Was Sartre better at writing or philosophy?

For many decades I suspect most people would have said that Sartre was a better writer (in the literary sense) than a philosopher. Although Being and Nothingness (1943) achieved great notoriety, it was also subject to withering criticism from many quarters and had more influence outside philosophy, among literary and artistic people, than inside it. That’s not surprising, as Sartre accompanied his often questionable arguments with beautifully vivid and imaginative illustrations.

Later he produced another big philosophical book, Critique of Dialectical Reason (1960), but apart from a small circle of “existential Marxists” it was widely regarded as unreadable and vapid.

That may be changing, however. A few years ago the distinguished Hegel scholar Terry Pinkard published a book on Sartre’s Critique called Power, Practice, and Forms of Life: Sartre’s Appropriation of Hegel and Marx (2021), and it succeeds in making serious sense of it. Not only are Hegel and Marx involved, but there seems to be a re-assessment of Heidegger as well. And the topic, the nature of action and in particular the “dialectic” or meaning of activity and passivity in understanding the nature of social interaction, is undeniably important. I’ve encountered only some reaction to the book so far, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it eventually led to a general improvement in Sartre’s stature as a philosopher.