Description du produit
A Dangerous Liaison Presents the story of how two brilliant free-thinkers - and rivals - came to share a relationship that was to last over fifty years. This title helps to discover how the strikingly beautiful and gifted young Simone came to fall in love with the squinting, arrogant, hard-drinking Jean-Paul. Full description
A Dangerous Liaison
.0" L,
.93 livres
Description du produit
A Dangerous Liaison Presents the story of how two brilliant free-thinkers - and rivals - came to share a relationship that was to last over fifty years. This title helps to discover how the strikingly beautiful and gifted young Simone came to fall in love with the squinting, arrogant, hard-drinking Jean-Paul. Full description
Commentaires clients
Commentaires clients les plus utiles
0 internautes sur 0 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile.
Par Ralph Blumenau
This very readable book is about the relationship between Jean-Paul Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir, and although the author is of course knowledgeable about their philosophies, her main interest is in the psychology of the pair, which is brought out with great perceptiveness.From their adolescence onwards they had both rejected belief in God. This had two consequences in particular: the first and earliest was that `if God is dead, everything is permitted', and they certainly allowed themselves behaviour which, even by permissive standards, was often indefensible. On the other hand, they sought to fashion a morality which, in theory, was as demanding as any laid down by the churches: absolute honesty towards themselves and each other, a ruthless exposure and condemnation of mauvaise foi, the necessity to fashion a moral code for themselves and then an insistence on total commitment to it. These have made them the heroes of their followers and of many thoughtful people who have themselves wrestled with the moral problems raised by the absence of religious belief.But they fell very far short of what they preached: they lied (what De Beauvoir wrote in her Memoirs is often belied by her diary; and Sartre lied about his behaviour during the Occupation); they seduced minors and casually wrecked other people's lives.A typical situation: De Beauvoir, aged 24, had a lesbian relationship with her 17 year old pupil Olga Kosackiewicz; suffers torments when Sartre makes a play for her which Olga encourages. When Olga denies him sex, in part because she has another male lover, Jacques Bost, the frustrated Sartre pursues Olga's younger sister Wanda (ultimately more successfully), while De Beauvoir has a passionate affaire with Bost, nine years her junior, which is being kept secret from Olga; and at the same time, now 29, De Beauvoir has started on a lesbian relationship with another of her pupils, the 16 year old Bianca Bienenfeld, whom Sartre, aged 33, promptly begins to woo and coldly deflowers. This was only the first of many other permutations and combinations. The rackety life led by most of these young women made them physical and mental wrecks in middle age: Sartre, who would maintain all of them financially, came to refer to them as his `patients'!De Beauvoir's affaires are prompted by the powerful sensual demands of her body. Sartre is thrilled by the sheer act of possession, but he dislikes the sex-act itself and, at least with De Beauvoir, is perfunctory about it. So the relationship between them leaves her sexually frustrated. But she is terrified of losing him (for most of her life she is infinitely more dependent on Sartre than he is on her, and she suffers much more from their pact to allow each other sexual freedom), and Bianca becomes the first of her young lesbian lovers whom she encourages to satisfy Sartre's lust for conquest.Both not only describe in detail to each other what they have done, but they also put their experiences into novels, which are all romans à clef, to which Seymour-Jones provides the keys.In politics also they also showed mauvaise foi and betrayed their belief in freedom. It was only the Nazi occupation of France which made them political. Sartre did form a short-lived and ineffective resistance group of intellectuals; but he took over a prestigious teaching post from which his Jewish predecessor had been sacked, and contributed to a French collaborationist magazine. A collaborationist theatre director staged Sartre's Les Mouches - not understanding the hidden call to resistance which can be read into the play. De Beauvoir worked for the collaborationist radio. After the war, Sartre managed to persuade people that he had been a Resistance militant. He now became really famous.De Beauvoir became famous and notorious in her own right, especially after the publication in 1949 of The Second Sex, in which she rebelled against the culture which gave women a subsidiary role - but her view of the female body (p.372) was as neurotic as Sartre's (p.373).In 1952, at the height of Stalin's terror, Sartre threw in his lot with the Communist Party. It was not without a long inward struggle, but it was after all also an example of mauvais fois for a man who claimed to defend liberty. Later he was to confess that he had lied deliberately in his articles extolling freedom of speech in the Soviet Union. De Beauvoir initially stayed aloof from politics, but in 1955 she, too, became a recruit. Hungary in 1956 was too much for them; and they now dedicated themselves to the fight against colonialism, especially in Algeria. But by 1962 they were again visiting the Soviet Union. This time the Soviets entrap the now 57 year old goat with an attractive 39 year old interpreter, Lena Zonina: he again comes back proclaiming that Russian writers now really do have freedom - and he does nothing to speak for the dissident samizdat writers like Sinyavsky and Daniel who in 1966 were sentenced to seven years in the gulag. During those four years Sartre had returned to Moscow no fewer than eight times in order to be with Lena (in bedrooms bugged by the KGB). Only in 1968, when the Soviets crushed the Prague Spring, did Sartre once again break with his Soviet contacts. But he has new causes to support: Vietnam, and then the student revolt of 1968 and the Cultural Revolution.The author writes in her preface that her admiration for them, which was the genesis of her book, had not been in any way eroded. What she admires them for, we learn, is the intellectual contribution they made to some of the major issues of our time. It can scarcely be for the actual lives they led.
" xml:lang="en">
No comments:
Post a Comment