My own, er, tribute, recorded for Radio Derb, which just went to tape & will be up after lunch.
Christopher Hitchens has died, much too young.
I can’t say I was a fan, am not in fact sure I ever read to the end of anything he wrote. Hitch was a court jester for the liberal elites. He took care never to violate their most sacred taboos. Like Stephen Jay Gould, who also died too young, also of cancer, Hitch carried the banner of soft Marxism forward into the post-Soviet era.
I’m sorry if I sound lukewarm. I’m an opinion journalist, like Hitch, and I am fully aware, as he was, that it is a low kind of trade — “the vituperative arts,” as Auberon Waugh said. Hitch was superbly good at it, far better than I could ever hope to be, and miraculously productive to the end. Is that a bit better?
I’ll add this: Hitch was often fun to watch, quick at thinking on his feet, and something like a genius at not suffering fools gladly.
There now; it didn’t come out so bad. I even think the subject might have applauded it. Goodnight, Hitch.
That, Mr. Derbyshire, is the most fair, sensible, and even-minded thing posted about Hitch at the Corner today -- a perfect balance of gently noting his limitations while also respecting the occasion of his passing.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuseeven though Hitch and Derb are both non-believers, I think respect for the dead means obits should always be balanced more towards charity than "gently noting limitations" . I pray for Hitchens soul.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBig difference between the two though... Hitch adamantly denied that there was a God... that there even COULD be a God... where Derb is a Mysterian... "who knows"?
Looking forward to Radio Derb today.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIsn't that the difference between an atheist and an agnostic?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAbout to write a brief obit on my blog, I've been thinking along similar lines. I think his extraordinary verbal facility made him seem more brilliant than he was. But I thought he had a great deal of honesty and courage, and respected him greatly.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDerb - I'm kind of surprised you weren't a fan at some level. I personally find commonalities with both of you as opinion writers. 1.) You're both Brits who came through the front door and became US citizens the right way. I've always had great respect bordering on awe of people who go through that process. I am a person who was granted membership by birth. Your views on immigration and world politics therefore carry a little more weight with me. (I also place golf commentator David Feherty in that camp). 2.) Hitch obviously wasn't particularly religious. You aren't either, as you have said. So where does that get us with conservative politics? Well, as you said in your book, we non religious types can't just not RUN with the ball. Heck, we can't even pick it up.
RIP, Hitch; wherever you are!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseInteresting that you and Derb end with the same salutation. But don't you realize that, if there is no God, there is no Hitch? All of the wonderful (and maddening) qualities of Hitch, just results of chance and DNA, and now nothing. No soul, just matter, chance, and then nothing. Also an interesting phrase to get on - "where you book matters". Here's hoping that Christopher made a last-minute booking!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseChristopher Hitchens was one of us--a neoconservative. (Neocons are conservatives, too, even if that's not the flavor of choice at NR.) In the end, he was reviled by liberals because of his courage in denouncing Bill Clinton's indecency and in supporting America's effort to combat the worst parts of Islam by spreading liberty. When asked how he felt about the hostility from the left, he said (I quote from memory) "At some point, when you've been attacked by a group bitterly enough, for expressing ideas that you sincerely believe, you no longer wish to count yourself among them."
His intelectual honesty was his most remarkable trait, I think. He applied his rules to everyone, impartially, even when it made enemies out of those who were disposed to be his allies. He did so because he cared more about being right than seeing his "team" win. , Even if he did often hide it behind a facade of condescending wit, rarely has the world seen a man of such good will. RIP
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think it is a bit absurd for anyone to consider Hitchens a neo-conservative to any degree. It is true that he sometimes went against the grain in terms of typical liberal/progressive thinking, however, he was ultimately a man of the left. Anyone who knows of the man's work could unquestionably identify this fact.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAn honest, respectful goodbye without showing false deference seems a fitting tribute to Hitch. Neither would he have kowtowed to the dead just because they happen to be dead.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is an interesting response. There's a far amount of hair-pulling in the opinion writing business. Petty jealousy is the norm. It makes sense as opinion writing is another type of public performance. Derb's criticism of Hitch's unwillingness to violate the left's most sacred taboos could just as easily be applied to Derb.
Our man Derb seems to have liked least in Hitch that which he found most similar in himself.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think Derb avoided finishing Hitch's pieces simply because he didn't want the style to rub off onto his too much.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHitch strove for intellectual honesty but did not always reach it. His denunciation of Clinton’s indecency, for example, did not square with his religion of scientific naturalism. You can’t condemn Bill Clinton for lying and having no morals and, with your next breath (book) posit that morals are a man made phenomenon invented for the sake of pragmatism. Hitch was outspoken and unyielding in his belief that there was no God, we came from nowhere, we are going nowhere, there are no absolute truths given by an absolute authority, and man answers to no supernatural power. How could a man that did not believe in right or wrong (beyond men’s pragmatic needs and impositions by force) call Clinton’s lies and other misdeeds “wrong” and be intellectually honest.
Intellectual honesty is a bridge too far for one who indulges in indignant moral preaching.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNot unlike the indignant moral preaching of, say, Kathryn Jean Lopez?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI agree! It's a bit much for a bise+ual to engage in moral preening, especially when you believe morals are social constructs to be followed when convenient. I'm glad Hitch wrote against radical Islam - I agreed with him there. But are we done lionizing a militant atheist and only partially-reconstructed communist? On NRO?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI watched a bit of Youtube and, also, reread Hitch's much-lauded Vanity Fair piece, "Why Women Aren't Funny." (Google) My question is, why wasn't Hitch more funny? I don't like funny that seems to be an obstacle course testing whether you, the reader, can supply enough nimble wit from your end to take it all in. With a certain sort of crowd, you can get a lot of mileage by making your audience feel part of the smart set that gets it. It is not a fluid or fun read, and it should be. Menchen (or Steyn) would have written that same piece with every bit as much intelligence but have left every reader doubled over with delight and never needing to reread and puzzle through bits of it.
As an increasingly militant disbeliever in religious mythology, I always really wanted to like Hitch more than I did.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGreat post. I think the word you are looking for when describing the Hitch style is "flatire." That's when the satirical style is intended to flatter the reader. Jon Stewart is a lowbrow master at it. He makes those dolts in the audience think they are special.
I feel the same way about Hitchens. I really wanted to like his work more than I did. I think, however, he set a pretty high bar. Most of the stuff you read in the political rags is brutally bad. Hitch could be great at times and that's rare.
But, that gets at what Derb said. In the end, Hitch was a kept man. He had to pull his punches for fear of losing his meal ticket.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuseflatire...Thanks, Bill. Yes, I've needed such a word on more than one occasion.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBut did Hitch ever change a tire in his life?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAfter reading the latest of Christopher Hitchens, my son started asking questions that eventually 'outed' my agnostic/atheist beliefs to my family. Prior to Hitchens, I was kind of vague to my family on my beliefs. But after reading him, I decided that I might as well be honest.
Funny thing is, that even after my announcement, I am still the one that usually rouses my family on Sundays to attend church services.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse