viziunea lui Eugen Simion \u2013 veritabile contradiscursuri. \u00cen fond, \u00een cazul textelor \u201eesopice\u201d, cultiv\u00e2nd ambiguitatea \u015fi echivocul e dificil s\u0103 explic\u0103m \u201era\u0163iunile\u201d cenzurii, fluctuant\u0103, deseori complice. Traversarea (1994) indic\u0103 \u015fi astfel de episoade, dar \u2013 mai cu seam\u0103 \u2013 transparentizeaz\u0103 st\u0103rile de alarm\u0103; poetul, r\u0103t\u0103cind \u00een labirint, \u00ee\u015fi contempl\u0103 r\u0103nile \u015fi anun\u0163\u0103 profetic \u201eun destin bolborosit\u201d, \u00een care absurdul existen\u0163ial ne invadeaz\u0103. Sunt aici, \u00een vecin\u0103tate arghezian\u0103, spunea E. Simion, psalmi laici, \u00eembiba\u0163i de tragism. Ceea ce va agrava volumul postum Puntea (Ultimele), ivit \u00een 1997 \u015fi dedicat \u201ecelor care sufer\u0103\u201d. De\u015fi r\u0103can \u201e\u00een ale durerii\u201d, poetul, acuzat de excesiv\u0103 flexibilitate, m\u0103cinat acum de suferin\u0163\u0103 \u2013 face \u201escufund\u0103ri \u00een durerea pur\u0103\u201d, urm\u00e2nd a trece puntea (\u201esc\u00e2ndura \u015fubred\u0103\u201d) care leag\u0103 p\u0103m\u00e2ntul de cer. Insolit, paradoxal, inventiv \u015fi aluziv, Marin Sorescu n-a agreeat stilul \u00eenalt. Dar sub coaja ludic\u0103, \u00een pofida oboselii \u015fi repeti\u0163iei, el se autoparodiaz\u0103, descoperind mereu, sub alte fa\u0163ete, fondul grav.<\/strong><br \/>\n<strong> Mai degrab\u0103 ignorat azi dec\u00e2t contestat, bucur\u00e2ndu-se alt\u0103dat\u0103 de o larg\u0103 popularitate (audien\u0163a \u00eentre\u0163in\u00e2nd, inevitabil, suspiciunea facilit\u0103\u0163ii), cu un bun instinct al pie\u0163ei literare (observase N. Manolescu), f\u0103c\u00e2nd o figur\u0103 aparte \u00een cadrul genera\u0163iei, \u015faizecistul Marin Sorescu s-a b\u0103tut pentru reinventarea\/ \u201edemocratizarea\u201d poeziei. Congenerii, \u00een contextul neomodernismului nostru, redescopereau cu entuziasm filoanele liricii interbelice; m\u00e2nat de impulsul \u00eennoirii (\u201eAm vrut s\u0103 m\u0103 schimb pe unul mai bun\u201d), antitradi\u0163ionalistul Sorescu, consider\u00e2nd c\u0103 poezia noastr\u0103 este \u201evolatil\u0103\u201d, \u201edeclorofilizat\u0103\u201d etc., voia s\u0103 o apuce pe alt drum. Dincolo de versifica\u0163ia circumstan\u0163ial\u0103 (la \u00eenceputuri), oferta sa, permeabil\u0103, depoetiz\u00e2nd motive care au f\u0103cut \u015fcoal\u0103, re\u00eemprosp\u0103t\u00e2nd vocabularul poetic \u201eumil\u201d, folosind masiv oralitatea \u015fi narativitatea \u00eel define\u015fte drept poet de avangard\u0103, e drept, f\u0103r\u0103 furii demolatoare. \u00cenc\u00e2t, marca Sorescu, regener\u00e2nd lirismul, st\u00e2rnind febra imitativ\u0103, cultiv\u00e2nd prozaismul, intertextualitatea, cotidianitatea, banalul etc., ne oblig\u0103 s\u0103 recunoa\u015ftem \u00een prolificul autor un optzecist avant la lettre. Cu observa\u0163ia, esen\u0163ial\u0103, la \u00eendem\u00e2n\u0103, c\u0103 avem de-a face cu un caz aparte, refuzat de optzeci\u015fti! Celui \u201emai bun scriitor postmodern\u201d (cum opina Ion Buzera) \u00eei dator\u0103m un precursoriat nerecunoscut, ceea ce ar explica (nicidecum justifica) t\u0103cerea care \u00eei \u00eenso\u0163e\u015fte posteritatea, except\u00e2nd unele manifest\u0103ri ritualice oltene\u015fti \u015fi, iat\u0103, st\u0103ruin\u0163a lui Cosmin Borza, cel care va dezvolta, b\u0103nuim, o ipotez\u0103 \u00eembietoare \u00eentr-o carte consistent\u0103. Pe care bardul din Bulze\u015fti o merit\u0103 cu prisosin\u0163\u0103.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"><strong>Adrian Dinu Rachieru<\/strong><\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"><strong><\/strong>\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.contemporanul.ro\/articol.php?idarticol=590\">contemporanul.ro<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>La Sorescu mali\u0163ia ascunde \u015fi protejeaz\u0103 vulnerabilitatea fiin\u0163ei, fragilitatea \u201etrestiei g\u00e2nditoare\u201d. Scutul ironic-parodic ne ap\u0103r\u0103 de comedia obiectelor, de propria [&#038;hellip<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,6],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-7330","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-articole","category-linkuri-externe"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.marianagurza.ro\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7330","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.marianagurza.ro\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.marianagurza.ro\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.marianagurza.ro\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.marianagurza.ro\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7330"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.marianagurza.ro\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7330\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.marianagurza.ro\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7330"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.marianagurza.ro\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7330"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.marianagurza.ro\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7330"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}