Christopher Hitchins dies age 62

as opposed to weakly and hypocritically clinging to views once held for the sake of losing face

And yet as recently as 2002 Hitchins was still defending Lenin. Presumably for the sake of not losing face.

Oh hang on, wait a second……. did his epiphany occur after 2002 ?

Which presumably means that according to him, he spent the first 54 years of his life talking bollox, which he later retracted. I hope no one was paying attention to him before 2002. When did you first become a fan of Hitchins deluded – was it after 2002 ?

.

Yes and no

😀

Doesn’t look like the link ever changed to me.

And I’m not accusing the Guardian of an “anti-marxist conspiracy” btw. Maybe conveniently burying Hitchins embarrassing past though – who knows.

“Forgetting” to mention a political commentator’s former political affiliation is rather bizarre.

Doesn’t look like the link ever changed to me.

And I’m not accusing the Guardian of an “anti-marxist conspiracy” btw. Maybe conveniently burying Hitchins embarrassing past though – who knows.

“Forgetting” to mention a political commentator’s former political affiliation is rather bizarre.

Link didn’t change, and you’re 100% correct that it doesn’t mention his past – but then it is mentioned in the other obituary… unless proved otherwise I’m guessing the literary editor didn’t consider it important or even know of it. The cock-up theory, basically.

The “conveniently burying” comment is a bit tin-foil-hat, though…

Smarties. Are they worth the money, or not?

I’m somewhat shocked the Great Elf does not already know the answer.

I’m guessing the literary editor didn’t consider it important or even know of it.

😀

Stop it – my sides are hurting !

Everyone knows that Hitchins was a Trot, including the Guardian’s “literary editor”. And yes, it is important. Maybe not so important if he had been famous for being a painter, but Hitchins was rather famous for his political views.

I’m somewhat shocked the Great Elf does not already know the answer.

Oh I already know the answer, Mog. I’m just wondering if others do.

Hitchens was defending aspects of Lenin’s ‘achievements’ until yesterday! Such as his creation of a secular Russia free from the Russian Orthodox Church. What does 2002 have to do with it?

Everyone knows that Hitchins was a Trot

I didn’t. Mind you, noone asked me to write an obituary about him either. Maybe, just maybe, you’re right.

And Elf: I know the answer too. But I’m not telling, either.

What’s your beef with him, Ernie?: is it that he changed his mind?

Yet another thread on a fascinating topic ruined

I didn’t.

OK fair enough sorry. I assumed everyone was aware that Hitchins was a Trot. Even I knew that – and as a rule I don’t waste my time reading the opinions of waffling Trots, and Hitchins was no exception. I have even less time for renegade Trots. Politics isn’t some sort of game to be played depending on your current whim, imo.

But it is a testament Hitchins ability to bury his dark secrets and political acrobatics, if has successfully managed to leave some of his fans oblivious to his past. Makes the Guardian’s literary editor’s “forgetfulness” somewhat worthwhile perhaps ?

I don’t think any of those that have contributed to this thread have been oblivious to his past. Were you under the impression that your revelations as to his political associations was a huge exposé?

What exactly were his dark secrets? – in detail please.

mcboo – Member

Yet another thread on a fascinating topic ruined

It’s still a fascinating thread imo. You mcboo, come out with this little beauty :

“He abandoned the revolutionary left because of their affection for dictatorships, much like his hero George Orwell.”

And yet a quick google search shows that in Hitchins’s 2002 book “Why Orwell Matters” he defends Lenin claiming he was a “great man” and that there is no Lenin character in Animal Farm.

“Ruined” because of your lack of understanding maybe mcboo ?

Yet another thread on a fascinating topic ruined

Hitchens of all people doesn’t merit (and wouldn’t have wanted) a hagiography.

I don’t think any of those that have contributed to this thread have been oblivious to his past. Were you under the impression that your revelations as to his political associations was a huge exposé?

Well it came as a surprise to me too deluded.

Hence my comment which you have obviously missed :

“OK fair enough sorry. I assumed everyone was aware that Hitchins was a Trot.”

.

What’s your beef with him, Ernie?: is it that he changed his mind?

Nah, I would still be dismissive of him if he hadn’t “changed his mind” and had remained a Trot.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/dec/16/christopher-hitchens-debate-highlights-video

My two penn’orth?: I think we’ve lost one of the great public intellectuals of our generation.
This is a shame, but as others have said, it’s doubtful that he would have stood for any sentimentality.
In terms of his lack of a consistent political position, for me this takes nothing away from what I admire about him, and I offer these observations:

I think Hitchens placed a very high value on debate, on argument.
I think he came to take religion very seriously, but I suspect the attraction of this subject to Hitchens was partly because he also knew it was a great topic to choose if you want to provoke, to rile, to debate.
The fact that earlier in his career as a polemicist he’d chosen politics as his arena, and far left politics at that, is in line with my thesis that it’s the scrap he was after, rather than a drive for insight and/or to draw others to agree with his position. If true, this preference for argument above all else would also explain his shifting political positions and, given the prevalence of logical fallacies within theology (easier targets perhaps than well-thought-through politics) a switch to take on theists makes sense.

genius, sadly missed 😥

it’s the scrap he was after, rather than a drive for insight and/or to draw others to agree with his position. If true, this preference for argument above all else would also explain his shifting political positions and, given the prevalence of logical fallacies within theology (easier targets perhaps than well-thought-through politics) a switch to take on theists makes sense.

Which is pretty much what I meant by

never really did anything positive

I suppose if you like debate and argument, then he was impressive, and clearly an intellect, but if you prefer your ‘heroes’ to do something of substance, then he was just another entertaining intellectual.
No disrespect meant.

WackoAK – Member
“violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism and tribalism and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry”

His quote on religion could apply to many things, including some members on this forum.

And Hitchens himself. I wish no ill up on him, but he was smug and self-satisfied in a way I find that only a certain type of middle-class English man can be smug and self-satisfied.

As a man, he deserves our attention and respect. As a writer and commentator, other than being vaguely witty in a snide sort of way, he hardly deserves notice.

As a man, he deserves our attention and respect. As a writer and commentator, other than being vaguely witty in a snide sort of way, he hardly deserves notice.

What’s interesting about him as a man if not his writing? He wrote about practically everything he did. I’m not sure what’s left of him to be interested in if you’re ignoring all the writer-y bits.

I didn’t say anything about him as a man was interesting. I only meant to say that as another human being who has died, he deserves to be treated with respect. I would say the same about any person. Even an unpalatable one.

Beyond that, his writer-yness is simply wealthy middle-class, middle-aged, snotty bluster.

I think his attitude to death was quite inspiring, took the cancer on the chin, no bleating, just dignified with some dark humour.

Which presumably means that according to him, he spent the first 54 years of his life talking bollox, which he later retracted. I hope no one was paying attention to him before 2002. When did you first become a fan of Hitchins deluded – was it after 2002 ?

.

this really did make me lol, and lol hard

As a man, he deserves our attention and respect. As a writer and commentator, other than being vaguely witty in a snide sort of way, he hardly deserves notice.

I didn’t say anything about him as a man was interesting. I only meant to say that as another human being who has died, he deserves to be treated with respect.

Why is an indifferent man more worthy of respect and attention than an indifferent writer, then?

Do you give notice to every human being that has died?

Why is an indifferent man more worthy of respect and attention than an indifferent writer, then?

Do you give notice to every human being that has died?

You’re clutching at straws there konabunny, it’s pretty clear what SaxonRider is saying – as you well know.

IE, SaxonRider respects him as a person but not as a writer.

But don’t let me stop you carrying on trying to make a meal out of it.

He’s a guy that got paid for blowing hot air out his arse. tbh I canny actually believe the coverage the guys deaths gets. But I suppose that’s the nature of celebrity culture these days.

RIP however.

I suppose that’s the nature of celebrity culture these days

Oh, come on, even if you think he’s a douchebag, he’s hardly a WAG!