BOOK REVIEW: COSMIN CIOTLOȘ, “CENACLUL DE LUNI. VIAȚA ȘI OPERA”, BUCUREȘTI: PANDORA PUBLISHING, 2021, 464 P.

Abstract

Focusing on the 1980s generation of Romanian poets and with the portrayal of a specific sensitivity belonging to these authors, Cosmin Ciotloș proposes an archaeology of the well-known “Monday Literary Circle,” within which Romanian postmodernism was born and developed. Not having a unique methodology for exploring this institution of creation and debate, Ciotloș relies on the reconstruction of the group’s formative phases, mainly by relating this phenomenon to other factors that exerted a significant influence on this literary circle: magazines such as Amfiteatru or România literară, the profoundly defamatory opposition criticism, represented by Eugen Barbu and Săptămâna magazine, as well as two other cenacles that succeeded the Monday Literary Circle—“Cenaclul Rapid” and “Cenaclul din Tei”. Beyond the fine hermeneutics that the author carries out in the last part of the book, through thirteen case studies, the first two chapters, “Marile speranțe” [Great Expectations] and “Impactul cu realul” [The Impact with Reality], are built by analyzing texts from journal archives, which bring together lesser-known testimonies and details about the meetings that officially began on March 3, 1977, and were banned in 1986. Therefore, one of the researcher's aims is to shed light on the background of this kaleidoscopic inception. The polymorphism of the Monday Literary Circle comes, first and foremost, from its evolutionary character, which shows, in fact, a sinuous trajectory, establishing its landmarks and directions along the way. In addition, its popularity, based on its central geographical and cultural position, and its emulation created historical and literary confusion, thereby rallying false members, who pretended to be a part of the famous literary circle without ever having been a part of it. The foundations of this “minimal unity of an interpretive community,” a phrase by which Stanley Fish calls the “literary circle” and which Ciotloș takes over, are unearthed both in contemporary periodicals and subsequent reception. One of the launch pads of the 1980s young poets was the monthly magazine Amfiteatru, “an alternative space” (26) for (under)graduate students who were beginning to come into the light, timidly announcing a new generation’s rise. Ciotloș chooses to discuss this opportunity because this publication also had a literary circle. This was an important aspect for the “prehistory of the 1980s poets” (27), since one of the meetings of this quasi-literary circle was attended by Ion Stratan, who gave a poetry reading, and Radu Călin Cristea, who played the role of the critic, commenting on his peer’s texts. The observation is important, as the two would later launch the Monday Literary Circle. Some new protagonists in the Romanian literary field honed their critical and poetic spirit during these meetings: M. N. Rusu, “the official critic of the group” (30), Elena Ștefoi, “who was among the most active participants” (29), Viorel Padina, Ion Stratan, Magda Cârneci, whose penname was Magdalena Ghica, Octavian Soviany, Matei Vişniec, Ioan Moldovan, William Totok, Ion Mureșan, Marta Petreu, Dumitru Chioaru, Traian T. Coșovei, Mariana Marin, Romulus Bucur, Mircea Cărtărescu, Liviu Ioan Stoiciu and others. Also, Ion Monoran, a minor poet from Timișoara, was widely recommended by Dinu Flămând in one of the issues of the Amfiteatru magazine. On the one hand, the 1980s generation was beginning to flourish, gathering people from all over the country, and on the other hand, the future nucleus of the Monday Literary Circle was built, almost entirely, around poetic discourse. As Ciotloș states, the policy of supporting young people in the Amfiteatru magazine was very significant. The fact that they frequently published new texts, thus burning a lot of stages, causes the accumulation of symbolic capital and the need to seek a fresh new “stage” to perform. Therefore, the poems will benefit critical comments as adjuncts, consequently popularize and build the “new generation”. Following the stereotype that each generation has its critics, the 1980s generation seems to be established precisely by this strategy. As a direct effect, the desire to form their own “institution,” the Monday Literary Cenacle, was fueled by the effervescent radicalism of their discussions. In the words of Cosmin Ciotloș: “Throughout these years, the poetry of the 1980s generation was accompanied by a series of critical texts (literary reviews, surveys, debates, round tables) signed by the editors-in-chief of the magazine” (35).