The content you are about to read is a review of personal, literary and narrative criticism, with a creative and prosaic approach, also focused on the emotions aroused and the study of the themes presented throughout the work, therefore, with spoilers. A reinterpretation of what is intended to be conveyed (what has touched me the most) made history.

“How smooth life is, how clear — it runs so naturally, when everything is going well. And all that’s needed is just one hitch. Then you discover that it’s thick and dark, that you know nothing whatever about anybody, either yourself or anyone else — what they are, what they think, what they do, how they look upon you”.

Sometimes, I think about the uprightness in which certain people behave, whether or not they are “broken” inside, and how, at first glance, we will never know that.

“Everyone you meet is fighting a battle you know nothing about. Be kind. Always” is one of the most universal and celebrated quotes, and I have always found it very accurate. At the beginning of the book it is obvious that the only one fighting a battle in this story is Monique: the wife abandoned by her unfaithful husband. We are nudged towards her side to the extent that a sword is, practically, placed in our hands to defend her.

We know not only who is going to tell us her story (a subjective narration, a point of view; we could even say that, an unreliable narrator ―not to discredit the tragedy of any woman who has been trampled on by a man, no, that’s not the point of criticism―), but also who we should sympathise with. Beauvoir gives a masterful twist at the end, just a few pages from the final fall, when we have already sunk so low that we have no choice but to look up to see the ground. We all fight our own battles, we all have our point of view, we are all constantly rowing against the current and we all want to be happy.

“You don’t think he has behaved like a swine?”
“Frankly, no. He is certainly kidding himself about this woman. He’s a
simpleminded soul. But not a swine.”
“You think he has the right to sacrifice me?”
“Obviously it’s tough on you. But why should he sacrifice himself? I know
very well I should not sacrifice myself for anyone on earth.”

Sleight of hand, narration, what I, in particular, get from of the story.

And it is with this brief and round exchange when a very interesting debate is raised about what is fair or not in fidelity and love in relationships. Are you selfish for stopping loving, for loving a second person, for continuing to love and seeking that reciprocity? Sacrifice, respect, the right that one has over someone in a relationship, the limits between crazy possession and humiliation and the fine line between crossing from side to side. What right do you have over a person in a relationship? Is there a tacit agreement or should a written manifesto be established? Can you have a duty towards another person, or is it amoral, even in a consensual relationship? Is love the whole of life and should we base our happiness on it or is it just a pillar? Can the abandonment of another destroy us so deeply and lead us to the most absolute perdition?

I also think of Giovanni’s Room, The Days of Abandonment and other similar books, the allusion to these tortuous romances and their consequent abandonments, the wounds they open in the soul, some of them even fatal.

You are left alone, you are abandoned and you think, undoubtedly, that it is your fault. No, it is the other’s. No, it is that third person’s. Where is the fault and does it really exist? Is there a difference between doing things right or wrong? Does it change anything if there is love or if it was just sex? Does the damage differ if we assume that there are levels, steps, to which we can attribute more knowledge, more evil, more deprivation, more…? A failure is a failure, after all.

Of course, the complexity of the debate gives rise to an essay in itself, since we must take into account various factors, such as ideology and the conception of relationships from a religious or hegemonic or heteropatriarchal point of view, etc. Yes, there is a fault; also a deception and a betrayal. The rules for Monique were clear and her husband broke them.

But in the same way that she blames him for the cracks that tears her apart more and more and turn her into the destroyed woman, why not blame herself for her insistence on winning him back, her perseverance in reviving the corpse of a death lover, her faith that the other woman will be a temporary fix for him? Is there as much selfishness in some actions as in others or can we take away the blame from the victim for the ventures she undertakes after that betrayal? All this is nothing more than a chain of unfortunate events. People wanting to live their life. In their own way.

I admit that it has been quite difficult for me to stand with Monique for these same reasons (why, why put him before herself, why let herself be broken? Is another’s love worth more than her own? Is it fair for ourselves to give so much value to another person to the point that our well-being depends on them? But can you love yourself if no one loves you? -Yes, absolutely-), but, in the end, the book speaks of a universal experience and of the depth and difficulty of human feelings, those that hurt and those that heal (do any of them really heal us?).

“And what about you—how do you see yourself?”
“As a marshland. Everything is buried in the mud.”
“You’ll find yourself again.”

The resilience of self-esteem. That abandon and the ability to abandon oneself and also abandon ourselves towards others is also essential to me in this work. The identity of each person and how it is shaped within a relationship, the metamorphosis that happens when you are you with another person and the consequences of that other half of you leaving. Are there different versions of ourselves with each person that we meet or do we have a firm and unique personality?

Again, sometimes I think about the uprightness in which certain people behave and if that uprightness is nothing more than a layer, a mask of many. Is it their total and complete self or just a part. We can associate this thought with the paradox of The ship of Theseus and the multiplicity of an individual after all its parts have been broken or replaced, and whether or not it continues to be the same or, on the contrary, a mere reflection of what it was; a new creation or still the first and main one, just perceived from different angles.

Goodreads review (in spanish)