Prospero

Books, arts and culture

Remembering Christopher Hitchens

Crying freedom

Dec 17th 2011, 19:21 by E.F.

CROSSING an Athens street by foot on a warm spring afternoon in 1985, I checked a taxi waiting at the light to make sure it was not going to jump the red.  In the back seat I spied the unmistakeable figure of Christopher Hitchens, larger than when I’d last seen him, larger than anyone in their mid-30s ought to be, made larger still by an unnecessary overcoat thrown over the shoulders in the manner of a ballet impresario from an earlier time. He saw me, called my name, threw open the door and stepped into the street. The light was now green and traffic was hooting. Heedless as ever to context but wholly in role, he let go an uncounted shower of drachma notes into the grateful driver’s hand and greeted me theatrically with a kiss on both cheeks. Like me, he was  in Athens to write about the Greek elections. The previous day, Andreas Papandreou—the father of the recently replaced prime minister—had handily won a second parliamentary term as leader of his country’s Social Democrats. Though not like me, because Christopher was not like other journalists. “I didn’t see you at the Press centre last night,” I said. “No,” he replied, “I was at the Papandreous.”

How the next hours unfolded, I don’t recall. I do vividly remember that around two in the morning, Christopher was entertaining a small group of us at a restaurant—quoting, parrying, recounting, provoking. His speed of memory was daunting. He always seemed able to cite what an opponent in argument had said or written years earlier, deploying it quickly and wittily at the surest moment to expose them as fools, ditherers or hypocrites. That essentially 18th-century skill made him as lethal on television as he was on the page. He wrote the way he spoke, in boutades and in paragraphs, often with a blood-level of alcohol that would leave most of us speechless. He was catholic in his love and knowledge of the written word, but on the whole stayed off movies, theatre, visual arts and music. Had he a trace of Puritan suspicion that such arts were elite, effete and not morally serious? I suspect it was more that each of those arts has its standards of performance and he was a performer in a competing medium—his own words. You had to hear him in real time, and I rate myself lucky that on a few occasions I did hear him at table—usually late on when everyone else had stopped talking, not because they were silenced or bested but because there and then it was simply more satisfying to listen to him.     

I don’t know, and who does, if his copious writing will stand up in the way that the work of his politico-literary hero George Orwell has stood up. Those who found little to admire or agree with in Christopher, especially after he backed the Iraq War in 2003, will laugh at the comparison. Even those who enjoyed his overflowing talents as journalist and talker may find it a stretch. Differences of water level and achievement stand out. Yet there are likenesses, too. Neither could tolerate camps, least of all their own: like Orwell, Christopher kept his harshest barbs for the left. Neither were doctrinal and, though Christopher took on big topics—notably religious belief, of which he claimed to have none—his small-motor skills with tricky ideas were no finer than Orwell’s. Neither were really interested in policy or government, though from sheer forensic bravado Christopher would happily take on the best-briefed wonk. Both wrote from an essentially emotional perception about the moral condition of the world. Orwell once praised Charles Dickens for the “vagueness” of his radicalism. He did not mean evasiveness or lack of clarity, but a deep conviction that something was wrong with society and that the only constructive suggestion was: “Behave decently”. Christopher’s constructive suggestions were never so clear, but his negative drive was unmistakeable and gave him a consistency his detractors wrongly said he lacked: locate power, distrust it and take it down a peg, even if you can’t knock it off its perch. Odd as it sounds, somewhere in Christopher was a backwoods Tory anarchist.

Status and power fascinated him as targets, not as ways to discrimate among people. He was open to everyone and called all comers by first name—that memory again!—even if they were not near friends. My calling him “Christopher” repays the compliment. “Hitchens” would sound both too distant and too knowing.

Now I think about it, at that restaurant in Athens it was probably closer to three in the morning. Holding up an empty bottle, Christopher waved it back and forth to get the attention of a waiter, slumped against a far wall. When the waiter came over with a fresh bottle, Christopher raised an empty glass to him and cried with a Byronic flourish, “Eleftheria!”—which means freedom or liberty in Greek. In perfect English the waiter shot back, “We’ve already got that”. The exhausted man had made his point and for once Christopher had no comeback. He’s silent now for good, and, agree with him or disagree, it’s a loss to us all.

Picture credit: EPA

Readers' comments

The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.

Sort:

ahmedc

He was a gift to us. Enjoy one of his famous quotes:
“...The offer of certainty, the offer of complete security, the offer of an impermeable faith that can’t give way, is an offer of something not worth having; I want to live my life taking the risk all the time that I don’t know anything like enough yet; that I haven’t understood enough; that I can’t know enough; that I’m always hungrily operating on the margins of a potentially great harvest of future knowledge and wisdom, I wouldn’t have it any other way, and I’d urge you look at those of you who tell you, those people who tell you, at your age, that you’re dead until you believe as they do—what a terrible thing to be telling to children—and that you can only live by accepting an absolute authority. Don’t think of that as a gift, think of it as a poisoned chalice; push it aside, however tempting it is. Take the risk of thinking for yourself. Much more happiness, truth, beauty and wisdom will come to you that way. ”

5neKJ3cY4B

I only became familiar with Christopher Hitchens's gift a few years back when I happened upon a few of his essays on the Center for Inquiry website. I have never thought much of any author's outstanding ability to write.
Atheism brought me to Christopher Hitchens which , I think is better than what a theist gets from whichever God(s) they believe in.

A beautiful, moving essays "Scene from Execution ," is must read.

LD3vHNxgsp

Sir:
You made some predictions for 2012. How about making this an exciting, rather than merely a speculative venture? Take your previous predictions (ie those made for 2011) and see how those turned out. Rate your accuracy and do the same over 2012. Then, from year to year, you can see how accurate you really were. Perhaps various staffers could make their own predictions and compete against one another. It would be fun for readers and staffers alike. Mike Zimmerman, USA, (530)872-1184

Landislaw

Hitchens was a kind of warrior in the world, and, as such, understood the responsibilities and risks of being a warrior. He died far too young, but that was the price he knew might have to pay for living and writing in the most honorable of traditions. Few are willing to take that risk anymore, to make that bargain, but Hitchens did, without question, and our world is better for it. A great thank you to you and your family for your service to us, Mr. Hitchens, you lived it your way.

Landislaw

Hitchens was a kind of warrior in the world, and, as such, understood the responsibilities and risks of being a warrior. He died far too young, but that was the price he knew might have to pay for living and writing in the most honorable of traditions. Few are willing to take that risk anymore, to make that bargain, but Hitchens did, without question, and our world is better for it. A great thank you to you and your family for your service to us, Mr. Hitchens, you lived it your way.

AGAnderson

It seems many people are more concerned about the manner with which he communicated his view of the world than with the actual message itself. Am I right on this?

(If I had to pick one of his writings to read, which one would you recommend?)

Fitzhume

I was fortunate to hear Christopher Hitchens several times, most recently when he debated Rabbi Boteach, here in New York, on the question, "Does God Exist?" (You can see the whole thing on YouTube.) Reading or listening to him, I was always dazzled by his speed of thought, his wit, his rhetocial abilities, even if I often disagreed with him. He raised the intellectual temperature in whatever room he was in. I'd say "Godspeed, Hitch," but I don't think he'd care for that...

Reluctant Polluter

Clint.Southward in reply to morganjah:

"But men savaging each other's a-holes has never appealed to me."

Why this little detour morganjah? Is there something you want to tell us? Are you repressing something?

The kind of argument Clint.Southward resorts to is very characteristic for the lefty crowd that set has upon Morganjah on this board...

I wonder, whether they cherish Hitchens so much because he was open said his Marxist, socialist convictions. Something they had and have no courage to admit about themselves.

A joke along the lines of Clint.Southwatd's jab. Two friends speak about an acquaintance.

'Oh, John is such a poofter!'
'What, he borrowed some money from you and now refuses to return?!'
'No, no! I meant in the good sense'.

Well, Hitchens was a witty and cheeky commie, but commie nonetheless.

Damianos1 in reply to Reluctant Polluter

I don't happen to belong to "the lefty crowd', far from it, however I valued Hitchens for his wit, brilliant writing and his stand against Tyrannical regimes of all stripes, especially so called 'lefty' ones. His fearless, often biting, but always rational stance on Religion often reflected my own views, only put much better by Hitch, that I possibly could.

Reluctant Polluter in reply to Damianos1

Damianos: "His fearless, often biting, but always rational stance on Religion often reflected my own views"

That is exactly what I told, as Morganjah had before me: all the Hitchens' fans were looking for was confirmation of their own anti-religious creed by a much more witty and cheeky chatterbox than they.

Militant atheism is a sort of religion, and quite fundamentalist to that.

Damianos1 in reply to Reluctant Polluter

RP, I personally am neither militant nor particularly anti-Religious, I just can't stand the holier-than-thou attitude of many Religious people and their insufferable belief that because they have 'Faith' the rest of us have to hand them a 'pass' card. Hitch was unmatched at cutting them down to size.

Bruce E

A skilled debater. A talented and prolific writer. A terrific thinker. A gifted polemicist, where others of his profession are mere opinionists and pundits.

A serious man.

Requiescat in pace Christopher. You'll be missed.

bigotboy

Undoubtedly one of American Jewry's most prominent neoconsevative advocates
Wonder if he wasn't glad of an early exit given his prodigious alcohol and tobacco consumption

Pahasha

I hardly ever comment on Economist Forums, but had to make an aside here after having a little chuckle at watching Morganjah trying to respond Clint.Southward. You can see the way Morganjah brings up Clint.Southward's handle in later unrelated responses (usually with a distorted spelling of the handle) that Clint has got to him, and has played him with ease. Morganjah knows he has been humiliated and is now digging himself further into a hole. You know the old saying of putting down the spade.

I don't know Morgan. I think you don't really understand the words you are throwing around. When Clint writes I understand what he is saying though I am no expert in philosophy and rationalism and so on. I don't understand you. You posts are all confused and helpless looking. I suspect you want to see yourself as some kind of self-styled philosopher-guru with a sharp intellect. But in reality, every time you delve into those demanding philosophy texts all ready for the experience of enlightenment, the reaction is pretty much the reaction you get when you show a baboon a mirror. He knows something is going on, but he is not sure what the hell it is!

QpqcU2msFc

Brilliant!

Witty!

Brutal!

Honest!

Courageous!

Wonderful company.

Alcoholic.

This is the reality. The man was a statistical anomaly, as pointed out in most of the tributes to him, he could drink and smoke everyone under the table and still produce sparkling verse while meeting deadlines. He is the exception rather than the rule with this illness. He remained productive. Most alcoholics leave nothing but wreckage in their wake sacrificing most of what is dear in pursuit of the obsession. The romantic notion that excess and creativity, without consequences, go hand in hand needs to be rebuffed. The landscape is littered with the corpses of talented human beings succumbing to the compulsion at the expense of everything else. Mr. Hitchens made his choice and publicly acknowledged the decision without apology. Bravo. However I do no subscribe to belief that we need to encourage that behaviour.

raghuvansh1

Christopher Hitchens was pompous journalist.This age of journalist and not classical writer.Those who speech loudly roar mambo jumbo he get instant publicity.In crowed age most people loss their thinking faculties,frivolous emotional thinking have more value.There Hitchens called genius no wonder. Our era is worshiper of semi God because genuine God was dead in time of Nietzsche. .

@Christopher Zimmy,I explain to you in very simple language.Hitchens was pompous journalist.This is I am not only saying read Obituary of many newspaper of western countries.What I add is today classical writer is dead,only pompous journalist guiding people.They have very little talent only capital they have roar laudably. This is a this kind tout who changes their views as circumstances changes Hitchens supported attacked on Iraq. Why? can you explain to me?.I know my English is faulty because that is not first language Instead of.Ridiculing my language you to understand what I say

raghuvansh1 in reply to Terry Collmann

@Terry Collmann, Was Saddam evil and Bush is saint? who killed or say murdered million of innocent Iraqi people without any reason?.If Bush want to killed evil Saddam can did it without attacked on Iraq. Please don't make fool to people intention of attacked on Iraq to occupy oil well of Iraq.and this most humanitarian cause Hitchens supported war with Iraq.Hitchens name will be remember in history great great humanitarian.LONG LIVE MEMORY OF HITCHENS IN MINDS OF WESTERN PEOPLE

Terry Collmann in reply to raghuvansh1

raghunansh1, if you're going to try to argue who was worse, Bush or Saddam, please try to get your facts right. The best accepted number of civilian deaths in Iraq since the invasion is around 110,000 - 9x fewer than a million. MOST OF THOSE WERE IRAQIS KILLING OTHER IRAQIS. Is Bush responsible for, eg, Sunni versus Shia violence? Meanwhile, in the war Saddam started against Iran, the Iraqis saw 300,000 deaths, the Iranians at least 500,000. In addition, Saddam is estimated to have executed at least 300,000 of his own people, not counting the at least 60,000 Kurds killed or gassed and the at least 60,000 killed in putting down the 1991 rebellion. Add that up, and any reasonable person would agree that in terms of terrible impact on the Iraqi people (not to mention the Iranians, the Kuwaitis and so on) Saddam wins by a very long distance.

raghuvansh1 in reply to Terry Collmann

@Terry,I am not compared Bush with Saddam both are evil.My point is Bush cheated to American citizens and to world that Saddam had biochemical weaponry and to destroy to them I am attacking on Iraq.My objection as a most clever journalist Hitchens, how he had given support to attacked on Iraq? Intention of attacked on Iraq was very clear, want to occupy oil well of Iraq.

Damianos1 in reply to raghuvansh1

You seem to ignore or play down the well known fact that nearly every intelligence service at that time also believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, not only that, but he had used them liberally during the war with Iran and to decimate the Kurds. The Americans were correct in not taking any chances that he didn't possess them and the possibility that he could make them available to murderous, insane terrorist gangs

Hitchens did well to support that action against a bloodthirsty criminal tyrant and stayed true to his life long hatred and struggles against all forms of tyrannical Dictatorship.

raghuvansh1 in reply to Damianos1

@Damianos1,Every intelligence service was run behind Bush that herd mentality must not followed by most genius balanced journalist Hichens. What about report of experts appointed by U.N.?Is it also false,fraudulent? Rea fact is Hichens also victim of Bush`s false propaganda.Same way great German philosopher Heidegger was true believer of Hitler

vjTc4E36Zs

In the very interesting article on C Hitchens, you wrote:

"Status and power fascinated him as targets, not as ways to discrimate among people. He was open to everyone and called all comers by first name—that memory again!—even if they were not near friends."

Did you mean"discriminate" instead of "discrimate"?

Thank you. Ken L

morganjah

According to the link, Hitchens was the one who created the well.

It looks like there are two categories of complaints.

1) She was Catholic. That hardly surprises me. In fact, I think it was pretty well known. The suffering for Jesus is an ancient tradition in the church that I am very familiar with. I don't agree with it, but I understand it.

1A) The 'misuse' of money is repeated. Though its kind of implied, she is not accused of stealing it. Only that she gave different priorities to spending it than some professionals thought best. But since this money was given mostly by Catholics to Mother Theresa for specifically her Catholic mission, I don't see any validity to the complaints.

2) The medical issues. What this really comes down to is whether the people who voluntarily went to the missions for help would have been better off with no help instead. That's a hard argument to make. Even Milton Friedman famously said 'when you're sick, better a bad doctor than no doctor at all.' Apparently the sick and dying who voluntarily went to her missions thought the same.

At worst the complaints are that she could have been a better administrator and provided better care for the buck. On the other hand she inspired people to give money to her order to help people who otherwise would have had no help at all.

I note that the neither Hitchens, nor any of her other detractors, did anything at all to help those suffering in India.

Thanks for the link, and maybe you can explain to me what I missed, but what is it that made her evil and worthy of contempt?

marnit in reply to morganjah

Morganjah wrote: "I note that the neither Hitchens, nor any of her other detractors, did anything at all to help those suffering in India." Two questions: 1. How do you - how can you - know this? 2. Is any criticism of Mother Teresa invalid if one has not helped those suffering in India and, if so, how much does one have to do in order to qualify?

morganjah in reply to marnit

1) Are you seriously claiming that Christopher Hitchens had a secret charity organization in India? Please provide any information you have on it. Otherwise it's a silly conjecture. It's also true that we don't know that Hitler didn't have a secret charity to help destitute Jews, but we're kind of keeping this on the known facts here.

2)Yes I am saying exactly that. That's what liberty and freedom are all about. How a person spends their money is their own affair. At every step in the process the money was freely given to a CATHOLIC charity to be run as Mother Theresa saw fit. She used it to help the poor in India which in her mind, it was no secret, involved health but more importantly her concept of their soul.
Since force was not used at any step of the process, criticism by those doing nothing that she wasn't doing enough is not a valid criticism.
It is apparently too easy to forget that we are dealing with real human beings here. People who would have died before their time lived. People were cured of horrible diseases. Children who would have grown up as orphans had a family, parents who would have watched their children die lived out their days with their family around them. Does none of that mean anything to you?

Clint.Southward in reply to morganjah

"Are you seriously claiming that Christopher Hitchens had a secret charity organization in India? Please provide any information you have on it. Otherwise it's a silly conjecture. It's also true that we don't know that Hitler didn't have a secret charity to help destitute Jews, but we're kind of keeping this on the known facts here."

morganhah

You toss words like empirical and rationalist (in the formal philosophical sense) etc. around, but there is no evidence that you understand these things, and your rather unlettered responses give grounds for doubt - and in fact my doubt could only be described as extraordinary. When you are prepared to write in such a way that we are assured you actually know what these terms mean, you will enjoy a more serious response. Respect is earned. Sorry.

On the quote above, it is interesting that you deploy the same form of argument Hitchens used (without being aware of it, it seems) with respect to religion. I am going to try and explain this real slow. Hitchens argued that extraordinary claims (like Jesus being the son of God and born of virgin) require extraordinary evidence. It is not up to the dissenting party to provide contrary evidence. Let me explain it this way with this nice and easy analogy. If I say the moon is made of cheese, it is not your responsibility to provide contrary evidence. It is my responsibility to provide positive evidence. The claims made by most major religions are extraordinary (even preposterous). You keep talking about empirical, but it was precisely that which was at the center of Hitchens' polemic against religion. But somehow this one just passed right over your head - why am I not surprised. In simple terms, he was saying, "Ok, you say that the world was created in 7 days, and that man was created in a magic garden complete with a talking snake and contraband food and veg, Ok then, go ahead and show me the EMPIRICAL evidence, and don't expect me to prance around in mental high jump disproving something that only a child could be forgiven for believing." Do you have some evidence for this claim. Do tell. So you see he really was all about being empirical, you just didn't get it. In fact, if you look at his critique of Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 911, it really is all about the facts and Moore's licentious posture toward the empirical.

I agree with another poster. If you are having fun on the forum that is great. But don't do yourself the disservice of thinking you are a serious interlocutor. Hitchens would probably be the first one to appreciate a critical take on his contribution, and there are criticisms to be made, but not by clowns.

morganjah in reply to Clint.Southward

What a silly person you are. Do you feel better now that you have thrown some insults my way? Does that make you feel more intelligent?

You have made the same mistake that Hitchens consistently made in thinking that arguing in a non-empirical way for empiricism somehow magically transforms the argument into an empirical argument.

Let me explain it to you, and I won't throw in a gratuitous insult about typing slowly or whatever that was supposed to be about. The claim, and the argument used to support that claim are two separate entities. One could argue for empiricism, and here I am using the generic term, using an argument that presented some verifiable facts, support for those facts, citations and such, and then build an argument towards the conclusion. Or, one could present some unverifiable premises out of ones opinions, or axioms or a priori knowledge or faith, and then build a logical argument that holds only assuming the truth of the unverifiable premises. Hitchens, like all Rationalists, used the latter. As do you.
Now I want to clarify. An appeal to an unverifiable opinion is not empiricism. Every time it seemed as if Hitchens was appealing to a fact, it was instead a rhetorical device. Try this, if you can, break down each of his essays and write down the facts upon which it is based. Now look at them and figure out if they are indeed verifiable, true relevant facts that everyone at least should agree upon, or rhetorical constructs.
I doubt you will be able to accurately complete the project because I suspect you lack the critical faculty to question opinions with which you agree.
But there is an easier way!!! It's an easy and astoundingly accurate shortcut. If a person does not allow for the possibility for disagreement in this world in which nothing is certain, than he is a Rationalist. It is only through logical constructs independent of reality that there is certainty. Or to put it another way, a person can be certain only by rejecting empirical reality.
So the shortcut is this. Since there is no appeal to independently verifiable facts, a Rationalist can only argue that their opponent is stupid, insult them and demean them for their failure to agree to their set of axioms. Now tell me, who does that sound like?

Tom Silo

It's hard to capture such a great intellectual's essence and this article is obviously very personal. I prefer to think of Mr Hitchens as his own man - he doesn't need any comparison.

Mr Hitchens passion was as simple as the destruction of tyranny in any form. He despised the tyranny of dictatorship (Iraq, Iran, North Korea), hated the false glorification of those who deserved derision rather than idolatry (Mother Teresa, Princess Diana, the Clintons, Henry Kissinger), and he perhaps saved his most contumely barbs for religion of all sorts.

Religion was of particular importance to him, I believe, not because of "it" but because it is the greatest tyranny of all - the tyranny of the mind. For all the mindless follies that accepted tyranny of different sorts, religion was the most pernicious and evil - it poisons everything.

For this alone Mr Hitchen's deserves the thanks of everyone - even if they don't quite understand why yet.

Thanks Mr Hitchens, you moved our society further down enlightenment. We have torch bearers such as Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, but no one who has the moxie that you had - you will be missed and so too you should be.

morganjah in reply to Tom Silo

I've read his Mother Theresa tirade several times now. I still don't get why she was worthy of derision. The article was complete crap from a logical and empirical perspective. It was nothing more than a mean-spirited rant. Since the article didn't contain the reasons, perhaps someone here could be so kind as to tell me exactly what was wrong with Mother Theresa.

Tom Silo in reply to morganjah

I thought it was fairly clear?

Mother Teresa had insurmountable problems to the common misconception of her being worthy of adulation and hyperbole. Just taking the fact that in accepting donations and awards from proven thieves & fraudsters who used their association with her to further their thievery and frauds dislodges her from the claim she was great. Add to this that when these people were imprisoned or dislodged and their depth of their depravity become known, she refused to return the money donated and simply blessed them all along the way and so she becomes complicit in the illegal acts.

Perhaps the most egregious issue was her beliefs and consequent "care" of the poor (it seems from her writings made public after her death she had serious doubts about a God). She had a bunch of dying people she did little to nothing to help. It is atrocious.

Have a look at Mr Hitchens' short presentation on YouTube and let me know if you think it better draws out the facts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WQ0i3nCx60

Lord_V in reply to morganjah

Two main argumanets:

1. The mission was audited only once in Britain and it came out that >70% of the money collected goes to Vatican which in turn uses it for spreading religion.
2. Missionaries of Charity do not use the money to "treat" people. They only use it to help people die in relative comfort and obviously baptise them before the die.

About Prospero

Named after the hero of Shakespeare's "The Tempest", an expert on the power of books and the arts, this blog features literary insight and cultural commentary from our correspondents, and includes our coverage of the art market.

RSS feed

Advertisement

Trending topics

Read comments on the site's most popular topics

Advertisement

Products & events