January 19, 2013
he became what he despised
"To be able," wrote the late Christopher Hitchens, "to bray that 'as a liberal, I say bomb the shit out of them,' is to have achieved that eye-catching, versatile marketability that is so beloved of editors and talk-show hosts. As a life-long socialist, I say don't let's bomb the shit out of them. See what I mean? It lacks the sex appeal, somehow. Predictable as hell." That was in 1985. In 2002, he took a different view of the matter. As long as the bombs were hitting the bad guys, then "it's pretty good because those steel pellets will go straight through somebody and out the other side and through somebody else … They'll be dead, in other words." Predictable as hell or not, this transfiguration placed Hitchens (pictured in 1978) in a recognisable category: the left-wing defector with a soft-spot for empire.more from Richard Seymour at The Guardian here.
Posted by Morgan Meis at 10:34 AM | Permalink
Comments
Absolutely spot-on.
Posted by: big joe | Jan 19, 2013 11:31:59 AM
As they would say down at the skatepark:
Tragic as f***
Posted by: DrunktankDan | Jan 19, 2013 2:14:34 PM
"The episodes in Hitchens's shift to the right are well-known: the Rushdie affair, the Bosnia wars, the skirmishes with the Clinton White House and finally 9/11."
I wish leftists of the Guardian stripe would stop making it so supporting Rushdie over Ayatollah Khomenei is a right-wing thing.
[Pre-emptively, I'm not dismissing or signing on to the whole of anyone's argument against Hitchens]
Posted by: prasad | Jan 19, 2013 2:18:06 PM
I have had enough of Hitchens
Rushdie here. Pleeeze ---
Posted by: Nasreen R | Jan 19, 2013 3:26:57 PM
I dislike post mortem criticism so recent after a death. It is as the critic has waited until the author has died in order to avoid response.
Posted by: Piso Mojado | Jan 19, 2013 5:50:03 PM
Piso, a quick google of "Richard Seymour Christopher Hitchens" immediately shows that Seymour made the same criticisms of Hitchens when he was alive, see this piece from 2005.
Posted by: Jesse M. | Jan 19, 2013 6:33:57 PM
What I see here and in other places is a basic conflation. Attacking the man for his thinking is not the same as attacking the thinking. But one won't sell any books by observing that nicety. If only we could examine the discourse for spin, and then move on to those elements of it that seem substantive. But that really isn't human nature. I seriously wish that people who wanted to continue their execration of Hitchens from this side of the grave would take one -- just one -- measure. I wish they would write well.
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Jan 19, 2013 7:48:00 PM
hitchens who?
Posted by: osman | Jan 19, 2013 10:26:55 PM
Elatia, I respect your other comments, and this is why I ask a question. Maybe I'm too dense, but for all your wishes for better writing, I don't understand what your comment is communicating. I'm genuinely curious; my sense is that you are trying to make Seymour's argument off-limits by labeling it as poorly written, or just trying to sell books; and you're doing this because you just like Hitchens so you don't want to see him criticized. But I may be misreading - it's just not clear in your comment; just innuendo that the opposition is not to be heeded.
By the way, Hitchens' was of course no purist when it came to selling books. What are your thoughts on Hitchens' The Missionary Position, by the way? Was that fair game? Or an example of the conflation you put forward? Or by asking the question am I already attacking the man for his thinking?
Posted by: Justin | Jan 20, 2013 3:27:58 AM
Gdamn Elatia that was one of the most well worded and eloquent internet comments I have ever read.
Been reading Hitchens, much?
I think that you and I are the only people on here that forgive him in general for 'writing beautifully', although probably for different reasons. Perhaps forgive isn't the right word. I still think the guy is a c***s****** (in a derogatory sense mind you; not that there is anything wrong with s****** c***s) for what happened in Iraq. But I do admire his writing.
It is interesting how much debate 'The Hitch' draws on this site, still, over a year after his death. He's in the ground and the worms are eating him, and yet 3QD still episodically tears itself apart over the guy.
Posted by: DrunktankDan | Jan 20, 2013 5:18:51 AM
Also, please don't drop the hammer to hard on me, guys. It's 2am where I am at and I just got back from a fuckin engagement party. Not thinking entirely clearly right now.
Posted by: DrunktankDan | Jan 20, 2013 5:20:24 AM
Hitchens was always so polite:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiMzQGWMKvo
Posted by: Louise Gordon | Jan 20, 2013 10:28:40 AM
Here are a couple of other good ones:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eqHTBChj2w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nik0273l8K4
Posted by: Louise Gordon | Jan 20, 2013 10:36:50 AM
Justin, I'll give you a partial answer. First, I'll concede Hitchens was a publicity hound, and that there are lots of reasons to dislike his Bush II era thinking. God knows what got into him. Was he a nice guy and a fair person? Nope. Was he funny, and could he write far, far better than most? Yes indeed.
There are precedents too numerous to list. Even just from the early mid-century onwards, there have been great poets whose politics and prejudices ought to be, and are, deeply offensive.
Yeats, Pound, Eliot... Then there's the strange case of Emil Cioran. And that nasty Stasi situation with Christa Wolf. Gunther Grass and Hitler Youth? Ouch. Within the last 5 years, we have seen David Mamet turn into a right wing buffoon -- it's revolting but it cannot invalidate the plays he's written, unless a reader or theater-goer is uninterested to be involved in the work of a highly gifted writer who, in late life, became politically incorrect.
Obviously, there are those to whom political correctness means everything. Literally everything. I haven't got that big a need to be agreed with by every writer I admire, or to judge a writer's worth by whether he reinforces my own deep convictions. I'm not looking to Christopher Hitchens to be Dorothy Day.
I rejoice in how well Hitchens wrote, and notice that those who are anxious to take him down cannot write their way off a pile of used Kleenex. That's a different affair from not having a point to make or a leg to stand on when giving Hitchens a negative assessment. But I have yet to see a very good writer go after him like that -- perhaps they know him for one of their own, and understand that folly can coexist with enormous talent.
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Jan 20, 2013 11:19:54 AM
Why is it that Hitchens' views and opinions cause most people to short circuit? They seem unable to grasp the concept that a person can hold views from both sides of the political spectrum and still be a functioning human being. I loathe politics with the intensity of a thousand suns because I'm a gay-supporting, tree-hugging atheist whose gun you're never going to take away.
Posted by: Melody | Jan 20, 2013 11:44:25 AM
Elatia: I'm surprised to see Gunther Grass's involvement in the Hitler Youth when he was exactly that, a youth -- an involvement of which he was later deeply ashamed -- in company with the odious opinions of the adult Ezra Pound. In your otherwise so thoughtful response, this doesn't make sense.
Posted by: Sarah D. | Jan 21, 2013 11:18:24 AM
Well Sarah, there are lots of ages to be foolish in. Grass was an example of what I meant -- artists who are FULL of nasty contradictions, and not less as artists for that -- because he kept that secret for as long as he could, while living the life of a left-leaning and deeply socially responsible public figure, for 50 years. I was thinking more about the "doubleness" of some very gifted people than about whether they were young or mature when that quality particularly expressed itself, but it could well be a better and more inexplicable example is Pirandello, who seemed to have a arrangement with the Fascists -- a Pirandellian quandary to be in. Thanks for reading and joining in!
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Jan 21, 2013 4:01:37 PM
As usual, Elatia schools the 3quarks crowd. Awed.
Posted by: Trixxs | Jan 21, 2013 8:04:49 PM
Where the pro-war neoconservatism of the late Hitchens is concerned, his famed eloquence was simply the perfume on a turd. His critics are well justified in arguing against those who, seduced by the perfume, would cup the turd in loving hands and inhale deeply.
Some people believe that public intellectuals have a responsibility which goes beyond a polysyllabic vocabulary, self-promotion and phrase-making. The ability to write beautifully is worse than worthless when put to foul purposes. I would take the honest, bone-dry prose of a Chomsky or a Finkelstein over the wittiest Hitchenite sally in praise of an illegal war.
Posted by: big joe | Jan 22, 2013 12:39:23 PM
Big Joe, your confusion is very deep. Let me help you.
"Phrase-making" is not the same as writing well, and it certainly isn't the same as writing like hell -- which Hitchens could and did do. Writing good prose is like writing a good musical composition. There must be life in all the parts, with every preposition allowed its perfect weight, with intention and rhythm in every phrase. Hitchens did that, and did it fast, and did it right the first time. You try it.
Neither is a polysyllabic vocabulary impressive, and I believe most good writers try not to use one if they want to be read with understanding. It's true, highly verbal people tend to have dazzling vocabularies -- but in reserve. I cannot recall Hitchens being admired for his impenetrable word choices, or disliked as a writer for them, either.
The current state of American Letters requires of writers lots of hideous self-promotion -- just look at the agonizing Facebook pages of known introverts burdened with the task. Let's not blame Hitchens for that. If he did well what so many do badly, in that particular way, he was only unusual in being successful, not in being saddled with the work of flogging his books. There is such a thing as charisma, and the man had it. Would it have been morally better for him not to have had it? So that Letters might have had yet one more schlub who couldn't get read no matter how well he wrote?
Now, there is a very grave matter you bring up, in seeming to suggest a public intellectual should be an unwavering leftist if he is to behave responsibly. Or, if he has wavered, that he should take care not to write well, because the very best prose cannot gloss over his bad thoughts. As an unwavering leftist, I can tell you that's more than I would ask of such a person. Any notion I have of responsible behavior has to be rooted in something other than agreement with me. The mind is free -- that's all there is to it. Disagreement and disappointment must follow from that, as a risk you take for thinking and writing.
Must it follow, though, that a four-square prose style is the designated delivery system for good, sincere and cogent thoughts? Lots of people believe that, without quite articulating it. If you don't read for style, then you also cannot read for its absence. A fancy prose style will not make you right, neither will it make you wrong. Only the meaning of what you say will do that, though awkward prose alone may leave many readers deeply moved.
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Jan 22, 2013 5:32:33 PM
Elatia, thanks for your response and as much as I appreciate your wonderful writing on many many threads, I will be honest and say I find your schoolmarmish tone a little patronising here. I'm not sure what you think qualifies you to speak down to me (or anyone) but if you would like to engage in a civil discussion, I am quite willing to.
I don't think I am confused here. An infatuation with Hitchens's style should not blind us to the fact that he put his talents at the service of neocons and warmongers.
Certainly, this doesn't mean that we should disregard everything he ever wrote or said; nor does it mean we cannot admire his style.
The article pointed out areas of Hitchens's thought and work which are problematic to many of his readers. Your response was firstly to imply that this is just a hatchet-job serving to advertise some hack's book-length hatchet-job (there's probably some truth in that). Secondly, you comment on the lack of literary panache in Hitchens's critics.
I would say that's neither here nor there. Substance matters and any assessment of Hitchens's work must look into the substance.
You imply that you disagree with Hitchens on certain substantive issues. If so, I'm glad to hear it. I think puncturing his bloated persona and oratory (as this article attempts to do) is a more useful and interesting exercise than lauding his style and bemoaning the lack of it in others.
Style does not wash away all sins. Hitchens's legacy (if such a thing exists) is, like the man, a prickly and contradictory thing.
Posted by: big joe | Jan 23, 2013 8:56:59 AM
It seems to me that for some people its ALL about loyalty to the revolutionary cause. Tactical disagreements and mistakes are all well, but a pattern of behavior that suggests he may have abandoned the dream is what sets him up for excommunication.
Those who remain within the basic framework laid out in "Imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism" (frequently without knowing it, modern education being what it is)can flirt with many deviations, associate with assassins, murderers, well-meaning killers, banal bureaucrats, etc, but still remain within the circle of friends. Siding with the US in an imperialist invasion (one I did not support at all, if thats at all an issue) means he switched sides. If he had sided with, say, the Russian invasion of Hungary, he might have been criticized but he would not be forever beyond the pale (because his support itself implies that he believes in the revolution, though he may be mistaken about Russia being a true revolutionary state in 1956).
His commitment to world revolution became suspect with the Rushdie affair and was completely lost with his foray into neocon foreign policy. After such knowledge, what forgiveness?
Posted by: omar | Jan 23, 2013 9:52:37 AM
Big Joe, my tongue was in my cheek. I'm not such a condescending bitch, but I like to pretend. Also, you made some rather middlebrow remarks about the negative value of writing well -- they got up my nose. Maybe you were kidding too? I don't actually think I had any schoolmarmish help to give you in the comment you reference, and I have none of that kind of help to give you today. We will have to disagree about my being uncivil.
Much has been written about Hitchens's strange journey from young leftist to inexplicable supporter of a war nearly everyone who enjoyed reading him execrates. He himself was not articulate enough to give a satisfactory accounting of it. Neither can anyone demonstrate that his point of view was bought and paid for by the architects of that war. Until that is demonstrated, isn't it best to call it folly owing to a real change of heart? To give him credit for meaning what he wrote? Enough that he was wrong -- he doesn't also have to be Dick Cheney's most verbally dazzling flack.
In this thread alone, my own view of Hitchens has been clearly stated-- you have no reason for not noting till now that I disagree with him in many areas and am appalled at his ultimate position on matters of great importance. I made that point in plain English, way upstream, and have done in various other threads. I have also been clear that a brilliant prose style is not a substitute for sound thinking. Rather, it is a deeply desired substitute for a bad prose style.
It's perfectly possible to admire a prose style without being infatuated with the writer responsible, and while wishing his thoughts, in what would turn out to be his final decade, had led him elsewhere. I can understand how many more politically correct writers would like to dance on Hitchens's grave now, and I would find it a less unattractive performance if they could outwrite him while they were at it. It hasn't happened yet, has it? I think the best writers will hold off on that, though they may resoundingly disagree with Hitchens on many accounts. You contrasted him with Chomsky -- not fair. Hitchens was a writer before he was anything else.
The Auden line about Yeats comes to mind -- that God would pardon him for writing well. No one knows what the legacy of Hitchens will be, or if there will be one. Writers belong to eras, and his was a signal voice of our own. You don't like him? Time will probably do its work.
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Jan 23, 2013 11:06:45 AM
Hitchens was a courageous man to expose Mother Teresa and her organisation, knowing he would unleash a Tsunami of irrational hatred against him.
Posted by: Arthur Macklin | Jan 23, 2013 12:03:11 PM
Hi Elatia, thanks again for your response. Tone doesn't always come across perfectly in writing, if you say you didn't mean to be condescending I'll take you at your word.
I certainly didn't intend to declare the "negative value of writing well". What I wanted to emphasise is the positive value of arguing well. In that context I would still maintain that Chomsky as a political writer is a prime example. A man who writes completely insipid prose and delivers utterly monotonous lectures, and yet is widely respected. Not for writing or speaking badly, but for marshalling evidence and reason and arguing well. In comparison, the verbal shock-and-awe of Hitchens in full flow seems meretricious and morally vacuous. The fact that someone like Chomsky couldn't "outwrite" Hitchens doesn't make me respect Hitchens's writing any more than I respect, say, the (indubitable) eloquence of Mark Regev.
Perhaps finding it difficult to dissociate aesthetic appreciation from moral appreciation is a failing of mine.
I've not read all your comments on Hitchens on other threads, but on this one the clearest statement I can find of a critical view is: "there are lots of reasons to dislike his Bush II era thinking". Given the absent first-person pronoun and your seeming position of defending Hitchens against all comers, I may perhaps be forgiven for being uncertain of your point of view. Thanks for clarifying it.
"I have also been clear that a brilliant prose style is not a substitute for sound thinking." This is essentially the point I have been making, I'm glad we agree on it. Perhaps the Auden line will ring true for Hitchens some day.
Posted by: big joe | Jan 23, 2013 12:28:12 PM
Post a comment