January 16, 2013
Christopher Hitchens faces posthumous 'prosecution' in new book
Alison Flood in The Guardian:
Christopher Hitchens will go on trial later this month in a "highly critical" new book which interrogates the late polemicist's politics and argues that this celebrated left-wing firebrand became an "amanuensis" of the George W Bush administration in his last years.
Political activist and author Richard Seymour's Unhitched: The Trial of Christopher Hitchens is out on 28 January and promises to cast "a cold eye over the career of the 'Hitch' to uncover an intellectual trajectory determined by expediency and a fetish for power". "It is written in the spirit of a trial," said Seymour. "I do attempt to get a sense of the complexity and gifts of the man, but it is very clearly a prosecution, and you can guess my conclusion."
Unhitched will address how Hitchens moved from a "career-minded socialist" to, post 9/11, a "neoconservative 'Marxist'", said its radical publisher Verso, and "an advocate of America's invasion of Iraq filled with passionate intensity". At one point, Seymour describes Hitchens as the "George W Bush administration's amanuensis", and argues "that not only was Hitchens a man of the right in his last years, but his predilections for a certain kind of right-wing radicalism – the most compelling recent example of which was the Bush administration's invasion of Iraq – pre-dated his apostasy".
"One chapter deals with the trajectory of his political shift, from the time he was a young socialist who joined Labour," said Seymour. "I've interviewed a lot of his former comrades. If you read [Hitchens' memoir] Hitch 22, it's not an entirely reliable account – what he remembers and what others remember are different. He's subtly, and sometimes not so subtly, revised things."
More here. [Thanks to Ahmad Saidullah.]
Posted by S. Abbas Raza at 03:37 PM | Permalink






















Comments
He should write about Andrew Sullivan next.
Posted by: VillagePerson | Jan 16, 2013 3:58:38 PM
VillagePerson:
Lots of people still talk about Hitchens as though the guy had some kind of integrity, even in his shameful cheerleader-for-imperialism years. I don't think anyone says that about Sullivan.
Posted by: Picador | Jan 16, 2013 4:03:31 PM
Hitchens crapped bigger than this clown.
Posted by: Don McArthur | Jan 16, 2013 6:07:28 PM
East to talk about the dead. The author would not have dared to write this had Chris been alive. I don't think much of cowards
Posted by: Swamp Yankee | Jan 16, 2013 7:22:52 PM
Wow. A name so big you can sell an inexpert not to mention posthumous takedown of the man who bore it. There's a very great deal about the late-life politics of Hitchens to regret. Also, he arose in a narcissistic and self-preening generation of Brits, and he did not come through untainted by that. But the thing to remember is that he was a hell of a writer. I'm sorry that, for some people, that's only enough to make them angrier at him than they would be anyway.
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Jan 16, 2013 7:51:29 PM
Fuck it, dude, I ain't afraid to admit it: I miss the Hitch. Desperately. His writing style was unparalleled, his deft takedowns of believers a joy to behold, and his love of literature quite inspiring.
That being said, I totally understand people that feel either betrayed by and or repulsed with him. Perhaps because my own political awareness of Hitchens occurred so late in his career (due to my relatively young age and absolute rejection of anyone pro-Iraq War), I only saw the wonderful Athiest screeds before delving further into his history.
Anyways, fucker could write. I am willing to forgive him just for that, but I get it that other people cannot. And they are probably better people for it.
Posted by: DrunktankDan | Jan 17, 2013 4:12:01 AM
Also, I couldn't agree with SYankee more. You would need a serious set of balls to write something like that about him while he was still alive. He would have crumpled that author up like a piece of rejected copy and thrown him in the trash can.
It's like all those folks that hated on Tyson while he was locked up. Only one with the stones to fight him when he got out was Holyfield.
But now? Say what you want. He can't defend himself anymore.
Posted by: DrunktankDan | Jan 17, 2013 4:18:25 AM
I fairness he wasn't afraid to stick the boot in to the dead himself and his take on Iraq , the war on terror etc were really, really wrongheaded .
Posted by: Ciaran | Jan 17, 2013 5:59:07 AM
Swamp Yankee and DTD:
The author (Seymour) did publish a takedown of Hitchens while Hitchens was still alive. It's a very long essay called "Christopher Hitchens's Genocidal Imagination". Therefore, it's completely bogus to play the 'oh he wouldn't have written this while the Man was still alive' card as if, you know, Hitchens was so goddamned tough that all cowered before him. Actually, Hitchens was a pussy who loved to talk tough but would've gotten his ass kicked by anyone under the age of Henry Kissinger.
Posted by: John Drinkwater | Jan 17, 2013 6:47:06 AM
Yes, Seymour has "balls" enough:
http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2005/seymour261105.html
And no, no amount of good writing makes up for his war-mongering and Islamophobia. Leni Riefenstahl was an excellent film maker, but....
As a long time admirer of Hitchens's writing I'm still somewhat baffled by the slavish hero-worship of his newer atheist fans. Really, he (his writing self, at least) would clearly not approve of being so sacrosanct that only those with "big balls" could criticize him now that he's dead. After all, we're talking about someone who grew desperate enough to target Mother Theresa, for Christ's sake. Thank God Grayson Carter came along just in time to buy the poor fellow a suit and a new set of teeth.*
No amount of artistic ability makes up for anti-semitism, whether towards Jews or Arabs or what have you. Yes his writing was excellent, clearly; but just as clearly his sense of morality was, at the least, wanting.
*No, my use of "Christ" and "God" are not indicative of being a "christer etc." But, really, so what if it were... There are far worse things to say about people than that they are religious...oh, like calling for genocide, for example.
Posted by: Tulliver | Jan 17, 2013 9:14:40 AM
I hope that Hitchens would've thought this book was a very Hitchens kind of thing to write.
Posted by: Anderson | Jan 17, 2013 10:58:14 AM
"As a long time admirer of Hitchens's writing I'm still somewhat baffled by the slavish hero-worship of his newer atheist fans."
Me too. I'm an atheist, but his anti-God was the worst book he ever wrote. It's so disorganized and sloppy that I couldn't even finish it.
His writing from the 90's was much much better than it was over the last few years, but he wasn't very popular in the 90's. The worse he became as both a thinker and writer, the more popular he became.
We know he decided to break right in order to become more successful and powerful, but he did he also deliberately trashify his writing in order to make it more accessible for his new legion of young neocon fans?
Posted by: John Drinkwater | Jan 17, 2013 11:26:51 AM
Can I just clarify that I am not a neocon by any means? And I already admitted that I am too young to have felt the sting of betrayal that so many felt with the Iraq War jacking off, or is it Iraq war off jacking?, that he engaged in.
During the runnup to that disgraceful bullshit I was busy getting arrested in San Francisco for protesting. Still got a dent in my skull from a fascist billy club.
As for hero worship: we can speculate all day on what said Hitch would or would not have wanted youngish (I am getting older now) people to think of his legacy, but certainly he engaged in his own worship of admittedly flawed heroes as well (Orwell, anyone?).
As for that 'anyone younger than Kissinger' comment. Friend, I hope you don't mean to suggest physically, against a cancer patient. . .
As for intellectually, well, I am pretty sure most of these people are younger than Kissinger:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQorzOS-F6w
. . .and there is plenty more where that came from.
Anyways, the Hitch still seems to be the most divisive subject on this website, over a year after his death. That's something I am sure he would appreciate.
Posted by: DrunktankDan | Jan 18, 2013 9:30:51 AM
And yeah, I am a little bit embarrassed by all of that testicle talk. I had just finished sparring and was watching boxing videos.
Eeesh! Sorry everyone.
Posted by: DrunktankDan | Jan 18, 2013 9:39:03 AM
Holy shit!
I will now promptly shut up.
I just read through all of the links in the article and offer sincere apologies to anyone that I baffled with my idiocy.
I do maintain that I wish the author had finished his project before Hitch passed, but man I could not have gotten it more wrong about him corresponding, somewhat vitriolically, with said Hitch earlier on. And of course Christopher was delighted.
I also maintain that the evolution, or whatever you want to call it, of Hitchens' political thought was not a cynical sellout. Although I only have the man's word on it.
Crap, maybe it was? What the hell do I know?
As a semi-famous friend of mine once told me: "You could never understand how FUCKING pointless and inaccurate 'profile' journalism-shit is until you are the profile". I really don't envy the public figure.
And yeah, I added the word journalism. He just called it 'shit'. But we had been drinking scotch.
Posted by: DrunktankDan | Jan 18, 2013 10:47:37 AM
Tulliver, I am not a big fan of Hitchens but his criticism of Mother Theresa was not an act of desperation. He's not the only one to have seen through the MT myth. I know several people who were involved in her organisation, and have committed suicide or come close to it, due to the brainwashing they experienced in her cult.
Also It is not commonly known that she caused misery among the aboriginal people of central Australia when she worked there as a missionary. Do some research on it.
Sociopathic types can sometimes devote their lives to "good works" as a compensation, and much of her charity work consisted of extending the agony of the dying without providing any real medical help, while cruelly fighting the use of contraception by those for whom another child would mean intolerable suffering for both mother and child. She was a megalomaniac and a prima donna, who flew first class and often snapped at the aircrew if she thought they were not acknowledging her sainthood. She was a false teacher promulgating the false doctrine that the essence of life is perpetual suffering. She was no saint.
Posted by: Georg | Jan 21, 2013 9:10:16 AM
Post a comment