Having gathered unanimity about his work as a dissident, Paul Goma’s critical reception has experienced an unbroken string of prejudices, all at the expense of the author, bringing an aesthetic damage to his works by minimizing its importance, silencing and even excluding it from the literary life. Contested by some people and praised by others, Paul Goma is still an unsolved “case”. The abuse of opinions produced by the diarist’s vitriolic pen, in recent years, rose extensive controversy, which caused a phenomenon of rejection that tends to generalize. Reported by the literary criticism, the attitudes challenging the transformation of his work into a mere paper work to the detriment of the aesthetic interest, contribute to the renewal of critical perspective on Goma. The author wishes, in fact, to be considered a writer, perceived, therefore, by appropriate means, as it happened in the 90s’, but this time for an indefinite period, without implying dissident’s name. Taking into consideration these views, we believe that a change of critical tools could balance the reception of such a controversial author, giving back to Romanian literature a great writer whose work is full of literarity even in the fiercest pages of the journal.