Endlessly fascinating (and I'm envious that you got to meet the man). Essay and conversation alike go so far in showing what a complicated, disorganised, sporadically brilliant mind he had - and how good his judgements could be, even if we tend to remember his bad ones ('bloodthirsty' is a good way of describing some of his pronouncements).
Perfect examples in that regard: his identification of the right-wing element in Gore Vidal; his recognition that Cultural Amnesia is an important and brilliant book; and his dismissal of Tarantino's deeply awful film. Thanks for this!
Very interesting and thank you for sharing this in front of a paywall. I am not sure what to make of Hitchens now, and very unclear as to whether anyone will think him worthy of recall in another 20 years. As you say, he never really had a standalone work. “God is not Great” was a hammer repeatedly hitting the same nail until the head falls off. Eloquent, yes. Drunk undoubtedly. Able to argue any side of any argument, for sure. I keep thinking of the journalist in “The Bonfire of the Vanities” who for sure was based on Hitchens. The calm of the lake - before the monster reveals its hideous maw. I think the support for the Iraq War was pure contrariness, but, unlike you I never met him
Thank you for reading. I remember, after he died, Martin Amis said in one interview or another that Hitchens really took the failure of the invasion to heart, and could sometimes be seen sitting, sick-looking, in front of a television as things got worse. I don’t know to what extent this is true. (Amis also pushed the not-a-real-alcoholic line.) But I think Hitchens meant it and, while not ever regretting it, did hope fervently for the best and was disheartened when the worse came to pass instead. Had he lived, well, I think he’d have found some way to say he was right (and to some extent, as in Kurdistan, would have been able to do so, though it would have been weak tea).
I avoid appraisals of Hitchens these days. Encomia are tedious; detractors seem incapable of avoiding the ad hominem. The show of good faith here is refreshing. It seems to me the more you invest in any system of thought — any -ism — the more likely you are to be let down by its one-time proponents. What makes Hitchens’s tale cautionary for me is the fact that a man of his intelligence, urbanity, erudition and critical incisiveness was unable to resist the psychological comforts of parochial thought.
Thanks for this essay, Matthew. And thanks to Alexander for the signal boost.
The earlier collections were the best. For the Sake of Argument, Unacknowledged Legislation. After 9/11 and the atheism the writing suffered. His books about Jefferson, Orwell and Paine were, as you say, dashed off between courses. But remember the earlier work. I have long considered his brother to be the clearer thinker and better writer.
Thank you for reading, and for your kind comments. I still really love those early collections, especially For the Sake of Argument. I also completely understand that there’s no great pressing need to revisit them given how much time has passed and how thoroughly the world has changed. They make for interesting time capsules, though.
Endlessly fascinating (and I'm envious that you got to meet the man). Essay and conversation alike go so far in showing what a complicated, disorganised, sporadically brilliant mind he had - and how good his judgements could be, even if we tend to remember his bad ones ('bloodthirsty' is a good way of describing some of his pronouncements).
Perfect examples in that regard: his identification of the right-wing element in Gore Vidal; his recognition that Cultural Amnesia is an important and brilliant book; and his dismissal of Tarantino's deeply awful film. Thanks for this!
Very interesting and thank you for sharing this in front of a paywall. I am not sure what to make of Hitchens now, and very unclear as to whether anyone will think him worthy of recall in another 20 years. As you say, he never really had a standalone work. “God is not Great” was a hammer repeatedly hitting the same nail until the head falls off. Eloquent, yes. Drunk undoubtedly. Able to argue any side of any argument, for sure. I keep thinking of the journalist in “The Bonfire of the Vanities” who for sure was based on Hitchens. The calm of the lake - before the monster reveals its hideous maw. I think the support for the Iraq War was pure contrariness, but, unlike you I never met him
Thank you for reading. I remember, after he died, Martin Amis said in one interview or another that Hitchens really took the failure of the invasion to heart, and could sometimes be seen sitting, sick-looking, in front of a television as things got worse. I don’t know to what extent this is true. (Amis also pushed the not-a-real-alcoholic line.) But I think Hitchens meant it and, while not ever regretting it, did hope fervently for the best and was disheartened when the worse came to pass instead. Had he lived, well, I think he’d have found some way to say he was right (and to some extent, as in Kurdistan, would have been able to do so, though it would have been weak tea).
I avoid appraisals of Hitchens these days. Encomia are tedious; detractors seem incapable of avoiding the ad hominem. The show of good faith here is refreshing. It seems to me the more you invest in any system of thought — any -ism — the more likely you are to be let down by its one-time proponents. What makes Hitchens’s tale cautionary for me is the fact that a man of his intelligence, urbanity, erudition and critical incisiveness was unable to resist the psychological comforts of parochial thought.
Thanks for this essay, Matthew. And thanks to Alexander for the signal boost.
Thanks for reading, Michalis. Much appreciated.
The earlier collections were the best. For the Sake of Argument, Unacknowledged Legislation. After 9/11 and the atheism the writing suffered. His books about Jefferson, Orwell and Paine were, as you say, dashed off between courses. But remember the earlier work. I have long considered his brother to be the clearer thinker and better writer.
Fascinating. Thank you for the insights and for the great work in putting this together.
I don’t know why, but I laughed out loud at this tiny part of that otherwise jet-coaster interview—it’s so Hutchins!
“CH: In other words, they’re sort of Mel Gibson-ists.”
some crucial details here, thank you
Thank you for reading, and for your kind comments. I still really love those early collections, especially For the Sake of Argument. I also completely understand that there’s no great pressing need to revisit them given how much time has passed and how thoroughly the world has changed. They make for interesting time capsules, though.