"Political correctness" has made it difficult to challenge even that part of the thesis of the Fullbrooks' book, Simone De Beauvoir and Jean-Paul Sartre: The Remaking of a Twentieth-Century Legend, which relates strictly to the history of philosophy. Nevertheless, challenged it must be, and has been, contrary to the claims of Sharon Wright in her online review. What she calls their "impressive scholarship" has come under serious and precise attack from a number of quarters. What follows is simply the lead-in to an article that I myself published as early as 1995 ("Sartre and Beauvoir: Refining rather than 'Remaking' the Legend", Simone de Beauvoir Studies, vol. 12, 1995, pp. 91-99); the rest of that article goes on to justify my claims in detail.

"The crux of their argument is the assertion that Sartre's reading of the draft of L'Invitée during his leave in Paris between 4 and 16 February 1940 was what provided him with all or most of the crucial ideas that were to form the substance of L'Etre et le Néant. [...] Now, there are least four MAJOR flaws in this line of argument: (i) we do not know with certainty exactly what was in the parts of L'Invitée that Sartre read in February 1940; (ii) the argument ignores completely Beauvoir's acquaintance with drafts of Sartre's L'Age de raison, and also seriously underplays the philosophical content of those of Sartre's Carnets de la drôle de guerre that Beauvoir had read before February 1940; (iii) we DO know that Sartre had been working since the mid-1930s on the ideas that were to be central to L'Etre et le Néant; (iv) the momentous philosophical system that the Fullbrooks ascribe to Beauvoir is simply not to be found in even the final version of L'Invitée."

Since, as Sharon Wright points out, the Fullbrooks were far from the first to argue for the philosophical originality of Beauvoir, those of their claims that are demonstrably false have done nothing to promote this case. Rather, they have tended to obscure, and direct attention away from, many of the complex and fascinating questions concerning the relationship between the thought of Beauvoir and that of Sartre. What is more, some of the sensationalist, journalistic features of the style of the book have served to inflame sensitive issues that require particularly cool, rational treatment.

No book on Beauvoir or Sartre has led to so much discussion, provoked such consternation or so changed the way we see these cultural icons as has Kate and Edward Fullbrook's "Simone de Beauvoir and Jean-Paul Sartre: The Remaking of a Twentieth-Century Legend". The basis of this recently republished book (which I had the pleasure of rereading last week) is disarmingly simple. The Fullbrooks checked out Beauvoir's and Sartre's newly-available letters and diaries and found that the traditional story that says the Beauvoir constructed her first novel "She Cme to Stay" on the basis of philosophical ideas she took from Sartre's essay "Being and Nothingness" is the exact opposite of the truth. Sartre only began, the Fullbrooks carefully document, to compile notes hor his philosophical treatise after studying the second draft of Beauvoir's novel. The Fullbrooks also, and again drawing on the letters, make the case that it was Beauvoir's sexual promiscuity, rather than Sartre's that initially dictated the famous open terms of their 50-year relationship. All this radical post-patriarchal revisionism, which the Fullbrooks refused to play down, was too much for many critcs when this book appeared in 1994. Some reviewers were apoplectic, others deeply sceptical, and the "New Yorl Times" twice ran long reviews warning their readers against this "feminist claptrap". But in fact the Fullbrooks, in claiming philosophical originality for Beauvoir, were themselves not so original as perhaps they and certainly their critics imagined. Margaret Simons, Linda Singer and Sonia Kruks had previously argued the case for Beauvoir as an innovative philosopher and the source of some of Sartre's later ideas. The Fullbrooks' discoveries gave new significance to this prior scholarship and inspired Simons to go off in search of Beauvoir's student diaries. (See Simons 1999) Simons's subsequent discoveries and the slow but continuing cultural shift away from presuming that women are never the source of original ideas has taken away some of the shock value of the Fullbrooks' first book. Indeed, seven years on and their impressive scholarship has never been seriously challanged. By now scores of Sartre scholars much have checked out the letters and diaries and found, to their dismay, that the Fullbrooks did not make any of it up. But although "Simone de Beauvoir and Jean-Paul Sartre: The Remaking of a Twentieth-Century Legend" through its success no longer enjoys the controversy it once did, it remains, with its compelling narrative and writerly qualities, one of the best books evr written about either Beauvoir or Sartre. Even the "New York Times" had to admit that it was good read. For capturing the spirit of these twentieth-century giants and their extraordinary relationship, this book is yet to be beaten.

'All Said and Done' by Simone de Beauvoir is the final of five volumes of de Beauvoir's autobiography, and is different from those that precede it, which basically progress on a chronological basis. This book is arranged thematically, and de Beauvoir picks up a theme or area of her life, addresses it for the 10 years that the book focuses on, 1962 to 1972. Early in the volume, she addresses books she's read, movies, theater productions, etc. A particularly interesting chapter focuses on the deaths of some of the people she has known, including Sartre's mother and de Beauvoir's close friend, Swiss artist Alberto Giacometti. While these sections have interesting moments, the brief time she spends on each book, movie, or production and the shortness of the sections isn't a very engaging read. The discussion is really a gloss, and feels a little obligatory on de Beauvoir's part.
The book really picks up in pace and interest when de Beauvoir moves on to address the travels she's taken in these ten years toward the end of her life (she died in 1986). She first goes through trips she made for fun, with Sartre or on her own. Then she addresses trips they took for primarily political reasons, to Egypt, to Israel, to Russia, Estonia, etc. She's always a very engaging travel writer as she has a deep knowledge of the places she's traveling, and, often ' especially on the political trips ' she and Sartre are given guides and access to things one might not be able to see on one's own.
Toward the end of the book, she writes about her feelings about the Vietnam War, going into some detail about two tribunals that worldwide intelligentsia held to try the United States for war crimes in Vietnam, particularly for genocide (the United States was found guilty). De Beauvoir was very against France's actions in Algeria, and she now turned her attention toward what she felt was a violation of the rights of the Vietnamese for self-determination to make a statement with her colleagues on their political situation.
This book was illuminating of de Beauvoir's character in a rather new way. Toward the end, she emerged to me as something of an ideologue, rather than a woman who was committed to certain principles that she addressed issue by issue. When the students took over the Sorbonne in the late 1960s, she supported their actions because it was to overthrow the status quo; the students wanted more control of their studies, they wanted to abolish the class system between students and faculty and they didn't want to have to accept professors' edicts. She seems, from this book, to believe that any system that is very long held should be overthrown on that point alone. She was disappointed when she and other editors at Les Temps moderne offered the rebellious students an opportunity to write for their political review and the student leaders turned them down because their publication had become an institution (it was too long standing). She does not comment on this.
Also in the late 1960s, de Beauvoir and Sartre officially broke with the Soviet Union, which they had supported as part of the noncommunist left for some time, because of its actions in Czechoslovakia. While de Beauvoir constantly ridiculed the United States for its imperialism, up until this time, even after visiting Estonia and Lithuania after they were controlled by the U.S.S.R., she did not criticize the Soviet government. But after the Prague Spring was crushed, she and Sartre had to admit that they were not pleased with the 'thought-police' actions of the Soviets and their interpretation of the communist party. She also laments that Marx is so disregarded in the U.S.S.R. by the time of this volume, that there is no longer any one there who can speak with authority on Marxist theory or philosophy.
I really enjoyed this volume, for its differences with its sister volumes, and for what it reveals about de Beauvoir. I recommend it, and think it could certainly stand on its own.