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 Hitch, 1949-2011

TIMOTHY NOAH DECEMBER 16, 2011

Hitch, 1949-2011

BY TIMOTHY NOAH

I could never bring myself to call him "Hitch." It felt presumptuous, and though I knew him a long time we were never more than friendly acquaintances. He was insanely good company, but you don't have to have met him to know that, and I knew it mainly as a reader. He was brilliant and often exasperating, even before 9/11 made him an unrepentant Iraq hawk; I won't say "conservative" because even in his lefty days Hitchens had a conservative streak, especially in his literary taste, and even after he started writing for the Weekly Standard he remained in many ways a man of the left. 

As a writer, he made intuitive leaps that occasionally got him into serious trouble. In Hitchens's evidentiary arithmetic, 2 + 2 might equal 4 or it might equal 573. But he was never dull, and he never failed to teach you something you didn't know, even on topics you thought you knew fairly well. He was astonishingly well-read, so much so that when I heard him confide, in the early 1990s, that he had never read any novels by the Nobel prizewinner Toni Morrison (she was sitting in his living room at the time; somebody famous was always sitting in his living room) I had difficulty absorbing the news that there was anything Christopher hadn't read. He was also a writer of surpassing elegance--remarkably so for a writer so prolific.

Above, all, Christopher hated bullies. Nobody likes them, of course, but Hitchens really hated them. Most of the bullies he wrote about deployed the apparatus of the military or the state to achieve their ends, but his best bully story--really, the best bully story I've ever heard from anyone--was about the British public- (i.e., private-) school kind. It can be found in his 2010 memoir, Hitch-22: 

"I was cornered in some chilly recreation room by a would-be bully named E.A.M. Smith, a brainless and cruel lad a year or so my senior. This tough and tasty dunce excelled at games and was a member of a highly exclusive Christian crackpot sect named the Glanton Brethren, which in its own disordered mind constituted an elect of god's anointed. 'Hitchens is being gassy,' he said, using the school's argot for people like me who talked too much. 'The cure for being gassy is a bit of a beating.'"

The beating in this instance is averted, but the story's punch line is relegated to a footnote.

"In an excellent instance of the 'revenge is sour' rule, I was to meet Smith again many years later. It was on the London underground one morning. He was an abject tramp, carrying two heavy bags of rotting old newspapers and declaiming aloud to the unheeding world around him. He chose to sit down just next to me. I pondered for a moment and couldn't resist: 'E.A.M. Smith!' I said into his ear. He jumped like a pea on a hot shovel. 'How do you know my name?' Cruelly I replied: 'We've had our eye on you for some time.'"

Smith's face, Hitchens reports, "betrayed the animal fear of the hopeless paranoid, and so I couldn't bear to continue. 'It's all right. I just remember you from school. It's Hitchens here.' He said dully: 'I remember you. You were a sinner. I used to pray for you.' That seemed about right."

To E.A.M. Smith, if you're still out there, you miserable bastard (in every sense): Light a candle for your old schoolmate. It won't make anything right, as Hitchens would be the first to point out, either for you or for him. But show a little respect. You tormented a gifted journalist and essayist who will be remembered long after you're gone. Rest in peace, Hitch.

Update, Dec. 19: It appears Hitchens related the Smith anecdote at greater length in a July 2010 interview with Hugh Hewitt, providing additional detail (or, possibly, additional embellishment) and acknowledging in a slightly more serious vein the dangerous temptation to be cruel to one's tormentors. Since a few commentators took me to task for being unfeeling toward an obvious paranoid schizophrenic, perhaps this will appease them. Anyway, I found it interesting.

(I happened upon the interview after I got curious as to where Christopher could have gotten the wonderful archaism, "jumped like a pea on a hot shovel." I guessed P.G. Wodehouse, and evidence supports this, though the coinage predates Wodehouse. Judging from a quick Google, its origins appear to be American rather than British. I have no idea what it actually means. But I digress.)

Here's the relevant excerpt:

Q: There is one episode of cruelty in the memoir. It’s in a note. It’s buried on Page 68 – E.A.M. Smith…

A: Yes.

Q: …a brainless and cruel lad that you somewhat torment, actually. You can tell the story, but I’m curious as to why you included it, and whether you regretted doing it.

A: Well, because there’s a famous story by George Orwell called Revenge…and it’s not a story. It’s an account of an episode in post-war Germany called "Revenge Is Sour." But when the boot is really on the other foot, actually, you get no satisfaction. You’ve often dreamed of what it would be like, but there’s no satisfaction in putting the leather in. And this boy had been a bully to me at school. He was a horrible, uneducated, resentful kid who tried to take it out on me when I was small. It wasn’t hell, but I mean I remembered it. I had to learn how to avoid him. And much later in life, I was going to work in London at my magazine on the subway, and he came into the subway car carrying, wearing a smelly, old overcoat and carrying bags of rubbish, and talking at the top of his voice, and looking around him wildly. And I thought good grief. And there was only one seat in the whole damned car, and he took it. It was next to me. And I thought shall I do nothing? I thought I can’t do nothing. So I lent over and said E.A.M. Smith, right? And he jumped like a pea on a hot shovel. And he said how did you know? And I said, I decided to be nasty, and I said well, we’ve had our eye on you for some time.

Q: (laughing) That’s so horrible.

A: And he looked wildly around him, and said, begged me, and I said no, you know, and we don’t like what we see, either. You’re not getting good reports. And I rubbed it into him. It was getting to the point where I was going to get off, it was my stop to change, and I thought of just leaving him there babbling, and I realized I couldn’t do it. I actually was rather pleased to find I hadn’t got it in me quite to do that. So I said no, it’s all right, I remember you from school, and I gave him my name. And a flicker of recognition came in his face, and he said well, yes, that’s right, I remember you. I used to pray for you. And I said well, carry on.

Q: Now is that seed of cruelty the same thing that blossoms in other people unchecked into your General Videla, and into the tortures about whom we learn more when you get to Iraq? I mean, is it always the same thing, but it’s got to be nipped off? Is it in everyone?

A: I don’t think many people are immune to it, especially those who’ve been…Auden says in his wonderful poem, 1st of September, 1939, the greatest poem every written in New York City, about the opening of the Second World War, he’s reflecting on what’s happened in Germany, and he says I and the public know what all schoolchildren learn – those to whom evil is done, do evil in return. It isn’t always true. I actually slightly stopped the cycle. I could have been much nastier to him than I was. In the end, I just gave him an unpleasant surprise, and then let him off with a warning. But I could have relished. I know I had it in me. And I admire people who can get over it. 

 

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 54 comments

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

54 comments

I might have anticipated the praise for Christopher Hitchens. It's quite a contrast to TNRs treatment of Tony Judt as a non-person when he died last year, given Judt's long association with the magazine. I guess Hitchens' ....muscular... views on the worth of Arab lives is more attractive to The New Republic than was Tony Judt's.

- SMacEachern2

December 16, 2011 at 11:12am

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

Well done. It's not what he wrote that I admired so much but the way he wrote it. My best friend writes in a very similar style, and when I mentioned the similarity, my friend said that, for him, it is the Japanese influence, my friend having spent several years residing in Japan following college graduation. For the Japanese, according to my friend, it's the action that is the subject of the sentence. Whatever may have influenced Hitchens' writing style, it is pure pleasure for the reader. I'm thankful I can continue to enjoy the pleasure even though he is gone.

- rayward

December 16, 2011 at 11:14am

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

I cried a few hours ago when I saw the news of Hitchens's death. I hadn't cried since I was 8.

- Konstantin

December 16, 2011 at 11:17am

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

I am shocked by Mr. Noah's insensitivity. Having been tormented by bullies myself, I can write with some authority. The only correct emotion for Mr. Smith is compassion for a wrecked and diseased mind. This is not an instance of a person whose vices brought about his downfall. Forgiveness and loving one's enemies are good ideas even for atheists.

- Vekert

December 16, 2011 at 11:41am

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

Aside from the not inconsiderable gift of providing both edification and pleasure through his writing, Hitchens (whom I never met) also provided me with a line, a version of which helped me with a life issue. My wife and I have lived in western Massachusetts for 37 years and have built a large community of friends here over that time. Our daughter now lives on the west coast and would like us to join her there. Here is Hitchens' line: "A melancholy lesson of advancing years is the realization that you can't make old friends." Our daughter responded: "I get it, Dad." Thanks, Hitch, and rest in peace.

- JackR

December 16, 2011 at 12:06pm

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

Another big loss this year. He's in on the big secret now...what happens to you when you die. I hope he's surprised. Or maybe it's exactly what he expected--the vast nothingness. Rest in peace, Mr. Hitchens. "Forgiveness and loving one's enemies are good ideas even for atheists." ...even for atheists. That's a classic. I might just have to tweet that...

- jpell64

December 16, 2011 at 12:16pm

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

Thank you for your beautiful tribute to Christopher. Timothy. My wife Sheena informed me this very early morning that he had died. It brought tears to my eyes. I cry not infrequently, always in private. How can you not, given the world is as it is? I rang up Christopher twice, once in 1993 and again in 1995. Back then, he said that he had never been to Seattle, but if he ever did come, he said that he would like to look me up. He asked for my phone number. He did come to Seattle eventually, but he never called. He probably had lost my number by then. I tried calling him this early year but his phone was repeatedly busy. I read most all of Christoper's books and huge amounts of his journalism. I am much the better for it, even though he was often enough maddening to read. Wherever you are Christopher, thank you for your graciousness and thank you for your vast oeuvre.

- liberalref

December 16, 2011 at 12:50pm

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

I am with Vekert, this seemed to be kind of nasty. David Frum wrote a lovely tribute at Frumforum. But to call a likely paranoid schizophrenic a miserable bastard is just wrong. As to Hitchens, while I read him at Slate I didn't really care for him, I saw him being too nasty to others and far too cocksure of himself in various debates. I always felt he was an atheist because he was so damn angry that if there had to be a God, he believed it should be himself. He lacked a quality of modesty, like in brilliant writers such as Mark Twain, that I found too off putting.

- blackton

December 16, 2011 at 1:17pm

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

Yes, there you go, Samuel Langhorne Clemens was a modest atheist.

- liberalref

December 16, 2011 at 1:31pm

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

Modesty is overrated. Modesty is also unnecessary when a person is right. Hitchens is the only writer whose words I always read at least twice. His beautiful prose, his legacy of strength in godlessness, is his immortality and my inspiration.

- Konstantin

December 16, 2011 at 1:33pm

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

Well, Blackton, that's quite a cocksure, Hitchens-style comment!

- Idefix

December 16, 2011 at 2:00pm

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

Hear hear, K. And some people have a lot to be modest about, too. Hilarious, lde.

- liberalref

December 16, 2011 at 2:21pm

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

Lowrey either was having a bad day or he doesn't care for you; I've had ex-girlfriends show more warmth for me than he showed for you. Did his mother die or something?

- rayward

December 16, 2011 at 2:35pm

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

Oddly, I always found Hitchens's prose rather bullying. Oh well.

- cspencef

December 16, 2011 at 3:06pm

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

Nice letter by Rabbi Shmuley Boteach today. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-shmuley-boteach/christopher-hitchens-and-_b_1153880.html RIP, Christopher.

- Tristan

December 16, 2011 at 3:17pm

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

"Modesty is also unnecessary when a person is right." Yeah, like he was about supporting Bush in Iraq. And yes, modesty is necessary especially when you are right as to not make it about you but about what you say. Hitchens drank and smoke himself into an unnecessarily early death. Was that right too? As much as I can be I am sorry for his friends and his family but I find this lionization of celebrities upon their deaths to be undignified even to those that died. After living in China for a long time I have very low tolerance for the cult of personality. Now suddenly Hitchens was right about everything, and Steven Jobs invented technology and Michael Jackson music. Yes, Hitchens was a brilliant guy, but being brilliant does not make you automatically right. I know one is not supposed to speak ill of the dead, but hell, wasn't Hitchens himself a fierce defender of free expression? I said similar things on another website where the author lionized Hitchens because of this, and then found my post censored out of existence. And here I express an honest opinion and find it is taken as being blasphemous that I say such things about him. I mean really, Hitchens need never be modest because he was "right"? And if my comment is cocksure and in the Hitchens style, isn't that a far better tribute to him than fawning? I frankly saw himself act too much of a jackass on TV to develop any kind of fondness for him, notwithstanding some of the really, genuinely stupid things he has said about people of faith, any faith. But I did refer to a lovely tribute to him written by David Frum, who was his friend. I never met him so his public face and private face maybe were very different. I acknowledge that but I will not lie and not say I found his public face to be too brutal a force.

- blackton

December 16, 2011 at 6:05pm

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

here is that tribute I referred to: http://www.frumforum.com/christopher-hitchens-1949%E2%80%932011 As I mentioned, it is quite nice and worth a read.

- blackton

December 16, 2011 at 6:44pm

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

Thing is, Hitchens was hopelessly connected to reality, a somewhat unusual quality among much of today's commentariat. And his writing is a pleasure to read. He will be missed.

- LISAH

December 16, 2011 at 7:17pm

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

I love his work on the great George Orwell... R.I.P. Hitch!!!

- MikeB.

December 16, 2011 at 8:11pm

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

The New Republic was right to ignore Tony Judt an overpraised historian. The only reason McEachern likes him is because he hated Jews. He was looking forward to the day when Jews would again be like fallen leafs driven by the wind scattered, at the mercy of walker beys who step on them and clean their shoes with these leaves. The well connected, well protected Judt dreamed of the Romantic wandering Jew. He was a hypocrite. I am ambivalent about Hitchens. I am not awed by his scholarship. I don't believe his books on Orwell, on Jefferson will matter much 20 years down the road. He excelled in polemics and wasn't above using bullying tactics himself when for example he attacked Elie Wiesel. He was a cheap self dramatizer who abruptly changed positions after 9/11. Earlier when he had been attacked as a being pro-Nazi, after he associated himself with the Holocaust denying historian David Irving, he suddenly discovered that he was half "Jewish." In 2009 is was still defending Irving: “Christopher Hitchens on David Irving and Free Speech” by Eamonn McDonagh on February 14, 2009 http://blog.z-word.com/2009/02/christopher-hitchens-on-david-irving-and-free-speech/ I am sorry he is dead, but I can't bring myself to praise his life work.

- arnon

December 17, 2011 at 12:00am

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

As a person who has never believed in God, religious believers have often assailed me with the taunt and challenge that without God there is no reason to be a good person. They also tend to believe that all atheists will clamor for God when on their death bed. (Not claiming a stellar grade as a "good person" for myself, but I have tried most of my life to be more good than bad.) I came to read Hitchens fairly late in life, but I think in his writing and his living and in his dying, he strove to meet this challenge well. I knew it was coming, but I felt a pang when I read of his death. Each man's death diminishes me, For I am involved in mankind. Therefore, send not to know For whom the bell tolls, It tolls for thee.

- skahn

December 17, 2011 at 12:06am

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

Oh, oh. The italic curse has struck again. Perhaps it is Hitchens haunting us.

- skahn

December 17, 2011 at 12:07am

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

Moving toasts from all around the world. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crTE9RvRt_c

- skahn

December 17, 2011 at 12:10am

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

A measure of what a huge public space Hitchens occupied is trying to think of someone who could step into his huge shoes for erudition, prolificity, elegant prose, vast and deep sensibility, polemical excellence, tremendous intellect, sheer capaciousness, rejection of crap and piety, remorseless in pursuing the truth as he saw it , and perhaps, most impressive, the sheer vivacity and largeness and passions of the man. My but he was so much larger than life by such a long, long shot. I had two experiences of him specifically: I went to a synagogue in Toronto to listen to him debate his atheism--views I entirely shared with him--with some of the local brethren and he was gracious, patent and sensitive besides being a fierce advocate for his position; and once, a bit more intimately, he came to Toronto about 8 or 9 years ago and conversed in a restaurant with an audience of paying guests, and it cost a pretty penny, and he was unbelievably engaging, ranging over a wide array of subjects, essentially not leaving till the last of us were virtually thrown out by the owner of the place. He made you wish you could be an F.O.H. and hang out with him and get to drink in all that spectacular bonhomie. (This attendance in Toronto was part of a series of appearances he made across Canada from time to time on the same basis. Hitchens noted that in the Western Canadian cities like Calgary no one stayed late to carry on with him, much to his disappointment.) I had a few things to say but mostly kept quiet happy enough to let others and him do the talking. An absolutely memorable night of my life. Hitchens never made you feel smaller by comparison with his achievements. Rather you felt larger, carried by him along the paths of his own expansiveness. So while I shed no tears, I'm not much of crier, I was shocked nonetheless to read of Hitchens's death, despite bracing myself for its inevitability over the last year or so. I have an abiding sense of sadness and loss laced with the feeling that something so great has gone from the world much, much too soon.

- basman

December 17, 2011 at 12:12am

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

The thing I liked most about Hitchens was his will to intellectual honesty. I was somewhat puzzled by his throwing in with the evangelical atheist gig. I mean I can easily understand wanting to take down the many who would happily leverage God as a means for pecking order self projection. That he would destroy the low hanging fruit vendors and consider it to be achieving the entire God question is one of the few places his penetrating intellect foundered upon. Other than that particular blind spot he was most often brilliant and yes, blackton, self satisfactorily scathing by virtue of his proximity to the real fires that burned. I most always enjoyed his commentary and insights and can imagine that if he and I had occasioned to consume some fine single malt to any excess ( which would be as likely in my case as it apparently was in his) that we could happily come to fisticuffs. I loved the guy. Wish I had known him personally. He was a champion in his way and our world is a lesser place for his passing. Here's to you Mr. Hitchens. Cheers!

- jacko

December 17, 2011 at 5:26am

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

and yes, my little wishful binge is an unwarranted conceit. Bottoms up kids. How about a little holiday charity?

- jacko

December 17, 2011 at 5:44am

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

That is a lovely tribute, bas. Gee, I wonder who is more worth reading, arnon or Hitch?

- liberalref

December 17, 2011 at 12:36pm

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

A man whose first impulse on encountering an old school nemesis fallen into despair and insanity is to frighten him as an act of revenge is not someone I choose to admire. Forget about "Christian forgiveness" (there are plenty of Christians without an ounce of it), how about simple decency?

- lump516

December 17, 2011 at 1:22pm

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

12/17/2011 - 1:22pm EDT | lump516 Let's not get all jacked up over one incident, a minor detail, in the life of a man, flawed like all men, who admittedly wore his pugnacity on his sleeve for good and for not so good at times, but whose achievements in his field, public intellectual as writer--his kingdom there taking in so many principalities--are as self evidently stellar as they are wide and deep.

- basman

December 17, 2011 at 2:05pm

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

Thanks libref.

- basman

December 17, 2011 at 2:13pm

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

"Gee, I wonder who is more worth reading, arnon or Hitch?" The liberal Referee, of course, is worth more reading.

- arnon

December 17, 2011 at 2:22pm

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

I made a few starting comments on The Crowd At The Ball Game here: http://www.tnr.com/article/books-and-arts/magazine/97770/william-carlos-williams-america-whitman?page=1#comment-351579 at comment 69. Tell me if it interests you.

- basman

December 17, 2011 at 3:07pm

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

liberalref "Gee, I wonder who is more worth reading, arnon or Hitch?" Seriously, Hitchens is worth reading more than Arnon, but if that is the standard of librefus' judgments I feel sorry for him. Hitchens is getting the sympathy vote because he died at a relatively young age and died of cancer.I suspect that withing a few short years he will as forgotten as Lewis Mumford a better man and writer.

- arnon

December 17, 2011 at 3:13pm

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

Here is a counter view on Hitchens: The Trouble with Hitchens: Hitchens' Jewish Problem: http://www.jewishideasdaily.com/content/module/2011/12/16/main-feature/1/the-trouble-with-hitchens

- arnon

December 17, 2011 at 3:39pm

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

I just your comment, Basman. I'll take a look.

- arnon

December 18, 2011 at 12:35am

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

Arnon. I wouldn't presume to pretend to know how Mr. Hitchens regarded ' Jews '. It isn't my intention to speak for him either. That said I do think that as best I can piece together Hitchens' sensibilities, they might be characterized as having a universal motivation where group distinctions are a conceit of the highest order and that anything which might presume exclusive claim is worthy of derision and disdain. Hence his unhappiness with any groups identity markers as a claim on unique and therefor special considerations. I have sympathies with the larger compass and encompassment of this sentiment. Now what often actually happens when working toward such extinction of these ambitions is a Hoist with your own Petard phenomenon. Christianity is a perfect example of these shortcomings in practice. To that extent this lost in the woods thing is something to be natural and expected. The wind and critters have their way with the breadcrumbs and getting lost is quite likely without the most extreme care. Inasmuch that it is nearly impossible to make these distinctions clear when describing what the map is actually saying or SHOULD be saying misunderstandings are inevitable. Both in reading the map and hearing it described. Bless our little hearts.

- jacko

December 18, 2011 at 11:48am

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

"I do think that as best I can piece together Hitchens' sensibilities, they might be characterized as having a universal motivation where group distinctions are a conceit of the highest order and that anything which might presume exclusive claim is worthy of derision and disdain." If that were the case, why didn't speak out against, say Palestinian Arab identity claims, or those of any other group. His venom regarding Jews has to do with his hated of religion, especially monotheistic religions which he considers came into being with Judaism. It no mystery why he went after Jews: he considered them the inventors of a way of thinking about the universe which he considered a superstition. This is why in his book "God is not Great" he says that he prefers the ancient Greek world view to that of the Jews. This is an ignorant comment since the ancient Greek world view was not hat of Plato or Aristotle or the Stoics, it was the world view of a fanatic and superstitious people (like the Romans) whose generals refused to go into battle unless all the signs and portents were favorable to them. The ancient Greeks were just as irrational as the Jews and Christians or Muslims. Polytheistic Paganism is no more rational than Monotheism. Hitchens was ignorant of so many subject he wrote about that I am surprised and dismayed that many of his books got published and praised in the mainstream media. I think he came across as a young sexy male with a British accent who went to the best schools in there and it was assumed that he was all knowing and wise. (our own upper classes love an English accent.) To me he was an ignorant polemicist. Example he condemned Kissinger as a "war criminal" but loved Trotsky who committed real war crimes and wasn't above plotting the death of whole classes of people. Why did it take the Islamicist attack on 9/11 for him to break with the Trotskyite left which supported and supports Islamic terrorists? To me the man a fraud.

- arnon

December 18, 2011 at 12:27pm

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

"To me the man a fraud." Okay. Obviously I am familiar and sympathetic to your assessments on the origins of motivation of Hitchens prejudices. I've said that I thought he was blind on the God and religion thing. It was a bit of a surprise for me to find, as you did, the kind of sentiments that he had expressed in 'Not Great'. His propositions are erudite bullshit fully owned by 'The Petard' of which I mention. Oedipus is a motherfucker. Particularly for the Jews. Arnon, I agree with your view and take away on these things. As always a sliver of truth can be the seed and flower of some very real and obscene evil. I appreciate your sensitivity to these things Jewish. Not much of a choice, huh? History being what it is. That said, I don't think he is a fraud. Just as blind in roughly the same measures that he has accorded others in these things. He did hang his hat on other things redeeming. But that blind spot is a big one. But it isn't as though he belongs to an exclusive club in that regard........ unfortunately.

- jacko

December 18, 2011 at 1:48pm

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

Sorry Jacko, it's not enough to just say that Hitch was an antisemite but he had his good point also. His attacks on religion didn't weaken religion, but on the contrary they had the effect of strengthening people's opposition to his views. He preached a mindless scientism. I write as a non religious person. The way out of religion is through religion and not through science. There are centuries of debate on the subject and Hitchens in his book only touched the surface of that compelling debate. I assume that be had only a superficial knowledge on the history of this subject as he did on many others. In politics he never explained how a Kissinger could be regarded as a "war criminal" but not Trotsky among others. He wrote with as much zeal against Clinton as he did against Kissinger or Mother Theresa. (Did she really deserve a book, or even a long pamphlet?) And so on. I doubt that we will agree on this topic and I am content to let it rest there.

- arnon

December 18, 2011 at 7:46pm

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

Arnon. Your points are well taken and considered. Umm... I am content to let your beef with Hitchens stand. I'm going to think on this a bit longer. I want to consider why I have an inclination to let him slide on some things that I am usually very demanding about. I have been front and center per contentions along these lines and have very little patience. Particularly with those that I think have the capacity to know better. Am I in love with his wonderful way with prose and well turned phraseology as to disregard content? Or at least allow degrees of latitude I would not normally afford? I'm going to contemplate on this one. I did, however, allow as to fisticuffs per scotch would be an unsurprising outcome. Anyway.... see ya round.

- jacko

December 18, 2011 at 8:13pm

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

Hitchens was no antisemite. This is just one example of why it is deeply unfair to refer to him thus. An antisemite would not be writing this. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2011/07/boat_people.html "Hamas is listed by various governments and international organizations as a terrorist group. I don't mind conceding that that particular word has been used in arbitrary ways in the past. But what concerns me much more is the official programmatic adoption, by Hamas, of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. This disgusting fabrication is a key foundational document of 20th-century racism and totalitarianism, indelibly linked to the Hitler regime in theory and practice. It seems extraordinary to me that any "activist" claiming allegiance to human rights could cooperate at any level with the propagation of such evil material. But I have never seen any of them invited to comment on this matter, either. The little boats cannot make much difference to the welfare of Gaza either way, since the materials being shipped are in such negligible quantity. The chief significance of the enterprise is therefore symbolic. And the symbolism, when examined even cursorily, doesn't seem too adorable. The intended beneficiary of the stunt is a ruling group with close ties to two of the most retrograde dictatorships in the Middle East, each of which has recently been up to its elbows in the blood of its own civilians. The same group also manages to maintain warm relations with, or at the very least to make cordial remarks about, both Hezbollah and al-Qaida. Meanwhile, a document that was once accurately described as a "warrant for genocide" forms part of the declared political platform of the aforesaid group. There is something about this that fails to pass a smell test. I wonder whether any reporter on the scene will now take me up on this."

- noga1

December 18, 2011 at 10:26pm

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

The above roves that Hitchens hated Islamo Fascists (as most of us do) but it doesn't mean that he didn't hate Judaism. His many books show that he hated Judaism and accused it of making Christianity and Islam possible. In this he was following Voltaire who also accused Judaism of imposing Christianity and Islam on the world. Then there is this: "Blaming the Victims: Spurious Scholarship and the Palestinian Question [Paperback] Christopher Hitchens (Editor), Edward W. Said (Editor), Ibrahim Abu-Lughod (Contributor), Janet L. Abu-Lughod (Contributor), G. W. Bowersock (Contributor), Noam Chomsky (Contributor), Norman G. Finkelstein (Contributor), Muhammad Hallaj (Contributor), Rashid Khalidi (Contributor), Peretz Kidron (Contributor), Elia Zureik (Contributor), Edward Said (Author)" http://www.amazon.com/Blaming-Victims-Spurious-Scholarship-Palestinian/dp/1859843409 He published this in September 13, 2001 two days after 9/11 an event which changed his politics but didn't diminish his hatred of Judaism.

- arnon

December 18, 2011 at 10:57pm

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

The above roves that Hitchens hated Islamo Fascists (as most of us do) but it doesn't mean that he didn't hate Judaism. Should read: The above proves that Hitchens hated Islamo Fascists (as most of us do) but it doesn't mean that he didn't hate Judaism.

- arnon

December 18, 2011 at 11:01pm

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

Point well taken at 10:26 pm comment. Anti Semitism doesn't cut it here: http://www.haaretz.com/misc/article-print-page/despite-criticism-of-israel-hitchens-was-ardent-foe-of-anti-semitism-1.402015?trailingPath=2.169%2C2.216%2C2.221%2C I think, respecfully, that for some of these comments more nuance and less declamatory certainty are in order. I think this little piece gets at the heart of Hitchens's complex and fierce independence of thought including in relation to views which made me uncomfortable. Kirchik, as fierce a defender of Israel as Peretz, and his former acolyte, bears valuable witness here. John Podhoretz especially and in particular and folks at Commentary/Contentions generally have been rather unstinting in their tributes to Hitchens.

- basman

December 18, 2011 at 11:17pm

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

"John Podhoretz especially and in particular and folks at Commentary/Contentions generally have been rather unstinting in their tributes to Hitchens." Which proves what?

- arnon

December 18, 2011 at 11:53pm

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

So Kirchik feel in love with Hitchens. Still, how does this prove that Hitchens wasn't anti-Judaic? "And Christopher's hatred for the ancient zealotries of the Hebrew Bible coexisted with an appreciation for the Jewish "tradition of reason and skepticism," which, whether he liked it or not, originated with the Talmud." The "whether he liked it or not" tells us all we need to know about Hitchens' attitudes. No, he didn't like it as he showed in too many articles. And basman did you read Hitchens' book on the "Palestinian victims?"

- arnon

December 19, 2011 at 12:00am

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

Well Sir, While I haven't read it, he edited it in 1988. His views had evolved since then especially in the aftermath of 9/11 and his discovery that he was a Jew. That evolution is a theme In Kirchik's piece. Hitchens was eloquent and repeated and fierce in his denunciation of anti Semitism, which is a tough road to pave for an anti Semite. Penultimately, as I noted, I had two personal experiences with Hitchins: one at Toronto synagogue where, wearing a Yamalkeh and noting his connection with Judiaism via his mother and culturally, he debated his atheism respectfully, graciously and sensitively-- you can imagine the sensitivities of that audience--but also directly and without flinching; the other was a personal dinner with him organized for paying people, who were interested in that kind of an evening with him. Not a word came out of his mouth that hinted at anything anti Semitic, and there were at least a couple of pro Israeli Jews there that I knew. Finally, are you so locked into what you consider the inviolateness of your own opinions that you have taken leave of your senses? If the issue is whether Hitchens, like William Carlos :-), was an anti Semite, and the most ardent, pro Israeli, pro Jewish Jews make no reference to Hitchens's putative anti Semitism, but rather honour him and trace complimentarily the intellectual path he took, don't you think their numerous and consistent judgments on the point are: 1. rather relevant, 2. rather probative 3. and rather persuasive, albeit circumstantial?

- basman

December 19, 2011 at 1:12am

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

Martin Peretz once had a post on Hitchens. In the thread that followed, I wrote the following comment: http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-spine/78079/christopher-hitchens-benny-morris-and-the-palestinians "I am currently reading Hitchens' memoir "Hitch 22" (sporadically, whenever I visit my local "Chapters"). In the years since 9/11 I have watched Hitchens follow his principles and convictions in ways that pitted him against many other erstwhile friends on the rabid Left. I was gratified to learn that he sobered up from his many years of infatuation with Edward Said and have been waiting for him to take the next logical step and rethink his positions about Israel. In his memoir he finally reveals his opinion about Said and his legacy in no uncertain terms. Calls him vulgar and describes his "thuggish" ways of reacting to opinions he did not share. Naturally, I disagree with him about Israel not being a normal country. Israel is the best functioning democracy imaginable under circumstances of extreme existential threats. It's not normal in the same way that the US or France or UK are normal countries. And it's not abnormal in the same way that Saudi Arabia, or Syria, or Iran are abnormal. But on the continuum between the "normalcy" of a Western, law and order democracy, and the abnormality of third world theocracies and dictatorships in which law is to be feared rather than respected, Israel is just a notch away from the former end. Another thing concerning Hitchens: his two best friends, Martin Amis and Ian McEwan, are pro-Israel in the finest meaning of the term. So one wonders... Also in his memoir he revisits the way he found out, late in life that he was "technically" Jewish. He says that he was pleased at how pleased he was with the discovery. Martin Amis, though, in his memoir, "Experience" proffers the notion that Hitchens can never be Jewish "in the blood". He does not have that sort of gut-level affiliation with the tribe the way he, Amis, believes himself to have (due to his very early love affair with a Jewish girl he feels as if he got into the covenant through a side door or something.) Since Hitchens found out about his Jewishness, he explored his family roots and makes a point of visiting a synagogue wherever happens to be in world if there is a synagogue nearby. Still I felt his thoughts and feelings about the subject were strangely contradictory as if he was not yet perfectly sure what to make of the whole thing."

- noga1

December 19, 2011 at 6:19am

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

Here is a conversation between Hitchens and Martin Amis about antisemitism and Saul Bellow. It is done in 9 parts (50 or so minutes all in all) and I urge all who are interested to listen to it. (I cannot believe we will never hear that voice in real time again.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXUh4FUicxE I have long estimated that Hitchens had somewhat mellowed on Israel and Zionism since the time he was friends with Edward Said and could hardly contain himself when given half a chance to vent. He still indulges from time to time but one can see that his heart is not in it. The change of tone and, may I suggest, substance, is quite explicit in this conversation. When I saw this Hitchens’ honest tribute to Bellow’s talent I found it strangely moving. The last time I read about the two of them mentioned in tandem was in Martin Amis’s book “Experience” where a meeting between the two is described as nothing short of disastrous. Amis recounts his memory of a visit during the 1970’s to Bellow’s house with Hitchens (the same incident is discussed by Amis and Hitchens in the conversation above). Saul Bellow was Amis’s hero; he loved him with the loyalty of a son. The evening they all spend together is like a runaway train, when Hitchens launched a “cerebral stampede” against Zionism and Israel’s “crimes”. Amis says in his book: “a silence slowly elongated itself over the dinner table. Christopher, utterly sober but with his eyes lowered, was crushing in his hands an empty packet of Benson & Hedges. The Bellows, too, had their gazes downcast. I sat with my head in my palms, staring at the aftermath of the dinner. . . . My right foot was injured because I had kicked the shins of the Hitch so much with it.” In the vids here, Hitchens shows great affection, respect and understanding for Saul Bellow. Is it possible that his disllusionment with Edward Said’s politics after 9/11, has eventually wrought forth a different, more sympathetic view of Israel and Zionism?

- noga1

December 19, 2011 at 6:20am

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

Sighted on facebook, on the death of North Korea Kim Jong-il: "I'd like to think God let Havel and Hitchens pick the third."

- noga1

December 19, 2011 at 6:23am

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

Basman “Well Sir, While I haven't read it, he edited it in 1988. His views had evolved since then especially in the aftermath of 9/11 and his discovery that he was a Jew.” Hitchens edited the book in 2001 and not in 1988. Hitchens did change but his views on Judaism didn’t change that much. Yes, he discovered that he was a “Jew” and just in the nick of time when he was being criticized for his relationship with the Holocaust denier David Irving. Yes, he changed, but in 2009 he wrote his book “God Is not Great” in which he attacks Judaism as an evil perpetrated on the world in 2009. He embraced the anti-Jewish thinker Israel Shahak and wrote a eulogy for him when he died in 2001. In that year he had also attacked Elie Wiesel as a quack. Yes, he changed he stopped being a Trotskyite but in 2004 he wrote an appreciative essay on Leon Trotsky without mentioning the crimes his committed. This, from someone who had written a whole book on Kissinger as a war criminal. I am sorry that you decided to attack me personally over our disagreement about Christopher Hitchens. In the future I intend to ignore your posts.

- arnon

December 19, 2011 at 9:11am

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

Arnon two things: I'm sorry for offending you. I got a little carried away in my comment. I hope you'll accept my apology. I think you are are a worthwhile person to engage with here. Are we talking about the same book? From Wiki: ...Blaming the Victims: Spurious Scholarship and the Palestinian Question, is a collection of essays, co-edited by Palestinian scholar and advocate Edward Said and journalist and author Christopher Hitchens, published by Verso Books in *1988* (ISBN 0-86091-887-4). It contains essays by Said and Hitchens as well as other prominent advocates and activists including Ibrahim Abu-Lughod, Janet L. Abu-Lughod, Noam Chomsky, Norman G. Finkelstein, Rashid Khalidi...

- basman

December 19, 2011 at 2:00pm

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

"The above proves that Hitchens hated Islamo Fascists (as most of us do) but it doesn't mean that he didn't hate Judaism." This is an odd kind of argument to make. I provided this quote partly to show that you accusation that Hitchens was an antisemite was mistaken. I think it proves that. Or else Hitchens would only insist on those aspects of Hamas that demonstrated their Islamofascism. He went further, much further than that. He emphasized the antisemitic element in their charter. It seems an odd kind of accusation, not loving Judaism.

- noga1

December 19, 2011 at 6:31pm

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

David Frum's obituary is worth mentioning: "A friend of theirs once took Christopher Hitchens and his wife Carol Blue to dinner at Palm Beach’s Everglades Club, notorious for its exclusion of Jews. “You will behave, won’t you?” Carol anxiously asked Christopher on the way into the club. No dice. When the headwaiter approached, Christopher demanded: “Do you have a kosher menu?” Christopher was never a man to back away from a confrontation on behalf of what he considered basic decency. "

- noga1

December 23, 2011 at 3:29pm

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

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close