SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Praise Where It's Due

THE SPINE OCTOBER 10, 2007

Praise Where It's Due

BY TNR STAFF

I don't much like Christopher Hitchens and he doesn't much like me. It's
been that way for more than 20 years, and it's likely to stay that
way. But I must say his article in the current issue of Vanity Fair
about a soldier over whom he had some remote but deep influence and who was
killed in Iraq literally had me choked up and weeping. It was an
old-fashioned type of patriotism, an unfashionable genus of honor, even a
non-fashionable instance of how one loves family that motivated Mark Daily,
a young honors graduate from U.C.L.A., to go off to war. He was taken down
by an I.E.D., like many idealistic Americans in the ugly theater of
battle. Do not dismiss this: there are legions of idealistic Americans who
put themselves in the devil's way to rescue other human beings from random
murder. And Daily's survival as a type somehow consoles for his death.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 59 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

59 comments

A senseless death in a senseless war. You ought not relieve your conscience so easily Mr. Peretz. A few tears are not enough.

- roidubouloi

October 10, 2007 at 5:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Read the article, roi. Also the young man's own reasons, which he decided to post on his personal MySpace page, for volunteering to fight and die. And then tell us what your "conscience" bids you give, in the way of unsolicited advice, to others reading Mark Daily's words.

- teplukhin2you

October 10, 2007 at 5:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well said, teplukhin!

- jacksondyer

October 10, 2007 at 5:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

makes the futile death of an outstanding human being acceptable or relieves the responsibility of those who created this disaster and continue to advocate for it? My conscience is not in quotations marks. Perhaps yours are.

- roidubouloi

October 10, 2007 at 5:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The Hitchens essay is one for the ages. A classic that will be read for generations by people who want to understand how to write, or maybe how to think and feel about this war (or any war). A pity that Mr P and Hitch can't find some modus vivendi that would allow TNR subscribers to see the work of the best living political essayist in English to grace the pages of TNR.

- teplukhin2you

October 10, 2007 at 6:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

No, I do not, which is one of the reasons I too wept while reading it, and after.

- boneill

October 10, 2007 at 6:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

- peretz

October 10, 2007 at 6:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

click on the word in red, "article," and you'll have the first page. then click on "print" and you'll have the whole article in your hands. are you unhappy?

- peretz

October 10, 2007 at 6:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

click on the word in red, "article," and you'll have the first page. then click on "print" and you'll have the whole article in your hands. are you unhappy?

- peretz

October 10, 2007 at 6:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I have to commend you. I normally skip over all of Hitchen's wretched articles. (which is something that, if you are paying attention, I don't do with yours) This one, compliments of you and offered as a worthy insight, is one that after dinner, I will read.

- MrCookie1

October 10, 2007 at 6:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't think he mean just through links. I think he was lamenting the fact that the relationship you and Hitchens have might prevent him from writing for you mag. No need to be snippy, especially when triple-posting. Cookie, the article is actually amazing. I think you will find the Hitchens that teppy and I both find fascinating, erudite, and a deep thinker. Give it a whirl. If, for no other reason than Hitch sublimates his ego and tells the story of a young man who is an incredible person.

- boneill

October 10, 2007 at 6:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

humm.... This is a strong piece and it certainly shows the [rarely seen these days] brilliance of a focused, chastened Hitchens. As an elegant testament to a fine young man and his genuinely understanding and forgiving family, this works very well. Yes, even on the tear jerker level. Though, if Hitch wants his readers to see this as some sort of expiation for his promulgation of this disasterous war, I am not entirely sure if my heart is open to that, from him. I hope that Hitch now understands that as a nationally known journalist, his words do, of course, have meaning and resonance. I am not one of those who accuse him or others of having "blood on his hands' but I hope this sobers this man up, in more ways than one.

- MrCookie1

October 10, 2007 at 6:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"...to see the work of the best living political essayist in English to grace the pages of TNR." I wouldn't go that far, Tep. Hitchens' skills as a critic are wildly overrated. He explicates Orwell (whom I like and admire) who isn't exactly a great intellect. He doesn't explicate someone as complex as, say, a Kenneth Burke or a Hannah Arendt. He writes about Tom Paine and Jefferson but not about Edmund Burke or John Adams. He will criticize Kissinger (surely an easy target) but not Allende. His books avoid the kind of complexity which makes reading a pleasure. Yes, he is a good writer stylistically and speaks with a BBC accent. However, that's not enough to keep me reading his often tedious output. He often confuses morality with truth which is what makes him both popular and an easy target.

- jacksondyer

October 10, 2007 at 7:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

No need for para #2. Christopher Hitchens wrote a very strong and touching piece about a real special American who was against "this disastrous war" but still fought in it because he believed in his country and the principles it stood for. Like so many of you I too was moved to tears. C'mon Mr. Peretz, the New Republic and its readers would greatly benefit from Mr. Hitchens writing whether we agree with him or not.

- mcasteli

October 10, 2007 at 7:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thanks for your concern. Yes, I am quite content, generally. That said, as a devotee of old media against blogblatherers I would be even more content if my beloved TNR could grow and prosper. Having a bit more diversity of views within TNR's pages on, oh, say, the topic of Israel and the Palestinians, would further that aim, in my view. I know it's your magazine, and I'm not Hitchens' agent or pal or anything like that, but the jewish state has survived far worse onslaughts than Hitchens. In any case he's he's no Tony Judt. Vastly more interesting and entertaining. sincerely, t

- teplukhin2you

October 10, 2007 at 8:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Besides, he hates the Clintons and the New Left. There art thou happy. And is friends with BHL. There art thou etc

- teplukhin2you

October 10, 2007 at 8:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Maybe I just don't read widely enough these days but I have not come across antyhing so eloquent as these sentences, as fraught with complex emotion as they are sharp and clear as diamonds: As one who used to advocate strongly for the liberation of Iraq (perhaps more strongly than I knew), I have grown coarsened and sickened by the degeneration of the struggle: by the sordid news of corruption and brutality (Mark Daily told his father how dismayed he was by the failure of leadership at Abu Ghraib) and by the paltry politicians in Washington and Baghdad who squabble for precedence while lifeblood is spent and spilled by young people whose boots they are not fit to clean. It upsets and angers me more than I can safely say, when I reread Mark's letters and poems and see that-as of course he would-he was magically able to find the noble element in all this, and take more comfort and inspiration from a few plain sentences uttered by a Kurdish man than from all the vapid speeches ever given In these few words he simultaneously exposes his own, yes, conscience -- he used to "advocate" for the war, implying he no longer does, and expresses his disgust for not individual mistakes but for the degradation of "the struggle" itself. Strong stuff that does not let himself off the hook-- in fact, Mr Cookie, the whole article struggles (there's that word again) with the issue of Hitchens' responsibility for the cutting down of this flower of American youth. By the end of the first sentence, in Yeatsian fashion Hitchens has moved seamlessly from the realm of the personal conscience to the global realm (the great struggle) and traced that struggle downward to the "squabbling politicians" and finally back, literally, to earth and to the subject at hand, with a metaphor of boots and bootlicking that denies the pols even that meanest of tributes to these young men. The Yeats lines about "we who are but weasels/Fighting in a hole" come to mind. The second sentence beautifully and quietly brings us up out of this hole and back into the realm of the noble, the intensely human, with a tribute to not only Mark but also, fittingly and ultimately, to those whose suffering and hope and wisdom transcend all of our and Hitchens' petty fights, a nameless Kurdish peasant. I believe the commingling of these multiple perspectives in prose that leads us forward in both understanding and sympathy is, as Hitchens said of Mark Daily's letters and poems, a thing of magic. And some nobility of soul. If you can show me a finer passage written these past five years on this matter, by all means link me to it. t

- teplukhin2you

October 10, 2007 at 8:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"... but the jewish state has survived far worse onslaughts than Hitchens. In any case he's he's no Tony Judt." All very true, but he did write an article on Elie Wiesel before he realized who he was in bed with that I found really disgusting. And as I said above I don't think his intellectual abilities are at the same level as Wieseltier and the other first rate reviewers who publish here. Compare the review of Roth's latest novel published in the New Yorker by James Wood and the one published in the Atlantic by Hitchens and you will see what I mean. Even Ruth Franklin's review published here which was also critical was a lot more intelligent than the one by Hitchens.

- jacksondyer

October 10, 2007 at 10:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

that this was an incredibly moving piece by a fine writer, it was Mark Daily himself, as well as his remarkable family, who deserve the credit here. They alone count as noble. Hitchens was smart enough, touched enough, to share this precious material in the dignified, grieving and patriotic manner that it deserved. He is lucky that family let him breathe their air - and for once in his life, he had the courage to get over his egomania long enough to say so. Perhaps this wickedly clever, borderline brilliant and too often immature man is finally growing up.

- Wandreycer1

October 10, 2007 at 10:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I concede that the article on the dead soldier was very moving and first rate. By way comparison though I offer you the following: The Fall by Leon Wieseltier "These associations I use to defend myself against this picture of this man who did not escape his finitude. I look at what an AP photographer brought back from the inferno--the actual one, not the one peddled by clerics--and I see an emblem of what used to be called soteriology. Too many books, I guess; but this is a way of insisting upon the scope of the horror in New York a year ago. It is also a way of turning back some of these spatial superstitions. For there is something inhumane about this metaphor of the summit. The heights can be fatal, and the exhilaration can be cruel, and this man falling from the tower is falling for no reason except the evil in the hearts of other men, and wisdom is not in the clouds, and God is not in the sky. Surely our minds can develop a view of the world that is not merely a corollary of our bodies. I would rather be ordained for truth than ordained for height. The remarkable thing about the falling man is that he is not looking down. He is looking straight ahead. And as I say, he is in the stance of a man who is marching. There is, in other words, a strangely horizontal quality to him, which may account for his terrifying dignity. He seems to be fighting his vertical doom with his horizontal dignity. What matters to his gaze is not what is above, but what is ahead. Turn this picture of the upside-down world upside-down, and he appears even to have a sensation of purpose. He is not on a ladder, he is on a track. Regarded in this way, he looks like nothing so much as a soldier. Regarded in this way, his testament is plain." These are the concluding paragraphs of Wieseltier's revery on the photograph of the falling man. You can read the whole thing here: TheFall

- jacksondyer

October 10, 2007 at 10:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

who cares? Why is it important? There can be no doubt about the admirable and extraordinary qualities of Mark Daily. But, what should we now understand about what happened to him? I find his death the most appalling waste, not redeemed because he, for the highest and most noble of motives, was a volunteer and, for his age and experience, less naive than many. There remain people who are responsible for this death. If our understanding of it is only that it is the occasion for a literary event and literary criticism, then it is a loss twice.

- roidubouloi

October 10, 2007 at 10:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

on Israel have miraculously evolved along with all his beliefs - this was a man who defended Lenin vehemently until the Clinton years. I can't imagine that the new pals he made during that loathsome time of his career would not have tolerated him for long otherwise, to their credit. There's a hilarious account in Martin Amis's autobiography of Hitchen's drunkenly hectoring Saul Bellow (the first time he met him) about the Palestinians after Amis had extracted a promise from him on the way there that Hitchens would do no such thing. He and Amis called Hitchen's infamous hectoring left wing rants "bad balls" and Amis had only to say "no bad balls!" for Hitchens to shut up. For two minutes. Until he started up again. Again, I often have a great deal of affection for Hitchens, but I have also hated him. Rigthfully so on both counts.

- Wandreycer1

October 10, 2007 at 10:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

- Wandreycer1

October 10, 2007 at 10:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am in total agreement with you about the latest Hitch review of Roth's book. I started it, primarily because I love Roth, and soon abandoned the effort. Jack, when you're right, I tell you straight brother. tep, perhaps in my rush, I wasn't textured enough. Yes, I realized that Hitch was, in a direct fashion, wrestling with his own responsibility for the war, and more specifically, for the death of this fine young officer. My problem - and it is my problem - is that after 25 years of reading Hitch, I just don't know if I have it in me to really believe that he believes in his own expiation. This was a chilling experience for the man. Let us hope that this personal crisis affects his take on Iran...

- MrCookie1

October 10, 2007 at 11:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hitchens is the man, Wandrey, who had supported David Irving, the Holocaust denier. He even invited Irving to his home. When the criticism got to hot to handle Hitchens "discovered a Jewish mother" just in time to claim that he was "partly Jewish." You can read of the sordid details here in an article at Salon about Irving and his "respectable friends: Shilling for Hitler No I have no affection for the man. I am glad he changed his ways but he needs to own up to the views he held until recently. One more book by him about some worthy figure won't do the trick for me. The first requirement of a serious essayist, as Montaigne the originator of the form said, is honesty. Hitchens lacks that most essential of qualities which is why his essays even at their best lack depth.

- jacksondyer

October 10, 2007 at 11:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

As for the literary criticism, who cares? Why is it important? Literary criticism or rather criticism of writing is important because writing doesn't present the world, it represents it. Representation is an artifice and the intelligent reader wants to know if the artificer is doing his job well. To do so he has to read intelligently, which is to say critically. Here we have the origin of criticism. If you haven't learned this, roi, this means that your education is not complete. Even a lawyer presenting his case to a jury or composing a brief needs to be aware of rhetorical strategies of how best to approach his subject. This too is literary criticism. The best jurist have also been excellent stylists. Judge Richard Posner, no mean stylist himself, has written a terrific study on the subject called Law and Literature. IN that book he also discusses the styles of Learned Hand and Oliver Wendell Holmes.

- jacksondyer

October 10, 2007 at 11:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

In that case, Cookie, let me recommend the review by James Wood in the New Yorker, and that by Wyatt Mason in Harper's. They each accomplish what a review should do: explain the reviewer's judgment and teach us something about the writer and the particular book they are reviewing. One can learn something from a good reviewer even when they dislike the book they are reviewing. Hitchens review was just more angry Hitchens and too clever by half. I do not think he understood the book ( I doubt that Hitchens understands America as his book on religion shows) any more than I understand why The Atlantic hired him as their literary critic. However, that is their business. Hitchens probably thinks that inebriation and indignation is sexy. He always struck me as a man who watched too many Richard Burton films and tried to emulate his acting in real life. Burton was often drunk and angry but got the girl anyway.

- jacksondyer

October 10, 2007 at 11:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

is best ignored. If you counter his arguments, he will ask you whether you're on welfare and will proceed to detail the florid state of his own finances. The ass has great logic...

- sleepyavl

October 11, 2007 at 4:11am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

So nice to hear your vapid self again. Have you managed to contrive a thought today? Seemingly not, at least not that you can share. I must say, you are, without question, the most singularly obsessed and utterly uninteresting thing to appear here. How do you manage to hold to this high standard so consistently? Very few people could manage to be as thoroughly banal as you are even if they made the effort. Jackson: I was not questioning the value of literary criticism in general, only noting that, on this occasion, it seems entirely to miss the point.

- roidubouloi

October 11, 2007 at 7:50am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think that Tep did a stylistic analysis of the article. However, he didn't base his argument on the quality of the piece solely on stylistic grounds. For my part I thought the article well written even though I despise the author. The issue of the morality of the war in which the soldier died is a separate issue. I speak as a veteran and not as a literary critic I do not see the soldiers death as pointless. The reason I say this is complex and I do not have time to elaborate on it now. It is ironic though that the soldier should have enlisted after reading articles by Hitchens.

- jacksondyer

October 11, 2007 at 8:04am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Personally, I have no interest in Hitchens. I thought the piece was very good, and certainly moving, but I am interested in what is to be learned or understood from it. As to the quality of its style and rhetoric, I don't care. I do also find it interesting that people seem to move quickly from thinking about the substance of it to a discussion of the writing and of Hitchens himself. Screw Hitchens, what about Daily? If that is any indication of its impact, despite the subject, then you would have to conclude that, in the end, it is not very good at all.

- roidubouloi

October 11, 2007 at 8:27am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I agree. Hitchens is marginal and his style and literary virtues are insignificant here. Daily is the core issue, and only he is interesting. Turning the story into a class in comparative (or not)literature misses the point.

- babigail

October 11, 2007 at 9:29am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Beautiful piece. I'm unsure about Hitchens, very unsure but it's a sincere piece from his heart and soul. Very moving. I don't understand what Marty and crew have against Hitchens? Can somebody elaborate? (Genuine question, please no Iggy the Nazi posts.)

- The Ignorant Populist

October 11, 2007 at 10:20am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I hate to dissent, but I don't think the article was that good. The first part is all about how the soldiers death affected Hitchens himself, as such it was all about him initially "I don't exaggerate by much when I say that I froze. I certainly felt a very deep pang of cold dismay." because the words he wrote prompted the soldier to serve. Yet if that soldier had never joined, it is almost certain another soldier would have died in his place. But since that other soldier would not have been tied to him in anyway, he becomes a cipher, as were the other soldiers who died that day. Beyond that, while I do not doubt the qualities Mr. Daily possessed, I am not sure his death is anymore significant than any other soldiers death. Each and everyone represents a tearing apart of a family. In extolling the qualities of this dead soldier, he minimized to the point of namelessness the qualities of the other soldiers who died with him.

- blackton

October 11, 2007 at 11:04am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

think of it this way: One would have to search far and wide to find two more dissimilar characters than marty and cookie. Yet, both of us dislike Hitchens. I cannot speak for marty but I truly find Hitchens to be quite a dislikeable specimen. And his writings over the years have taken a nasty, near misanthropic turn. marty knows Hitchens so he obviously has personal experience with the man. i only say Hitchens once in person and until a few years ago, read his columns regularly for about 20 years. My feelings on this piece have been stated. I liked it. If marty hadn't linked it, I really doubt I would have read it., blackie, your criticism is thought provoking. I need to chew on it a bit. I had not thought of the piece in quite that way.

- MrCookie1

October 11, 2007 at 11:41am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Not so, black. Jack can probably say this more precisely or eloquently than I, but the extolling of the very best among us, ie the hero, does not in any way diminish the common man. Done properly this tribute shows us what is most intensely, truly human. In Mark Daily's case, you could add, what's most intensely American as well.

- teplukhin2you

October 11, 2007 at 11:46am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

what I mean is that I don't think the article is "one for the ages." Long after this war is over this piece will be long forgotten. He writes lines such as "Again, not to romanticize him overmuch" at which point he does do that. I don't doubt he was an extraordinary young man, but if he had been an utterly ordinary man his death would have been equally tragic, but it just would not have afforded Hitchens a chance to write an equally moving piece. Would not have afforded him to write such lines as "and as the day ebbed in a blaze of glory over the ocean" beautiful imagery to be sure, and as such detracts from the piece because at some points it is more about his writing. What if the day had been mildly cloudy, would the sentiment have not been the same? Another problem "They looked too good to be true: like a poster for the American way." Makes me feel as though the article could be called "when bad things happen to beautiful people" such writing detracts instead of adds, when really they are just pretty much average people who have experienced a terrible loss, there is no need to wrap them in mythos. I might be being unkind simply because I detest Hitchens and read it with a jaundiced eye.

- blackton

October 11, 2007 at 11:50am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

you can certainly extol the best among us. the New York times did a piece on the costs of war in which a horribly disfigured man was interviewed, an interview which brought me to tears. This man has such tremendous courage, such spirit. He was a handsome guy, now it is painful to look at him, yet he married his high school sweetheart after the attack. Truly amazing story, totally about him. I have no idea who did the interview or wrote the story which showed the writer knew his place in the story.

- blackton

October 11, 2007 at 12:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

So it's a personality thing. I thought it might have something to do with Hitchens views on Israel, which I confess I know little about.

- The Ignorant Populist

October 11, 2007 at 12:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hitchen's views on Israel? Well, to be frank, I really have no idea what his views, these days always permutable, are on anything. My take on Hitch; I am smart. Everyone else is stupid, except the people who agree with me. Come to think of it...that sounds verrry familiarl....

- MrCookie1

October 11, 2007 at 12:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Come to think of it...that sounds verrry familiarl...." I think you're being very unfair to Teplukhin there Cookie. I just automatically assume Marty dislikes a person because of his/her views on Israel. And I'm always cautious of former Marxists becoming hired propagandists for the Right; our own Eoghan Harris is very similar. What's striking about such converts is the degree of conformity to the their new religion that they show on every topic. I wouldn't say Hitchens is in that category as his views are all over the place at times. Much to his credit. Our own confusion on his views on Israel is an example of that.

- The Ignorant Populist

October 11, 2007 at 12:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Again, I disagree, black. Here is real wisdom, and the strength that attends upon it: as the day ebbed in a blaze of glory over the ocean, I thought, Well, here we are to perform the last honors for a warrior and hero, and there are no hysterical ululations, no shrieks for revenge, no insults hurled at the enemy, no firing into the air or bogus hysterics. Instead, an honest, brave, modest family is doing its private best. I hope no fanatical fool could ever mistake this for weakness. It is, instead, a very particular kind of strength. If America can spontaneously produce young men like Mark, and occasions like this one, it has a real homeland security instead of a bureaucratic one. And this passage invokes not "romanticism" but tragedy, the cold inscrutable logic of a universe-- a "divinity", in Hamlet's words-- that "shapes our ends, rough hew them how we will": A sergeant's wife had written a letter to Linda and posted it on Janet's MySpace site on Mother's Day, to tell her that her husband had been in the vehicle with which Mark had insisted on changing places. She had seven children who would have lost their father if it had gone the other way, and she felt both awfully guilty and humbly grateful that her husband had been spared by Mark's heroism. Imagine yourself in that position, if you can, and you will perhaps get a hint of the world in which the Dailys now live: a world that alternates very sharply and steeply between grief and pride There's more, much more, but these stood out for me. My basic test of a fine piece of writing is whether I can put it away for a week, read it again with fresh eyes, and still be moved, or smitten, by its grace and wisdom. That's true of most of Wieseltier's pieces. Hitchens' pieces are more uneven but when he flies he soars. A high beta stock, in finance parlance.

- teplukhin2you

October 11, 2007 at 12:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

that second part is a little odd Tep, why did he insist on changing places? was that other soldier then in a different vehicle in the convoy? if so then it was just luck of the draw, and Mr. Daily would have felt unjustified guilt at insisting in changing places. In either case, I don't read that choice as heroism, unless the vehicle he switched places was far more likely to be hit first statistically. But Hitchens never makes that point. I agree the top passage is beautifully written, but for me it distracts because it then becomes more about the writing. I imagine Hitchens sitting back and thinking "damn I am good" after he wrote it. and this line: Instead, an honest, brave, modest family is doing its private best. Well, no, not anymore since Hitchens is there to make it as public as possible. I don't think he is being exploitive, I believe in his way he does mean well, but you basically reinforced my main problem with the whole piece when you said "Hitchens' pieces are more uneven but when he flies he soars." In the end, it is about Hitchens writing. I am not a professional critic and I can come up with a dozen shortcomings, yet there are other pieces that are flawless. The Sullivan Ballou letter from the Civil War for example. I appreciate that you are moved by the piece, to that sentiment I have no criticism.

- blackton

October 11, 2007 at 1:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

were pretty hair raising back in the day, which is what first turned me off the guy. He was very unfair about Israel I thought, standard stuff, but vile anyway. I think part of it was his love of bomb throwing, but he always takes that too far doesn't he? Why in God's name take up with a holocaust denier? For any reason? Any internet search (probably pre-1991 when his hilarious jealousy of Clinton became so obvious, so toxic that he blew a fuse, culminating in his turning in his best friend to the right wing goon squads "investing" Clinton, ah those were the days. How he ever lost the "Snitchens" name after that is beyond me, I almost respect him for his ability to move past that time. He was truly pathetic, drunkenly kissing rump to any high dungeon winger he could find, even they looked embarrassed for him half the time). Cookie called it when he noticed the misanthropic feel to many of his writings these last several years. Every now and then, he thrills though, I'm always glad when he does bang the gong - very astringent, fearless, rude, British smart boy stuff. It's as far from how we do things here in the US as you can get. I actually liked the Atlantic Review of Roth, although Jackson has a point, it was angry - all of sudden Hitchens as a huffy PC feminist? Hilarious. I love Philip Roth, hope he wins the Nobel he richly deserves, have read pretty much everything he's ever written and have limited patience for anything PC. But even I have to admit I have thoroughly had my fill of exhausting old Nathan Zuckerman, may he rest in peace. (speaking of Hamlet and Richard Burton - saw the Wooster Group's version last night - very out there, cutting edge avant guard stuff. In addition to their own famously weird take on things, they used a movie screen sized video behind the stage showing Burton's ground breaking Hamlet recorded in 1964. Burton in black slacks and a black pullover, devastatingly beautiful, Gods and Generals, take the to a nunnery, to be or not to be - all the good stuff of life).

- Wandreycer1

October 11, 2007 at 1:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Screw Hitchens, what about Daily? If that is any indication of its impact, despite the subject, then you would have to conclude that, in the end, it is not very good at all." Hitchens' putative topic was Daily but his subject was himself. I quote from his essay: "The emotion derived from a very moving statement that the boy had left behind, stating his reasons for having become a volunteer and bravely facing the prospect that his words might have to be read posthumously. In a way, the story was almost too perfect: this handsome lad had been born on the Fourth of July, was a registered Democrat and self-described agnostic, a U.C.L.A. honors graduate, and during his college days had fairly decided reservations about the war in Iraq. I read on, and actually printed the story out, and was turning a page when I saw the following: "Somewhere along the way, he changed his mind. His family says there was no epiphany. Writings by author and columnist Christopher Hitchens on the moral case for war deeply influenced him

- jacksondyer

October 11, 2007 at 2:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"(speaking of Hamlet and Richard Burton - saw the Wooster Group's version last night - very out there, cutting edge avant guard stuff. In addition to their own famously weird take on things, they used a movie screen sized video behind the stage showing Burton's ground breaking Hamlet recorded in 1964. Burton in black slacks and a black pullover, devastatingly beautiful, Gods and Generals, take the to a nunnery, to be or not to be - all the good stuff of life)." Burton's Hamlet was like Burton's Look Back in Anger or even Burton's Who is afraid of Virginia Woolf.

- jacksondyer

October 11, 2007 at 2:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I agree with both Blackton and Tep bit I'll post more later. I have had enough for now.

- jacksondyer

October 11, 2007 at 2:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I confess I wasn't aware he was a defender of David Irving, or that he tore into Elie Weisel. Changes my view of the man, significantly. But his piece on Daily and his obit for the Queen Mum a few years back (in the Guardian) are truly classics of the genre. Still, I'd keep my distance from the man. Maybe Mr P is right on this one. I've been known to be wrong before.

- teplukhin2you

October 11, 2007 at 5:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The loftier heights attained by Hitchens' prose int his piece are themselves a reminder of one of Yeats' most famous epigrams, that "out of our quarrels with others we make rhetoric; out of our quarrels with ourselves, poetry." Surely this was on Hitchens' mind when he penned that line about "all the vapid speeches ever given"... And no, this is not just a literary conceit. The distinction between speechifying OTOH and striving for truth on the other is directly relevant to our little TNR community, and our quarrel with the stale and vapid rhetoric-mongers of the blogworld.

- teplukhin2you

October 11, 2007 at 6:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I did understand that the article was ultimately about Hitchens, including his failure to come to terms with the responsibility of his own advocacy. Peretz claimed to find solace in this story, which I find odd. Although I did not say so explicitly, it seemed to me that Peretz likes it for much the same reason that Hitchens wrote it -- by identifying with an extraordinary victim of the misbegotten war, it seems possible to evade the responsibility for one's own advocacy. And somehow, most of the posting here, by becoming diverted to the literary merits or to Hitchens oeuvre in general, also avoids coming to terms with what it means that we send our best and brightest to die in Iraq, and they go because we ask them to go. Who is responsible? Who should be held responsible? And what do we think of them?

- roidubouloi

October 11, 2007 at 7:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Danish philosophy:

"To be or not to be" -- Hamlet (Shakespeare knew his Danes. Check out Act I, Scene 4, "Ay, marry, is't...")
Either/or -- Kierkegaard

French philosophy:

"Hell is other people" -- Sartre

One can either be Danish and decide to be an idealist, or French and be a cynic. I think Mark Daily chose to be Danish.

- jm_rice

October 11, 2007 at 10:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Peretz claimed to find solace in this story, which I find odd." I don't know why Peretz found solace in it. That however is his business. I am not interested in attacking him for it. I have made my views about the article and that's enough. To me the article was well written but insincere.

- jacksondyer

October 11, 2007 at 11:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"And somehow, most of the posting here, by becoming diverted to the literary merits or to Hitchens oeuvre in general, also avoids coming to terms with what it means that we send our best and brightest to die in Iraq, and they go because we ask them to go." Some of the best and brightest die in all wars. It is no less painful when someone dies in a "good" war than when someone dies in a "bad" war. I have an uncle my father's brother who died fighting during WW2. My father also fought in the war could never get over the fact that his brother who was so talented was killed. We need to separate issues here, Roi. Yes, it's sad that this soldier died. Yes it was a terrible loss for his family and perhaps for the rest of us as well. However, that would be true even if you would have approved of the war and even if the war had been fought better that it was fought. "Who is responsible? Who should be held responsible? And what do we think of them?" Oh god, who is responsible for casualties in war? War is responsible. Unfortunately humanity seems unable to live without wars. I don't want to argue the merits of this particular war because this is not what the article was about.

- jacksondyer

October 11, 2007 at 11:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

tep I think Hitch quoted Yeats for reasons of self aggrandizement and the fact that he quoted him appropriately doesn't diminish his egotism.

- jacksondyer

October 11, 2007 at 11:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

we cannot get off the hook of deciding whether this particular war justifies the sacrifice of our young, both the best and not. Peretz has it backwards. The only solace for such a loss is that the cause is just and great and the loss is necessary because the war itself is a necessity. We should not find solace for a misconceived war in the fact that there are great spirits who, with the noblest, of motivations willingly take the risk of death and suffer death. Daily's family can perhaps take some comfort in the fact that he gave his life doing something he believed in deeply. We should not. We owe our soldiers judgment and wisdom to match their devotion. Ultimately, Hitchens piece is a crafty bit of self-justification -- "Because Daily was so good, I am not wrong." It doesn't work, for Hitchens or for Peretz.

- roidubouloi

October 12, 2007 at 12:17am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Not true that Hitchens sidesteps the causal issue; he addresses it head on, with a whole passage devoted to the great historian EH Carr's brilliant example as applied to Iraq. You could go one step further and say that it wasn't Hitch who determined that Daily be deployed in Iraq-- the "bad" war-- as opposed to Afghanistan, the "good" war. What if Daily had been killed in Afghanistan instead of Iraq? Would you still be insinuating that Hitch has blood on his hands? Or would you praise Daily's patriotism? If the latter, doesn't it seem a bit irrational (not to mention unfair) to tailor your moral judgment of H's influence depending on a deployment decision made per some bureaucratic Pentagon process?

- teplukhin2you

October 12, 2007 at 12:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

for Daily's death. The chain of causation is far too long and far too tenuous for that. But Hitchens is responsible for his advocacy of the Iraq war and his clear intention, by his advocacy, to help it come to pass with all of its consequences most of which were foreseeable and publicly foreseen. We don't have to decide, and almost never can, what minor contribution Hitchens or any other commentator may have made to the shape of public discourse and the ensuing course of events. Heck, there are plenty of people in here who don't think Bush is responsible for the war in Iraq -- it was the Democrats who did it, or the Congress, or the CIA, or something. Hitchens is responsible for what he publicly advocates. My read of this article is that it is a sly way of associating himself with Daily, with Daily's choice to volunteer for Iraq, and with Daily's heroism and self-sacrifice, as a means of exonerating himself, not for Daily's death, but for Hitchens' public participation. "If Daily is so good and morally unimpeachable and could make this choice to go to Iraq and behave there so heroically, then I, Hitchens (and Peretz who attaches himself to Hitchens by his "grudging" praise) cannot be morally wrong."

- roidubouloi

October 13, 2007 at 10:22am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

to help it come to pass with all of its consequences most of which were foreseeable and publicly foreseen Really? I vividly recall Teddy K's warning that if we invade, Saddam will attack us with his WMDs. (That's right; go google that one.) More in heav'n and earth, Horatio

- teplukhin2you

October 13, 2007 at 7:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

In the case of Iraq and the Republicans, even their hindsight is abysmal.

- roidubouloi

October 14, 2007 at 11:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close