Your email is not valid
Recipient's email is not valid
Submit Close

Your email has been sent.

Click here to send another

On the Contrary

In his new memoir, Christopher Hitchens recounts the rich history of his public crusades

Print Email
Christopher Hitchens. (Christian Witkin, courtesy Hachette)

The most revealing moment in Hitch-22, the new memoir by the writer and controversialist Christopher Hitchens, comes near the end, when he poses to himself the set of questions known to readers of Vanity Fair as the “Proust Questionnaire.” The remarkable thing is not Hitchens’ reply to questions like “Where would you like to live?” or “To what faults do you feel most indulgent?” but the fact that, more than 300 pages into a book about his life, Hitchens resorts to this device—originally a 19th-century party game—because “I thought it might be of interest if I said a few words about what I am actually ‘like.’ ” This is a subject that you might think would have come up earlier. But it is, ironically, very revealing that Hitchens shuns revelation as long as possible and then engages in it only in a witty, schematic form. (“Q: What do you value most in your friends? A: Their continued existence.”)

As a writer—and, it would appear, as a man—Hitchens is relentlessly extroverted: He defines himself by his obsessions and crusades, by the fights he picks. Unwittingly, however, Hitch-22 raises a question that must haunt our encounters, not just with Hitchens, but with all intellectuals who deal with large issues of politics and religion. It is not difficult to address oneself to controversies, or to come up with opinions about them, or even to defend those opinions eloquently. Certainly it is not difficult for Hitchens, who has become famous for doing these things. Since he started his career as a leftist journalist and activist, in the late 1960s, there have been few public issues about which he has failed to have, and state, an opinion. The bulk of Hitch-22 recounts these crusades, from his work as an Oxford student for the International Socialists (a Trotskyite, anti-Soviet faction) to his behind-the-scenes advocacy, in the 1990s, for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.

But an opinion is only as valuable as the person who holds it—and how can anyone bring wisdom to bear on public questions when he avoids private thought? To paraphrase a source for which Hitchens has notoriously little use: What does it profit a man to gain a whole worldview, if he loses (or forgets about) his soul? “I would often rather have an argument or a quarrel than be bored, and because I hate to lose an argument, I am often willing to protract one for its own sake rather than concede even a small point,” Hitchens admits. He calls this the “ ‘down’ side of one of my happier skills,” his skill at debate, which he has lately employed in humiliating clergymen around the world. What he does not consider is that that skill may itself be “unhappy”: Socrates distinguished between philosophy, which is the love of wisdom, and sophistry, which is the ability to argue convincingly, even for bad purposes. To a vocational arguer, what matters is arguing, not understanding (especially when, as Hitchens says, he is obligated to produce 1,000 words of clean copy every single day). That’s why it seems almost too perfect that Hitchens should have been invited to the Vatican, during the canonization hearings for Mother Teresa, to serve as a freelance Devil’s Advocate—the one job in which argument is intentionally divorced from wisdom.

In fact, Hitchens is at his best arguing in the negative, which is why his best-known views are his hatreds—of Mother Teresa (a pious fraud), Henry Kissinger (a war criminal), Bill Clinton (a liar), and God (all of the above). Hitch-22 suggests that Hitchens’ preference for the role of scold and scourge has biographical origins. He was born in 1949 to ill-matched parents: His father, Eric, was a commander in the Royal Navy, a veteran of World War II, taciturn and conservative in a familiar English style. His mother, Yvonne, was imaginative and socially ambitious, as exotic as her name: “my shell-like ear detected quite early on a difference between this and the various comfortable Nancys and Joans and Ethels and Marjories who—sterling types all—tended to be the spouses and helpmeets of my father’s brother-officers.”

The marriage would eventually come to a sad end—the only real personal sadness that Hitchens describes in the book. When he was in his early twenties, his mother left his father for another man, and Yvonne and her lover ended up committing suicide together at a hotel in Athens. Christopher was the one responsible for flying there and claiming the body. As it happens, this moment of supreme personal tragedy coincided with a political upheaval, and he spent much of his time in Athens interviewing dissidents who had been tortured by the Greek junta. “With Yvonne lying cold? You are quite right to ask,” Hitchens writes. “But it turns out, as I have found in other ways and in other places, that the separation between the personal and the public is not so neat.”

It would be easy, perhaps too easy, to read this as a flight from inwardness into the public realm, where Hitchens is far more comfortable. At the very least, it seems clear that his vocation was a way of synthesizing the warring legacies of his parents. His mother, he writes, wanted nothing more than for him to rise socially, to have the glamorous life that a Navy wife never could. That is why she insisted on Christopher being sent to private school and eventually to Balliol. Writing has done the trick in this regard: So many famous names are dropped in Hitch-22 that it stops being a vice and becomes a technique of self-portraiture. The names fall into two categories, literary (James Fenton, Salman Rushdie, Robert Conquest) and political (Paul Wolfowitz, Michael Chertoff, opposition figures from Argentina to Cyprus). Yet even the most intimate of these friendships, with Martin Amis, is characterized mainly by laddishness and word games: Hitchens devotes a surprising amount of time to recounting the results of a game where “fuck” is substituted for “love” in famous titles. No doubt there is real intimacy also, but Hitchens is uninterested in recording it, or unable to. Certainly there is next to nothing in Hitch-22 about his romantic life, his marriage, or his children.

From his father, whom he respectfully calls “the Commander,” Hitchens takes the other imperative of his work, that writing be a kind of fighting. Many of Hitchens’ fans on the left were surprised when he came out in favor of the invasion of Iraq in 2003. They wouldn’t have been if they had realized how much he honors his father’s experience fighting a just war, and how often in his career he has sought occasions for honorable aggression. He is haunted by his failure to experience combat, and though he dwells on moments when his life has been in danger—reporting from Belfast and Sarajevo—he fears “that I lack the courage to be a real soldier or a real dissident. I have seen just enough warfare and political violence to know that, while I was pleased not to ‘crack’ at first coming under fire, I could never be a full-time uniformed combatant or freedom fighter, or even war correspondent.”

This shame is the subtext of the most powerful section in Hitch-22, where Hitchens writes about a young American soldier named Mark Daily, who was killed in Iraq in 2007. Daily, Hitchens learns, was motivated to join the Army by reading his fire-breathing articles in support of the war; Hitchens even learns, from the soldier’s parents, that Daily “tried to contact [him] from Kuwait or Iraq.” He records feeling “hollow,” a “deep pang of cold dismay.” It is the rare moment when Hitchens experiences a profound responsibility for the opinions he shares so readily.

One other ancestral legacy did not reach Hitchens until he was an adult. As he has written before, he learned in his thirties that his mother’s mother, whom he had known as Dorothy Hickman, was Jewish, her maiden name Levin. Yvonne had concealed this part of her ancestry from her husband and children, presumably in order to make things easier for herself socially. The revelation of his Jewish background came too late to shape Hitchens’ identity in any profound way: “I had to ask myself what Jewishness had meant to me, if anything, when I was a boy. I was completely sure that it meant nothing at all until I was thirteen, except as a sort of subtext to the Christian Bible stories.”

The main effect of “being a Jew” (as he puts it, though this is true only in the legalistic, matrilineal sense) on the adult Hitchens, it seems, has been to make him subscribe to the most clichéd view of Jewishness as perpetual dissent. “Wasn’t there still something in this age-old identification of the Jew with the subversive? If so, good,” he writes. Being a Jew becomes another credential of contrarianism, even though Hitchens’ own story is a perfect demonstration that contrarianism is a character trait, not a Jewish cultural or genetic imperative. Certainly it does not give him any new sympathy with the state of Israel: “I even think that a sixty-year rather botched experiment in marginal quasi-statehood is something the Jewish people could consider abandoning. It represents barely an instant in our drawn-out and arduous history.”

“Our” is useful here, rhetorically, giving a Jewish tincture to anti-Zionist opinions formed long before Hitchens learned that one of his four grandparents was Jewish. But many of Hitchens’ other opinions have changed over the years, and his current views—about the need to defend democracy, and the overwhelming danger of Islamic totalitarianism—seem to point in the direction of a change of heart here, too. It would not be at all surprising to hear Hitchens, in five or 10 years, arguing that the defense of Israel against Hamas and Hezbollah is a moral imperative. Already, he shows, the divergence of his views on the Middle East from Edward Said’s led him to lose Said’s friendship. What is certain is that, whatever it may be, Hitchens will have an opinion—after all, as his hero Voltaire once put it, c’est son métier.

Print Email

Adam, please, a follow-up on one item; evidently, Hitchens repeats uncritically Edward Said’s claim that Martin Buber effectively stole the Said home in Jerusalem. That has been totally debunked, and in fact, the opposite is true, i.e., the Said’s kicked Buber out of the home.

From Justus Weiner:

Once again, the truth involves a very different story. The house at 10 Brenner Street was built in the early 1930s and its registered owners were Said’s grandfather and later his aunt and her five children. There is no record in the Land Registry of Edward Said’s parents ever owning any interest in the house. The building was initially divided into two apartments which were rented out from 1936 onwards. After 1938, one apartment (and a downstairs storeroom) was leased to Martin Buber and his extended family, all of them recent refugees from Nazi Germany. The Bubers, relying on the long-term nature of their lease, made major improvements in the apartment and landscaped the garden.

In early 1942, Edward Said’s aunt broke the lease and reclaimed the premises for her family’s personal use, winning a judge’s ruling in favor of eviction, and forcing Buber to vacate together with his library of some 15,000 books.9 Given the shortage of housing in Palestine during World War II, their eviction could not have come at a worse time. Curiously, this event occurred during the very period when Edward Said was himself allegedly growing up in the same house, and long before Israel’s War of Independence in 1948, but Said never mentioned the presence of Martin Buber or his library in “my beautiful old house” during those years

Annette Smith says:

Why does anyone waste their time on this guy Hitchens?

Thank you for the excellent consideration of Hitchen’s memoir.

While I find myself in strident disagreement with Hitchens about many subjects, I am also an admirer of his rhetorical gift. Why do people “waste their time on [Hitchens],” asks Annette Smith in the comments. Because he excels at argument. As Mr. Kirsh points out, there is a qualitative difference between philosophy and argument, but there is also an art to debate, as Mark Oppenheimer explained in the recent Vox Tablet podcast.

That said, because he is an arguer (and not a philosopher), I’d rather be bowled over by Hitchens’ cleverness than read his memoir.

Per Brask says:

This is an extremely kind and thorough review. I’ve enjoyed a good number of Mr Hitchens’s columns and think his book on George Orwell very fine. However, I found this memoir, well, boring. I had a not dissimilar reaction to his book about God’s lack of greatness. His anti-Zionism also seems rather trivial and unsurprising – he shares that with a lot of people who should and could know better.

Dani Levi says:

I am sure there are ( at least ) four more books which are more deserving of being written about here. What does this man have, other than entertainment value ?

taylorco says:

I find it always “amazing” to see some like a Mr. Hitchen’s who seems to spend his entire life yelling at G-d and claiming that He doesn’t exist and yet at the same time having to justify why he is so upset and troubled by an entity that he doesn’t believe exists. Talk about spinning one’s own wheels.

VHJM van Neerven says:

Dear Mr. Kirsch.

Thank you for an exemplary calm review.
I savored many words of wisdom in your writing and will not hesitate to pass them and their author’s name on to my pupils.

Thanks also to ‘fw’ for his additional remarks.
Said and his “orientalism” are still taken too seriously in too many places.

Yours,
VHJM

Daniel says:

I believe Hitchens deserves our attention and consideration because he is one of the (very) few men of the left who take the current threat of radical Islam seriously. He is also incapable of writing a dull sentence.

R. Miller says:

Taylorco made an insightful obervation with respect to Hitchens’ pursuit to continually prove G-d does not exist – with him finding out his Maternal Grandmother wa Jewish, maybe someday he will more nuanced in the stances he takes and less binary – but the Hitchens personality type is what makes those discussions around the dinner table on a Friday night come alive

Why would Christopher spend time being upset by an entity that he doesn’t think exists is because of all the sheep who try to cram that non-existent entity down our throats. Because, as he so eloquently puts it – religion poisons everything.

Hi there, i read your blog from time to time and i own a similar one and i was just wondering if you get a lot of spam responses? If so how do you prevent it, any plugin or anything you can suggest? I get so much lately it’s driving me insane so any assistance is very much appreciated.

One other thing is that an online business administration training course is designed for scholars to be able to without problems proceed to bachelor’s degree courses. The Ninety credit college degree meets the lower bachelor diploma requirements so when you earn your associate of arts in BA online, you may have access to the modern technologies with this field. Some reasons why students want to be able to get their associate degree in business is because they are interested in the field and want to obtain the general training necessary in advance of jumping in to a bachelor college diploma program. Thanks alot : ) for the tips you provide in the blog.

Bless you for the weblog post that is some fairly helpful data

I have noticed that over the course of creating a relationship with real estate entrepreneurs youll be able to get them to understand that in every real

Hello I LOVE this site just thought id let you know

I am not sure where you are getting your information, but good topic. I needs to spend some time learning much more or understanding more. Thanks for wonderful info I was looking for this info for my mission.

Hi, i feel that i noticed you visited my web site thus i came to “return the want”.I’m trying to in finding issues to improve my website!I assume its ok to use some of your concepts!!

I must hold the performance linked to thank your family for those who are seasoned plan I’ve mostly took pleasure in looking over the sites. We’re enthusiastic about those graduation about my brand new college reports as well as general placement of feet could not happen to have been ful before on its way onto your web site. Generally if i might possibly be for any assist with certain people, We are glad to assist and in what Ankle sprain learned how from this point.

Security Tool Removal is easy. The new Zune browser is surprisingly good, but not as good as the iPod’s. It works well, but isn’t as fast as Safari, and has a clunkier interface. If you occasionally plan on using the web browser that’s not an issue, but if you’re planning to browse the web alot from your PMP then the iPod’s larger screen and better browser may be important. security tool virus

I have to remove the possibility related with thanking you and your family for these business some ideas Ive very often had finding out your website. We’re anticipating the suitable graduation relating to my personal university or scientific studies with all the comprehensive foundation could not have already been full need to have of pouring in onto your web site. Simply is of aid most people, We are fortunate towards in what I mastered from this point.

There’s noticeably a bundle to know about this. I assume you made certain nice points in options also.

I’ve said that least 3632044 times. The problem this like that is they are just too compilcated for the average bird, if you know what I mean

Great submit.Such exciting read and details, thanks for sharing this post, I??ve already bookmarked your blog. I can see that you are putting a lot of time and effort into your blog and detailed articles!

Your website is among a form, i love the best way you arrange the matters.;-’-~

Great blog here! Also your website loads up fast! What web host are you using? Can I get your affiliate link to your host? I wish my web site loaded up as quickly as yours lol

Regards for all your efforts that you have put in this. very interesting info . “Far from idleness being the root of all evil, it is rather the only true good.” by Kierkegaard.

2000

Your comment may be no longer than 2,000 characters, approximately 400 words. HTML tags are not permitted, nor are more than two URLs per comment. We reserve the right to delete inappropriate comments.

Thank You!

Thank you for subscribing to the Tablet Magazine Daily Digest.
Please tell us about you.

On the Contrary

In his new memoir, Christopher Hitchens recounts the rich history of his public crusades

More on Tablet:

New York Times Slams Its Own Pulitzer-Prize Winning Photographer In Gaza

By Staff Notes — Says Legendary Photojournalist Tyler Hicks is Bad at His Job