What do you think?
Rate this book
A Disgraceful Affair: Simone de Beauvoir, Jean-Paul Sartre, and Bianca Lamblin - Women's Life Writings from Around the World
Bianca Bienenfeld was a seventeen-year-old lycee student when she was seduced both intellectually and sexually by her philosophy professor, Simone de Beauvoir, in 1938. The following year de Beauvoir passed Bianca on to her "essential partner," Jean-Paul Sartre. The three formed a menage a trois until 1940, when Bianca was suddenly abandoned by her dual mentors and lovers. Their lack of concern for Bianca's fate as a Jew in occupied France made the abrupt break even more shattering for her. She began to suffer periodic bouts of severe depression linked not only to the Nazi horrors, but to the betrayal by de Beauvoir and Sartre.
After World War II, Bianca Bienenfeld (now married to Bernard Lamblin) resumed a platonic friendship with de Beauvoir that lasted more than forty years, but the pain of the old, perturbing affair flooded back when, in 1990, she read de Beauvoir's posthumously published Letters to Sartre and War Journal. The intimate content of these books referred directly to Bianca in a tone of ridicule and contempt, and she finally discovered the full extent of de Beauvoir's deception.
Now Bianca explodes with the true story behind her earlier relationship with the high priests of existentialism. Published here in English for the first time, her memoir reveals what it was like to be a third party in the "contingent" affairs of de Beauvoir and Sartre. Bianca's compelling narrative is not written out of revenge or retaliation. Rather, it is an eloquent, candid account of how de Beauvoir and Sartre influenced the shape of her life and how she survived a disgraceful affair that, when broken, almost broke her.
Bianca's unique perspective on de Beauvoir and Sartre is the central focus of the book, but not the sole one. She writes about her love for her husband Bernard, who helped her recover. She also describes life during the dark times of German occupation, and recounts witnessing the battle of Vercors during the French Resistance. Her well-crafted and poignant memoir will appeal to scholars and general readers alike.
After World War II, Bianca Bienenfeld (now married to Bernard Lamblin) resumed a platonic friendship with de Beauvoir that lasted more than forty years, but the pain of the old, perturbing affair flooded back when, in 1990, she read de Beauvoir's posthumously published Letters to Sartre and War Journal. The intimate content of these books referred directly to Bianca in a tone of ridicule and contempt, and she finally discovered the full extent of de Beauvoir's deception.
Now Bianca explodes with the true story behind her earlier relationship with the high priests of existentialism. Published here in English for the first time, her memoir reveals what it was like to be a third party in the "contingent" affairs of de Beauvoir and Sartre. Bianca's compelling narrative is not written out of revenge or retaliation. Rather, it is an eloquent, candid account of how de Beauvoir and Sartre influenced the shape of her life and how she survived a disgraceful affair that, when broken, almost broke her.
Bianca's unique perspective on de Beauvoir and Sartre is the central focus of the book, but not the sole one. She writes about her love for her husband Bernard, who helped her recover. She also describes life during the dark times of German occupation, and recounts witnessing the battle of Vercors during the French Resistance. Her well-crafted and poignant memoir will appeal to scholars and general readers alike.
224 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1993
4 people are currently reading
333 people want to read
About the author
Bianca Lamblin
5 books2 followersBianca Lamblin (maiden name: Bienenfeld) was a French writer who was romantically involved with both Jean-Paul Sartre and his lifelong companion Simone de Beauvoir, for a number of years. Her book, 'Mémoires d'une Jeune Fille Dérangée' (published in English under the title, "A Disgraceful Affair"), is an account of her long-lasting involvement with two of the most prominent French thinkers of the twentieth century.
In correspondence between Sartre and Beauvoir, the pseudonym Louise Védrine was used when referring to Bianca in Lettres au Castor and in Lettres à Sartre. Lamblin later lamented of being abused by both Sartre and Beauvoir.
In correspondence between Sartre and Beauvoir, the pseudonym Louise Védrine was used when referring to Bianca in Lettres au Castor and in Lettres à Sartre. Lamblin later lamented of being abused by both Sartre and Beauvoir.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews
April 24, 2021
مثل یک «نخودچیخورون» طولانی بود!😀
امّا از خواندنش پشیمان نیستم. در روزهایی که سروصدای جنبش #می_تو بلند است و آدمها یکییکی از پلّههای نردبان -بعضی بالاتر و بعضی پایینتر- سقوط میکنند، خواندن این کتاب، آن سؤالِ همچنان پرسیدنی که منش و زندگی شخصی هنرمند چه نسبتی با اثر هنریاش دارد را دوباره پیش روی ما قرار میدهد.
شما چه جوابی به این سؤال میدهید؟ دانستن حقایق ناراحتکننده و تکاندهنده دربارهٔ زندگی نویسندگان لذت بردن از آثارشان را برای شما ناممکن نمیکند؟
امّا از خواندنش پشیمان نیستم. در روزهایی که سروصدای جنبش #می_تو بلند است و آدمها یکییکی از پلّههای نردبان -بعضی بالاتر و بعضی پایینتر- سقوط میکنند، خواندن این کتاب، آن سؤالِ همچنان پرسیدنی که منش و زندگی شخصی هنرمند چه نسبتی با اثر هنریاش دارد را دوباره پیش روی ما قرار میدهد.
شما چه جوابی به این سؤال میدهید؟ دانستن حقایق ناراحتکننده و تکاندهنده دربارهٔ زندگی نویسندگان لذت بردن از آثارشان را برای شما ناممکن نمیکند؟
June 9, 2020
This is my second reading of "A Disgraceful Affair: Simone de Beauvoir, Jean-Paul Sartre, and Bianca Lamblin - Women's Life Writings from Around the World."
Almost 10 years ago, I had read a joint biography of Jean-Paul Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir in which their relationship with the author of "A Disgraceful Affair" was described at length. Bianca Lamblin (nee Bienenfeld) had been a pupil of de Beauvoir (who was a philosophy professor at a lycée for adolescent girls in Paris) when she was in her teens in the late 1930s. Both Bianca and de Beauvoir eventually had a personal (and sexual) relationship. De Beauvoir and Sartre became mentors to Bianca, who was deeply impressed with them and deeply flattered by their interest in her. Bianca became fully aware of the special Sartre-de Beauvoir relationship and came to believe that, as the third person, they could form a strong, loving, and supportive tripartite relationship.
But as war clouds gathered over Europe in 1939, de Beauvoir began to tire of Bianca and passed her on to Sartre in keeping with the dictates of their special relationship, in which they shared lovers and always told each other the truth.
Rather than be truthful about her desire to end her relationship with Bianca, de Beauvoir tried to make it appear that it was Sartre's decision to sever ties, not hers. Bianca, who confesses to her own naivety in the book, was at an utter loss. By this time, it was early 1940 and France was at war with Germany. Sartre, though recalled to the army, ended his relationship with Bianca by sending her --- after de Beauvoir's prompting --- a hastily written letter. Bianca, who admits to being in love with both Sartre and de Beauvoir, was deeply hurt by their abandonment of her and traumatized by the French defeat in June 1940.
The German Occupation put Bianca, a Jew, in grave danger. A danger which only intensified as the war went on and the Germans (with the aid of French collaborationists) went about rounding up Jews in France and transporting them East to the concentration camps. Bianca and her family had to leave Paris for Southern France, where they were fortunate to survive the war.
What was interesting to me was Lamblin's decision, upon returning to Paris following the Liberation, to renew her friendship with de Beauvoir. It was a relationship largely defined by Lamblin (e.g. both women would meet only once a month for lunch in a restaurant, but only after de Beauvoir had contacted Lamblin first - Lamblin insisted on that - to work out the details; this relationship would last until de Beauvoir's death in April 1986).
In rounding out this book, Lamblin tries to explain to the reader "the inner workings of the story of the relationship of the story of de Beauvoir, Sartre, and me." What she had to say gave me plenty of food for thought and helped to put my feelings about de Beauvoir and Sartre into perspective. No spoilers here. If you, the reader of this review, want to know more, I invite you to read "A DISGRACEFUL AFFAIR" and reach your own conclusions about this tripartite personal drama.
Almost 10 years ago, I had read a joint biography of Jean-Paul Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir in which their relationship with the author of "A Disgraceful Affair" was described at length. Bianca Lamblin (nee Bienenfeld) had been a pupil of de Beauvoir (who was a philosophy professor at a lycée for adolescent girls in Paris) when she was in her teens in the late 1930s. Both Bianca and de Beauvoir eventually had a personal (and sexual) relationship. De Beauvoir and Sartre became mentors to Bianca, who was deeply impressed with them and deeply flattered by their interest in her. Bianca became fully aware of the special Sartre-de Beauvoir relationship and came to believe that, as the third person, they could form a strong, loving, and supportive tripartite relationship.
But as war clouds gathered over Europe in 1939, de Beauvoir began to tire of Bianca and passed her on to Sartre in keeping with the dictates of their special relationship, in which they shared lovers and always told each other the truth.
Rather than be truthful about her desire to end her relationship with Bianca, de Beauvoir tried to make it appear that it was Sartre's decision to sever ties, not hers. Bianca, who confesses to her own naivety in the book, was at an utter loss. By this time, it was early 1940 and France was at war with Germany. Sartre, though recalled to the army, ended his relationship with Bianca by sending her --- after de Beauvoir's prompting --- a hastily written letter. Bianca, who admits to being in love with both Sartre and de Beauvoir, was deeply hurt by their abandonment of her and traumatized by the French defeat in June 1940.
The German Occupation put Bianca, a Jew, in grave danger. A danger which only intensified as the war went on and the Germans (with the aid of French collaborationists) went about rounding up Jews in France and transporting them East to the concentration camps. Bianca and her family had to leave Paris for Southern France, where they were fortunate to survive the war.
What was interesting to me was Lamblin's decision, upon returning to Paris following the Liberation, to renew her friendship with de Beauvoir. It was a relationship largely defined by Lamblin (e.g. both women would meet only once a month for lunch in a restaurant, but only after de Beauvoir had contacted Lamblin first - Lamblin insisted on that - to work out the details; this relationship would last until de Beauvoir's death in April 1986).
In rounding out this book, Lamblin tries to explain to the reader "the inner workings of the story of the relationship of the story of de Beauvoir, Sartre, and me." What she had to say gave me plenty of food for thought and helped to put my feelings about de Beauvoir and Sartre into perspective. No spoilers here. If you, the reader of this review, want to know more, I invite you to read "A DISGRACEFUL AFFAIR" and reach your own conclusions about this tripartite personal drama.
November 20, 2013
A rather sad and depressing read, All a little muddled as to what really went on among the three of them. Read like a desperate attempt by the author to state her version of events that happened before and after WW11. The real hero was her long-suffering husband.
July 7, 2021
Un ton construit, humain et équilibré pour décrire l'intimité de la relation tripartite entre une jeune fille brillante pleine d'espoir (auteur & narratrice) et les 2 mastodontes de la philosophie française Jean-Paul Sartre & Simone de Beauvoir.
Read
November 9, 2025C'est intéressant à lire pour comprendre l'histoire de Sartre et Beauvoir et surtout la nature des reproches faits à Beauvoir, dont la rumeur enfle dans les milieux militants depuis quelques années. Intéressant aussi comme document pour l'histoire de la seconde guerre mondiale vécue en tant que personne juive en France.
Je retiens que sur la nature des accusations concernant Beauvoir, c'est surtout
1. l'écart d'âge (17 ans / 28 pour Beauvoir / 34 pour Sartre) qui continue d'être effectivement problématique, bien qu'on ne se pose pas les questions dans les mêmes termes qu'aujourd'hui à l'époque. Bianca Lamblin elle même, tout en considérant que ça lui a fait du mal, ne jette pas d'opprobre moral énorme là dessus, encore moins sur la nature prof-élève de la relation initiale qu'elle a l'air de trouver à peu près ok en soi - risquée mais ok - ce qui apparaît beaucoup moins acceptable aujourd'hui.
2. surtout le fait que Bianca Lamblin ait été abandonnée en 40 sans que jamais Sartre et Beauvoir ne se réinquiètent de son sort au fil de la guerre. Je retiens que Lamblin souligne une forme banale et grossière d'antisémitisme inconscient chez Beauvoir, dont elle souligne pourtant qu'il est bien absolument contraire à ce qu'elle défendait politiquement. Bianca Lamblin analyse que cette prise de conscience floue a valu à Beauvoir de culpabiliser beaucoup par la suite à ce sujet (tout en restant ambiguë, comme en témoigne le blanchiment de son nom dans le pseudonyme trouvé pour parler d'elle), comme au sujet de leur relation amoureuse en trio pour le mal qu'elle a fait a Bianca Lamblin, ce qu'elle a manifestement regretté longtemps.
Bianca Lamblin ne parle jamais de crime à l'égard de ces deux questions, elle dit que ça lui a fait du mal et qu'elle veut rétablir sa propre version des faits à leur sujet. Elle souligne factuellement que c'était 1. déséquilibré et par là destructeur, 2. lâche et irresponsable. Je retiens aussi que même si Bianca Lamblin ne met pas tellement l'accent dessus, on parlerait probablement de viol aujourd'hui (par zone grise, consentement très flou) pour ce qui concerne ses premières relations sexuelles avec Sartre ; elle, elle parle de son comportement de "mufle".
Il me semble que ce sont les points qu'on peut retenir comme faits, tels que rapportés par l'autrice et tels que toujours effectivement gênants d'un point de vue moral et politique, à différents degrés.
En revanche le ton du livre est souvent super bizarre, en fait extrêmement moralisateur mais pas tant sur les points qui agitent, aujourd'hui, les milieux féministes. Plutôt d'une manière qui nous apparait en fait très conservatrice.
- Le témoignage de Bianca Lamblin fait suite à des questions éditoriales mais aussi à une cure psychanalytique avec Lacan qui la convainc qu'en fait elle a été victime de l'actualisation d'un triangle œdipien ; d'où le poids donné à la différence d'âge aussi, parce que Sartre et Beauvoir auraient pu être "ses parents" (à respectivement 12 et 17 ans !). Je pense qu'on peut considérer que c'est idiot mais que c'est ce qu'elle trouve comme modèle théorique, à l'époque, pour argumenter que l'écart d'âge et d'autorité a été destructeur.
- Au niveau des faits rapportés, Sartre est vraiment un "mufle" qui maltraite les gens autour de lui, Beauvoir est systématiquement présentée comme une suiveuse éperdue d'admiration qui essaie de limiter la casse. Bianca Lamblin dit à la fin que tomber amoureuse de sa jeune prof de philo est une histoire banale, et que leur relation se serait transformée en longue amitié leur vie durant sans plus de difficulté si Sartre n'était pas entré dans l'équation. Si bien qu'en réalité, c'est Sartre qui commet les actes les plus objectivement moralement douteux, mais que dans ce livre, c'est Beauvoir qui en récupère le blâme. Le premier reproche est donc celui d'avoir suivi Sartre. On voit d'ailleurs que Beauvoir s'en rend compte parce qu'elle accuse Bianca Lamblin de misogynie a ce sujet. À tort ou à raison (je pense aux victimes d'inceste qui insistent pour dire que les mères qui se taisent sont, quoique différemment, elles aussi coupables ; ça a du sens selon le prisme œdipien revendiqué par Lamblin).
- Seulement c'est via ça que, finalement, les faits réellement reprochés à Beauvoir sont mélangés à une grande série d'autres qui sont quant à eux hyper anodins : elle portait des faux cols (preuve de son hypocrisie), elle aimait boire, elle était dégoûtée par l'idée de la maternité (c'est présenté comme très suspect), elle détestait l'idée du mariage, elle ne livrait pas 100% sur les détails de ses relations amoureuses auprès de Bianca Lamblin, elle ne croyait pas à la notion d'inconscient, elle détestait les produits laitiers (preuve de son problème de fond avec la maternité donc avec la morale), etc.
En fait, ce qui ressort de la lecture, c'est que Beauvoir était une femme "hypocrite", et ça semble être ça le reproche principal (bien plus que tout ce dont on l'accuse aujourd'hui en citant Bianca Lamblin de loin).
Un élément qui m'a étonnée, c'est le poids conféré à la biographie de Beauvoir par Deirdre Blair. Comme si tout ce qui y était dit sortait forcément de la bouche de Beauvoir, alors qu'on sait combien des propos rapportés par des journalistes ou écrivains peuvent être déformés, exagérés. Frappante aussi, l'absence totale de la question d'un "rabattage" des étudiantes de Beauvoir vers Sartre, alors que c'est ce qui circule beaucoup dans la rumeur féministe aujourd'hui. Aucune mention de ça dans le récit, sauf dans les toutes premières pages qui adoptent un ton assez diffamatoire sans rapport avec le reste de ce qui est raconté (d'où ça vient, du coup ?)
Donc je conclus ma lecture en me disant qu'en effet il y a des points centraux qu'on peut regretter ou condamner (l'emprise, l'irresponsabilité face à l'antisémitisme), bien que la rumeur qui circule sur les réseaux soit bien plus grave que ce qui est vraiment dit dans ce livre-ci, dont on peut par contre interroger certaines positions ou modalités d'écriture.
Je retiens que sur la nature des accusations concernant Beauvoir, c'est surtout
1. l'écart d'âge (17 ans / 28 pour Beauvoir / 34 pour Sartre) qui continue d'être effectivement problématique, bien qu'on ne se pose pas les questions dans les mêmes termes qu'aujourd'hui à l'époque. Bianca Lamblin elle même, tout en considérant que ça lui a fait du mal, ne jette pas d'opprobre moral énorme là dessus, encore moins sur la nature prof-élève de la relation initiale qu'elle a l'air de trouver à peu près ok en soi - risquée mais ok - ce qui apparaît beaucoup moins acceptable aujourd'hui.
2. surtout le fait que Bianca Lamblin ait été abandonnée en 40 sans que jamais Sartre et Beauvoir ne se réinquiètent de son sort au fil de la guerre. Je retiens que Lamblin souligne une forme banale et grossière d'antisémitisme inconscient chez Beauvoir, dont elle souligne pourtant qu'il est bien absolument contraire à ce qu'elle défendait politiquement. Bianca Lamblin analyse que cette prise de conscience floue a valu à Beauvoir de culpabiliser beaucoup par la suite à ce sujet (tout en restant ambiguë, comme en témoigne le blanchiment de son nom dans le pseudonyme trouvé pour parler d'elle), comme au sujet de leur relation amoureuse en trio pour le mal qu'elle a fait a Bianca Lamblin, ce qu'elle a manifestement regretté longtemps.
Bianca Lamblin ne parle jamais de crime à l'égard de ces deux questions, elle dit que ça lui a fait du mal et qu'elle veut rétablir sa propre version des faits à leur sujet. Elle souligne factuellement que c'était 1. déséquilibré et par là destructeur, 2. lâche et irresponsable. Je retiens aussi que même si Bianca Lamblin ne met pas tellement l'accent dessus, on parlerait probablement de viol aujourd'hui (par zone grise, consentement très flou) pour ce qui concerne ses premières relations sexuelles avec Sartre ; elle, elle parle de son comportement de "mufle".
Il me semble que ce sont les points qu'on peut retenir comme faits, tels que rapportés par l'autrice et tels que toujours effectivement gênants d'un point de vue moral et politique, à différents degrés.
En revanche le ton du livre est souvent super bizarre, en fait extrêmement moralisateur mais pas tant sur les points qui agitent, aujourd'hui, les milieux féministes. Plutôt d'une manière qui nous apparait en fait très conservatrice.
- Le témoignage de Bianca Lamblin fait suite à des questions éditoriales mais aussi à une cure psychanalytique avec Lacan qui la convainc qu'en fait elle a été victime de l'actualisation d'un triangle œdipien ; d'où le poids donné à la différence d'âge aussi, parce que Sartre et Beauvoir auraient pu être "ses parents" (à respectivement 12 et 17 ans !). Je pense qu'on peut considérer que c'est idiot mais que c'est ce qu'elle trouve comme modèle théorique, à l'époque, pour argumenter que l'écart d'âge et d'autorité a été destructeur.
- Au niveau des faits rapportés, Sartre est vraiment un "mufle" qui maltraite les gens autour de lui, Beauvoir est systématiquement présentée comme une suiveuse éperdue d'admiration qui essaie de limiter la casse. Bianca Lamblin dit à la fin que tomber amoureuse de sa jeune prof de philo est une histoire banale, et que leur relation se serait transformée en longue amitié leur vie durant sans plus de difficulté si Sartre n'était pas entré dans l'équation. Si bien qu'en réalité, c'est Sartre qui commet les actes les plus objectivement moralement douteux, mais que dans ce livre, c'est Beauvoir qui en récupère le blâme. Le premier reproche est donc celui d'avoir suivi Sartre. On voit d'ailleurs que Beauvoir s'en rend compte parce qu'elle accuse Bianca Lamblin de misogynie a ce sujet. À tort ou à raison (je pense aux victimes d'inceste qui insistent pour dire que les mères qui se taisent sont, quoique différemment, elles aussi coupables ; ça a du sens selon le prisme œdipien revendiqué par Lamblin).
- Seulement c'est via ça que, finalement, les faits réellement reprochés à Beauvoir sont mélangés à une grande série d'autres qui sont quant à eux hyper anodins : elle portait des faux cols (preuve de son hypocrisie), elle aimait boire, elle était dégoûtée par l'idée de la maternité (c'est présenté comme très suspect), elle détestait l'idée du mariage, elle ne livrait pas 100% sur les détails de ses relations amoureuses auprès de Bianca Lamblin, elle ne croyait pas à la notion d'inconscient, elle détestait les produits laitiers (preuve de son problème de fond avec la maternité donc avec la morale), etc.
En fait, ce qui ressort de la lecture, c'est que Beauvoir était une femme "hypocrite", et ça semble être ça le reproche principal (bien plus que tout ce dont on l'accuse aujourd'hui en citant Bianca Lamblin de loin).
Un élément qui m'a étonnée, c'est le poids conféré à la biographie de Beauvoir par Deirdre Blair. Comme si tout ce qui y était dit sortait forcément de la bouche de Beauvoir, alors qu'on sait combien des propos rapportés par des journalistes ou écrivains peuvent être déformés, exagérés. Frappante aussi, l'absence totale de la question d'un "rabattage" des étudiantes de Beauvoir vers Sartre, alors que c'est ce qui circule beaucoup dans la rumeur féministe aujourd'hui. Aucune mention de ça dans le récit, sauf dans les toutes premières pages qui adoptent un ton assez diffamatoire sans rapport avec le reste de ce qui est raconté (d'où ça vient, du coup ?)
Donc je conclus ma lecture en me disant qu'en effet il y a des points centraux qu'on peut regretter ou condamner (l'emprise, l'irresponsabilité face à l'antisémitisme), bien que la rumeur qui circule sur les réseaux soit bien plus grave que ce qui est vraiment dit dans ce livre-ci, dont on peut par contre interroger certaines positions ou modalités d'écriture.
August 18, 2025
WERE SARTRE, BEAUVOIR AND THE AUTHOR A "THREESOME"?
Bianca Lamblin said in the Introduction to this 1993 book, "I have decided to recount what was a dramatic episode in my life... If my story is out of the ordinary, it is probably because two of the main characters are Simone de Beauvoir and Jean-Paul Sartre. Together we formed a threesome, or at least that is what I was led to believe... The way that Simone de Beauvoir and then Sartre treated me in 1940, the humiliation and suffering they caused me, were so severe that the simple truth I want to tell will, I hope, ring truer and clearer than the lies in Letters to Sartre... I am driven not by a need for revenge but by a simple desire to tell the truth." (Pg. 3-4)
She explains, "I must emphasize that it was not just a matter of distant events that had taken place in my youth; Simone de Beauvoir had remained my friend. Throughout her life, we continued to see each other on a regular basis. I trusted her completely. I thought she could understand everything, and I considered her innately honest. I thought her friendship was sincere, although it was entirely different from the emotional relationship we had had in my youth... Now that I have read 'Letters' and 'Wartime Diary,' I cannot fathom how I could have been so deeply deceived." (Pg. 5)
She adds, "I realize now that I was a victim of Sartre's womanizing and of the ambivalent and dubious way [de Beauvoir] defended his behavior. I had entered a world of complex relationships that led to painful imbroglios, pathetic plotting, and constant lying in which Simone de Beauvoir and Sartre cautiously avoided getting caught." (Pg. 6) Noting that Beauvoir and Sartre had agreed that they could each experience "contingent love affairs," she observes, "it was a 'trick' that Sartre had invented to satisfy his need for sexual conquest and that Simone de Beauvoir was forced to accept. Hiding behind the philosophical justification for the pact was a sort of bribery: 'Take it or leave it!'... (Beauvoir) was his main dupe." (Pg. 28)
She confides, "I told her that Sartre was a very poor lover; far from contradicting me, as I had expected, she agreed immediately, saying that he was not very skilled in that domain." (Pg. 29) Later, she observes, "[Beauvoir] always followed Sartre docilely, rather sadly, sometimes surprised, always prepared to join in; Sartre was the master who decided everything." (Pg. 139)
She complains, "She gave no thought to how deeply I had been hurt. After she had grown tired of me, gotten Sartre to break with me first, become more interested than ever in her relationship with [Jacques-Laurent] Bost (on the day we broke up, she confessed that she had discovered she preferred sex with men to sex with women), why bother? To hell with vows and promises of life as a threesome!" (Pg. 90)
She quotes a letter Beauvoir wrote to Sartre, "I'm upset about Bianca Bienenfeld... she's suffering from an intense and dreadful attack of neurasthenia, and it's our fault, I think. It's the very indirect, but profound, after-shock of the business between her and us. She's the only person to whom we've really done harm, but we have harmed her..." and adds, "My deep distress must really have touched her and made a lasting impression, for she invited me to begin a new friendship, which I could count on but which would, of course, have none of the passion of our former relationship. I accepted wholeheartedly." (Pg. 133-134)
Lamblin's feeling of having been wronged tends to slant her exposition in her favor; but (from a tabloid journalism standpoint) this book will be of interest to those wanting to know more about the private affairs of Beauvoir and Sartre.
Bianca Lamblin said in the Introduction to this 1993 book, "I have decided to recount what was a dramatic episode in my life... If my story is out of the ordinary, it is probably because two of the main characters are Simone de Beauvoir and Jean-Paul Sartre. Together we formed a threesome, or at least that is what I was led to believe... The way that Simone de Beauvoir and then Sartre treated me in 1940, the humiliation and suffering they caused me, were so severe that the simple truth I want to tell will, I hope, ring truer and clearer than the lies in Letters to Sartre... I am driven not by a need for revenge but by a simple desire to tell the truth." (Pg. 3-4)
She explains, "I must emphasize that it was not just a matter of distant events that had taken place in my youth; Simone de Beauvoir had remained my friend. Throughout her life, we continued to see each other on a regular basis. I trusted her completely. I thought she could understand everything, and I considered her innately honest. I thought her friendship was sincere, although it was entirely different from the emotional relationship we had had in my youth... Now that I have read 'Letters' and 'Wartime Diary,' I cannot fathom how I could have been so deeply deceived." (Pg. 5)
She adds, "I realize now that I was a victim of Sartre's womanizing and of the ambivalent and dubious way [de Beauvoir] defended his behavior. I had entered a world of complex relationships that led to painful imbroglios, pathetic plotting, and constant lying in which Simone de Beauvoir and Sartre cautiously avoided getting caught." (Pg. 6) Noting that Beauvoir and Sartre had agreed that they could each experience "contingent love affairs," she observes, "it was a 'trick' that Sartre had invented to satisfy his need for sexual conquest and that Simone de Beauvoir was forced to accept. Hiding behind the philosophical justification for the pact was a sort of bribery: 'Take it or leave it!'... (Beauvoir) was his main dupe." (Pg. 28)
She confides, "I told her that Sartre was a very poor lover; far from contradicting me, as I had expected, she agreed immediately, saying that he was not very skilled in that domain." (Pg. 29) Later, she observes, "[Beauvoir] always followed Sartre docilely, rather sadly, sometimes surprised, always prepared to join in; Sartre was the master who decided everything." (Pg. 139)
She complains, "She gave no thought to how deeply I had been hurt. After she had grown tired of me, gotten Sartre to break with me first, become more interested than ever in her relationship with [Jacques-Laurent] Bost (on the day we broke up, she confessed that she had discovered she preferred sex with men to sex with women), why bother? To hell with vows and promises of life as a threesome!" (Pg. 90)
She quotes a letter Beauvoir wrote to Sartre, "I'm upset about Bianca Bienenfeld... she's suffering from an intense and dreadful attack of neurasthenia, and it's our fault, I think. It's the very indirect, but profound, after-shock of the business between her and us. She's the only person to whom we've really done harm, but we have harmed her..." and adds, "My deep distress must really have touched her and made a lasting impression, for she invited me to begin a new friendship, which I could count on but which would, of course, have none of the passion of our former relationship. I accepted wholeheartedly." (Pg. 133-134)
Lamblin's feeling of having been wronged tends to slant her exposition in her favor; but (from a tabloid journalism standpoint) this book will be of interest to those wanting to know more about the private affairs of Beauvoir and Sartre.
June 21, 2023
I am glad that I read this, as there were some gems/interesting information about Sartre and de Beauvoir. I wish, though, that it had been written by someone who was a bit less wounded and bitter about the situation or who was, but was still able to be philosophical and mature/enlightened about the whole situation. It seemed incredibly biased and full of ego, which didn't make Bianca seem any more emotionally intelligent or empathic than the couple she felt resentment and anger toward. It was interesting as an artefact of living through German occupation of France in WWII, but there was a good deal of the book just about Bianca's life and not about her relationship. For instance, she tells of her life from the time she was born, and that aspect, among others, makes it feel like an amateurish work. I am glad this was translated into English, and it is a fast read and I don't regret spending time on it as I am doing an independent study on Sartre this summer and simply interested in any book written by or related to him and Beauvoir. Yet, that said, I'm not super surprised it went out of print because it just isn't written very well or from a perspective that had processed and come to terms with the relationship. The emotional tenor is one of having written it in anger the night after reading Beauvoir's letters and feeling slapped in the face. I feel bad for Bianca, but I wish I could feel worse.
November 12, 2021
Je ne sais pas si on l'a déjà dit mais ce livre, publié en 1993, s'inscrit très bien dans le mouvement #metoo. Pour qui s'intéresse au couple Beauvoir et Sartre, il est vraiment pertinent de lire ce livre. Je l'ai dévoré en une seule journée.
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews