In a nutshell, the level of vitriol in his writing remains the same whether discussing Garrison Keillor or Osama bin Laden.
Something about that strikes me as slightly troublesome, as if I were to encounter Mr. Hitchens out in the woods during deer season with a howitzer. "Get the blighter this time," he'd growl, and I would nod sagely and edge away into the woods, avoiding eye contact.
5 comments:
I actually like (much of) Hitchens' writing. It reminds me of George Orwell. Both seemed to have a stong, visceral, reaction to the forces arrayed against liberal values, be they German Fascists, or Jihadists. Obviously, both spoke out on these issues with passion and wit. But what I like about both is that they are willing to apply that same passion and wit to other topics. Orwell wrote a great piece about the perfect (nonexistent) pub, criticizing the British government for its creation of a pub system that serves drunkeness and isolation rather than social connections. Hitchens writes scathingly about what he considers an embarassing, xenophobic, boor.
These issues are important to both of them. I don't think that just because Orwell spoke caustically about British domestic policy means he equated his MP with Hitler. After all, he penned the line "my country, right or left." Similarly, I don't think Hitchens would tell you Keilor is as "bad" as Bin Laden.
But both are writers, not politicians. They have the privilege of using the same weapons against things they disdain and things they fear. I don't think it would ever cross either of these writers' minds that they should use "appropriate force" in responding to things they don't like.
I know I don't stress it. I speak out strongly against utopian, utilitarian schemes; people who ignore empirical facts; polticians who ignore economics to grab a vote, etc. Similarly, I know a lot of people who apply equal vitriol to Bush and Bin Laden. I'm pretty sure most of those people would at the very least kick Bin Laden in the nuts if they ever ran into him, but would most likely only disagree with or yell at Bush. But writing and speech is not the same thing as physical force.
And that's the great thing about writing, isn't it? That we can write strongly about things we feel strongly about, and don't have to worry about using appropriate force? If we're wrong, we're wrong, no foul, no harm done. But when it comes to using actions, if we're wrong, bad shit happens.
I disagree. Your point is well taken that there is a significant difference between physical force and rhetoric, and that Chris Hitchens would probably apply different responses to encounters with Osama bin Laden and Garrison Keillor. My analogy to Mr. Hitchens in the woods with a howitzer is perhaps, in that context, a little misleading.
However, I think you gloss over the value of various levels of reaction in speech as opposed to action. When a speaker has only one rhetorical note to strike, does that not diminish the effectiveness of his rhetoric, and therefore do his underlying points a disservice? I know that when I see "the Arab street" riot over cartoons it diminishes the impact of similar protests on other, more substantive issues. Similarly, do you take your friends' critiques of Bush as seriously as you take their critiques of bin Laden? Are both, perhaps, diminished thereby? Certainly I've heard you express disdain for arguments associating Bush and Hitler. Perhaps you have many friends who use the same terms of speech with regard to both, but will it ensure that others take your arguments seriously?
If one conceptualizes editorializing as a type of operant conditioning, where one seeks to punish negative behavior and reinforce positive behavior, reinforcement is most effective when applied in a ratio corresponding in some fashion to the number of responses received, or the severity of the behavior. When there is no ratio, one isn't reinforcing any sort of behavior. Similarly, when a writer seems as enraged by Garrison Keillor as Osama bin Laden, the one for criticizing a book and the other for killing over 3,000 American citizens, the impact of both critiques is diminished for me. Surely, no one is physically harmed by our actions, but I think Mr. Hitchens does him a disservice thereby. No one suggests that Mr. Hitchens considers Mr. Keillor as great a threat to Western civilization as Mr. bin Laden, but the association of the two in his column space and in the language he uses towards both makes me take his indignation less seriously if he does not distinguish in his speech between the two.
I guess I misunderstood what you meant by your problem with Hitchens. I assumed you had a normative problem with him, ie, it is morally suspect to use the same loud voice to condemn Keillor and Bin Laden. I was disagreeing with that point. If you meant you don't find Hitchens convincing because of that tendency, I obviously have no argument. If you wish he didn't do that because you think he could be a better voice for views with which you agree, I also have no argument.
All that said, I find his tone strangely endearing, maybe because it is somewhat anachronistic.
I think we can all at least rally around the fact that Garrison Keillor may be the ugliest man alive. I shudder when I think that Robert Altman has made a film version of a Prarie Home Companion, forcing Keillor's mug on to movie screens for hours at a time.
While I'm a huge PHC fan and I think Keillor is a great talent, I think the witticism "He has a face made for radio" is stunningly apt.
I concur. The first time I saw a picture of Garrison Keillor (and this an NPR glamor shot, mind!) I physically recoiled from the screen in horror like a vampire exposed to a mirror.
Post a Comment