I have a complicated relationship with the writer Christopher Hitchens as I once discussed earlier here. I guess I was originally drawn to his writing because his interests intersect some of mine: history, politics, current world affairs, and literature. I must admit that some of his audacious attacks on the likes of Henry Kissinger, Princess Diana, and Mother Theresa drew my attention to him. He is also a close friend of one of my favorite contemporary British writers, Martin Amis. And recently I read two of his books about his political heroes Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson. He and I also share an appreciation for George Orwell. I think these things were enough for me to be interested in reading his autobiography Hitch 22: Confessions and Contradictions.
It was an interesting read for the most part, however some sections dragged more than others. It starts out with the typical family background, growing up in school, college, political beginnings, professional life, up through his most recent acquisition of American citizenship. There are specific chapters on his influential and famous friends like Martin Amis, James Fenton, Salman Rushdie, and his friendship/falling out with Edward Said. On a lesser scale, he mentions former champions/friends that no longer have his respect like Noam Chomsky, Gore Vidal, and Julian Barnes among others that have crossed his path through out the years. There are several sections that follow his political causes and reporting: "Havana vs. Prague," "Portugal vs. Poland," and "Mesopotamia from Both." I think the sections about his political growth and history explain his positions fairly well-one can walk away understanding were he is coming from in regards to Bosnia and Iraq, even if I disagree with the latter case. For example, I can agree with him that I couldn't really stomach Chomsky or Vidal post 9/11 when they suggested that it had been orchestrated by the US government to get us into a war with Iraq. Then again I can't abide by his support of the Bush administration for liberating Iraq and ignoring the deceit and myriad of ways that it represent all that is wrong with America. In fact he has no problem, saying that Clinton was a shill for corporate interests, but not a word about Bush in this regard. His hatred for Clinton due to this, his treatment of women, and his propensity to lie seem to not sit very well with him. One of my biggest problems with Hitchens is that I think he sets his sights on unlikely targets because they are unlikely not because they are deserving of scorn. I think there are many more deserving characters than Mother Theresa, Princess Diana, and Bill Clinton. And I thought there would be more about his atheism-it is alluded to, but maybe because he already wrote a best selling book on the subject. I don't regret reading it, but it wasn't as compelling as I though tit might be.
Recent Comments