I agree with both comments below...I always found Hitchens almost unreadable. He always wants us to see how smart he is. One of the reasons I use to read his Nation column was to just see how many words he used that I did know. I frankly hate that...the political world is not so complex that it can't be explained in plain simple English. Hitch is not alone in this...many politicos write in such a way that only other members of their class can decipher what the hell they are trying to say. Maybe "Empire" being the most recent and prime example.-Tony
----- Original Message ----- From: Gordon Fitch <gcf at panix.com> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Sent: Thursday, November 28, 2002 9:08 AM Subject: The Mystery of Hitchens's Mind (was: Re: Bush Names Kissinger to Head 9/11 Probe)
> | ...
>
> Reed Tryte:
> > I find all the venom both from Hitchens and from his
> > detractors to be very distasteful, so I don't want to
> > seem to add to it. But am I the only person who finds
> > Hitchens' writing and thinking to be extremely
> > muddled? I can barely understand what he's talking
> > about half the time. Not that muddled writing isn't
> > common across the political spectrum, but as a writer
> > Hitchens can't play in the same league as Orwell, who
> > was extraordinarily lucid and precise.
>
> I find Hitchens's writing entertaining but I am unable to find
> more than a trace of theory behind it. By "theory" I mean
> coherent, sustained thinking of any sort, an ability to
> consciously order a set of facts or observations and derive
> patterns or conclusions from them -- in short, to know why
> you think what you think. For Hitchens, it appears that
> chance intuitions and emotions are the sole source of his
> desires and allegiances. Hence I'm not surprised that he's
> gone over to the other side, so to speak; as my local Baptist
> church has posted on its outdoor sign, "If you don't stand
> for something you'll fall for anything."
>
>
> -- Gordon
>