Trifles for a Massacre

by Louis-Ferdinand Céline

"There’s a book you won’t hear a word about on the radio. There’s a book the right-thinking newspapers will not speak about, except to refer to it prim and reproachful terms. There’s a book about which the tabloids of the left will say nothing, except the most inept of them, which only have words of scorn. There’s a book the sale and distribution of which is quite possibly forbidden. There’s a book against which there will be more a conspiracy of silence than of attack. Isn’t it a crying shame that, before any reservations, we cannot praise boldness, courage, ardor?

There is a rather striking phrase in Céline’s book, this book that we will be prevented from discussing. He announces his invectives as a kind of “revolt of the natives.” And I think of those Arab towns–always situated next to a Jewish one–which, from time to time, in a fit of popular anger, throw themselves in fury on the Jewish quarter and plunder it.

We do not want any violence. But when one has a Jewish Prime Minister, when one sees, clearly and simply, France dominated by the Jews, it also should be understood how this violence is prepared, and what explains it. I do not even say what legitimates it, I say what explains it. Have any opinion you want. On the Jews and on Céline. We do not agree with him on all points. But I am telling this enormous book, this splendid book, is the first sign of the “revolt of the natives.” Perhaps this revolt is excessive, more instinctive than after all, the natives are us...” Robert Brasillach.

Genres: France, Literature, Fiction

378 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 1937

About the author

Louis-Ferdinand Céline, pen name of Dr. Louis-Ferdinand Destouches, is best known for his works Voyage au bout de la nuit (Journey to the End of the Night), and Mort à crédit (Death on the Installment Plan). His highly innovative writing style using Parisian vernacular, vulgarities, and intentionally peppering ellipses throughout the text was used to evoke the cadence of speech.

Louis-Ferdinand Destouches was raised in Paris, in a flat over the shopping arcade where his mother had a lace store. His parents were poor (father a clerk, mother a seamstress). After an education that included stints in Germany and England, he performed a variety of dead-end jobs before he enlisted in the French cavalry in 1912, two years before the outbreak of the First World War in 1914. While serving on the Western Front he was wounded in the head and suffered serious injuries—a crippled arm and headaches that plagued him all his life—but also winning a medal of honour. Released from military service, he studied medicine and emigrated to the USA where he worked as a staff doctor at the newly build Ford plant in Detroit before returning to France and establishing a medical practice among the Parisian poor. Their experiences are featured prominently in his fiction.

Although he is often cited as one of the most influential and greatest writers of the twentieth century, he is certainly viewed as a controversial figure. After embracing fascism, he published three antisemitic pamphlets, and vacillated between support and denunciation of Hitler. He fled to Germany and Denmark in 1945 where he was imprisoned for a year and declared a national disgrace. He then received amnesty and returned to Paris in 1951.

Kurt Vonnegut, Jr., Henry Miller, William Burroughs, and Charles Bukowski have all cited him as an important influence.

Translated Profiles:
Луи-Фердинанд Селин

Reviews

[Jonathan]

Having read most of Céline's major works, some minor works and a biography or two I am well aware of the reputation that he has acquired as an anti-Semitic writer. But you would not realise this if you had only read his first novels, Journey to the End of the Night(1932) and Death on the Installment Plan (1936) or if you had read his post-war books; in these all you would encounter is Céline bitching about being victimised and barely escaping being killed at the end of the Second World War. However, when we read the notes and biographies on Céline we discover that he wrote some anti-Semitic 'pamphlets' prior to the war and held views sympathetic to the Nazis; whether he was a collaborator is debatable but his views and actions during this period are highly dubious. I had often wondered what he actually wrote in these pamphlets, having only come across a few quotations from these books, and so after finding a translation of the first pamphlet on the internet I decided to find out for myself.

First some background: After publishing his first two novels Céline visited the Soviet Union, apparently a lot of left-wing authors did the same in this period, and on his return he published Mea Culpa (1936) which was an attack on the Soviet Union. Although he wasn't really a left-wing author his first novels were applauded by the left, who saw him as 'one of them'. But Céline was disgusted with what he saw on his trip to Russia and he felt he had to let people know about the shortcomings of the Soviet Union. A little later, in 1937, he feverishly wrote Bagatelles pour un massacre over a few months and it was published in December of that year—this was the first of his anti-Semitic pamphlets. Céline would write two more anti-Semitic pamphlets, L'École des cadavres (School for Corpses) (1938) and Les Beaux Draps (A Nice Mess) (1941) (n.b. although they're called pamphlets, with the exception of Mea Culpa, they're book length publications). With the Allied troops approaching Paris, Céline feared for his life and fled with Nazi collaborators across Europe to Denmark where he was imprisoned. He finally returned to France in 1951 where he continued to publish books such as Castle to Castle, North and Rigadoon.

Céline's wife has forbidden the republication of the anti-Semitic pamphlets in France and they have never been officially translated into English. However an English translation of Bagatelles was made available in 2006 over the internet; this was translated anonymously and published by AAARGH. Given the nature of the work it is a good idea to know something about the publishers; from Wikipedia I found that AAARGH stands for Association des Anciens Amateurs de Récits de Guerres et d'Holocaustes or in English Association of Former Fans of War and Holocaust Stories, i.e. they publish works by Holocaust deniers and their website has been shutdown by the French authorities. So, although we have to be wary of the motives of those publishing this work, if we wish to read any of it in English then it is all we have. The translation is, as far as I can tell, very well done and the author of an article for the New York Review of Books describes it as an 'anonymous but largely accurate translation'. Now, I can understand Céline's wife not wanting these to be reprinted so not to add to current-day anti-Semitism and also to try to protect her husband's legacy but for anyone that has read any of Céline's work it can be confusing knowing that he has this reputation but not actually being able to read, 'first-hand', any of these books and it is natural that we should wish to read, at least part of these, so we may judge them for ourselves. Well, that was how I felt before embarking on this book.

Given that in 1937 Céline had published two well-received novels, the question arises as to why he felt the need to publish such books. There was no obvious anti-Semitism or racism in these early novels and he seemed to be destined for great things. For me, the trip to Russia seems to be pivotal, but even this is strange because he wasn't really a 'party-man' or a Communist before he took the trip so it wasn't as if his faith in Communism was shattered by the experience. And why suddenly turn on the Jewish people? It seems that, for some reason, with Communism no longer a viable option he turned to the opposite ideology, fascism, which had a convenient scapegoat for France's problems as well as Céline's personal problems—the Jews. In Bagatelles anyone that Céline disapproves of, dislikes, or hates is called a Jew and is therefore part of the problem. But where did this anti-Semitism come from and why did it burst forth from Céline at this particular moment? In Bagatelles Ferdinand (Céline's fictional alter ego) visits his friend and exults '...I had become an anti-Semite, and not just a little bit just for levity, but ferociously unto my very kidneys!'. It seems to come from nowhere.

In Celine: A Biography Frédéric Vitoux tries to answer the question of why, and how, Céline became anti-Semitic and comes up with six possible reasons. Some are rather tenuous so I shall mention only some; he grew up in an anti-Semitic France, he was born whilst the Dreyfus case was at its height and was undoubtedly comfortable with the views of anti-Semites; he could blame Jews for his own personal failures such as his ex-wife running off with a Jewish (as Céline believed him to be) man, his antagonisms withthe Jewish (as Céline believed them to be) left, rejections of work being attributed to Jews etc.; he was a pacifist, and having been injured in WWI he wanted to avoid another war at all costs—he saw Jews, not Hitler, as the warmongers; he was disgusted by the decadence of the French people, whom he saw as little better than alcoholics and sexual perverts and so he identified with Hitler's concepts of the pure Aryan race. I would add that it's obvious in Céline's works that he is naturally paranoid and delusional and that the idea of a Jewish conspiracy directed against himself and the French people must have been overwhelming. Céline loved to rant and this gave him a perfect target. He was also unable to understand the effects that his writing would have on people; Vitoux states:

He was barely aware of the effects of his writing. Why was Ludwig Rajchman upset by L'Église? Why were the Jews after him when the war ended? He seemed astonished because he really was astonished.

Bagatelles is a delirious, vile, mess of a book, in which Céline endlessly attacks Jews and accuses them of every crime under the sun. I shall include some quotations from the book to give a flavour of its contents. You may not feel like reading all of them but the first quotation probably sums up the author's view that everything is controlled by Jews:

The world is a Corporation, a Trust in which the Jews own all of the shares. The Trust has subsidiaries: "Communism"..."Monarchism"..."Democracy" and maybe even "Fascism".

On the Wikipedia page on Céline it is claimed that he stated, in 1944, that he believed that Hitler had been replaced by a Jewish double. It's sometimes difficult to know when to take Céline seriously and when he's been absurd just for the hell of it. Contemporary reviewers had the same problem with this book, André Gide seemed to think it was all a big joke, but others weren't so sure. So, as far as Céline believes, the Jews control everything, not just in France but in the Soviet Union as well:

The Bolshevik Revolution is another story! Infinitely complex! Everything existing as structures within structures, and behind the scenes. And in that backstage are the Jews in command, the absolute masters. Stalin is only a front-man, like Lebrun, like Roosevelt, like Clemenceau. The success of the Bolshevik Revolution can be understood, in its long run, only as having been of the Jews, for the Jews, and by the Jews...

So, for Céline, all communists are Jews or controlled by Jews. So what about democracies?

The Jew is a dictator at heart, twenty-five times worse than Mussolini. Democracy is always and above all nothing but the veil of the Jewish Dictatorship.

He criticises the Jewish people of claiming to be victims, martyrs:

The great martyrdom of the Jewish race is a phenomenal fake...which works on the Christians, forever gullible, bird-brained and enthusiastic cuckolds...two million martyrs in France alone,...

But Céline constantly portrays the French Aryans as victims or martyrs with the Jews as oppressors.

Ever since the Dreyfus Affair the cause has been buried, and France belongs to the Jews, to the globalistic Jews, body, heart and soul. They dominate completely—France is a colony of the international Jewish power, and any grass-roots rebellion is doomed in advance to ignominious failure...

And it goes on, there's worse, much worse, Céline calls for pogroms in France and for ways of identifying Jews through a registration system where all Jews are given numbers instead of names, and so on and so on. So, I'm a third of the way through this book and I'm not sure whether to continue reading; this book has had a numbing effect on me similar to my reading of de Sade—both Céline and de Sade bludgeon the reader with their obsessions.

But reading Bagatelles has been informative in that it has helped me understand why he was so reviled after the war by many people though I don't think it will affect my appreciation of his other works as I already knew prior to reading them of his reputation. If anyone still wants to read Bagatelles then it is available on the Internet Archive website. There is also a blog site with a translation of School for Corpses. In writing this post I came across an interesting review from the New York Review of Books site, which was mentioned above, and I also found out that there has been a recent film about Céline that focuses on when he was in exile and corresponded with a Jewish writer called Milton Hindus; the film is called Louis-Ferdinand Céline : Deux Clowns Pour Une Catastrophe.

Céline never apologised for writing his pamphlets and he never tried to retract what he'd written in them. I haven't seen any comment by him on the Holocaust in any of his post-war books and he remained silent on the subject of the Jewish people, leading us to believe that his views on this subject remained unchanged. In his post-war books he doesn't mention Jews but he does lash out at people like Sartre who were heavily critical of him and his views. But it is worth considering whether anything can be said in Céline's defence, so here are a few thoughts; Céline was a pacifist and in writing the pamphlets he had wanted to prevent another world war, however misguided his approach was; He attacked Jews in an abstract sense, the word 'Jew' for Céline in these works became a euphemism for everything that was bad in the world so at times it is unclear whether he's raging against Jews or the world in general—he was an anti-Semite but was that because he was an extreme misanthrope?; he wasn't a member of the Nazi party or other right-wing parties and it is debatable to what degree he collaborated with the Nazis, if at all; although Céline wrote the pamphlets and must take the responsibility for them, those close to him didn't try to stop him, his publisher published the work without quibbling and the public bought it—Bagatelles sold out quickly and by the end of the war had sold 75,000 copies—it was very popular and Céline, unfortunately, wasn't the only one who held these views.

[Mariafrancesca di natura viperesca sta con gli ultimi della terra · Rating 1 out of 5]

“Nun si po’ lieggiri”, cristo santo.

Una come me, incrostata di comunismo più di una lavatrice senza calfort ; con un mosaico genetico che mi ha fatto partorire un figlio vichingo e un altro che sembra aver succhiato tutti i caratteri orientali delle armate del Gengis Kan e con un rappresentativo naso semitico ( altrimenti chiamato proboscide dal nostro Ferdinand, il narratore alter ego del Ferdinand in carne e ossa);
una come me, dicevo, non poteva leggerlo per quello che era in realtà: un manifesto antisemita e anticomunista in cui le due cose non hanno nessuna soluzione di continuità, mai.

L’ho letto fino in fondo perché speravo in una carnevalata e in una levata di maschera all’ultimo momento. Magari non proprio smascheramento ma una roba alla “Una modesta proposta” di Swift: dici una cosa ma intendi tutto il contrario.

Che fosse un simpatizzante nazista l’avevo saputo. Ma non l’avevo appurato e potevo dubitare si trattasse di fonti pregiudizievoli. Specie da quando ho letto “ Viaggio…” il dubbio mi si è fatto più pregnante. Un medico e che scrive da dio ( eccetto i puntini di sospensione, irritanti e banali) non può esserlo: ho, malauguratamente, letto questo … ( scusate i puntini che non sono di sospensione ma sottintendono un mazzo di sinonimi per merda).

Sì è scritto bene: lui è uno che ha rotto i vecchi canoni dello scrivere del vecchio continente ( puntini di sospensione esclusi: preferisco la scrittura fitta alla Saramago), ma ha rotto parecchio i cabasisi a me.
Qualche annetto fa ho letto un saggio di un certo Gotz Alv “ Perché i tedeschi? Perché gli ebrei?”
Mi sembrò troppo superficiale. Era la prima volta che sentivo parlare di “invidia”. Gli ariani invidiavano gli ebrei. Tutto iniziò da questo. Invidiavano principalmente la loro cultura, cultura che li portava a pervenire alle leve del potere economico e politico. Non ricordo se citasse tra le sue fonti anche Bagatelle.

Credetemi, Celin era roso dall’invidia fino alla paranoia. Un ribelle che lotta solo per sé, che agogna una critica prona davanti alle sue opere. Il terrore che critici ebrei gliele stroncassero per puro razzismo contro gli ariani gli fa andare il sangue agli occhi, gli obnubila la ragione. Dopo l’osannato “Viaggio…” non ha più cavato un ragno dal buco causa loro.

Demolisce tutta l’arte europea e nord americana perché partorita da ebrei o mezzosangue, Proust compreso.
Per i politici francesi e specialmente per Léon Blum, ebreo e “comunista”, nutre un disprezzo viscerale: lui e tutti i comunisti sono dei guerrafondai e manderanno i poveri ariani francesi a farsi impallinare dagli alemanni costretti a subire una guerra ebrea.
Già perché il pacifista è Hitler. Vi giuro, lo dice e ci crede. Certo non crede alla purezza della razza e nemmeno la cita come “difettuccio” di Adolf.

Non sopporta che gli ebrei non lavino i vetri per strada e possano essere dei professionisti come lui. E porta le cifre dell’invasione della Francia ( Salvini e la Le Pen hanno un degno maestro ) da parte di questi piagnoni semiti e negri. Già perché sono anche negri, con la “gr”.

La Nuova Russia e la sua rivoluzione sono il frutto della congiura ebrea: già i Saggi di Sion, l’avevano predetto. Giuro, lo dice. Stalin è un burattino nelle mani degli ebrei superpotenti e del genero ebreo.

Del resto gli ebrei da un lato hanno le banche di Rothschilde e dall’altro l’armata rossa, cioè stringono a tenaglia le palle dei poveri, decadenti ariani. Certo ancora la shoah era di la da venire: mancavano cinque sei anni per il suo inizio. Ma sembra che solo la moglie, per amor di pace sua, abbia detto che il celebre marito avesse provato negli ultimi anni un po’ di nausea per quella bagatella di sei milioni di vittime.

Tutto quello che dice lo farei leggere ai razzisti di casa nostra: gli svecchierebbe il linguaggio da chierichetti nostalgici dell’idioma fascista dell’italietta degli anni ‘20.
Casa Pound sono sicura che lo sa a memoria. Loro con la forma sono sempre all’avanguardia, come con la sostanza: sbarre e catene.

E non ci si può aggrappare alla grandezza di uno scrittore per farsi digerire questo manifesto razzista senza giustificazione alcuna.

[Nikola Pavlovic · Rating 4 out of 5]

Rekao bih nikada teza knjiga za oceniti.
Iskljucivo zbog njene sadrzine, dok stil i kvalitet pisanja nemaju bas nikakve veze sa tim.
Zaboga ja i jesam ovde, na njenim stranicama, upravo zbog tog stila.... tog neizmernog kvaliteta pisanja ovog bozanstvenog pisca.

I zato Selina vise hvaliti necu, vec cu se okrenuti sadrzini, toliko problematicnoj da bi bile potrebne nadcovecanske, boznske sile i znanje da se pravicno razmrsi ovaj pamflet. Ipak ja cu se potruditi da kazem par reci u cilju toga. Neuspeh je zagarantovan zato se previse i ne brinem.

Prvo moram reci da na umu treba imati 1936. godinu, ili 37. slagacu vas. Istorijski kontekst je znacajan ali opet po meni ne igra neku kljucnu ulogu. Ne igra kljucnu ulogu jer Selin je rasista, antisemita i mizantrop. Jer cak i ja koji sam iz Srbije i pisem ovo sredinom 2021. godine razumem neke od njegovih stavova, samo molim vas, to sto ih razumem ne znaci da bih se mogao sloziti sa nacinom resavanja ovde iznetih problema, a duboko sam uveren da se ni sam pisac nije slagao (mislim na Nacisticku Nemacku, sve njene pomagace i istomisljenike i njihove nacine resavanja nagomilanih problema Evrope) . Vidite zaista se slazem da je apsolutno nebitno Hitler ili Staljin, Nemacka ili Rusija te 1936. Nije mi bitno ni dan danas iako sam Sloven. Ali mi je bitno to sto manjine u Evropi, nasoj Evropi, imaju sta vise i veca prava nego mi njeni starosedoci. I sve zato sto je teret krivice kolonijalnih sila veci od mogucnosti iskrenog izvinjenja ali bez davanja neukusnih povlastica. Tako da me sada mozete proglasiti rasistom ili kako vam drago.

Drugi deo "problema" jesu Jevreji.
Ali opet zaboga, u ovom nasem drustvu koje se hrani istorijom koja je jedna velika splacina do kakvog zakljuka, do kakvog iole ispravnog zakljucka ja mogu doci. Da li su Jevreji bili zaista toliki problem tada, pre toga, sta su sada i da li je mrznja prema njima opravdana to ne mogu da kazem.
Misljenja sam da se treba voditi individualnim primerima i zato serem se u svaku mogucu vlast ili instituciju koja pokusava da ugasi i ugazi individualizam na bilo koji nacin.

Treci deo slagalice je sam Francuska. Selin je definitivno nacionalista i domoljub.
Ali avaj sta je to zaista Francuska pitam se i sam svih ovih godina.
Cesto mi je delovala, i pre citanja Selina koji je iznutra razotkriva, na jednu dobro smisljenu sarenu lazu.
Medjutim mozda je to ona Francuska koja nam svima i treba.
Zemlja vina, umetnosti i stila. Ali po koju cenu za Francuze, i da le je to i dalje tako, ili je i to jos jedan u realnosti davno izbledeli kvalitet te divne zemlje. Posedovanje svoh slika i umetnina u Luvru nije dokaz zive umetnosti. To je dobro za debatu ali zar vam vise nije pun kurac hiljadu puta ponovljenih prica. Jebala vas monaliza i njene tajne. Jebali vas svi Luiji u svakom komadu svog namestaja u svim svojim palatami dok vas ujedno posmatraju sa svojin portreta.
Od stare slave se ne zivi. Od stare slave krvave i znojave od robovske snage i ispisane od strane pijanih francsukih vonjika.

Cetvrta velika tema ovog dela za mene su Nemacka i Rusija.
Dok se Nemacka cak i ne pominje toliko cesto, ili barem ne toliko direktno to nije slucaj sa Rusijom.
Nemacka vojska, van ruku Nacizma, potpuno se slazem sa tim, bila je poslednja velika vojska koja je mogla da ujedini Evropu. Nacizam ju je pretvorio u igracku za lecenje svog kompleksa. Hitler, Himler, Gebels, Gering, Hajnrih Miler.... svi odreda kompleksasi.
Rusija sa druge strane, ah, sta da kazem o Rusiji sem da je i volim i neizmerno mrzim.
Nazalost jedino je pravo carstvo i velesila Slovena. Dok je sa druge strane ista ta Rusija najveca klanica i tlacitelj svog naroda i Slovena u Evropi. Sve dok se Rusija ne osobodi same sebe nema ni nade da se resi Slovesnko pitanje, o kome ovde ne zelim da govorim.

Eto sada imate Selinove i moje splacine pomesane i spremne za posluziti svinjama.
Jer svi mi koji pokusavamo da naucimo nesto iz ovih knjiga i nismo nista drugo do svinje.

ZATO zazmurite na smisao i uzivajte u stilu.
Uzivajte u Selinu, najvecem klasicnom piscu 20. veka.

[Maria Beltrami · Rating 3 out of 5]

E' abbastanza difficile dire due parole su questo libro. La prima tentazione sarebbe quella di dirne tutto il male possibile, a causa della sua violenza ceca. Ma proprio la violenza ceca, l'urlo disumano di orrore, l'invettiva, i toni polemici, sono i pregi del libro, che diventa una enorme invocazione di aiuto.
Una invocazione mal posta, un atteggiamento di provocatoria rivolta, eppure l'urlo di un pacifista che teme una nuova guerra, e, tragicamente, rivolge la sua invettiva contro le vittime che scambia per carnefici.
Boccone veramente indigesto, eppure indispensabile.

[Lolo · Rating 1 out of 5]

Un livre que j'ai lu en ayant une vague idée quand même de ce qu'il était - étant un inconditionnel d'une partie de l'oeuvre de Celine - pour me faire ma propre opinion sur l'antisémitisme dont il a été accusé, et voir si cela pouvait être soumis à interprétation ? Le constat implacable, c'est que ce pamphlet, car c'en est un sans l'ombre d'un doute, est réellement une incitation à la haine raciale, un amalgame honteux, un mélange de faits, de réalités, noyé dans un tissus d'idées préconçues, de raccourcis, de conclusions hâtives probablement dressé dans une volonté de propagande contre les juifs qui ne sont pas vraiment différenciés des non-blancs. Une lecture difficile, vraiment pénible et désagréable que je ne conseille à personne, pas même à ceux qui comme moi ne pouvaient pas imaginer que Celine soit allé aussi loin dans cette voie détestable de la haine.

[Bobby Daugherty · Rating 4 out of 5]

I had read Celine's "Mae Culpa" and this is the natural progression. It is difficult to face the horrors of Communism and not become aware of the evil of the tiny hats. It is a vicious book but an honest one. Not for everyone, but one everyone should come around to appreciate.

[Ademption]

People change. Writers are people. Céline looked into the face of meaningless and nihilism, and wrote a few great works. He also looked far too long into the abyss. This long suppressed book features him at his most frothy, directing all his existential rage at the Jewish people. He felt they were going to victimize and enslave Gentiles in the coming second world war. The man was so nihilistic, he forecasted the polar opposite of actual events. Many, including Céline & his heirs, would like everyone to forget this chapter in his work. Céline later even claimed he underwent emergency trepanation, and his resulting confusion sparked this book-sized "pamphlet" in order to dodge responsibility for its existence.

Trepanation at least gets nominal points for originality in the lame-ass excuse department. Beats the hell out of obedience and drunkenness.

Bagatelles pour un massacre (Trifles for a Massacre, i.e. worthless Caucasians fleeing before a well oiled Jewish war machine) certainly exists, and will until its last mouldering copies in rare book libraries turn to dust (and now until the implosion of the internets). Everyone should know about it, especially Céline fans, who usually don't and blithely enjoy what they read as whimsical nihilism.

[l’ivresse rhapsodie. · Rating 3 out of 5]

Ah! Toute ma vie on m’avait rabâché que ce Céline était antisémite. Ce n’est pas que je le croyais pas, mais je m’interrogeais : qu’a-t-il donc pu raconter ? Est-ce qu’il y a méprise. Je l’a fait courte : il n’y a pas de méprise.

[Артур · Rating 4 out of 5]

Феерическая расстановка точек над большевиками и совком образца 1936 года. Такой восхитительный накал антисоветчины, антисемитизма и русофобии, что до восторга!

[Philippe Billé · Rating 4 out of 5]

http://journaldoc.canalblog.com/archi...

[Dominique Hoffman]

Je vens de finir de lire "Bagatelle pour un massacre" de L.F. Céline publié en 1937. Quelle torture. Synopsis: l'auteur a composé plusieurs ballets et il a été rejeté alors il va voir ses potes et se met à raconter des délires complotistes. Selon lui, il n'est pas au goût du jour parce que les juifs sont aux manettes du pouvoir que ce soit au cinéma, en littérature, dans les médias, en politique. En fait ils sont à la fois capitalistes (Rothschild) et bolcheviks (Lenine). Ils ont inventé le protestantisme et les franc-maçons. L'auteur cite même "les protocoles des sages de Sion" qui même à son époque en 1937 avait été prouvé comme étant un faux. C'est bourré de sexisme, je ne parle pas de l'homophobie (quand il parle de Marcel Proust), de jalousie (envers Roger Martin du Gard, dont il dit qu'il n'a eu le prix nobel que parce qu'il parlait bien de l'affaire Dreyfuss), ses propos envers Zola et autres progressistes sont affreux, il les accuse d'être enjuivés. Pour les mêmes raisons il rejette l'art moderne. Il y a des relents xénophobes (envers les USA l'Angleterre, la Tchécoslovaquie), Je ne dis même pas comment il parle de l'Europe de l'Est. Il décrit les juifs comme étant une race asiatico-africaine, c'est dire qu'il y a pas mal de passage aussi sur les africains qui sont d'un racisme affreux. En fait tout pour plaire. Et pire, c'est que dans certains passages il décrit les gens comme des rats donc il les déshumanise, il exagère aussi le nombre d'immigrants juifs (et en fait même les juifs de nationalité française sont juifs étrangers pour lui). Son style est vulgaire, obscène, méchant car il explique que le bon goût c'est efféminé.

J'ai lu ce livre parce que je me disais que peut-être ce n'étaient que quelques pages de lire avec quelque chose d'autre, non, ce sont vraiment 250 pages de délires et 50 pages de son ballet à la noix.

J'ai vraiment torturé mon esprit à lire ces horreurs. On pourrait se dire que ce n'est qu'un écrivain. Mais je me dis que même de nos jours des gens comme lui existent et deversent leur haine sur les réseaux sociaux. Je n'ai jamais lu de livre aussi répugnant que celui-ci.
Honte à l'éditeur qui a publié ce livre en 1937.
Honte à tous ceux qui demandent que ce livre soit republié.

Comme vous savez je ne fais pas de critiques négatives sur Goodreads car je soutiens les auteurs et leurs opinions. Mais ça - non. C'est littérature genre Mein Kampf.


---- j'ai écrit cela après quelques pages du livre ---


un exemple de l'écriture pourrie de Céline.

En bref il sort ce style de prose parce que selon lui les critiques ne l'apprécient pas assez. Si tous les écrivains se mettaient à écrire des délires complotistes dès qu'ils reçoivent une critique négative.

On penserait peut-être qu'après la guerre et en apprenant la Shoah, il aurait peut-être écrit quelque chose comme une excuse? Et bien non.
Ceux qui disent qu'il avait écrit auparavant des témoignages sur la Première Guerre Mondiale, oublient qu'à cause de gens comme lui des gens qui ont été ancien combattants se sont retrouvés comme des camps de concentration.

Réhabiliter Céline ce serait comme réhabiliter Pétain (qui s'est distingué pendant la 1ere Guerre Mondiale) . Ces gens ont activement contribué à la Shoah et ne se sont jamais repenti.

(en plus si vous parle du site où j'ai trouvé ce texte, on voit que cet auteur pourri continue d'avoir des fans tout aussi pourris que lui.

Non à l'antisémitisme en particulier et à la haine en général.

[dammydoc · Rating 1 out of 5]

“L’Ebreo è tabù in tutti i libri che ci vengono presentati. Gide, Citrine, Dorgelès, Serge, ecc… non ne fanno parola… Dunque parlano a vanvera… Hanno l’aria di spaccar tutto, di sfasciare questo e quello, ma non scalfiscono nulla. Abbozzano, barano, svicolano davanti all’essenziale: l’Ebreo. Arrivano soltanto fino alla soglia della verità: l’Ebreo […] In questo momento l’unica cosa grave per un grand’uomo, scienziato, scrittore, cineasta, finanziere, industriale, politico (ma allora la cosa è gravissima) è di mettersi in urto con gli Ebrei […] Divertimenti… Ciarle! Ma non toccate la questione ebraica, o ve ne faranno pentire…”. Ugo Leonzio in Dolore e corruzione, breve e intenso saggio che introduce il testo, esplicita la materia con cui è chiamato a confrontarsi il lettore di questo libello: “Per molto tempo ho cercato di spiegarmi perché Bagatelles pour un massacre fosse l’unico libro veramente infernale prodotto dalla letteratura francese dopo Choderlos de Laclos [autore de Le relazioni pericolose, 1782. NdR]. Ogni metodo usato per situare o circoscrivere questo disumano atto di accusa e di autoaccusa rischia di apparire funesto o ridicolo: ridicole le motivazioni patologiche («un momento di follia») e quelle estetiche («l’antisemitismo è solo una metafora dell’odio per il mondo»); funeste quelle psicologistiche («Céline vuole fare scandalo perché in una fase di impotenza creativa») e quelle enigmatiche («Bagatelles è un pamphlet antisemita ma noi non sappiamo cosa siano gli ebrei per Céline») […] Per essere intrattabile, cioè infernale, un libro deve situarsi in una zona ambigua […] c’è un punto in cui anche la perversione viene superata, un punto estremo di sofferenza in cui essa si trasforma in corruzione. È da qui che dovrebbe iniziare la lettura di Bagatelles”. Pubblicato cinque anni dopo Viaggio al termine della notte (1932) e un anno dopo Morte a credito (1936), universalmente considerati tra i capolavori della letteratura mondiale, il libro costò all’autore l’accusa formale di antisemitismo, l’emarginazione dagli ambienti culturali francesi - che durerà, in pratica, fino alla sua morte - e il posto di lavoro come medico presso il dispensario di Clichy, ove si occupava soprattutto dei malati indigenti. Questo non lo dissuase dal pubblicare altri due testi di chiaro stampo antisemita: La scuola dei cadaveri (L’École des cadavres, 1938) e I bei drappi (Les Beaux Draps, 1941). Al termine del secondo conflitto mondiale, tornato in Francia dopo il sostegno al regime collaborazionista di Vichy, e la conseguente fuga in Danimarca, fu lo stesso Céline a opporsi alla riedizione del pamphlet, volontà che ha segnato da allora le vicende di stampa dell’opera: anche l’edizione Guanda del 1981 (forse l’unica traduzione esistente dall’integrale originario) venne ritirata dagli scaffali a pochi mesi dalla pubblicazione a seguito della diffida promossa dalla vedova dello scrittore francese. La scrittura è diretta, convulsa, emotiva: frasi dal respiro cortissimo nel tono dell’invettiva, spezzate, segnate dagli onnipresenti puntini di sospensione, - cifra stilistica celiniana, un “gergo che diventa scritto”, come da definizione di Luca Pakarov (https://www.iltascabile.com/letteratu...) - per declinare quella che appare come una vera e propria ossessione…

Ne scrivo su

https://www.mangialibri.com/bagatelle...

[Nick Walsh]

Ridiculous. It's Hitler as a French writer in late stage syphilis. Ranting akin to a unhung up phone. Carrying on like a 3 year old in a 250 page fit. The whine. Put this boy in a straitjacket with a pacifier and a bottle of warm milk. Tiny little French writer. Balling his fists and stamping his little feet against the Jewish people. What a mueling drooling infant. A cashew for a brain. A blank in a toy gun. Shooting lots of caps. Put him in the stocks and let him roar. The mouse. Squeak squeak says the purple faced Louis Ferdinand. The anti semite's literary hero. Such fearless drivel. Rabid as a sick dog. Chasing his tiny tail in circles. Yelping. What a triumph it must have been for this hood ornament to live in Nazi occupied France. To readers who give this colon cleanse a favorable review. You can ask your local hospital for the soiled bedsheets of colonoscopy patients too. Add those sheets to your library. Can I give it 0 stars? I did. It has earned nothing. Readers who admire this piece have mad cow disease. That's why you drooled all over the pages. And shit your pants. Fans of this need lots of clean underwear. Viagra will only aggravate your desperate condition. A doctor might sever your intestine from your brain. But nothing can help brats of the wimpy Nazi race. Except a clean guillotine. Off with your mouse size head!

[Nick Turzio · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is an angry, bitter book. The language is sharp and the voice is strong, but it is also filled with ideas that are hard to stomach. I read it because I wanted to understand the way Céline writes, and there is no question that his style is powerful. The subject matter made it uncomfortable to spend time in his head. I finished it with mixed feelings, impressed by the writing and troubled by the content.

[Paolo]

Noioso sfogo (più che saggio) contro l'ebraismo a dimostrazione del più acceso antisemitismo dell'autore (e siamo nel 1937). Dopo trenta pagine (speravo migliorasse) non ce l'ho fatta a continuare!!! Chissà se ha concordato con quanto pochi anni dopo avrebbe fatto il nazismo..... A mio avviso non vale neppure una stella

[Ravanagh Allan · Rating 1 out of 5]

Céline does a good cause nothing but harm with his foul-mouthed, incoherent ranting of jibberish!

[Federico · Rating 2 out of 5]

È un libro che - al netto della sua rarità - va letto esclusivamente per curiosità e interesse storico sulla figura di Céline e sul malcelato antisemitismo francese. I capolavori del "bravo dottore" sono altri.

[Christophe · Rating 1 out of 5]

Bagatelles pour un massacre conduit une charge d'une grande violence contre les juifs. Le style accusatoire, agressif, elliptique qui forme l'œuvre de Céline, donne ici à son antisémitisme une allure de réquisitoire implacable et d'appel au peuple à agir contre les juifs.

La logique de l'auteur est la suivante : le juif est par nature belliciste (« pousse-au-crime » et « mégalomani[aque] conquérant[] »). Ses desseins : anéantir le peuple chrétien (et/ou « aryen ») au moyen des deux complots ; le judéo-bolchévisme et le judéo-capitalisme (Marx contre Rothschild). De cet affrontement, selon Céline, une guerre mondiale éclatera et verra triompher les juifs contre les aryens, espèce déclinante. Il justifie la possibilité d'un tel complot par l'existence d'une élite mondiale (notamment franc-maçonne) travaillant à « l'impérialisme » et « l'hégémonie juive » (Protocoles des Sages de Sion). A ce titre Céline accuse les juifs d'être racistes.

Céline a beau s'excuser par avance : « J'ai rien de spécial contre les Juifs en tant que juifs, je veux dire simplement truands comme tout le monde, bipèdes à la quête de leur soupe... Ils me gênent pas du tout. (...) Mais c'est contre le racisme juif que je me révolte, que je suis méchant, que je bouille, ça jusqu'au tréfonds de mon benouze !... ». Ça ne tient pas à l'épreuve des pages.

Car au rebord de cette accusation de belliciste, une autre face de l'antisémitisme de Céline se dévoile ; une attaque viscérale, ontologique. Le juif fossoyeur de la culture, le juif arrogants, dominateurs, despote, le juif dans le délire de persécution, de martyr, maître-chanteur qui « vaporise toute objection possible », le juif-envahisseur, juif-rôdeur « autour du pot-au-feu » de l’aryen, ou encore le juif laid, physiquement repoussant, le juif nègre, etc. L'attaque menée par Céline contre les juifs est multiple, profonde, totale.

On s'étonnera de voir Céline-géopoliticien ne faire aucune mention du diktat imposé à l'Allemagne, de la misère sociale du peuple allemand de 37, de la remilitarisation de la Rhénanie en 36 ou encore des velléités pangermanistes d'Hitler. Céline prédit une guerre des européens... sans les européens.

Bien péniblement, au milieu de ce galimatias, filtrent quelques épisodes qui rendent la lecture possibles : l'écriture des ballets, les assemblées générales de la S.D.N., les hôpitaux en URSS, la critique littéraire et les écrivains contemporains, sa visite de Leningrad. Un épisode en particulier fait sourire : Céline attribue la crise du livre en France (les français sont ceux qui dépensent le moins pour les livres) aux records de consommation d'alcool en France (davantage que tous nos voisins). Céline fait ici un paralogisme sans conséquence, il agite sa marotte sur dix pages, et c'est divertissant de le suivre.

Dommage qu'il n'en soit pas resté à bricoler avec ses bouts de ficelles, et que son antisémitisme viscéral ait trouvé à se déverser lorsqu'il s'est penché sur les problèmes du monde, ou comment un homme farouchement opposé à la guerre a pu faire le lit d'un idéal de destruction humaine.

[Hugo Falque · Rating 2 out of 5]

Que vous soyez un misérable prof de littérature obsédé par la subversion de Céline, ou un nostalgique de Rebatet et de Brasillach qui ne s'avoue que timidement "antisioniste", vous ne trouverez rien de remarquable ici, ni en termes de style (puéril), ni en termes d'idées (mal éclairées). Bagatelles pour un massacre est pourtant le meilleur de ses quatre pamphlets...

La pensée de Céline est une paranoïa de petit villageois mal informé. Sa bêtise ne permet pas de comprendre la tragique persistance de la tradition antisémite en France. Bagatelles pour un massacre est ponctué de sources fantaisistes, d'énnoncés sans fondements, qui font de l'auteur un simplet plutôt qu'un écrivain. Évidemment, ce n'est qu'un pamphlet; doit-on donc excuser le laconisme de Céline, sa haine brute et honnête, au nom de l'exercice de style? Peut-être, mais ces textes, longs, répétitifs, décousus et redondants, suggèrent de toute façon une débilité congénitale qui lui aurait coûté la vie dans les camps.

Céline est un tout petit homme. Un mesquin affairé à sa petite fortune, qui n'avait ni le courage, ni l'élégance des perdants comme Drieu La Rochelle...

[Päivi Brink · Rating 1 out of 5]

These antisemitic pamflets are difficult to rate, because I do not agree with their racist content. It is impportant to read them though, if you want to understand his thinking and world view.

[Deprenyl · Rating 3 out of 5]

suite à la censure de Mark Twain.