PDF An Infamous Past: E.M. Cioran and the Rise of Fascism in Romania by Marta Petreu in History

Review

15 of 21 people found the following review helpful. The Best Book on Cioran in EnglishBy Willis G. RegierThe Chicago publisher Ivan R. Dee has already published one major Romanian book in English translation; Mihail Sebastian's JOURNAL 1933-1945. Petreu's book is something different--a clear; serious; and straightforward scholarly study; a type of book seldom undertaken by an American commercial publisher. It is well chosen; though its future depends entirely on the reputation of Cioran; and it will do little to enhance that reputation. Petreu is intimately familar with Cioran's writings; and quotes from them liberally. That alone would make this book an important source for readers of Cioran who cannot read Romanian. She has also troubled to read his 1930s journalism and his correspondence (some of which she has collected and published in Cluj); texts unavailable in English. There is some repetitiveness; but with good reason. Petreu also is a student of history and is able to place Cioran's "lyrical philosophy" and praise of fascism (and of Hitler) in the context of Romanian politics. This by no means excuses Cioran. Rather; Petreu shows how and why fascism appealed to him in his twenties; when his literary ambitions; his dismay at European contempt for Romania; and his faith in destiny converged in opportunistic rant. Later in life; Cioran bitterly regretted these years. Petreu provides the ugly details; showing how much he had to regret. Finally; her discussion of the Iron Guard; the blackshirts of Romania; who murdered and marauded in the name of pure Christianity; is a frightening reminder of what militant Christian politics can do. Petreu writes that Cioran's "fundamental nature--decadent; amoral; aesthetic" (p. 182) was a fertile ground for his commitment to Romanian fascism. Cioran's current fame as a writer and a philosopher rests on the books he published in Paris after World War II. Petreu's book provides vital background for his Parisian career; showing how his fascist years continued to affect his later work; sometimes with hints; often with suppression; and always with fear and revulsion.5 of 9 people found the following review helpful. Interesting; but on the wrong track.By gioanpjI first came across Cioran by reading "On the Heights of Despair" in college. I loved it. I felt like for the first time I was encountering someone who also had a bad penchant for cosmic pessimism. It was cathartic to read angst-ridden rants while being depressed over Heidegger's Being and Time. So; I read several of Cioran's other books. Not as biting; but I was still interested and wanted to learn more. At the time; I started researching the "conservative revolutionaries" of the 1930s -- thinkers like Heidegger; Carl Schmitt; Arthur Moeller van den Bruck; Stefan George; Ernst Jünger; et al.; and I started to notice some affinities between the themes in Cioran and these thinkers. Eventually the darkness got a bit annoying and started to seem really hackneyed. It eventually clicked: yeah; Cioran basically makes all the same points as the fascists. He goes on and on about how mythos and emotion and irrational drives trump reason or logos; how the nation must come first and have an imperialist drive to crush other nations; how sacrifice for a higher cause is awesome; and all the other clichés. I started to get really annoyed by the way he refuses to actually dig into a subject and reflect on it; but usually only offers fleeting metaphors and parables. Some say this is great style; but it hardly helps get to the core of any subject.So; eventually I came across Marta Petreu's book and decided to check it out.On the one hand; this book certainly points out Cioran's right-wing affinities. However; the author constantly fails to really get what the essence of nationalism; fascism; or anti-Semitism is about. Instead; one gets these tepid attempts to claim that Cioran was "subtle" and "not really an anti-Semite." The killer evidence is that; to paraphrase; "Cioran; even though he says negative things about jews; also says positive things." Positive racism is still racism. On his death bed; Cioran says; "I...am...not...anti-Semitic!" The same kind of thing goes on with Nationalism: the author acts as if disappointed nationalists who only say negative things about their nation are somehow still not nationalists. On the other hand; the author points to where Cioran had affinities with "left-wingers." So; Cioran liked Lenin and the fact that the soviets pursued "social equality." He goes on about how he supports the permanent-revolution; but it has to be national. The book just goes around in circles comparing Cioran's positions to others in an endless commentary; attempting to show how Cioran didn't exactly fit in with the fascists; but was oh-so original.I suspect behind all the confusion lies these obnoxious thesis about left and right extremism going in a circle; both meeting; and how both are totalitarian. Of course; being totalitarian; they "aren't democracy." With this brilliant observation; one learns nothing about fascism; communism; or democracy. I absolutely hate when she talks about Marxism. It's just totally ignorant; but then so is Cioran's conceptions of Marxism which are all filtered through far-right sources. That's all irritating. The book really should have been edited down to about 150 pages. As someone else noted; Cioran really is a broken record.3 of 11 people found the following review helpful. Reading this is like listening to a broken recordBy Roger CrowleyThe book is excellently researched (kudos to the author; Marta Petreu). However; even the best biographer must find it difficult to summarize someone like Emil Cioran; who had trouble organizing his own words into a coherent text. Reading about the articles and books he wrote is like listening to a broken record: I'm ashamed to be a Romanian. Romania will never become a culture (nation). They can't blame anyone but themselves for being a total historic failure. On and on.The author did a great job of trying to present his one-track exposition (though he changed trains of thought in his later life). Actually; the best summary of Cioran's youthful; radical philosophy was given near the end of the book; when Marta organized his words into his "confession."In spite of its drawbacks (Cioran was; after all; only a "bit player" in the generation of 1927 compared to Mircea Eliade or even professor Nae Ionescu); it's a book that's worth reading. I especially enjoyed Chapter 10 ("Cioran and the Ideologies of His Time"); which compared the thoughts of others in his generation to those of Cioran.Before I read the book; I had no positive or negative thoughts about Cioran. After I read the book; I grew to dislike the guy who sponged off of others; refusing to work; pretending to be an intellectual. But I guess these were the kind of people who made a difference in inter-war Romania. And worth reading for that reason.