I Already Knew That
Well, yes. To say the least. And about time too.
With the publication of his fifth collection of essays, it is time to acknowledge that Christopher Hitchens, as well as an exceptional political polemicist, is also one of the best literary and cultural critics of the past 20 years…It is time to take Christopher Hitchens seriously.
Well past time, actually. To pick just one example among many, one we have mentioned recently, he makes Joseph Epstein look a very pale flat unsparkling essayist indeed. He puts a good many overpraised current essayists in the shade. So well done David Herman for saying so. Some dreary enforcer shouted at Amardeep Singh for daring to say a good word for Hitchens as a critic at the Valve the other day. In fact (now I’ve taken another look) more than one of them. Ha. They should only write and think so well, that’s all. But obviously that’s out of the question, since they have exactly the kind of orthodoxy-enforcing mentality that rules out being able to think and write as well as Hitchens does. The non-orthodoxy and the thinking and writing are intimately connected, are part and parcel of one another, so obviously people who say things like ‘the presumed gap between the politics and the cultural/aesthetic here sounds more than a little bit like the “sure, the Bradley people fund Horowitz, but when it comes to the ALSC that’s just disinterested pursuit of literary appreciation…” from this site’s early days…’ and ‘Rather than throwing up your hands – “huh, he’s sold his soul to the neocons… but that doesn’t have anything to do with this review” – one might think that the proper approach to the topic is to look into the connection between the politics and the aesthetics…’ could no more write (or think) like Hitchens than they could fly like a swallow or bite like a barricuda.
Many people assume that Hitchens’s break with the left came over 9/11. That was a bitter falling out, part of a larger split within the Anglo-American left intelligentsia. But signs of the break are apparent earlier: over Salman Rushdie and the fatwa in 1989, then Bosnia and Kosovo in the 1990s. Hitchens’s cause was always the same: secular, humanitarian, democratic.
Just so, as Hitchens has said many times. The Rushdie affair was the start. And he hasn’t broken with the left in its entirety, I don’t think – with the secular, humanitarian, anti-tyranny, pro-human rights, pro-universalism left, the same left wot B&W thinks of itself as part of. The branch of the left he has broken with doesn’t have a monopoly on the word or title or orientation.
At the end of the book [Letters to a Young Contrarian] he writes, “The next phase or epoch is already discernible; it is the fight to extend the concept of universal human rights, and to match the ‘globalisation’ of production by the globalisation of a common standard for justice and ethics.” The pieces on the fatwa against Rushdie had the same tone: it was “the chance to defend civilisation’s essential principle.”
Just so. Universal human rights. The ones Maryam Namazie and Azam Kamguian and Homa Arjomand and Azar Majedi and Kenan Malik appeal to. That is not my idea of ‘breaking with the left,’ it’s far more like trying to get the left not to break with its own basic and best principles.
In all these writers, Hitchens sees complexity, contradiction and “the idea of a double life.” Orwell/Blair, of course, is a classic case of this English doubleness, but the richest account is found in his essay of the early 1990s on Larkin. When Tom Paulin, Terry Eagleton and others rushed to bury Larkin under accusations of racism, sexism and worse, Hitchens dug deeper and found, both in the life and the poetry, more complexity and interest.
And there is a great deal more to say about Larkin than that he was a racist sexist or sexist racist. Blindingly obviously. Larkin wouldn’t be the best person to put in charge of the local Universal Human Rights declaration, but that doesn’t exhaust the possibilities, does it. It takes a certain lack of subtlety to think it does.
Hitchens, you feel, is on the move, drawing away from the littleness of today’s politicians and celebrity culture, towards the great writers of the early and mid-20th century. If that is where he finally pitches his tent, he might end up as the best literary and cultural critic of his generation.
Well, I think he ended up there a long time ago.
I’ve only fairly recently come across Hitchens – or rather – I’ve only started to take notice of him fairly recently.
It was an essay of his about Orwell – a amssive influence on both of us it seems – where he seemed to be one of the few I’ve read who actually seemed to see Orwell more or less the way I saw him.
So, since then I have become rather an admirer of Hitchens.
So, yes, it is about time for folks to discover what a depth of riches are there, and to forget all that juvenile nonsese about disparaging and disregarding him because he isn’t on ‘our’ side any longer. After all, it isn’t him (or, as you say, folks like us) that have moved, it is the ‘our side’ folks who (if anything) have changed sides (and here is another parallel with Orwell) like those ‘fellow-travellers’ who sided with Stalin et al while people like Orwell saw it all as a betrayal of everything the left was supposed to stand for.
I think he is an entertaining and skilled writer but his political change of heart have taken whatever nuance he might have had and replaced it with bombast. I’m happy for him to self-label as a lefty, but I can’t help but note that it is a odd sort of lefty that barely has a criticism for the Bush program in rolling back what progressive proviosions the US has.
The excuse is, of course, that terrorism is the most important issue of the day and that anyone who expresses concern that we may be slaughtering tens of thousands in the service of imperialism is a pro-fascist, pro-terrorist al-qaeda apologist. Of course, “imperialism” is a tricky beast, but even criticisms in terms of efficacy (did we really need to kill that many people?), or realism (were there really WMD in Iraq?) seem to elicit condemnation from Hitch. Has he been concerned about *our* abuses of human rights, about *our* indiscriminate killing, about *our* tearing up of the Geneva convention? No, because the other guy is evil and to fail to say so – in fact, to say *anything* else – is to appease it.
Its a good line, I guess, and especially effective since it is backed by political elites in the US and the UK. But the unwillingness to accept any good will in political opponents essentially means that he is preaching to the choir.
Armando, I totally agree with you about Hitchen’s politics – but it would be fair to point out that Hitchens did, in fact, condemn the atrocities at Abu Ghraib without mincing words (http://slate.msn.com/id/2102373/).
Thanks, Merlijn, I hadn’t read that before.
Hitchens has also made it clear that the voting in Ohio was clearly not democratic. Good for him.
However, he is not only intolerant of other’s points of view, he must demonize them as well. I once (couple years ago) had the “pleasure” of sitting with Hitchens and his wife Carol Blue and Danny Postel and a few others for drinks. Gore Vidal’s name came up and Hitchens quite unequivocally said “Vidal thinks the Israelis were behind Sept. 11th!” He leaned into me and said something like, I just met you so I shouldn’t tell you this, but… Then he said, don’t tell anyone, no wait, go ahead tell everyone, just don’t tell them I said it.
Sort of a weasel way of attacking someone he used to (still does?) consider a friend. But Vidal was against the war so I guess anything goes, right? Hitchens seems to have this propensity to get people out of earshot of others and lay this kind of crap on them. It’s been reported he likes to comment on the Holocaust in very provocative ways, (“They didn’t really make soap from people!”) even when the discussion was far more general about WWII and Hitler. And his temporary flirtation with David Irving was particularly unforgivable, in my opinion.
Anyway, yes, Hitchens is indeed a brilliant writer. He’s just sometimes not a very decent man.
That’s interesting. Also plausible – since one hears other reports like it. But, to be fair – he also goes public with that kind of thing. I mean, I’m not privy to any personal information about Hitchens, yet I’m perfectly aware that he has disagreed strongly with Vidal lately. That’s because he’s said so publicly. Same with Said – he said publicly that they had disagreed strongly, and ended up quarreling. So – I’m not disputing that he dishes in private, but I’m saying he goes public as well.
“So – I’m not disputing that he dishes in private, but I’m saying he goes public as well.”
My impression of Hitchens is that he says very little in private that he would not commit in writing, as well. He seems very forthright in that regard.
Hitchens, of course, is also a brilliant polemical essayist, and one capable of both bombast and nuance…sometimes in the same article. The sheer agility of his mind is one the things that make his essays so compelling.
I can’t say whether or not he’s a decent human being, but I must say that I was surprised how gracious he is with his fans. I saw him a couple of months ago at Chicago’s Left of Centre Bookstore, and he seemed determined to stay at the store until he’d spoken with each and every person who’d come to hear him talk, and autographed whatever they brought with them.
Phil
Gracious with fans? Well, nobody has ever accused him of being stupid.
As far as being forthright…yes he’s happy to have his public spats over policies and ideologies, but when have you ever heard him publicly and loudly suggest that his former friend and mentor is a conspiracy nut and oh yeah, maybe slightly anti-semitic? I must have missed it. (And by the way, coming from a fellow who once happily kept company with one big Holocaust-denying conspiracy loon himself is more than just a little ironic.)
I also recognize that I’m speaking of something that cannot be verified. It did give me pause, but I’ve since read many other personal accounts that sound similar so I know that anyone who has spent time with him would recognize his style. Anyway, I guess I should leave it be now. I think he’s a nasty little man who happens to be a damn brilliant writer. That’s all.
“The branch of the left he has broken with doesn’t have a monopoly on the word or title or orientation.”
Quite – Hithcin’s condemnation of Europe’s cynical and apathetic response to Slobodan Milosovich was entirely based on humanitarian, anti-tyranny, pro-human rights positions I would associate with being left-wing. He then fully supported Clinton and NATO when they finally acted in Bosnia and Kosovo (gasp – illegally !) – as distinct from many on the left, who just wrung their hands and ooccasionally even had the cynicism to put it down do ‘blood’ ethnicity (a racist stance if ever I saw one); or those who even (see G Galloway) came out in support of Slobodan.
It’s never been a secret that “Hitch” can be a disagreeable fellow indeed. But then, he is, after all, like his hero (and mine also) Orwell, a prickly polemicist – and a damned good one. There are times when I have tossed (well, metaphorically anyway) his books across the room, but I always retrieve them; like cigarettes, he is a guilty pleasure and rarely if ever dull.
He seems to enjoy a certain reputation as a drunken lout who takes a sadistic pleasure in excoriating his enemies and friends alike. To use one of his lines, “well so f*cking what!” One might do well to remember Yeats at this point, “How can we know the dancer from the dance?”
Read his critical essays on Kipling or Waugh, two writers in which I had little interest, and Hitchens will have you searching the book cases for both. In this he does a great service.
Michael, sure, unverified, but I wasn’t doubting your account. That’s why I said the thing about plausible and other accounts – clearly Hitchens doesn’t always behave impeccably. (There’s the account his great friend Martin Amis gives of their visit to Saul Bellow, to name only one item.) I was just pointing out in addition that he does declare disagreements. (And I’m sorry to say I don’t find the Vidal accusation as incredible as I would like to, given the extremely odd things Vidal said about Timothy McVeigh.)
And the thing is, I think he’s well worth the freight. That conversation with Fry and Bakewell at Hay alone would cover it.
Kircher, Gore Vidal’s odd shift the last few years shouldn’t be commented on? Vidal has the most insane conspiratorial ideas about 9/11 – it surely must be possible to mention this. Especially from someone who admires him so much, as Hitchens does.
OB,
Fair enough.
Swift,
I didn’t say Vidal shouldn’t be commented on. Don’t be silly. I’m saying he (Hitchens) wispered something to me in a very conspiratorial tone about Vidal believing the Israelis did 9-11! He’s apparently got OB believing it too!(that Vidal believes it.) He made it clear he didn’t want me saying where I got the info… why would he do that? What would be the consequences of stating unequivocally in the Guardian and New York Times that Vidal believes this? Also, I’m not saying he doesn’t squabble and even say some pretty crappy things about his enemies (and I guess friend and relatives as well), this is different however and I think it is safe to believe–despite all of the above–that he does it more than OB or other defenders of his would like to think. Or maybe they don’t care…which, of course, is just fine.
And, not so incidentally, don’t any of you forget David Irving.
Hang on! ‘He’s apparently got OB believing it too!’ Is that what I said? No. I said I didn’t find it as incredible as I would like to – that’s a bit different. And I put it that way because that’s the way I meant to put it. I don’t know anything about it – I’ve read what Vidal said about McVeigh, but not what he’s said about September 11. I don’t find it as incredible as I would like to, which is several steps short of believing it.
Why is it safe to believe he does it more often than I would like to think? Because he did it once?
Mind you, I did say I’ve seen or heard similar gossip here and there. But I don’t remember how much or where, or how credible it was. I don’t find it as incredible as I would like to that he does things like that, but I don’t have a fixed belief either way. I don’t think I have enough evidence to have such a belief.
As for David Irving, I don’t know what I’m not supposed to forget.
Ophelia, you are familiar with the recent n+1 article on Hitchens, are you not? Not to mention that Hitchens endorsed Kerry in one magazine and Bush in another.
Ophelia,
Please note I didn’t say you absolutely believe that Vidal believes the Israelis did 9-11. I said apparently. That was my impression from your comments. It’s clear to me now you don’t think that.
I appreciate that you didn’t like my characterization, but saying you don’t find it all that incredible means you think it could be possible. Well, I guess you’re right, anything’s possible. Even that Hitchens might think that the Holocaust might be a hoax, or at least seriously overblown. Of course, I’ve never heard or read that from him, but his association with David Irving could, for some, maybe leave them with the impression that he just might harbor these thoughts. Like you with Vidal, some might not find it as incredible as they would like.
I was unable to get to the article at n+1, but I think this is the same one Chris Martin speaks of…in case anyone’s interested.
http://evatt.labor.net.au/publications/papers/141.html
Ah, that article – yes, I saw that, and linked to it in News when it came out.
Michael, it’s not a question of whether or not I like your characterization. I’ve already said, twice, that given that I’ve heard similar stories, I think it’s credible. What more do you want? Hitchens apparently sometimes behaves badly; I don’t agree with him about Bush; but all the same I think he does a lot of useful work; I also think he’s a brilliant writer, one of the very very best around. I’m not sure why you’re still banging on an open door.
I don’t know what this association with David Irving is.
Oh, yeah, I do remember now.
This part of your characterization I don’t like, Michael. Hitchens is not a Holocaust-denier, and he didn’t have an ‘association’ – much less a ‘flirtation,’ temporary or otherwise – with David Irving. He thinks Irving’s work shouldn’t be suppressed, but not remotely because he agrees with it.
http://users.rcn.com/peterk.enteract/corrintro.html
I know perfectly well Hitchens is not a Holocaust denier. I was simply trying (poorly I suppose) to make a point regarding your remark about Vidal.