12 ms·

Hitchens was essentially a Marxist (by his own admission) who was also in favor of the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the foreign policy it represented. So there wa

Hitchens was essentially a Marxist (by his own admission) who was also in favor of the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the foreign policy it represented. So there was very little I agreed with him on. But I'm terribly upset about this and I'll tell you why. Because of his willingness to debate. I'd literally scan right wing talk radio schedules for his name because you just knew it would be a great show. In a world where so many people in our modern society hide in their little cliques I think a smart person who is willing to have their ideas challenged is the most valuable person of all. Losing a voice like that is a true tragedy. So, with all due respect, I hope he is wrong in his beliefs about the after life because if there is a heaven he's surely earned his place in it. Edit: On that note this is awesome: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4JJqXISBiI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4JJqXISBiI (though skip the first 4 minutes of the host self aggrandizement)

ddw 15y ago
He's so incredibly succinct and persuasive in his points when it comes to religion and I always love to hear these debates. His memoir 'Hitch-22' is well worth the read, especially now (the opening in particular).
- sriram_sun 15y ago
  Here is Hitchens on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-june-8-2010/christopher-hitchens http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-june-8-2010/christophe... - just delightful.
  - Stormbringer 15y ago
    I don't mean to sound petty or ungrateful for the link, but is there some other source of this, one that is visible outside of the US? Even better would be if it didn't require Flash.
    - spindritf 15y ago
      This one is visible outside of the US. Though maybe not everywhere.
      - Stormbringer 15y ago
        Canada doesn't count! ;-p edit (since it won't let me reply) - sorry, I meant Canada doesn't count as 'Outside the US'. Bad humour, no biscuit.
        sriram_sun 15y ago
        Wow! No Canada eh?! Mind == Blown! I just pasted this gem from Louis C.K in a different post and saw your comment. I'm sure Viacom as a perfectly good reason for blocking off Canada, but read on... "...I have a profit around $200,000 (after taxes $75.58). This is less than I would have been paid by a large company to simply perform the show and let them sell it to you, but they would have charged you about $20 for the video. They would have given you an encrypted and regionally restricted video of limited value, and they would have owned your private information for their own use. They would have withheld international availability indefinitely. This way, you only paid $5, you can use the video any way you want, and you can watch it in Dublin, whatever the city is in Belgium, or Dubai. I got paid nice, and I still own the video (as do you). You never have to join anything, and you never have to hear from us again." Does this link work? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/09/christopher-hitchens-on-t_n_605874.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/09/christopher-hitchen...
        obtu 15y ago
        Yes, thanks!
  - lsb 15y ago
    The interview starts "How's it going? / It's too early to tell.", which is superficially referring to how late of a partier he was, but deeply referring to how (that afternoon) he'd checked himself out of the hospital that diagnosed him with esophageal cancer.
    - hirenj 15y ago
      Actually, the 2004 interview on the Daily show starts with "How are you? / It's a bit early to say, too early to tell". He doesn't get asked how he is in the 2005 interview.
    - Florin_Andrei 15y ago
      That was always his opening line, actually.
hughesdan 15y ago
Actually he was initially a Marxist, then a Libertarian, and then a Marxist again. I tended to agree more with his Libertarian side but no matter what his point of view I always enjoyed reading his work and listening to him debate. He was one of a kind.
Kroem3r 15y ago
He was a good writer, a smart guy and he liked Orwell, but the move to Vanity Fair seemed a change in direction that put some of his values in question. I'm not sure that his run at Mother Theresa was worthwhile, his run at Kissinger probably was and his support for the war in Iraq was ridiculous. And I never figured out who he was fooling by saying that he was the 'new Gore Vidal'. Maybe it was his publicist. Sad to hear of his passing, but he was, like, just a guy, you know?
- dionidium 15y ago
  It was Vidal himself: "I have been asked whether I wish to nominate a successor, an inheritor, a dauphin or delfino. I have decided to name Christopher Hitchens." http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=“I+have+been+asked+whether+I+wish+to+nominate+a+successor%2C+an+inheritor%2C+a+dauphin+or+delfino.+I+have+decided+to+name+Christopher+Hitchens.” http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=“I+have+been+asked+...
pnmahoney 15y ago
Note: This can't be a correction so much as (ideally) an opening point for discussion, but Hitchens certainly wasn't a Marxist in the sense of one who advocated replacing the market economy. (Or at least not the Hitchens that died yesterday . . .) Definitely a Marxist in the sense of a historian -- one who understands events from the standpoint of class -- and even one who supported solidarity among laborers. But replacing the free market? No.
patrickaljord 15y ago
Here's a video of him about why he supported the invasion of Iraq http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcvgAMnMne0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcvgAMnMne0
wyclif 15y ago
A choice Hitch refusal to be cowed by the moronic and frivolous: http://youtu.be/HECI4QK_mXA http://youtu.be/HECI4QK_mXA
- davej 15y ago
  I love that clip. Not because I agree with him about Bush (I don't), but because he doesn't give a fuck that everybody in the room disagrees with him; in fact, I'd say he revels in it. A true badass contrarian.
  - ajays 15y ago
    I'm sorry, but: if I stood up in the middle of the day and loudly proclaimed it was midnight, would I also be a bad-ass contrarian? The way I see the clip is: Hitchens (who I admire for a lot of things) was trying to soothe his bruised ego that he had been so colosally wrong about Bush. He was just doubling down on his massive error of judgment by continuing to support Bush. Claiming that nobody in a theater full of people he does not even know is not smarter than Bush is silly.
127 15y ago
Noam Chomsky quite well articulates what so greatly annoys me in the use of term "marxist". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4Tq4VE8eHQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4Tq4VE8eHQ It has hardly any relation to the original context or meaning of the writings of one Karl Marx.
- paganel 15y ago
  > Noam Chomsky quite well articulates what so greatly annoys me in the use of term "marxist". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4Tq4VE8eHQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4Tq4VE8eHQ > It has hardly any relation to the original context or meaning of the writings of one Karl Marx. Truth be told, Marx himself would probably not be seen as a "marxist". And as a guy who swears by his Hayek and Lord Acton, I wonder how come when someone in the former Western block countries calls you a "marxist" or as a follower of Marx supposedly it is something bad, very bad?
  - praptak 15y ago
    > Truth be told, Marx himself would probably not be seen as a "marxist". He is indeed quoted as saying "I'm not a marxist, I'm Marx."
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - jonnathanson 15y ago
    "...when someone in the former Western block countries calls you a "marxist" or as a follower of Marx supposedly it is something bad, very bad?" Our Western popular[1] perception of Marx is heavily colored by the usurpation of his name, and bastardization of his philosophy, by Lenin, Stalin, et al. These days, most people simply conflate Stalin and Marx, and they're unable to separate the two. (I bet many people probably assume Marx was Russian!). After 50-odd years of cold war with the forces of "Marxism," people in the US are still pretty wary of the name and the title. Add to that mix the fact that the uber-right-wingers have been all too eager to toss the epithets "Marxist" or "socialist" at the first sign of political opposition. [1] I specify "popular," rather than simply catch-all "Western," because within Western academia, Marx is still studied and taken seriously.
konstruktor 15y ago
"So, with all due respect, I hope he is wrong in his beliefs about the after life because if there is a heaven he's surely earned his place in it." "all due respect" cannot change the fact that this is the most disrespectful thing you can write at the death of an atheist.
- SamReidHughes 15y ago
  No it's not. Why wouldn't an atheist want an afterlife?
  - jpulgarin 15y ago
    Christopher has stated multiple times that he finds the Christian idea of heaven unappealing. Furthermore, if the Christian heaven does exist (which in turn implies that Christian doctrine is true), Christopher is most certainly in hell.
    - tspiteri 15y ago
      > Furthermore, if the Christian heaven does exist (which in turn implies that Christian doctrine is true), Christopher is most certainly in hell. If the Christian heaven does exist, it does not imply that all Christian doctrine is true, only that some is true. And there is a lot of contradictory Christian doctrine. By that, I am not saying that Christian doctrine is self-contradictory, I am only pointing out that several different Christian denominations have doctrines that contradict each other. According to some denominations, Hitchens would indeed be in hell, and according to others, he would be in heaven.
      - jpulgarin 15y ago
        Instead of "which in turn" I should have said, "and further assuming", sorry about that. I am almost certain that there are some Christian denominations under which Christopher is now believed to be in heaven, although they are in the minority, and not in the mainstream of Christianity that Hitchens usually debated against. Can you name me two Christian denominations according to whom Christopher is now in heaven?
redthrowaway 15y ago
>Hitchens was essentially a Marxist On history, yes, on economics, no. See his answer to the question of his Marxism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbJR2HN5V9c&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbJR2HN5V9c&feature=relat...
gbog 15y ago
> "his willingness to debate" Debating must be done on the ground of good faith, right? Bad faith in a discussion is the sure mark of someone who is not willing to intellectually exchange rational arguments. Then in at least one case Hitchens showed a shocking "unwillingness" to debate: In his debate about Mother Theresa with Simon Leys, triggered by his book titled "The Missionary Position", Hitchens said "he describes the title of my book as “obscene,” [...] Would he care to say where the obscenity lies?". This was a killer to me. Never could see him again as someone whose writing could be taken seriously. See http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1996/dec/19/mother-teresa/?pagination=false http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1996/dec/19/mother-... Answer http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1997/jan/09/on-mother-teresa/?pagination=false http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1997/jan/09/on-moth...
- bravura 15y ago
  I read Hitchens's letter and the reply. Hitchens is eloquent and direct in his criticisms. Leys, in his reply, is vague and does not answer any of Hitchens's criticisms with any specificity. Leys demurs and says he has no space for a reply. He then devotes one-third of his letter to joking about Hitchens questioning the use of the word "obscene". His response includes grating ad hominem, with a snide remark that Hitchens must not own a dictionary. In fact, Hitchens is right and it is Leys who must take deeper council with his copy of the OED. Hitchens, if nothing else, genuinely cares about his use of language. (Note this excerpt: "To represent her as a woman defiled with spittle for her deeds or beliefs is—to employ the term strictly for once—quite incredible." Simply delightful.) Definition of obscenity, from Wikipedia: "An obscenity is any statement or act which strongly offends the prevalent morality of the time, is a profanity, or is otherwise taboo, indecent, abhorrent, or disgusting, or is especially inauspicious." Hitchens, when he coyly writes: "Finally, I note that he describes the title of my book as 'obscene,' and complains that it attacks someone who is 'elderly.' Would he care to say where the obscenity lies?" Hitchens knows what he is doing. Most people nowadays don't think the phrase "The Missionary Position" is obscene. Slightly tittilating, yes, but obscene, no. Unfortunately, Leys cannot discriminate the subtlety and smugness in Hitchens's small linguistic victory, and responds blithely and indelicately. Side note: Classic Hitchens is him saying that people who say that racists are discriminatory could not be further from the truth. Because how can people who dismiss an entire race possess the capacity to discriminate?
sgaither 15y ago
"So there was very little I agreed with him on. But I'm terribly upset about this and I'll tell you why. Because of his willingness to debate." Thank you for this -- too many people value protecting their own beliefs/friends more than they value critical thought and challenging ones own beliefs. R.I.P. Chris
super_mario 15y ago
Anyone who knew Hitchens knows that "heaven" as depicted by cristianity is a "celestial North Korea, where the sole purpose is to praise the dear leader incessantly, compelled to love someone you fear (essence of sadomasochism). You'd think the Lord himself would get bored of this after a couple of billion years"... So, wishing him in heaven from another atheist as you say you are is really saying you don't know much of his work and life.
- aaronmorey 15y ago
  Hitchens never seemed to understand that "North Korea" isn't the Christian conception of heaven. To wish for him to be surrounded for all eternity by those he loves most, in the presence of the source of all love, truth and beauty... I think that's something we'd all like to experience along with him. Edit: Unclear phrasing
  - RyanMcGreal 15y ago
    I think Stephen Fry put it best during a tour of Salt Lake City that was conducted by a Mormon evangelist: ---- She gave us a good tour and we saw this tabernacle here and this here and so on and then at one point she said, "I just want to tell you a little about the church of the Latter Day Saints." And we all politely stood and then she said how in the afterlife all families will be reunited. "You’ll be with your families forever!" So I put my hand up and said, "What happens if you’ve been good?" http://bigthink.com/ideas/17866 http://bigthink.com/ideas/17866
    - ArbitraryLimits 15y ago
      As a former Mormon missionary, I can assure you he was not the first person to think of that particular comeback.
      - JoeAltmaier 15y ago
        Comeback? As an honest question, maybe it deserves an answer. I mean, sure tongue in cheek, but any cookie-cutter idea of heaven is bound to leave some cold. So if you dislike your family, then Mormonism isn't for you?
Craiggybear 15y ago
Knew it was coming. Still gutted. Totally agree, there was much I objected to ... but this was someone who enjoyed conversation and debate and always had something thought-provoking to say. Farewell, Chris.
- bravura 15y ago
  Don't call him Chris. 'He did not, in fact, like being called "Chris" – his mother would not, he explained, wish her firstborn to be addressed "as if he were a taxi-driver or pothole-filler" – and found "Hitch", which most friends used, more acceptable.' http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/dec/16/christopher-hitchens-obituary http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/dec/16/christopher-hitc... That obit is a good read, btw.
emmelaich 15y ago
"Hitchens was essentially a Marxist .. " My understand was that he was a Trotskyist rather than a Marxist. Emphasis on 'was' for either. But if there was anyone to whom labels should not be applied surely it was Hitch. Here's the best obit I've read: http://reason.com/archives/2011/12/16/christopher-hitchens-rip http://reason.com/archives/2011/12/16/christopher-hitchens-r... edit - I should add that I am vehemently in agreement with your sentiments about why it is so much a tragedy.
- chalst 15y ago
  I see "drink-soaked, former-Trotskyist popinjay" applied to Hitchens a lot. Hitchens' 2002 review of Martin Amis Koba the Dread, "Lightness at Midnight", gives a good summary of his (i.e., Hitchens) attitude to Trotskyism and Marxism. He picks out a wonderful quote of Victor Serge: > Have you forgotten the other bankruptcies? What was Christianity doing in the various catastrophes of society? What became of Liberalism? What has Conservatism produced, in either its enlightened or its reactionary form? ... If we are indeed honestly to weigh out the bankruptcies of ideology, we shall have a long task ahead of us. (From http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/2002/09/hitchens.htm http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/2002/09/hitchens... ) Something to think about today, with respect to our own politics.
slurgfest 15y ago
Let's not use the word "essentially" as a weasel word. If you mean to say that Hitchens was a Marxist, that should be based on documented membership in some Marxist organization or some concrete quote avowing allegiance to Marxism. Otherwise we are just casually red-baiting here. I deplore the way our political culture has taken to shorthanding disagreements by labeling people as Socialists, Marxists and Communists when those movements are politically dead and the concerned individuals are not involved in the pathetic remaining organizations and, come to mention it, don't match to the textbook descriptions of the ideologies.
kaerast 15y ago
He glorified cluster bombs and marvelled at mass murder, if there's a heaven then he probably isn't in it.

ddw 15y ago

He's so incredibly succinct and persuasive in his points when it comes to religion and I always love to hear these debates. His memoir 'Hitch-22' is well worth the read, especially now (the opening in particular).

sriram_sun 15y ago
Here is Hitchens on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-june-8-2010/christopher-hitchens http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-june-8-2010/christophe... - just delightful.
- Stormbringer 15y ago
  I don't mean to sound petty or ungrateful for the link, but is there some other source of this, one that is visible outside of the US? Even better would be if it didn't require Flash.
  - spindritf 15y ago
    This one is visible outside of the US. Though maybe not everywhere.
    - Stormbringer 15y ago
      Canada doesn't count! ;-p edit (since it won't let me reply) - sorry, I meant Canada doesn't count as 'Outside the US'. Bad humour, no biscuit.
      - sriram_sun 15y ago
        Wow! No Canada eh?! Mind == Blown! I just pasted this gem from Louis C.K in a different post and saw your comment. I'm sure Viacom as a perfectly good reason for blocking off Canada, but read on... "...I have a profit around $200,000 (after taxes $75.58). This is less than I would have been paid by a large company to simply perform the show and let them sell it to you, but they would have charged you about $20 for the video. They would have given you an encrypted and regionally restricted video of limited value, and they would have owned your private information for their own use. They would have withheld international availability indefinitely. This way, you only paid $5, you can use the video any way you want, and you can watch it in Dublin, whatever the city is in Belgium, or Dubai. I got paid nice, and I still own the video (as do you). You never have to join anything, and you never have to hear from us again." Does this link work? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/09/christopher-hitchens-on-t_n_605874.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/09/christopher-hitchen...
        obtu 15y ago
        Yes, thanks!
- lsb 15y ago
  The interview starts "How's it going? / It's too early to tell.", which is superficially referring to how late of a partier he was, but deeply referring to how (that afternoon) he'd checked himself out of the hospital that diagnosed him with esophageal cancer.
  - hirenj 15y ago
    Actually, the 2004 interview on the Daily show starts with "How are you? / It's a bit early to say, too early to tell". He doesn't get asked how he is in the 2005 interview.
  - Florin_Andrei 15y ago
    That was always his opening line, actually.

hughesdan 15y ago

Actually he was initially a Marxist, then a Libertarian, and then a Marxist again. I tended to agree more with his Libertarian side but no matter what his point of view I always enjoyed reading his work and listening to him debate. He was one of a kind.

Kroem3r 15y ago

He was a good writer, a smart guy and he liked Orwell, but the move to Vanity Fair seemed a change in direction that put some of his values in question. I'm not sure that his run at Mother Theresa was worthwhile, his run at Kissinger probably was and his support for the war in Iraq was ridiculous. And I never figured out who he was fooling by saying that he was the 'new Gore Vidal'. Maybe it was his publicist. Sad to hear of his passing, but he was, like, just a guy, you know?

dionidium 15y ago
It was Vidal himself: "I have been asked whether I wish to nominate a successor, an inheritor, a dauphin or delfino. I have decided to name Christopher Hitchens." http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=“I+have+been+asked+whether+I+wish+to+nominate+a+successor%2C+an+inheritor%2C+a+dauphin+or+delfino.+I+have+decided+to+name+Christopher+Hitchens.” http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=“I+have+been+asked+...

pnmahoney 15y ago

Note: This can't be a correction so much as (ideally) an opening point for discussion, but Hitchens certainly wasn't a Marxist in the sense of one who advocated replacing the market economy. (Or at least not the Hitchens that died yesterday . . .) Definitely a Marxist in the sense of a historian -- one who understands events from the standpoint of class -- and even one who supported solidarity among laborers. But replacing the free market? No.

patrickaljord 15y ago

Here's a video of him about why he supported the invasion of Iraq http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcvgAMnMne0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcvgAMnMne0

wyclif 15y ago

A choice Hitch refusal to be cowed by the moronic and frivolous: http://youtu.be/HECI4QK_mXA http://youtu.be/HECI4QK_mXA

davej 15y ago
I love that clip. Not because I agree with him about Bush (I don't), but because he doesn't give a fuck that everybody in the room disagrees with him; in fact, I'd say he revels in it. A true badass contrarian.
- ajays 15y ago
  I'm sorry, but: if I stood up in the middle of the day and loudly proclaimed it was midnight, would I also be a bad-ass contrarian? The way I see the clip is: Hitchens (who I admire for a lot of things) was trying to soothe his bruised ego that he had been so colosally wrong about Bush. He was just doubling down on his massive error of judgment by continuing to support Bush. Claiming that nobody in a theater full of people he does not even know is not smarter than Bush is silly.

127 15y ago

Noam Chomsky quite well articulates what so greatly annoys me in the use of term "marxist". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4Tq4VE8eHQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4Tq4VE8eHQ It has hardly any relation to the original context or meaning of the writings of one Karl Marx.

paganel 15y ago
> Noam Chomsky quite well articulates what so greatly annoys me in the use of term "marxist". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4Tq4VE8eHQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4Tq4VE8eHQ > It has hardly any relation to the original context or meaning of the writings of one Karl Marx. Truth be told, Marx himself would probably not be seen as a "marxist". And as a guy who swears by his Hayek and Lord Acton, I wonder how come when someone in the former Western block countries calls you a "marxist" or as a follower of Marx supposedly it is something bad, very bad?
- praptak 15y ago
  > Truth be told, Marx himself would probably not be seen as a "marxist". He is indeed quoted as saying "I'm not a marxist, I'm Marx."
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- jonnathanson 15y ago
  "...when someone in the former Western block countries calls you a "marxist" or as a follower of Marx supposedly it is something bad, very bad?" Our Western popular[1] perception of Marx is heavily colored by the usurpation of his name, and bastardization of his philosophy, by Lenin, Stalin, et al. These days, most people simply conflate Stalin and Marx, and they're unable to separate the two. (I bet many people probably assume Marx was Russian!). After 50-odd years of cold war with the forces of "Marxism," people in the US are still pretty wary of the name and the title. Add to that mix the fact that the uber-right-wingers have been all too eager to toss the epithets "Marxist" or "socialist" at the first sign of political opposition. [1] I specify "popular," rather than simply catch-all "Western," because within Western academia, Marx is still studied and taken seriously.

konstruktor 15y ago

"So, with all due respect, I hope he is wrong in his beliefs about the after life because if there is a heaven he's surely earned his place in it." "all due respect" cannot change the fact that this is the most disrespectful thing you can write at the death of an atheist.

SamReidHughes 15y ago
No it's not. Why wouldn't an atheist want an afterlife?
- jpulgarin 15y ago
  Christopher has stated multiple times that he finds the Christian idea of heaven unappealing. Furthermore, if the Christian heaven does exist (which in turn implies that Christian doctrine is true), Christopher is most certainly in hell.
  - tspiteri 15y ago
    > Furthermore, if the Christian heaven does exist (which in turn implies that Christian doctrine is true), Christopher is most certainly in hell. If the Christian heaven does exist, it does not imply that all Christian doctrine is true, only that some is true. And there is a lot of contradictory Christian doctrine. By that, I am not saying that Christian doctrine is self-contradictory, I am only pointing out that several different Christian denominations have doctrines that contradict each other. According to some denominations, Hitchens would indeed be in hell, and according to others, he would be in heaven.
    - jpulgarin 15y ago
      Instead of "which in turn" I should have said, "and further assuming", sorry about that. I am almost certain that there are some Christian denominations under which Christopher is now believed to be in heaven, although they are in the minority, and not in the mainstream of Christianity that Hitchens usually debated against. Can you name me two Christian denominations according to whom Christopher is now in heaven?

redthrowaway 15y ago

>Hitchens was essentially a Marxist On history, yes, on economics, no. See his answer to the question of his Marxism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbJR2HN5V9c&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbJR2HN5V9c&feature=relat...

gbog 15y ago

> "his willingness to debate" Debating must be done on the ground of good faith, right? Bad faith in a discussion is the sure mark of someone who is not willing to intellectually exchange rational arguments. Then in at least one case Hitchens showed a shocking "unwillingness" to debate: In his debate about Mother Theresa with Simon Leys, triggered by his book titled "The Missionary Position", Hitchens said "he describes the title of my book as “obscene,” [...] Would he care to say where the obscenity lies?". This was a killer to me. Never could see him again as someone whose writing could be taken seriously. See http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1996/dec/19/mother-teresa/?pagination=false http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1996/dec/19/mother-... Answer http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1997/jan/09/on-mother-teresa/?pagination=false http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1997/jan/09/on-moth...

bravura 15y ago
I read Hitchens's letter and the reply. Hitchens is eloquent and direct in his criticisms. Leys, in his reply, is vague and does not answer any of Hitchens's criticisms with any specificity. Leys demurs and says he has no space for a reply. He then devotes one-third of his letter to joking about Hitchens questioning the use of the word "obscene". His response includes grating ad hominem, with a snide remark that Hitchens must not own a dictionary. In fact, Hitchens is right and it is Leys who must take deeper council with his copy of the OED. Hitchens, if nothing else, genuinely cares about his use of language. (Note this excerpt: "To represent her as a woman defiled with spittle for her deeds or beliefs is—to employ the term strictly for once—quite incredible." Simply delightful.) Definition of obscenity, from Wikipedia: "An obscenity is any statement or act which strongly offends the prevalent morality of the time, is a profanity, or is otherwise taboo, indecent, abhorrent, or disgusting, or is especially inauspicious." Hitchens, when he coyly writes: "Finally, I note that he describes the title of my book as 'obscene,' and complains that it attacks someone who is 'elderly.' Would he care to say where the obscenity lies?" Hitchens knows what he is doing. Most people nowadays don't think the phrase "The Missionary Position" is obscene. Slightly tittilating, yes, but obscene, no. Unfortunately, Leys cannot discriminate the subtlety and smugness in Hitchens's small linguistic victory, and responds blithely and indelicately. Side note: Classic Hitchens is him saying that people who say that racists are discriminatory could not be further from the truth. Because how can people who dismiss an entire race possess the capacity to discriminate?

sgaither 15y ago

"So there was very little I agreed with him on. But I'm terribly upset about this and I'll tell you why. Because of his willingness to debate." Thank you for this -- too many people value protecting their own beliefs/friends more than they value critical thought and challenging ones own beliefs. R.I.P. Chris

super_mario 15y ago

Anyone who knew Hitchens knows that "heaven" as depicted by cristianity is a "celestial North Korea, where the sole purpose is to praise the dear leader incessantly, compelled to love someone you fear (essence of sadomasochism). You'd think the Lord himself would get bored of this after a couple of billion years"... So, wishing him in heaven from another atheist as you say you are is really saying you don't know much of his work and life.

aaronmorey 15y ago
Hitchens never seemed to understand that "North Korea" isn't the Christian conception of heaven. To wish for him to be surrounded for all eternity by those he loves most, in the presence of the source of all love, truth and beauty... I think that's something we'd all like to experience along with him. Edit: Unclear phrasing
- RyanMcGreal 15y ago
  I think Stephen Fry put it best during a tour of Salt Lake City that was conducted by a Mormon evangelist: ---- She gave us a good tour and we saw this tabernacle here and this here and so on and then at one point she said, "I just want to tell you a little about the church of the Latter Day Saints." And we all politely stood and then she said how in the afterlife all families will be reunited. "You’ll be with your families forever!" So I put my hand up and said, "What happens if you’ve been good?" http://bigthink.com/ideas/17866 http://bigthink.com/ideas/17866
  - ArbitraryLimits 15y ago
    As a former Mormon missionary, I can assure you he was not the first person to think of that particular comeback.
    - JoeAltmaier 15y ago
      Comeback? As an honest question, maybe it deserves an answer. I mean, sure tongue in cheek, but any cookie-cutter idea of heaven is bound to leave some cold. So if you dislike your family, then Mormonism isn't for you?

Craiggybear 15y ago

Knew it was coming. Still gutted. Totally agree, there was much I objected to ... but this was someone who enjoyed conversation and debate and always had something thought-provoking to say. Farewell, Chris.

bravura 15y ago
Don't call him Chris. 'He did not, in fact, like being called "Chris" – his mother would not, he explained, wish her firstborn to be addressed "as if he were a taxi-driver or pothole-filler" – and found "Hitch", which most friends used, more acceptable.' http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/dec/16/christopher-hitchens-obituary http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/dec/16/christopher-hitc... That obit is a good read, btw.

emmelaich 15y ago

"Hitchens was essentially a Marxist .. " My understand was that he was a Trotskyist rather than a Marxist. Emphasis on 'was' for either. But if there was anyone to whom labels should not be applied surely it was Hitch. Here's the best obit I've read: http://reason.com/archives/2011/12/16/christopher-hitchens-rip http://reason.com/archives/2011/12/16/christopher-hitchens-r... edit - I should add that I am vehemently in agreement with your sentiments about why it is so much a tragedy.

chalst 15y ago
I see "drink-soaked, former-Trotskyist popinjay" applied to Hitchens a lot. Hitchens' 2002 review of Martin Amis Koba the Dread, "Lightness at Midnight", gives a good summary of his (i.e., Hitchens) attitude to Trotskyism and Marxism. He picks out a wonderful quote of Victor Serge: > Have you forgotten the other bankruptcies? What was Christianity doing in the various catastrophes of society? What became of Liberalism? What has Conservatism produced, in either its enlightened or its reactionary form? ... If we are indeed honestly to weigh out the bankruptcies of ideology, we shall have a long task ahead of us. (From http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/2002/09/hitchens.htm http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/2002/09/hitchens... ) Something to think about today, with respect to our own politics.

slurgfest 15y ago

Let's not use the word "essentially" as a weasel word. If you mean to say that Hitchens was a Marxist, that should be based on documented membership in some Marxist organization or some concrete quote avowing allegiance to Marxism. Otherwise we are just casually red-baiting here. I deplore the way our political culture has taken to shorthanding disagreements by labeling people as Socialists, Marxists and Communists when those movements are politically dead and the concerned individuals are not involved in the pathetic remaining organizations and, come to mention it, don't match to the textbook descriptions of the ideologies.

kaerast 15y ago

He glorified cluster bombs and marvelled at mass murder, if there's a heaven then he probably isn't in it.