I used to talk with Christopher Hitchens from time to time between 2003 and 2010. But as in the case of most who knew him, I was an acquaintance of someone with far more acquaintances than I had. So while his company stood out to me, I am sure that mine did not to him to the same degree. With that now-customary Hitchens prooimion out of the way, I continue with what I recall of him.
I was once in extremis with a ruptured appendix and peritonitis in Libya. I could make only one call before the ad hoc operation, and I left a brief message for my wife and son to give them the grim prognosis. For reasons I never quite fathomed, in desperation late at night they called one number of the many written on my desk: Christopher Hitchens. When I awoke after the operation in a dingy Tripoli Red Crescent clinic, there soon arrived a Libyan-American neurosurgeon (by happenstance there on vacation) to insist on proper antibiotics (hard to find then in Qaddafi’s Libya); later I was visited by the newly arrived American chargé d’affaires. Back home, I gathered that their presence somehow was the result of various phone calls Christopher made, though to whom and when he never quite disclosed. Later he told me only — in connection with the struggle in Iraq — “Anyone stupid enough to keep supporting these incompetent bastards in Washington deserves a second chance to be stupid enough to keep supporting these incompetent bastards in Washington.” Note here that Hitchens felt by 2006 that the Bush administration had botched the occupation, but that fact was no reason for him to abandon them or it — given what was at stake.
Advertisement
There were a few other odd things that we shared.
I had lived for a time in Athens, on Deinokrates Street, on the slopes of Mt. Lykabettos. In the autumn of 1973, as I walked to and from classes at the Hellenic Center each day, I passed by a prominent luxury hotel (whose best terraced rooms looked out on the Acropolis). One November afternoon on the way home I was redirected by legions of Greek police, who had cordoned off the hotel’s driveways. For the next few days, the police milled around the hotel as the investigation of the suicide of a Mrs. Hitchens and a retired Anglican priest were played out in predictable detail in the tabloid press.
Like many in Greece that fall (sex, religion, and suicide were instant distractions under a repressive regime), I followed the strange and tragic case. The remains in the adjoining rooms were not immediately discovered; lurid speculation soon ranged over the assumed chronology of the double suicide (was the priest, the media gossip went, really a partner in suicide, or perhaps a jilted lover, a murderer, and then a suicide?). I remembered the papers writing about a twenty-something Christopher Hitchens arriving in Athens as the loyal son come to claim his mother’s body — all of this soon to be eclipsed by the unrest and the fall of the Papadopoulos regime, and thus by December entirely forgotten. I made the connection between all this and the adult Hitchens in 1989, when he reviewed favorably a book I wrote, The Western Way of War, and I later mentioned my memories to Christopher. He was interested at the knowledge that I had lived a few hundred yards from the scene of the tragedy; and perhaps surprised that I did not try to offer some contorted psychoanalysis about the origins of his own antipathy for organized religion. I can be stupid, but not that stupid.
Most who write of Hitchens (I knew him as Christopher, never Hitch) cite his prodigious consumption of booze and cigarettes, either in awe at his iron constitution or shocked at his self-destructive impulses, or both. I never had any strong reaction to these appetites other than a sort of sadness at the monotony of it all. When one maintains such a level of consumption after 55, it ensures that one will not be around much longer. No one is exempt from the toxicity of the combined excess of cigarettes and hard liquor. I say that in memory of my wonderful father — who had been a star athlete, a war hero, a football coach, a farmer, a gifted college administrator, a yoga instructor, a weight lifter, and a health nut — who inexplicably started drinking heavily and smoking (three packs a day) in his mid-fifties. I think his quart of nightly bourbon, bookended by red wine and scotch, and 60 cigarettes a day almost matched those of Hitchens (who also likewise felt that his own genes and constitution — and his alone! — would ensure longevity).
Given his true reasons for supporting the Iraq War, his leftist sensibilities of ends-means justification, and his demonstrated wile in getting things past insane bureaucracy (cf: rescue of VDH in Libya), it's conceivable that Hitchens indeed voted in 2004, got his citizenship in '07 in spite of committing voter fraud, and slouched all the way to the grave with that grimace-like smile.
Our affinity for Hitchens is not unlike Frodo's for Gollum. Hideous in many respects they nevertheless were a sort of guide to naive adventurers.
Probably the best, most nuanced, assessment of this truly contradictory character that I have read. Hitchens was as fascinating to listen to as he was frustrating in his seeming (and actual) inconsistencies. A child-like ego battling with a moral quest for the ultimate high ground, he seemed to be always thinking out loud, getting a lot of it wrong, but, subconsciously always trying to right the ship.
I miss reading him as well. Especially since troops were removed from Iraq and the recent violence there, I keep thinking what would Christopher Hitchens think about it all.
There is an arrogance that intellectuals have that causes them to overlook the preposterous contradictions and convoluted moralities of their cohorts. Hitchens may have been a polymath of sorts, and his verbal skills and clever barbs made him a draw for the "intelligentsia", but the blatant lack of cognitive dissonance that should obtain with this man's disparate ideas and moral sensibilities should alert us to the fact that his Weltenschauung must be the product of a CONFUSED individual! I'll save my greatest respect for the simple-minded Christian ladies at my local church who know right from wrong and live it daily despite the venomous assaults on their person by the likes of an arrogant boor like Chris Hitchens.
Youve got a problem when you can't even defend a saint against your friend Christopher.
I don't think others of us are so impressed. Great, he was witty, I can't think of any good he did with it. He was too busy being a loutish drunk to help even one dying child, yet he believes himself to be a legitimate critic of a saint?
There are things to admire him for, but the things he is actually notable for are all marked by a profound lack of maturity.
And your psychoanalysis wouldn't have been as awkward as you trying to turn Hitchens into a good or great man because he impressed you with all the knowledge he put to no good use.
Dr. Hanson, thanks for relating some interesting details about Hitchens' life. I would love to have sat in on those dinner conversations as I am sure they were lively and thought provoking. One phrase you used stood out to me-- referring to yourself as a poor "doomed sinner." I hope that this was false modesty on your part and not an expression of your true belief. It was sad that Hitchens apparently never grasped the truth of the gospel, having came, saw, and rejected it all. But how much sadder if one such as yourself should welcome faith, but fail to realize it through to its full fruition in forgiveness of sins and soaring victory in life! Perhaps it is time to lay aside your Classical Greek reader and pick up on some great truths written in Koine. Looking forward to what you bring to us in 2012!
Well one of the positive aspects of dying without grace is the soul in the afterlife (assuming there is one) won't be annoyed anymore by the before life Christians (assuming there really were any). In the old theology the duration of the soul remaining in the body after death was proportional to the importance of the individual. For the peasant the soul departed in minutes. For world leaders is was half an hour. For Popes Hours.
Quam celerimme. Si Pacis
As I recall, Mr. Hitchens was somewhat of an atheist. I find this somewhat "amusing" since most Conservatives usually claim to have some sort of Christian religious affiliation. However, this is far less "amusing" than those so called religious conservatives who are trying to repackage and resell a true atheist Ayn Rand, in order to promote so called "Pure Capitalism", which with Rand is really nothing more than thinly veiled Social Darwinism. In the world of ideas it takes an awful lot of grease to make a horse (the public) swallow a brick doesn't it?
I'm quite sure that at your dinner table with Hitchens, I would be hopelessly outclassed.
But erudition is no recommendation when its intimidatory value is put in the service of ideological conformity over simple facts.
Hitchens was a liar. He had the inflated self-importance of printing obvious, simple lies that he thought could intimidate by the force of his personalilty.
Whilst we are sharing perceptions, no amount of erudition will endear any liar or transparent anti-Semite. Your reference to his table talk only reminded me of one person who similarly indugled himself in long winded monologues on anything and everything. Adolph Hitler. Nothing you say can redeem Hitchens for what he was. A ridiculous ideologue in the classical mold to whom facts, for the most part, meant very little.
Just because he proved to be less of an idiot than his former leftist peers, and spouted education as a substitute for knowledge, is not much of a recommendation on which to sing his praises.