A Dangerous Liaison: A Revalatory New Biography of Simone DeBeauvoir and Jean-Paul Sartre

By Carole Seymour-Jones

A Dangerous Liaison tells the intense, passionate, and sometimes painful story of how two brilliant free-thinkers, lovers, and rivals came to share a relationship that lasted more than fifty years.

Moving from the corridors of the Sorbonne to the cafés of Paris's Left Bank, we discover how the strikingly beautiful and gifted young Simone DeBeauvoir came to fall in love with the squinting, arrogant, hard- drinking Jean-Paul Sartre. We learn about that first summer of 1929, filled with heated debates that went on long into the night, sexual rivalry and betrayal, and the dangerous ideas that led people to experiment with new ways of behaving. We hear how Sartre compromised with the Nazis and fell into a Soviet honey-trap. And, thanks to recently discovered letters written by the avowed feminist DeBeauvoir, Seymour-Jones reveals the darker, more dangerous side to the couple's philosophy of free love, including Simone's lesbianism and her pimping of younger girls for Jean-Paul in order to keep his love.

Finally available in the U.S., this is a compelling and fascinating account of what lay behind the legend that this brilliant, tempestuous couple created.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Penguin Group
• Release date: Sep 3, 2009
• ISBN: 9781590204474

Reviews for A Dangerous Liaison

[puddintame-358807 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

By the end of this book, I am unable to understand why Carole Seymour-Jones can say that she still respects De Beauvoir and Sartre. Of course, I do not believe that philosophers and intellectuals (hereafter P&I) are necessarily an elite group to whom we should look for guidance. The sordid lives of the like of DeBeauvoir, Sartre, Norman Mailer, etc., only confirm my skepticism. DeBeauvoir and Sartre were very famous, but so are Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt, and I respect the latter to the extent that they do good works. Worse, I am proudly middle-class, and I am not all that fascinated by novelty. I am inclined to think that actually De Beauvoir, via her book The Second Sex is more important to society at large than Sartre. Otherwise, I wonder whether most P&I really affect our lives. Certainly Rousseau had an enormous effect on his times, and John Locke and Edmund Burke affected the political structure of the United States. The rediscovery of Greek philosophy in toto moved Western culture towards rationalism, but it was a mixed bag: for several centuries, Plato and Aristotle were simply a new orthodoxy that could not be questioned. To say that Sartre, or anyone else, influenced other P&I is to tell me that someone had a great influence on styles of skate boarding, a sport I don't follow or participate it. I don't mean to be negative, either to P&I or skateboarders, they are entitled to their subcultures, I just don't feel obliged to reverence them.So having warned the reader of my jaded perspective, I began this book which focuses on more on the lives than the works of DeBeauvoir and Sartre (here after DB&S). The works are not neglected, but they are used more as insight into their interior lives, and roman à clef pieces that presented in coded form thoughts and events that dB&S did not care to admit to outright. There is a certain danger to the latter practice, but Seymour-Jones often makes a convincing case.Carole Seymour-Jones (hereafter CSJ) finds DB&S frequently lacking in moral fiber, exploitive and hypocritical. The lifelong pact between the two had ugly consequences, often for other people. The pair were extremely fond of seducing their under-age students. Not for the first time, DeBeauvoir is considered to have been something of a procuress for Sartre, although CSJ tells us that she also enjoyed the students, both male and female, for herself. Apparently, the sexual relationship between db&S didn't last for long, and DeBeauvoir eased the resulting tensions by finding other sexual partners for Sartre. Many of the girls turned out to be rather hapless women, and Sartre (to give him that much credit), did support them. One wonders, therefore, whether dB&S destroyed these young creatures, or whether they found the already helpless to be easier targets. Sartre preferred virgins; apparently rather disinterested in sex per se, he viewed it as an exertion of power. One of the odd, hypocritical results was that while these people claimed to believe in free love, the polyamorous throng was in fact roiled by jealousy and revenge. It appears to be a sordid collection of people destroying themselves and one another with infighting, drugs, and alcohol,Seymour-Jones looks very critically at the conduct of DB&S during the German Occupation of France. Unlike some writers who refused to publish, they continued to pursue their literary and teaching careers, Sartre being unconcerned at getting a promotion because of the sacking of a Jewish teacher. They apparently abruptly dropped Bianca Bienenfeld, a Jewish member of the coterie, much to her shock and chagrin, although DeBeauvoir later attempted to reconcile with her. I would think that perhaps CSJ is a little harsh in her evaluation--DB&S were not running concentration camps or turning in known Jews, and they made some ineffectual efforts at resistance--except that after the was dB&S managed to present a false front of valiant struggle and moral exemplars, overshadowing people who really suffered. Jews were offended by such statements as "they deported us en masse; as Bianca would say '[us] had been 'usurped by someone who had been neither an active Resistant nor Jewish'" (p. 307)In addition, CSJ is extremely critical of DB&S for closing their eyes to the realities of the Soviet Union's repression of its own people and its satellites, serving as a valued propaganda front up until the 1968 invasion of Czechoslovakia. Apparently, this was in large part due to Sartre's romance with a woman who was probably a KGB agent. Seymour-Jones has produced an impressive and disturbing work. it is marred at time by unclear writing. There are sentences which appear to be missing a word or two; some are merely fragments. "Deluded into thinking he enjoyed a measure of autonomy in Russia, Sartre had yet to learn the truth of two Russian sayings: ... 'alcohol doesn't affect me' ... and 'I understand the Russians.'" Surely there should be a negative somewhere in that sentence. If it's irony, it's a little too subtle for me.On pages 285-286, we find an the story of DeBeauvoir and another woman attempting to find what has become of Jean-Pierre Bourla, a Jew arrested by the Nazi. They take a train to the concentration camp. A man whom they believe to be Bourla waves to them, and they are told he will be transferred to an American POW camp. "It took days of questioning before the German said: 'They were both killed some days ago.' ... Beauvoir never tried to find out what happened to Bourla... ." Well, who questioned the Germans if not Beauvoir and her companion?An interesting debunking of an overrated couple, and a warning about taking people at their own estimation.