What do you think?
Rate this book
Letters to a Young Contrarian
From bestselling author and provocateur Christopher Hitchens, the classic guide to the art of principled dissent and disagreement
In Letters to a Young Contrarian, bestselling author and world-class provocateur Christopher Hitchens inspires the radicals, gadflies, mavericks, rebels, and angry young (wo)men of tomorrow. Exploring the entire range of "contrary positions"—from noble dissident to gratuitous nag—Hitchens introduces the next generation to the minds and the misfits who influenced him, invoking such mentors as Emile Zola, Rosa Parks, and George Orwell. As is his trademark, Hitchens pointedly pitches himself in contrast to stagnant attitudes across the ideological spectrum. No other writer has matched Hitchens's understanding of the importance of disagreement—to personal integrity, to informed discussion, to true progress, to democracy itself.
In Letters to a Young Contrarian, bestselling author and world-class provocateur Christopher Hitchens inspires the radicals, gadflies, mavericks, rebels, and angry young (wo)men of tomorrow. Exploring the entire range of "contrary positions"—from noble dissident to gratuitous nag—Hitchens introduces the next generation to the minds and the misfits who influenced him, invoking such mentors as Emile Zola, Rosa Parks, and George Orwell. As is his trademark, Hitchens pointedly pitches himself in contrast to stagnant attitudes across the ideological spectrum. No other writer has matched Hitchens's understanding of the importance of disagreement—to personal integrity, to informed discussion, to true progress, to democracy itself.
141 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2001
About the author
Christopher Hitchens
158 books7,319 followersChristopher Eric Hitchens was an English-born American author, journalist, and literary critic. He was a contributor to Vanity Fair, The Atlantic, World Affairs, The Nation, Slate, Free Inquiry and a variety of other media outlets. Hitchens was also a political observer, whose best-selling books — the most famous being God Is Not Great — made him a staple of talk shows and lecture circuits. He was also a media fellow at the Hoover Institution.
Hitchens was a polemicist and intellectual. While he was once identified with the Anglo-American radical political left, near the end of his life he embraced some arguably right-wing causes, most notably the Iraq War. Formerly a Trotskyist and a fixture in the left wing publications of both the United Kingdom and United States, Hitchens departed from the grassroots of the political left in 1989 after what he called the "tepid reaction" of the European left following Ayatollah Khomeini's issue of a fatwa calling for the murder of Salman Rushdie, but he stated on the Charlie Rose show aired August 2007 that he remained a "Democratic Socialist."
The September 11, 2001 attacks strengthened his embrace of an interventionist foreign policy, and his vociferous criticism of what he called "fascism with an Islamic face." He is known for his ardent admiration of George Orwell, Thomas Paine, and Thomas Jefferson, and for his excoriating critiques of Mother Teresa, Henry Kissinger and Bill Clinton.
Hitchens was an anti-theist, and he described himself as a believer in the Enlightenment values of secularism, humanism, and reason.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christop...
Hitchens was a polemicist and intellectual. While he was once identified with the Anglo-American radical political left, near the end of his life he embraced some arguably right-wing causes, most notably the Iraq War. Formerly a Trotskyist and a fixture in the left wing publications of both the United Kingdom and United States, Hitchens departed from the grassroots of the political left in 1989 after what he called the "tepid reaction" of the European left following Ayatollah Khomeini's issue of a fatwa calling for the murder of Salman Rushdie, but he stated on the Charlie Rose show aired August 2007 that he remained a "Democratic Socialist."
The September 11, 2001 attacks strengthened his embrace of an interventionist foreign policy, and his vociferous criticism of what he called "fascism with an Islamic face." He is known for his ardent admiration of George Orwell, Thomas Paine, and Thomas Jefferson, and for his excoriating critiques of Mother Teresa, Henry Kissinger and Bill Clinton.
Hitchens was an anti-theist, and he described himself as a believer in the Enlightenment values of secularism, humanism, and reason.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christop...
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 826 reviews
May 6, 2024
Have you ever conceived of a lean epistolary work on the pugnacious pursuit of truth and the importance of descaling your cherished ideals as often as possible in an effort to avoid gestating a stilted intellect that ossifies with time like sun baked avian offal? That was very prescient of you, as the late master of melee most mouthful produced one such work, and now reaches out across time to steady you by your tender morsels, and shotgun, past your trembling lips, the hot second hand vapors of wisdom tirelessly sought. Until you’re shouting: “Kiss me hard on the mouth you disagreeable asshole. I wish to learn the pressure points of conventional wisdom, so that I might subdue those who advocate it using only a bottle of absinthe and my thumbs.”
Have you ever thought to yourself that education’s primary concern shouldn’t be ladling the gruel of context divorced particulates into the squiggly cortical topologies of curiosity until it all resembles a coagulated mass of stultifying minutiae and rancid chicken stock, but instead should be committed to equipping students with the tools necessary to innervate these channels with stagnation battering, tidal currents? Producing people who are not easily affronted. People who do not avoid verbal conflict in matters that are serious to them. People who find consensus to be insufficient in matters of policy and what they should value. People who are not easily taken in by the emotional appeals of demagogues, charlatans, and wankers. Who, in short, are capable of thinking for themselves. Then let me tell you, those sentiments are well expressed in this svelte correspondence between Hitchens and the prospective gadfly which seeks his counsel.
This book examines what it means to gird your loins for intellectual battle while wielding the exotic weaponry of unpopular opinions in the service of truth. It invites you to question authority (not at the expense of allowing your kidney stones to go unpulverized) in its many forms: Political affiliations with pre-packaged, highly processed beliefs which masquerade as perfectly coherent and self evident, but sport nutritional information that is incomprehensible when examined. Fundamentalist religious indoctrination which seeks to stigmatize the act of reasoning itself as an unforgivable act of high treason. The media which promulgate falsehoods of extraordinary omission in order to pander to their viewership, obfuscating substantive debate in favor of the comforting atavistic narratives of us versus them, tribe versus tribe, good versus evil. And finally; you: Your self assurance in matters you are deeply ignorant of. The halo of all those unchallenged presuppositions, gaslighting your drunkards walk through the dark spaces between true knowledge and puffed up pretensions to it.
I recommend this book to everyone, without reservation. So lets poor a little Johnny Walker Black in memory of Hitch and go out with a quote that he was fond of.
As Mill said in Chapter II of On Liberty: “The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.”
Have you ever thought to yourself that education’s primary concern shouldn’t be ladling the gruel of context divorced particulates into the squiggly cortical topologies of curiosity until it all resembles a coagulated mass of stultifying minutiae and rancid chicken stock, but instead should be committed to equipping students with the tools necessary to innervate these channels with stagnation battering, tidal currents? Producing people who are not easily affronted. People who do not avoid verbal conflict in matters that are serious to them. People who find consensus to be insufficient in matters of policy and what they should value. People who are not easily taken in by the emotional appeals of demagogues, charlatans, and wankers. Who, in short, are capable of thinking for themselves. Then let me tell you, those sentiments are well expressed in this svelte correspondence between Hitchens and the prospective gadfly which seeks his counsel.
This book examines what it means to gird your loins for intellectual battle while wielding the exotic weaponry of unpopular opinions in the service of truth. It invites you to question authority (not at the expense of allowing your kidney stones to go unpulverized) in its many forms: Political affiliations with pre-packaged, highly processed beliefs which masquerade as perfectly coherent and self evident, but sport nutritional information that is incomprehensible when examined. Fundamentalist religious indoctrination which seeks to stigmatize the act of reasoning itself as an unforgivable act of high treason. The media which promulgate falsehoods of extraordinary omission in order to pander to their viewership, obfuscating substantive debate in favor of the comforting atavistic narratives of us versus them, tribe versus tribe, good versus evil. And finally; you: Your self assurance in matters you are deeply ignorant of. The halo of all those unchallenged presuppositions, gaslighting your drunkards walk through the dark spaces between true knowledge and puffed up pretensions to it.
I recommend this book to everyone, without reservation. So lets poor a little Johnny Walker Black in memory of Hitch and go out with a quote that he was fond of.
As Mill said in Chapter II of On Liberty: “The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.”
October 31, 2016
Christopher Hitchens was my 5-star author hero. Everything he wrote I had to ration how much I read at a time so I could savour his writing, his pronouncements, his humour and his wisdom. This book was but a pale shadow of his others and I couldn't finish it. I may one day pick it up again.
Although Hitchens is often the star of his own books, he is able to put himself to one side to concentrate on the subject. Unfortunately in this one he is not just the star, but the elevated hero, and great as a writer he might have been, as a person he was no less flawed than the rest of us. Perhaps more so, perhaps that is what made him so interesting.
Although Hitchens is often the star of his own books, he is able to put himself to one side to concentrate on the subject. Unfortunately in this one he is not just the star, but the elevated hero, and great as a writer he might have been, as a person he was no less flawed than the rest of us. Perhaps more so, perhaps that is what made him so interesting.
May 24, 2017
Death hath wrought a pernicious dent in the erudite and intellectual world; Hitchens will not be one to be soon forgotten, nor ever replaced (but emulated, definitely). Let me stop you before you roll your eyes. Yes, I am providing my belated, unasked-for, and pedantic tribute to the late Hitch, but this is as appropriate of a forum as any to do so, right? Indeed, I read this magnificent little collection of letters of advice written to no one in particular (but everyone) in modest and solemn remembrance.
I listen to Hitchens’ lectures and debates as if they were my favorite records. Instead of singing along to the Bad Romances and the Mmmbopies, or whatever you kids are listening to nowadays, I am obdurately testifying along:
I imitate these and many other lines in my best terrible British accent with as much seemingly effortless acumen as I can muster for an audience of my two dogs (both of whom are now atheists and contrarians as well). However, this is not strictly an anti-religious polemic like his acerbic, if slightly inferior god is Not Great, but a multifaceted deconstruction of conventional wisdom and reverence. There are fringe views that deserve to be marginalized, and then there are dissenting views which need to be heeded, or at least considered. Nothing Hitchens says can be shrugged off, and if one tries, they will end up looking even dumber than they did when they became recipients of his critical wit in the first place. Happily, the intellectual public mostly embraced this public intellectual, and realized his worth in a miscellany of areas. As much as I love his railings against religion (around which most of his debates are centered), it is too bad that some people think that was the sole domain of his brilliance (or according to his detractors, his calumny/misguidedness). His reflections on literature (specific pieces, or in general), history, travels, and encounters, are absolute treasures. One should envy the experiences of this man; well, most experiences.
Among the things to admire in him is his lack of hypocrisy. One cannot suggest that he ‘dishes it out but can’t take it’. As he states in the preface, “I attack and criticize people myself; I have no right to expect lenience in return.” He prepares for, and anticipates attacks on himself; and throughout his career (and life), he has addressed them head-on. The day of his death, I heard more about his being known for his assailment of Mother Teresa than anything else in his distinguished career from the major cable news networks. Luckily, the likes of Joe Scarborough and Sean Hannity don’t get to determine the legacy of this man; at least not for anyone who knew him, or followed his work.
Format:
Mr. X, the student, (i.e. us), is allowed the privilege of absorbing all the knowledge and nuance that only Hitch could articulate to this effect. How happy I am that these letters were not exclusive to his students (but how sad am I that I was not among them). Several brief correspondences with a hypothetical, representative student, whose responses are assumed, or left out, advise on what it is to be a contrarian. It is not a matter of being the stand-out dissenter, but the nuanced thinker. (At least that’s what I gathered). Don’t accept anything because someone tells you it is so. Take advantage of your faculties and seek the truth out for yourself.
The Advice (In Conjunction With My Own):
Consensus isn’t always trustworthy. Appealing to experts has its values, I feel, and I don’t think Hitchens disagrees with that insofar as dispassionate research reveals the evidence, but in matters of, say, policy, and more pertinent to this third letter, idolatry, the arguments from authority and consensus are not sufficient (nor are they particularly helpful). Disputations are an essential part of crawling toward truth, but let us not get caught up in tautology. It does no good to say either something is true or it is not true. Both of those possibilities are true, and each party in a disagreement can infer as much. Not everything is up for debate, however, as observational evidence cannot be reasonably misconstrued as falsehood, unless we disagree on what observation and evidence are. And around we go.
More to the point at hand is the inauspicious concept of Nirvana; sheer nothingness, or mindless ‘bliss’, which renders discovery and thought useless, or at the very least unnecessary. We shouldn’t, I don’t think, desire suspension, or termination of the intellect, regardless of the ease it may bring us. “And the pleasures and rewards of the intellect are inseparable from the angst, uncertainty, conflict and even despair”. This shouldn’t come off as an anti-existential way of thinking, I don’t think. Moss can be existential in practice. Rocks may very well be experiencing Nirvana. I’ll keep my intellect as long as I am able to (in the service of existential thought, of course). Thinking may cause discomfort, or unease, even unhappiness but that is no excuse to eschew it in favor of becoming a breathing inanimate object.
The evasion of verbal conflict is a silly thing. I thought trying to solve problems with words was a good thing, but now even that makes the tender-hearted cry and plead for peace and compromise. My own bit of advice would be: do not ever agree to disagree. Always state your case if you have one and if you are serious about it. When one engages in combative dialogue (I say combative because vehemence in debate is no vice either) it is important to know exactly whom with one is engaging. Go find a sparring partner. Go on! Play devil’s advocate if you’d like, or just rant and rave with a like-minded cohort.
I’ll wait…
Wasn’t that refreshing? If not, tell me why I am wrong in thinking that argumentation is a common good.
Nuance or Obfuscation?
Some Improvised Examples:
-He burned a Quran, what did he expect? He knew there would be violent reaction and he did it anyway. This implicates him in the subsequent riots and murders. He should be more sensitive and show more respect to the sacredness of people’s beliefs.
-I’m not anti-gay, I’m pro-family.
-Providing abortion services is akin to murder. I sympathize with victims of rape, but we shouldn’t punish an innocent unborn child for the actions of their father (said actions being conception of the child through non-consensual intercourse). We already have one victim (of rape). Let’s not add another victim (of in utero murder).
When such stances are being taken, it may be an apt time to whip out Occam’s Razor and do some slicing-and-dicing in the name of common sense. Force them to say what they really mean, and deflate false gradations with the art of “simple… elementary principles”.
Out of Context and Incorrect Citation:
Like Karl Marx’s famous Religion is the opium of the people statement (often assumed to have appeared in his Communist Manifesto, when it really appears in A Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right), Hitchens’ Antitheism remarks are very poorly understood and unjustly used to discredit him as a credible critic of religion. The word antitheism smacks of a shaking-ones-fist-at-the-sky quality and Hitchens’ detractors are quick to point this out. The problem is that, much different than rebellion for its own sake, Hitchens backs it all up with historical (and anecdotal) proof. Seek out and criticize each example on its own terms, sure, but don’t bring up the old dross of ‘he is just angry at God…’ Admittedly, you’d think a statement like ‘I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches , and the effect of religious belief, is positively harmful’ to be contained in a more histrionically titled book, like ‘god is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything’, but, like those who would talk about Marx’s opium quote as if it were some kind of Communist slogan, we can confront those who talk about Hitchens’ antitheist quote as if it were a way to ride on the coattails of other recent popular critics of religion, because it was written years before, and his later book on the subject was an extrapolation of this point (in that respect, I must say, it is not much like Marx’s quote).
Self-criticism:
I am told that my neutral face is a pissed-off face. I often appear uninterested (often enough, I am), in what other people are saying to me, or I am insufferable and condescending. So, like Hitchens, whose face apparently forms an unintended sneer, I don’t fit the old description of a gentleman: one who is never rude except on purpose. So be it. But when I am talking, especially to someone who may very well know more than me about any given subject, I go over each sentence that may escape my lips, in my head (this also depends on my blood-alcohol level). I have been proven wrong before, and I have changed my mind about things of which I have not been proven wrong. There is no shame in this, and nobody needs me to reassure them of that. What is shameful though, is holding a minority viewpoint and conceding to your detractors on that basis. In this area, I am not as confident as the man who wrote “Have I ever thought I might be wrong? Yes, sometimes and briefly”, but I hope I am wrong in thinking I will never be.
Anticipated, if Unlikely, Outside Criticism:
“This isn’t a review. You quote Hitchens too much. If I wanted to read Hitchens quotes, I’d buy a book of Hitchens’ quotes”, to which I respond, as Hitchens says, “You… noticed that I make liberal use of extracts and quotations, not just to show off my reading but also to enlighten my text and make use of those who can express my thoughts better than I am able to.”
Bonus For Those Who Have Made it This Far:
Let this be a voice in the back of your head whenever you, or someone else, describes someone, (or himself) first and foremost in terms of ‘racial identity’, or when ‘identity politics’ is brought up.
I Now Leave You With This:
I am not sure if I would ever wholly embrace any ‘words to live by’, but if I did, the words above wouldn’t be a poor choice. I am saddened only in that there can be no more contributions to the world from the pen of the man who wrote them. Methinks it is time to pour myself some Johnnie Walker Black (neat) in his dignified honor (not to be construed as worship).
Cheers Hitch.
I listen to Hitchens’ lectures and debates as if they were my favorite records. Instead of singing along to the Bad Romances and the Mmmbopies, or whatever you kids are listening to nowadays, I am obdurately testifying along:
“…what matters most… the pursuit of liberty, freedom. And that these things are incompatible, completely incompatible, with the worship of an unalterable celestial dictator; someone who can watch you while you sleep and convict you of thought crime, and whose rule cannot be challenged.”
“It’s not moral to lie to children. It’s not moral to lie to ignorant, uneducated people and tell them that if they only believe nonsense, they can be saved.”
“Bear in mind that you are only dust, as the Christian book says, or you are only fashioned from a clot of blood, as the Quran says; bear in mind that you were convicted and found guilty, before you were conceived, of crimes in which you couldn’t possibly have been involved, and you have all the burden of proof in your own defense, and you’ve been found guilty. But… to make up for that rather horrible indictment, you can be reassured that the entire cosmos is designed with you in mind. False consolation. And that he has a plan for you, on the condition that you agree to be a serf. Forever.“
I imitate these and many other lines in my best terrible British accent with as much seemingly effortless acumen as I can muster for an audience of my two dogs (both of whom are now atheists and contrarians as well). However, this is not strictly an anti-religious polemic like his acerbic, if slightly inferior god is Not Great, but a multifaceted deconstruction of conventional wisdom and reverence. There are fringe views that deserve to be marginalized, and then there are dissenting views which need to be heeded, or at least considered. Nothing Hitchens says can be shrugged off, and if one tries, they will end up looking even dumber than they did when they became recipients of his critical wit in the first place. Happily, the intellectual public mostly embraced this public intellectual, and realized his worth in a miscellany of areas. As much as I love his railings against religion (around which most of his debates are centered), it is too bad that some people think that was the sole domain of his brilliance (or according to his detractors, his calumny/misguidedness). His reflections on literature (specific pieces, or in general), history, travels, and encounters, are absolute treasures. One should envy the experiences of this man; well, most experiences.
Among the things to admire in him is his lack of hypocrisy. One cannot suggest that he ‘dishes it out but can’t take it’. As he states in the preface, “I attack and criticize people myself; I have no right to expect lenience in return.” He prepares for, and anticipates attacks on himself; and throughout his career (and life), he has addressed them head-on. The day of his death, I heard more about his being known for his assailment of Mother Teresa than anything else in his distinguished career from the major cable news networks. Luckily, the likes of Joe Scarborough and Sean Hannity don’t get to determine the legacy of this man; at least not for anyone who knew him, or followed his work.
Format:
Mr. X, the student, (i.e. us), is allowed the privilege of absorbing all the knowledge and nuance that only Hitch could articulate to this effect. How happy I am that these letters were not exclusive to his students (but how sad am I that I was not among them). Several brief correspondences with a hypothetical, representative student, whose responses are assumed, or left out, advise on what it is to be a contrarian. It is not a matter of being the stand-out dissenter, but the nuanced thinker. (At least that’s what I gathered). Don’t accept anything because someone tells you it is so. Take advantage of your faculties and seek the truth out for yourself.
The Advice (In Conjunction With My Own):
Consensus isn’t always trustworthy. Appealing to experts has its values, I feel, and I don’t think Hitchens disagrees with that insofar as dispassionate research reveals the evidence, but in matters of, say, policy, and more pertinent to this third letter, idolatry, the arguments from authority and consensus are not sufficient (nor are they particularly helpful). Disputations are an essential part of crawling toward truth, but let us not get caught up in tautology. It does no good to say either something is true or it is not true. Both of those possibilities are true, and each party in a disagreement can infer as much. Not everything is up for debate, however, as observational evidence cannot be reasonably misconstrued as falsehood, unless we disagree on what observation and evidence are. And around we go.
More to the point at hand is the inauspicious concept of Nirvana; sheer nothingness, or mindless ‘bliss’, which renders discovery and thought useless, or at the very least unnecessary. We shouldn’t, I don’t think, desire suspension, or termination of the intellect, regardless of the ease it may bring us. “And the pleasures and rewards of the intellect are inseparable from the angst, uncertainty, conflict and even despair”. This shouldn’t come off as an anti-existential way of thinking, I don’t think. Moss can be existential in practice. Rocks may very well be experiencing Nirvana. I’ll keep my intellect as long as I am able to (in the service of existential thought, of course). Thinking may cause discomfort, or unease, even unhappiness but that is no excuse to eschew it in favor of becoming a breathing inanimate object.
The evasion of verbal conflict is a silly thing. I thought trying to solve problems with words was a good thing, but now even that makes the tender-hearted cry and plead for peace and compromise. My own bit of advice would be: do not ever agree to disagree. Always state your case if you have one and if you are serious about it. When one engages in combative dialogue (I say combative because vehemence in debate is no vice either) it is important to know exactly whom with one is engaging. Go find a sparring partner. Go on! Play devil’s advocate if you’d like, or just rant and rave with a like-minded cohort.
I’ll wait…
Wasn’t that refreshing? If not, tell me why I am wrong in thinking that argumentation is a common good.
Nuance or Obfuscation?
Some Improvised Examples:
-He burned a Quran, what did he expect? He knew there would be violent reaction and he did it anyway. This implicates him in the subsequent riots and murders. He should be more sensitive and show more respect to the sacredness of people’s beliefs.
-I’m not anti-gay, I’m pro-family.
-Providing abortion services is akin to murder. I sympathize with victims of rape, but we shouldn’t punish an innocent unborn child for the actions of their father (said actions being conception of the child through non-consensual intercourse). We already have one victim (of rape). Let’s not add another victim (of in utero murder).
When such stances are being taken, it may be an apt time to whip out Occam’s Razor and do some slicing-and-dicing in the name of common sense. Force them to say what they really mean, and deflate false gradations with the art of “simple… elementary principles”.
Out of Context and Incorrect Citation:
Like Karl Marx’s famous Religion is the opium of the people statement (often assumed to have appeared in his Communist Manifesto, when it really appears in A Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right), Hitchens’ Antitheism remarks are very poorly understood and unjustly used to discredit him as a credible critic of religion. The word antitheism smacks of a shaking-ones-fist-at-the-sky quality and Hitchens’ detractors are quick to point this out. The problem is that, much different than rebellion for its own sake, Hitchens backs it all up with historical (and anecdotal) proof. Seek out and criticize each example on its own terms, sure, but don’t bring up the old dross of ‘he is just angry at God…’ Admittedly, you’d think a statement like ‘I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches , and the effect of religious belief, is positively harmful’ to be contained in a more histrionically titled book, like ‘god is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything’, but, like those who would talk about Marx’s opium quote as if it were some kind of Communist slogan, we can confront those who talk about Hitchens’ antitheist quote as if it were a way to ride on the coattails of other recent popular critics of religion, because it was written years before, and his later book on the subject was an extrapolation of this point (in that respect, I must say, it is not much like Marx’s quote).
Self-criticism:
I am told that my neutral face is a pissed-off face. I often appear uninterested (often enough, I am), in what other people are saying to me, or I am insufferable and condescending. So, like Hitchens, whose face apparently forms an unintended sneer, I don’t fit the old description of a gentleman: one who is never rude except on purpose. So be it. But when I am talking, especially to someone who may very well know more than me about any given subject, I go over each sentence that may escape my lips, in my head (this also depends on my blood-alcohol level). I have been proven wrong before, and I have changed my mind about things of which I have not been proven wrong. There is no shame in this, and nobody needs me to reassure them of that. What is shameful though, is holding a minority viewpoint and conceding to your detractors on that basis. In this area, I am not as confident as the man who wrote “Have I ever thought I might be wrong? Yes, sometimes and briefly”, but I hope I am wrong in thinking I will never be.
Anticipated, if Unlikely, Outside Criticism:
“This isn’t a review. You quote Hitchens too much. If I wanted to read Hitchens quotes, I’d buy a book of Hitchens’ quotes”, to which I respond, as Hitchens says, “You… noticed that I make liberal use of extracts and quotations, not just to show off my reading but also to enlighten my text and make use of those who can express my thoughts better than I am able to.”
Bonus For Those Who Have Made it This Far:
“The ability to discriminate is a precious faculty; by judging all members of one ‘race’ to be the same, the racist precisely shows himself incapable of discrimination.”
Let this be a voice in the back of your head whenever you, or someone else, describes someone, (or himself) first and foremost in terms of ‘racial identity’, or when ‘identity politics’ is brought up.
I Now Leave You With This:
“Beware the irrational, however seductive. Shun the ‘transcendent’ and all who invite you to subordinate or annihilate yourself. Distrust compassion; prefer dignity for yourself and others. Don’t be afraid to be thought arrogant or selfish. Picture all experts as if they were mammals. Never be a spectator of unfairness or stupidity. Seek out argument and disputation for their own sake; the grave will supply plenty of time for silence. Suspect your own motives, and all excuses. Do not live for others any more than you would expect them to live for you.”
I am not sure if I would ever wholly embrace any ‘words to live by’, but if I did, the words above wouldn’t be a poor choice. I am saddened only in that there can be no more contributions to the world from the pen of the man who wrote them. Methinks it is time to pour myself some Johnnie Walker Black (neat) in his dignified honor (not to be construed as worship).
Cheers Hitch.
July 10, 2013
It is curious to see how Hitchens ended up being with Harris, Dawkins and Dennett in one camp, at least in the public imagination. I think it is crucial to flesh out the difference between the other three figures on one hand and Hitchens on the other. While the three champion (though it is arguable how much they adhere to) empiricism, rationality and the spirit of science in general, Hitchens is in a different camp. He makes bold claims which are based on personal experience, opinion, speculations and sometimes even hearsay. These could be easily called unfounded by anyone who truly understands how science works (let alone claim that it is the only solution to all our troubles) and Hitchens doesn't seem to have anything to say let alone care to reply. He knows it very well himself though I'm not sure most of those who lump him with Dawkins or Harris do.
The reason I enjoy reading Hitchens is not that he demonstrates rationally or empirically how the good life must be lived or what values are justifiable. His is a more passionate and somewhat "biased" reply to every man-made despicable woe in life. This feels more vivid and most importantly more honest, to me.
This is my third read of this book and I really won't be exaggerating when I say that I look forward to many future readings. There's just too much to be taken away from this little gem of a book.
The reason I enjoy reading Hitchens is not that he demonstrates rationally or empirically how the good life must be lived or what values are justifiable. His is a more passionate and somewhat "biased" reply to every man-made despicable woe in life. This feels more vivid and most importantly more honest, to me.
This is my third read of this book and I really won't be exaggerating when I say that I look forward to many future readings. There's just too much to be taken away from this little gem of a book.
March 1, 2017
The book I've probably read more times than any other. I consistently go back to it when in times of crisis or when I need a mental recharging.
The thing I love about Hitchens is the fact that no matter what you think about him, he has lived a full life. There's no stone unturned intellectually, verbally, hell- geographically. He truly has read and seen and pretty much done it all.
Nobody's going to agree with him 100%- I don't, and I'm one of his biggest fans- but what you take away from his work and this book in particular is a challenge. As well as countless insights. Flip to any random page and you'll find:
* something which you either haven't thought about in very much detail before, and suddenly feel compelled to investigate
* something that you vehemently disagree with and are forced to re defend with an able and powerfully eloquent opponent (which of course is great in its own respect)
* something you have always thought but alas haven't heard articulated as well as this.
There's probably a lot more to this list, but that's enough to be going on with.
He can be pretentious (stop quoting shit in random languages I don't speak!) or off the mark (i.e. his position on the Iraq war- which he doesn't get to at all in this book) or just plain windbaggy. However, I promise you that if you take him at his word, at eye level, and come at it honestly, your thinking is going to be much richer for it.
In short, here's a guy who has seen more than you or your most well traveled friend ever will and has everything to say about it. Tell me that's not something worth looking into. Style, wit, learning, and worldliness. The mark of a great writer, even if only a writer, at that.
December 17, 2022
Herein, Hitchens composes a series of 'letters' to those of us who would seek his advice and counsel. Inspired by his students in New York, and by hundreds of others on campuses where he spoke and lectured, Letters to a Young Contrarian reads like a commencement address to a graduating class at Berkley or NYU. This could have easily been titled So You Want To Be A Dissident? or Roadmap To Radical, or maybe The Hitch-Liker's Guide To The Galaxy.
Like every Hitchens book I've ever read (this is my fifth), it is loaded with little pearls of worldly wisdom. Here are but a few of my favorites:
• "...the forces of piety have always and everywhere been the sworn enemy of the open mind and the open book."
• "...consider for a moment what their heaven looks like. Endless praise and adoration, limitless abnegation and abjection of self; a celestial North Korea."
• "Many are the works of genius now in public libraries that would have been incinerated if a roll of opinion had been called."
• "Be even more suspicious than I was just telling you to be, of all those who employ the term "we" or "us" without your permission... Always ask who this "we" is; as often as not it's an attempt to smuggle tribalism through customs."
• "I want to urge you very strongly to travel as much as you can, and to evolve yourself as an internationalist. It's as important a part of your education as a radical as the reading of any book."
• "It especially annoys me when racists are accused of "discrimination." The ability to discriminate is a precious facility; by judging all members of one "race" to be the same, the racist precisely shows himself incapable of discrimination."
• "...every time a Bastille falls one is always pleasantly surprised by how many sane and decent people were there all along."
• "Radicalism is humanism or it is nothing"
• "The literal mind is baffled by the ironic one, demanding explanations that only intensify the joke."
And my favorite bit:
"Never be a spectator of unfairness or stupidity. Seek out argument and disputation for their own sake; the grave will supply plenty of time for silence."
Sage advice.
Like every Hitchens book I've ever read (this is my fifth), it is loaded with little pearls of worldly wisdom. Here are but a few of my favorites:
• "...the forces of piety have always and everywhere been the sworn enemy of the open mind and the open book."
• "...consider for a moment what their heaven looks like. Endless praise and adoration, limitless abnegation and abjection of self; a celestial North Korea."
• "Many are the works of genius now in public libraries that would have been incinerated if a roll of opinion had been called."
• "Be even more suspicious than I was just telling you to be, of all those who employ the term "we" or "us" without your permission... Always ask who this "we" is; as often as not it's an attempt to smuggle tribalism through customs."
• "I want to urge you very strongly to travel as much as you can, and to evolve yourself as an internationalist. It's as important a part of your education as a radical as the reading of any book."
• "It especially annoys me when racists are accused of "discrimination." The ability to discriminate is a precious facility; by judging all members of one "race" to be the same, the racist precisely shows himself incapable of discrimination."
• "...every time a Bastille falls one is always pleasantly surprised by how many sane and decent people were there all along."
• "Radicalism is humanism or it is nothing"
• "The literal mind is baffled by the ironic one, demanding explanations that only intensify the joke."
And my favorite bit:
"Never be a spectator of unfairness or stupidity. Seek out argument and disputation for their own sake; the grave will supply plenty of time for silence."
Sage advice.
February 6, 2023
This marks my mostly-successful re-entry into the Hitch's orbit. Never a mooning Fanboi, I acknowledged a certain erratic genius in his collection of essays Unacknowledged Legislation: Writers in the Public Sphere, thought that Why Orwell Matters certainly mattered, but found God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything to be very much not great, to be quite callow, shallow and silly, really, undergraduate-type stuff, in fact--Richard Dawkins dressed up in an Eton collar shirt. When Terry Eagleton justly eviscerated Dawkins's own book in the LRB, noting that the author only ever really deals with the most obvious failings of religion, neglecting much more fruitful avenues of attack, while completely ignoring its legitimate philosophical tradition and complexities, their two books were as one in my mind, and quickly remaindered (rightly or wrongly, for I saw pair joined at the hip).
And when Hitch joined the neocons to support the invasion of Iraq (even if only out of a commendable, personal allegiance to and solidarity with the Kurds in the northern part of that country, bordering Turkey—personal loyalty and championing of the oppressed, no matter the or or repercussions upon himself being one of the Hitch's key virtues), I thought I was, well, pretty much done.
Then Martin Amis's hybrid novel-memoir Inside Story comes out in 2020, and in its pages the last days of his best friend, our author, are harrowingly recounted. I made a mental note to give the Hitch a third or fourth chance, knowing how often I get things wrong, or make snap judgements which reduce complexities and ignore subtleties--along the lines of, um, God Is Not Great, actually.
So I decided to try him again with the slimmest book possible, and though the series itself is one of those lower-third of the middle-est-brow possible, I kinda sorta mostly loved it. It was just really good to feel his cadences within me again, and feel his deep allegiance with the Preterite and his eloquent rage against all that is most unjust in this world resonate in what's left of my apostate conscience. Indeed, he's particularly good (if, of course brief) at championing those caught in the teeth of a political vicegrip, those inhabitants of partition, in Belfast, Cyprus, Palestine, Kashmir, or cold war Berlin, say.
As a journalist he did see the world, often caught up deep in its conflicts (Kurdistan, Bosnia), but his conclusion about the benefits of such travel are paradoxical:
Finally, it is above all important not to believe your own bullshit, to subject your own critiques to critiques, your doubts to doubts, your heroes to scrutiny, and your allegiances to the truth test, your own position power (if any) to determined humility:
But I'm back in Saturnine dude's asteroid belt, the not-always-yes-man of a gravity-fed, dissent-spouting, impossibly well-read Oxbridge wit. I'm a reluctant fan, a mad, sad, tender comrade, a special pleader's mostly glad reader. A satellite
And when Hitch joined the neocons to support the invasion of Iraq (even if only out of a commendable, personal allegiance to and solidarity with the Kurds in the northern part of that country, bordering Turkey—personal loyalty and championing of the oppressed, no matter the or or repercussions upon himself being one of the Hitch's key virtues), I thought I was, well, pretty much done.
Then Martin Amis's hybrid novel-memoir Inside Story comes out in 2020, and in its pages the last days of his best friend, our author, are harrowingly recounted. I made a mental note to give the Hitch a third or fourth chance, knowing how often I get things wrong, or make snap judgements which reduce complexities and ignore subtleties--along the lines of, um, God Is Not Great, actually.
So I decided to try him again with the slimmest book possible, and though the series itself is one of those lower-third of the middle-est-brow possible, I kinda sorta mostly loved it. It was just really good to feel his cadences within me again, and feel his deep allegiance with the Preterite and his eloquent rage against all that is most unjust in this world resonate in what's left of my apostate conscience. Indeed, he's particularly good (if, of course brief) at championing those caught in the teeth of a political vicegrip, those inhabitants of partition, in Belfast, Cyprus, Palestine, Kashmir, or cold war Berlin, say.
As a journalist he did see the world, often caught up deep in its conflicts (Kurdistan, Bosnia), but his conclusion about the benefits of such travel are paradoxical:
Indeed, contradiction is the god which most haunts these pages. Therefore it is fitting that he celebrates those activists and thinkers who have proven most inspiring adept at living with, or through contradictions (of capitalism, of the gaps between the State's professed political ideals and lived reality, between what's currently popularly acceptable and the dictates of conscience), e.g. those fellow-travellers on the left who nevertheless subjected leftism to critique or even opposition:
In one way, travelling has narrowed my mind. What I have discovered is something very ordinary and unexciting, which is that humans are the same everywhere and that the degree of variation between members of our species is very slight. This is of course an encouraging finding; it helps arm you against news programs back home that show seething or abject masses of either fanatical or torpid people. In another way it is a depressing finding; the sorts of things that make people quarrel and make them stupid are the same everywhere.
there’s a whole hidden list of distinguished names, from Andreu Nin to Victor Serge to C.L.R. James, representing a lost generation of people whose dissent and resistance was largely conducted within, and even against, the “Left” as it was generally understood. (They don’t teach you this in school, either, but the best writing of George Orwell and of Leon Trotsky is only intelligible as a part of this occluded tradition.) And these same people, who would not surrender the principles that attracted them to the struggle in the first place, were obliterated and defamed as mere posturing “individuals” who furthermore dared to oppose themselves to “history.” Never mind “history” for now: to the extent that it is a subjective force at all it has dealt very unkindly with their persecutors and executioners.Most of all, the Hitch reminds us here of the contradictory need for two habits of mind: irony/wit/laughter (contra the humourless ideologues who attempt to impose a Cyclopean monoculture upon us), and the willingness to do the unrewarded, at times plodding, even potentially monomaniacal work of "being boring," of championing a just cause even when it's apparently lost, for decades or a lifetime if need be.
Finally, it is above all important not to believe your own bullshit, to subject your own critiques to critiques, your doubts to doubts, your heroes to scrutiny, and your allegiances to the truth test, your own position power (if any) to determined humility:
… in order to be a “radical” one must be open to the possibility that one’s own core assumptions are misconceived…Yes, I'll be reading more Hitch going forward,
I know quite well that I can appear insufferable and annoying. Worse than that, I know that I can appear insufferable and annoying without intending to do so. (An old definition of a gentleman: someone who is never rude except on purpose…
The high ambition, therefore, seems to me to be this: That one should strive to combine the maximum of impatience with the maximum of skepticism, the maximum of hatred of injustice and irrationality with the maximum of ironic self-criticism. This would mean really deciding to learn from history rather than invoking or sloganising it.>
as 'twere with a defeated joy,/With an auspicious, and a dropping eye,/[…]/In equal scale weighing delight and doleYes, Hamlet's great hypocrite, Claudius spoke those words before me. It's one of the things the Hitch never, ever, ever was, and I will join with Martin Amis in celebrating him for his tenacity, his honesty, his willingness to sacrifice everything for his friends. In this book, the Hitch shines "like a work of art" (not quite)...
But I'm back in Saturnine dude's asteroid belt, the not-always-yes-man of a gravity-fed, dissent-spouting, impossibly well-read Oxbridge wit. I'm a reluctant fan, a mad, sad, tender comrade, a special pleader's mostly glad reader. A satellite
August 20, 2014
Through the years reading Christopher Hitchens has been hit or miss for me. Mortality was amazing, but many other works basically unaccessible to me perhaps because they are all too cerebral and the subjects fail to interest me. I remember Hitchens on a Bill Maher show on HBO where he was a guest and argued with the audience for almost the entire program. I did not appreciate that behavior then, but do so now after reading this book. I cannot more highly recommend this book to any person who wants to think for themselves and stand apart from the crowd. Hitchens was courageous in both life and death. He is sorely missed.
October 14, 2008
I loved reading this book. There's probably no political commentary I enjoy reading (or watching, for that matter) more than that of Christopher Hitchens. No one is quite as good at being condescending and disagreeable and intelligent and hilarious all at once. His talent for making people look stupid is enviable.
June 8, 2016
Every once in awhile one's brain gets a kick-start and sometimes the resulting vibration opens a stubbornly closed door. Revelations ensue.
It happened many years ago when I was a college freshman, under the tutelage of philosophy 101 professor, Gary Boelkins, at Marquette University in Milwaukee, as I began to grasp the concepts of Plato. One minute I was baffled, the next minute a light bulb (or fire, so as not to be anachronistic) went on and the cave was illuminated.
Hitchens prompts this same thing in this wide-ranging, impeccably argued series of pseudo-epistolary treatises about what it means to be an independent thinker. He reopens doors whose locks had gone rusty in my mind.
Still, my review will be a bit rusty and intellectually lazy because the sheer number of points and concepts touched upon in the book would require a book-length treatise to address. By the time I wrote about the book you could have read it yourself. It's very short.
Liberals and conservatives have variously laid claim to Christopher Hitchens, but neither can. Hitchens was his own man.
This slim but lively book of ideas by this resistant-to-pigeonholing intellectual contemplates what it means to hold unpopular opinions and take unpopular stances and to argue with informed intelligence while living with the consequences of one's positions/beliefs. Hitchens examines the fine points of questioning all authority, whether it be statist, political party, religious, the media, and the masses; no dogma goes unchallenged. He mines a vast archive of historical and intellectual precedent in making his case and molding it all into original observations of his own.
Hitchens takes the epistolary model of Rainer Maria Rilke's classic Letters to a Young Poet in structuring this, and Hitchens' fictional correspondent is asking the question of him, and after a slightly awkward preface of false modesty the author is off to the races, exploring the ramifications of what it means to be a dissident thorn in the side of the powers-that-be as well as to the easily affronted masses.
It might easily be titled Hitchens' Little Book of Big Ideas and to do it justice might require, at minimum, keeping it on your nightstand for a brush-up before bed.
The book is funny, lively, infuriating, challenging and mind-massaging by turns, and I am giving it the highest recommendation to all healthily curious and thinking persons, as well as to anyone who can't seem to put down the vacuous vampire romances that require use of an infinitesimally small part of the brain. One of my reading friends here on Goodreads has a book shelf that she has labeled "top-notch insight." If I had a shelf named that, this book would be on it.
(KevinR@Ky, re-posted with slight fixes in 2016)
It happened many years ago when I was a college freshman, under the tutelage of philosophy 101 professor, Gary Boelkins, at Marquette University in Milwaukee, as I began to grasp the concepts of Plato. One minute I was baffled, the next minute a light bulb (or fire, so as not to be anachronistic) went on and the cave was illuminated.
Hitchens prompts this same thing in this wide-ranging, impeccably argued series of pseudo-epistolary treatises about what it means to be an independent thinker. He reopens doors whose locks had gone rusty in my mind.
Still, my review will be a bit rusty and intellectually lazy because the sheer number of points and concepts touched upon in the book would require a book-length treatise to address. By the time I wrote about the book you could have read it yourself. It's very short.
Liberals and conservatives have variously laid claim to Christopher Hitchens, but neither can. Hitchens was his own man.
This slim but lively book of ideas by this resistant-to-pigeonholing intellectual contemplates what it means to hold unpopular opinions and take unpopular stances and to argue with informed intelligence while living with the consequences of one's positions/beliefs. Hitchens examines the fine points of questioning all authority, whether it be statist, political party, religious, the media, and the masses; no dogma goes unchallenged. He mines a vast archive of historical and intellectual precedent in making his case and molding it all into original observations of his own.
Hitchens takes the epistolary model of Rainer Maria Rilke's classic Letters to a Young Poet in structuring this, and Hitchens' fictional correspondent is asking the question of him, and after a slightly awkward preface of false modesty the author is off to the races, exploring the ramifications of what it means to be a dissident thorn in the side of the powers-that-be as well as to the easily affronted masses.
It might easily be titled Hitchens' Little Book of Big Ideas and to do it justice might require, at minimum, keeping it on your nightstand for a brush-up before bed.
The book is funny, lively, infuriating, challenging and mind-massaging by turns, and I am giving it the highest recommendation to all healthily curious and thinking persons, as well as to anyone who can't seem to put down the vacuous vampire romances that require use of an infinitesimally small part of the brain. One of my reading friends here on Goodreads has a book shelf that she has labeled "top-notch insight." If I had a shelf named that, this book would be on it.
(KevinR@Ky, re-posted with slight fixes in 2016)
August 9, 2009
There are two basic ways to approach this book. First, there's reading it as an inspirational tract on living a life of contrariness and dissent and all the baggage that comes with such a life. Secondly, one could read this as a treatise on several of Christopher Hitchens' favorite topics, ranging from misspent socialist youth to his journalism days to the preview of coming anti-religious attractions phase.
In both cases, the book fails. To the first option, I'm not sure anyone will walk away from this book with an inspired feeling. Hitchens certainly makes a plethora of valid and insightful points about the type of person he is (and the type of person we could do with a lot more of). But lost between the vague, self-serving references and the almost indiscernible pieces of advice, one is more or less forced to conclude that being a contrarian is either innate or it isn't. Question everything, don't let fear set up blockades, be informed––all these pieces of essentially valid advice are hedged by mountains of irrelevant and often times cloudy discussions of foreign affairs and quasi-history/philosophy. Put simply, finding the point in many chapter-letters is like finding a piece of glitter on the beach.
Regarding the second approach, here is where the one weakness of Hitchens' writing starts to glare through. I don't know if it's pure snobbery or a simple disregard for his audience, but Hitchens seems to very much enjoy talking over people. This can be as simple a thing as mentioning a name (or a list of them) nobody has heard of without an appropriate explanation, or an entire political upheaval which he was privy to but about which the rest of us are completely clueless. (Let's remember that a 'young contrarian' in 2001––the book's publication date––probably would have no idea about the Bosnian war in the early 90s). The true mark of an educated man isn't in what he knows, but how well he's able to share it. Sometimes this book lets off the impression that Hitchens is more concerned with appearing brilliant than informing his audience. A shame, because with a skeptic like me such an approach appears neither informing or brilliant.
The two star rating is then perfect here. "It was okay." And while this was by no means a chore to read, there were instances where I wished Hitchens would drop his academic facade and simply explain what the hell he was talking about. The surface treatment of nearly everything can give the impression of hidden depth to the unwary, but the ultimate impression left by this book is one of shallowness. Fans of his work may be riveted, but for newcomers I'd try one of his more focussed books.
In both cases, the book fails. To the first option, I'm not sure anyone will walk away from this book with an inspired feeling. Hitchens certainly makes a plethora of valid and insightful points about the type of person he is (and the type of person we could do with a lot more of). But lost between the vague, self-serving references and the almost indiscernible pieces of advice, one is more or less forced to conclude that being a contrarian is either innate or it isn't. Question everything, don't let fear set up blockades, be informed––all these pieces of essentially valid advice are hedged by mountains of irrelevant and often times cloudy discussions of foreign affairs and quasi-history/philosophy. Put simply, finding the point in many chapter-letters is like finding a piece of glitter on the beach.
Regarding the second approach, here is where the one weakness of Hitchens' writing starts to glare through. I don't know if it's pure snobbery or a simple disregard for his audience, but Hitchens seems to very much enjoy talking over people. This can be as simple a thing as mentioning a name (or a list of them) nobody has heard of without an appropriate explanation, or an entire political upheaval which he was privy to but about which the rest of us are completely clueless. (Let's remember that a 'young contrarian' in 2001––the book's publication date––probably would have no idea about the Bosnian war in the early 90s). The true mark of an educated man isn't in what he knows, but how well he's able to share it. Sometimes this book lets off the impression that Hitchens is more concerned with appearing brilliant than informing his audience. A shame, because with a skeptic like me such an approach appears neither informing or brilliant.
The two star rating is then perfect here. "It was okay." And while this was by no means a chore to read, there were instances where I wished Hitchens would drop his academic facade and simply explain what the hell he was talking about. The surface treatment of nearly everything can give the impression of hidden depth to the unwary, but the ultimate impression left by this book is one of shallowness. Fans of his work may be riveted, but for newcomers I'd try one of his more focussed books.
August 29, 2014
I could extract a handful of great quotations but generally found its subtlety muddled and the italicized foreign phrases snotty and maybe he used "tautology" too often for me to really get all psyched? How many times can "extirpate" be used too? A proper contrarian wouldn't unconditionally applaud his exhortations. A little disappointed, really -- thought it'd be more fun. He's not a fan of Clinton or God or idiots or neutrality. Got it. Overall, I found his style stilted and stodgy, his referencing of Orwell and Adorno and the like unexciting and expected, and his name-dropping of dear friends (Rushdie, Amis, McEwan) insecure. I liked his post-genome universe thoughts, laughed aloud about his insistence at the Senate that his people had little to do with the Caucasus and therefore he wasn't Caucasian, but would have liked him to apply neuroscientific discoveries to the very human theistic instinct and religion in general, the way he brings genomics to his opinions on race. I didn't much love his religion-related ideas, in general -- found them overly concerned with control, too quick to dismiss what's been called the holy spirit (I doubt Hitchens played much music). Loved the phrase "the apotheosis of the ostrich." Loved the little rant about rhetoric claiming to speak for "we" or "our." Nodded at what he said about identity politics. Noted how he worked into a sentence the Shakespearean sonnet I memorized in Poetry 101 ("trouble deaf heavens with my bootless cries"). Talk of Balkan atrocities in the 1990s wasn't exactly riveting for me -- and he's aware of a tendency to bore and addresses it, as he does all his potential faults, but still. Was very surprised how young he looked -- expected someone much older. Worth a quick read for quotation extraction -- maybe I'll add some this weekend -- but I doubt I'll be reading much more of him.
January 15, 2020
"...there is something idiotic about those who believe that consensus (to give the hydra-headed beast just one of its names) is the highest good."
For a great many people, this may not be the book they were expected. It certainly was not for me. The epistolary style is wonderful as it inspires and links to the reader's own desire for individual thought. Hitchens creates an environment in which all might free themselves from whatever chains that have held them back from coming to their own conclusions after careful examination of the evidence.
This book not only inspires the radical in a general sense, but Hitchens also delves into the issues which he himself had a lot of experience in being that "radical" voice. Topics such as religion, communism, racism, identity politics, and politicians from both ends of the spectrum are all covered from his own perspective. These case studies, as I interpreted them to being, provide valuable evidence for the need of people who might turn from the popular "consensus" in an effort to discern the truth, or at least uncover the untruth they deem to be polluting a particular narrative. But, Hitchens also warns that "in order to be a "radical" one must be open to the possibility that one's own core assumptions are misconceived."
Anyone who wishes to be or believes themselves to be a "freethinker" needs only to read this book in order to understand that there is a lot more to dissent than disagreement.
For a great many people, this may not be the book they were expected. It certainly was not for me. The epistolary style is wonderful as it inspires and links to the reader's own desire for individual thought. Hitchens creates an environment in which all might free themselves from whatever chains that have held them back from coming to their own conclusions after careful examination of the evidence.
This book not only inspires the radical in a general sense, but Hitchens also delves into the issues which he himself had a lot of experience in being that "radical" voice. Topics such as religion, communism, racism, identity politics, and politicians from both ends of the spectrum are all covered from his own perspective. These case studies, as I interpreted them to being, provide valuable evidence for the need of people who might turn from the popular "consensus" in an effort to discern the truth, or at least uncover the untruth they deem to be polluting a particular narrative. But, Hitchens also warns that "in order to be a "radical" one must be open to the possibility that one's own core assumptions are misconceived."
Anyone who wishes to be or believes themselves to be a "freethinker" needs only to read this book in order to understand that there is a lot more to dissent than disagreement.
February 4, 2021
I loved Hitch before Iraq 2. I'm coming back around to him, but I just pretend he has no opinion on the occupation.
April 9, 2017
I miss Christopher Hitchens. Never has the world needed him more, and never has his absence been so palpable. This book provides a sliver of light into the massive mind of Mr. Hitchens and reminds us all that "contrarian" is a label reserved for those who dare to think.
October 6, 2015
Hitchens makes some great points, however his flowery wording made it hard to keep my concentration. I felt like I was studying for school instead of actually enjoying what I was reading.
December 10, 2015
A mammoth of a thinker with a need to write like he needs to breathe attempts to service advice to any young person wishing to live his/her life with a spine of their own instead of a borrowed one, and succeeds (at least with me) in instilling a sense of pride in trying to question every single thing life throws at us, and even look inside to question the questioner itself.
The one thing I have to say about this book is that it contains the only almost - Decalogue (short of one rule) that I'd like to follow:
"Beware the irrational, however seductive. Shun the 'transcendent' and all who invite you to subordinate or anihilate yourself. Distrust compassion; prefer dignity for yourself and others. Don't be afraid to be thought arrogant and selfish. Picture all experts as if they were mammals. Never be a spectator of unfairness or stupidity. Seek out argument and disputation for their own sake; the grave will suply plenty of time for silence. Suspect your own motives, and all excuses. Do not live for others any more than you would expect others to live for you".
The one thing I have to say about this book is that it contains the only almost - Decalogue (short of one rule) that I'd like to follow:
"Beware the irrational, however seductive. Shun the 'transcendent' and all who invite you to subordinate or anihilate yourself. Distrust compassion; prefer dignity for yourself and others. Don't be afraid to be thought arrogant and selfish. Picture all experts as if they were mammals. Never be a spectator of unfairness or stupidity. Seek out argument and disputation for their own sake; the grave will suply plenty of time for silence. Suspect your own motives, and all excuses. Do not live for others any more than you would expect others to live for you".
January 22, 2021
Almost annoyingly well-written.
May 12, 2022
Sākumā ne viegli lasāma Oksfordas snoba, literāta, pretņa angļu valoda, kas pilna trāpīgu un asu domu, bet ielasās. Iepriekš tik koncentrēti Hičensu lasījis nebiju, bet noteikti lasīšu vēl. Nosaukums ļoti precīzi pasaka, ka grāmata ir kā ievads pretņa (ļoti patīk šis Raiņa Tota apzīmējums) dzīvošanas (domāšanas) stilā, tāpēc varbūt būtu gribējies to lasīt kādus gadus agrāk. Tomēr tad daudz no minētā nesaprastu un nenovērtētu tā, kā tagad. Oh well, "life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards." Dāvināma jauniešiem.
June 1, 2021
One needs to revisit this book everytime they feel lost. I am glad I discovered Hitchens. This is a great intellectual stimulation. I wish I could say that I am able to grasp a fraction of his brilliance.
January 2, 2012
To be a contrarian you have to be prepared to:
"Shun the “transcendent” and all who invite you to subordinate or annihilate yourself. Distrust compassion; prefer dignity for yourself and others. Don’t be afraid to be thought arrogant or selfish. Picture all experts as if they were mammals. Never be a spectator of unfairness or stupidity. Seek out argument and disputation for their own sake; the grave will supply plenty of time for silence. Suspect your own motives, and all excuses. Do not live for others any more than you would expect others to live for you."
Good advice from a masterful contrarian.
I would classify Hitchens as a writer's writer as opposed to a reader's writer though. Meaning .. he writes using literary allusion and with an eye towards the artistic use of language. I find this somewhat of a challenge to read (having a dictionary and the Google handy is helpful), and that it provides an non-trivial obstacle to understanding the author's points.
"Shun the “transcendent” and all who invite you to subordinate or annihilate yourself. Distrust compassion; prefer dignity for yourself and others. Don’t be afraid to be thought arrogant or selfish. Picture all experts as if they were mammals. Never be a spectator of unfairness or stupidity. Seek out argument and disputation for their own sake; the grave will supply plenty of time for silence. Suspect your own motives, and all excuses. Do not live for others any more than you would expect others to live for you."
Good advice from a masterful contrarian.
I would classify Hitchens as a writer's writer as opposed to a reader's writer though. Meaning .. he writes using literary allusion and with an eye towards the artistic use of language. I find this somewhat of a challenge to read (having a dictionary and the Google handy is helpful), and that it provides an non-trivial obstacle to understanding the author's points.
February 19, 2013
I’m not sure why but I am on a bit of a Hitchens kick. Until this year I think it would be fair to state that I probably knew Hitchens more from his appearances on television (and subsequently on Youtube, the true source of my knowledge). I find it odd because I’ve not fallen in love with any of the books I’ve read so far but still find him so compelling. Maybe it’s because he’s so smart and unflinching, or because he’s modern muckraker, or maybe it’s just because he’s sometimes a dick.
This slim volume is a series of letters to aspiring radicals, which is to say, people wishing to emulate Hitchens’ philosophy. People who speak their views clearly, intelligently, and elegantly are severely lacking in the fetid mainstream of United States’ (and beyond’s?) media. We could use a lot more people like Hitchens, people who aren’t afraid to be wrong, and apologize when they are. However, rare would be the person who could match Hitchens’ reach and abilities.
This slim volume is a series of letters to aspiring radicals, which is to say, people wishing to emulate Hitchens’ philosophy. People who speak their views clearly, intelligently, and elegantly are severely lacking in the fetid mainstream of United States’ (and beyond’s?) media. We could use a lot more people like Hitchens, people who aren’t afraid to be wrong, and apologize when they are. However, rare would be the person who could match Hitchens’ reach and abilities.
April 8, 2012
hitch is just great, I know, insightful review
being a christian who is passing , "through the dark night - alright - of the soul", as he hilariously concedes to the young contrarian. i totally see his side of the whole god issue. this missing element here is faith, which the bible states is a gift of god,
his position is honest, and respectful. and damn good advice.
to not just go along, with anything, to have your own mind, and to "question the obvious".
this is a quick, enjoyable, and eloquent read.
he has gone on, but thankfully we have his writings and appearances to enjoy.
being a christian who is passing , "through the dark night - alright - of the soul", as he hilariously concedes to the young contrarian. i totally see his side of the whole god issue. this missing element here is faith, which the bible states is a gift of god,
his position is honest, and respectful. and damn good advice.
to not just go along, with anything, to have your own mind, and to "question the obvious".
this is a quick, enjoyable, and eloquent read.
he has gone on, but thankfully we have his writings and appearances to enjoy.
January 22, 2012
A nice, short primer for Christopher Hitchens. RIP. This is one of those books I think everyone should read. Skepticism, disputation and contrarianism is underrated and underutilized.
July 21, 2017
Christopher Hitchens is one of my favorite people, period. Anything of his is a good read.
January 9, 2024
"The minute you hear a man of the cloth ranting and raving against the evils of Sodomy from the pulpit, set your watch and within the hour he will be found down on all fours in the nearest men's room giving it all he's got." This maxim, fondly known as the Hitchens rule, has been proved true time and again in the years since Christopher Hitchens' death in 2011. It encapsulates much of what was best about him: his opposition to bigotry, his turn of phrase, his humour, and his prescience. It also reveals his anti-clericalism, a feature which would become the dominant part of his political life and is probably what he is best remembered for today. His book 'God is Not Great' was one of the battle cries of the so-called 'New Atheist' movement at the start of this century, and if 'Hitch' is less read today than he was a decade ago it is because he is better known to most people through the videos on YouTube of him attacking religion and simultaneously delighting and enraging his audiences.
This book, one of his earliest, was how I first came across him. Bought it by my father who wanted me to become a Contrarian, I initially rebelled against this attempted conscription. However, Hitchens' lucid prose style, his absolute moral clarity and wonderful range of literary and political references eventually brought me round. I would even say he was one of my first intellectual role-models. In the book, which Hitchens was asked to write by his publisher, he explicitly disavows the title Contrarian, which had been applied to him by lazy journalists. A Contrarian, as Hitchens knew, is someone who instinctively takes the opposite side in any debate, just for its own sake. Anyone familiar with his work could see that while Hitchens certainly enjoyed a good debate, and would instinctively rally to unpopular causes, this was no mere pose, and he really did believe in what he was saying. From his attacks on Mother Theresa, Bill Clinton and Henry Kissinger, to his staunch defences of Thomas Jefferson, Tom Paine, and George Orwell, there was a common theme to all of Hitchens work: A hatred of the phony, the crooked, and the cynical, and a love of debate, free speech, inquiry, and doubt.
That commitment was most infamously displayed during the debates over the 2003 Iraq War, which Hitchens vociferously supported. His motives stemmed from a progressive, even revolutionary desire for the liberation of the Iraqi people from the clutches of Saddam Hussein's murderous regime, but Hitch had fatally miscalculated the cynicism and ineptitude of his Neo-Con friends in Washington, like Paul Wolfowitz and Dick Cheney. To see him use his wit, charm and eloquence in defence of such a war was sickening, even while he managed to get in some powerful blows on the sycophancy and conservatism of the Anti-War left. He at times threated to lose his cool completely, sounding occasionally rather bloodthirsty and humourless. This was Hitchens at his undoubted worst. Wrong for the Right Reasons might best sum up his position in these years, as perhaps it always did, even during his time as a Trotskyist agitator in the 60's. This was in stark contrast to those Stalinists on the left like George Galloway who flocked to defend Saddam and might therefore be described as being Right but for the Wrong reasons.
In the years after that catastrophe Hitchens turned his focus to Religion, the source, he believed, for so much of the injustice in the world. He spent the next few years taking on spokesman for all the world's major faiths, and mostly, leaving them looking silly and gullible. His best friend Martin Amis once said of him that he was "The best debater the world has yet seen." High praise indeed, yet there was something to it. Watching Hitchens at his peak make fools of the morons on Fox News or soppy CNN anchors was a genuine thing of joy. When told of the death of the late Jerry Falwell, a bigoted charlatan if ever there was one, Hitchens exclaimed "Give him an enema and you could bury him in a matchbox." Or when talking of the Catholic Church, Hitchens summarised their position on pederasty as "No child's behind left." This kind of withering put-down was one of his strengths, and the Internet abounds with clips of Hitch on various chat shows, doing his thing, from Anderson Cooper, to Bill Maher, The Jon Stewart show, Sean Hannity and on University Campuses across the West. By the end it was what he was most famous for, the so-called Hitchslap, rather than for his lucid literary criticism or political polemics.
When he died suddenly of Cancer in 2011 after a bohemian lifestyle of smoking and drinking eventually caught up to him, much of the Intelligentsia mourned the loss of this great literary critic and pamphleteer who had become such an unexpected viral sensation after years of relative anonymity. His anniversary, December 15th, has ever since been known as National Hitchens day and is celebrated with glasses of Johnny Walker's amber restorative. He was called the Last Great Public Intellectual, though what Noam Chomsky thought of that particular honour has not been recorded. In the years since his death many of us have yearned to hear just exactly what he would have made of the many crises that beset the world and specifically Anglo-America. From Brexit to Trump, China to Covid, The Woke and the Proud Boys. It's just possible to guess what he would have thought of all of these phenomena, given his prior commitments, but it's impossible to imagine how well he would have phrased it.
Irony was one of his great abiding loves, and it would have struck him as hugely ironic that his style would be so quickly expropriated by figures who differed from him enormously on political matters, but who could nevertheless mimic him and argue with as much vehemence, often for causes which Hitch would have hated. In the last few years, videos of Hitchslaps have led, in that Internet-wormhole way, onto clips of such 'luminaries' as Ben Shapiro, Douglas Murray, Jordan Petersen and Dave Rubin attempting imitations of him. These figures, lacking an ounce of Hitchens' wit, charm or talent, nevertheless have a certain rhetorical force and seem to dedicate most of their lives to 'Owning the Libs' (TM) or attacking 'Wokery, a term which has become so amorphous and inflated that what exactly it means is anyone's guess. Meanwhile, serious political discussions have been replaced by quips, soundbites and witless point-scoring. Where Hitchens could recite whole passages of literature to support his cheekiness, this new crop seem only to care about being as cheap and nasty in as concise a way as possible. Such cultural debasement would have appalled the man, as we can tell from his book of letters which contains the following advice to young people: "Never be a spectator of unfairness or stupidity. Picture all experts as if they were mammals. Seek out argument, and disputation, for their own sake. The Grave will supply plenty of time for silence." That this advice should have been so readily adopted by his opponents should not distract others from taking up his mantle, and living up to his exhortations, for nobler and truer causes.
This book, one of his earliest, was how I first came across him. Bought it by my father who wanted me to become a Contrarian, I initially rebelled against this attempted conscription. However, Hitchens' lucid prose style, his absolute moral clarity and wonderful range of literary and political references eventually brought me round. I would even say he was one of my first intellectual role-models. In the book, which Hitchens was asked to write by his publisher, he explicitly disavows the title Contrarian, which had been applied to him by lazy journalists. A Contrarian, as Hitchens knew, is someone who instinctively takes the opposite side in any debate, just for its own sake. Anyone familiar with his work could see that while Hitchens certainly enjoyed a good debate, and would instinctively rally to unpopular causes, this was no mere pose, and he really did believe in what he was saying. From his attacks on Mother Theresa, Bill Clinton and Henry Kissinger, to his staunch defences of Thomas Jefferson, Tom Paine, and George Orwell, there was a common theme to all of Hitchens work: A hatred of the phony, the crooked, and the cynical, and a love of debate, free speech, inquiry, and doubt.
That commitment was most infamously displayed during the debates over the 2003 Iraq War, which Hitchens vociferously supported. His motives stemmed from a progressive, even revolutionary desire for the liberation of the Iraqi people from the clutches of Saddam Hussein's murderous regime, but Hitch had fatally miscalculated the cynicism and ineptitude of his Neo-Con friends in Washington, like Paul Wolfowitz and Dick Cheney. To see him use his wit, charm and eloquence in defence of such a war was sickening, even while he managed to get in some powerful blows on the sycophancy and conservatism of the Anti-War left. He at times threated to lose his cool completely, sounding occasionally rather bloodthirsty and humourless. This was Hitchens at his undoubted worst. Wrong for the Right Reasons might best sum up his position in these years, as perhaps it always did, even during his time as a Trotskyist agitator in the 60's. This was in stark contrast to those Stalinists on the left like George Galloway who flocked to defend Saddam and might therefore be described as being Right but for the Wrong reasons.
In the years after that catastrophe Hitchens turned his focus to Religion, the source, he believed, for so much of the injustice in the world. He spent the next few years taking on spokesman for all the world's major faiths, and mostly, leaving them looking silly and gullible. His best friend Martin Amis once said of him that he was "The best debater the world has yet seen." High praise indeed, yet there was something to it. Watching Hitchens at his peak make fools of the morons on Fox News or soppy CNN anchors was a genuine thing of joy. When told of the death of the late Jerry Falwell, a bigoted charlatan if ever there was one, Hitchens exclaimed "Give him an enema and you could bury him in a matchbox." Or when talking of the Catholic Church, Hitchens summarised their position on pederasty as "No child's behind left." This kind of withering put-down was one of his strengths, and the Internet abounds with clips of Hitch on various chat shows, doing his thing, from Anderson Cooper, to Bill Maher, The Jon Stewart show, Sean Hannity and on University Campuses across the West. By the end it was what he was most famous for, the so-called Hitchslap, rather than for his lucid literary criticism or political polemics.
When he died suddenly of Cancer in 2011 after a bohemian lifestyle of smoking and drinking eventually caught up to him, much of the Intelligentsia mourned the loss of this great literary critic and pamphleteer who had become such an unexpected viral sensation after years of relative anonymity. His anniversary, December 15th, has ever since been known as National Hitchens day and is celebrated with glasses of Johnny Walker's amber restorative. He was called the Last Great Public Intellectual, though what Noam Chomsky thought of that particular honour has not been recorded. In the years since his death many of us have yearned to hear just exactly what he would have made of the many crises that beset the world and specifically Anglo-America. From Brexit to Trump, China to Covid, The Woke and the Proud Boys. It's just possible to guess what he would have thought of all of these phenomena, given his prior commitments, but it's impossible to imagine how well he would have phrased it.
Irony was one of his great abiding loves, and it would have struck him as hugely ironic that his style would be so quickly expropriated by figures who differed from him enormously on political matters, but who could nevertheless mimic him and argue with as much vehemence, often for causes which Hitch would have hated. In the last few years, videos of Hitchslaps have led, in that Internet-wormhole way, onto clips of such 'luminaries' as Ben Shapiro, Douglas Murray, Jordan Petersen and Dave Rubin attempting imitations of him. These figures, lacking an ounce of Hitchens' wit, charm or talent, nevertheless have a certain rhetorical force and seem to dedicate most of their lives to 'Owning the Libs' (TM) or attacking 'Wokery, a term which has become so amorphous and inflated that what exactly it means is anyone's guess. Meanwhile, serious political discussions have been replaced by quips, soundbites and witless point-scoring. Where Hitchens could recite whole passages of literature to support his cheekiness, this new crop seem only to care about being as cheap and nasty in as concise a way as possible. Such cultural debasement would have appalled the man, as we can tell from his book of letters which contains the following advice to young people: "Never be a spectator of unfairness or stupidity. Picture all experts as if they were mammals. Seek out argument, and disputation, for their own sake. The Grave will supply plenty of time for silence." That this advice should have been so readily adopted by his opponents should not distract others from taking up his mantle, and living up to his exhortations, for nobler and truer causes.
November 14, 2014
A witty and anecdotal window into Hitchens' propensity to take contrarian positions. I feel scarcely qualified to 'review' this work, I could only nod and marvel at the points he cited and made regarding the necessity of employing scepticism and doubt wherever applicable. To quote a few particularly pertinent and summative passages:
"John Stuart Mill said that even if all were agreed on an essential proposition it would be essential to give an ear to the one person who did not, lest people forget how to justify their original agreement,"
and, in mentioning a Polish dissident friend's affirmation,
"If only one man has the truth, that’s enough.”
Certainly in an age powered by a stifling urge to conformity it must be important not to shy away from upholding minority views, for without such intellectual confidence one risks being bound by assumptions uncritically sustained by the status quo, or seduced by the false security invited by membership in the popular consensus.
"John Stuart Mill said that even if all were agreed on an essential proposition it would be essential to give an ear to the one person who did not, lest people forget how to justify their original agreement,"
and, in mentioning a Polish dissident friend's affirmation,
"If only one man has the truth, that’s enough.”
Certainly in an age powered by a stifling urge to conformity it must be important not to shy away from upholding minority views, for without such intellectual confidence one risks being bound by assumptions uncritically sustained by the status quo, or seduced by the false security invited by membership in the popular consensus.
January 4, 2008
Christopher Hitchens professes a great admiration for Oscar Wilde in this book - mainly for Wilde's wit, but you can see that Hitchens is also influenced by Wilde's public facade. Like Morrissey, it's hard to tell what about Hitchens is real and what is adopted persona - in "Letters to a Young Contrarian" he writes in earnest about the necessity of noconformity to the survival of modern liberal society, but he also likes to show off his breadth of knowledge, his acidity and mercilessness towards cowards and fools, and his literary connections. I think Hitchens sees himself as a classical man of letters, but also concerns himself a little too much with sparring with people and crafting his own public image. That said, we could use a lot more of people like Hitchens in the public sphere.
my link text
my link text
August 6, 2011
This was a really inishgtful and engaging book. Despite its short length (141 pages) I found myself constantly going back over passages (this book has a ton of great quotes). Some of the advice that Hitchens gives his mock student may seem a little cliche in parts, but even there he presents it in such a witty and honest way as to still make it insightful. What I also like about Hitchens is that he uses just the right balance of high mindedness and modesty/self deprication. This book would be useful to anyone who wants to get involved in some field that requires strong debate or anyone who wants to get involved in almost any cause, particularly more controversial ones. All in all, a really good read.
July 15, 2020
Hitchens!
Read it two times...still gives me chills.
Read it two times...still gives me chills.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 826 reviews