> Personally, I never found Hitchens THAT difficult to
> read. Can you provide an example of a difficult
text
> by Hitchens?
Here are some examples of sentences from that last column that I had to read several times. Maybe I'm just particularly slow, but I don't think so:
> I have always esteemed your work as well, and I like
> to think that our differences of principle have long
> been deep as well as narrow.
What exactly does that mean? If he esteems her work, why would he like to think that their differences of principle "have long been deep"? I can kind of figure out what he might mean, but the burden should be on him to be clear.
> It seems like a distraction to bring up the
Israel-Palestine
> dispute, or to bring it up in the way that you do,
since
> this is (a) an old story that has left every US
administration
> morally bankrupt, (b) it is a matter of principle by
itself
> and on its own terms and (c) it is in bad enough
condition
> without being made a hostage to Saddam's whims, as
is
> unintendedly implied by those who propose "linkage"
between
> the two.
Pollitt didn't mention Israel in the column to which he's referring beyond saying that anti-war protestors "fear Saddam Hussein will attack Israel, and Israel will strike back." So what is he referring to? And even if there were something he were referring to, I still can't tell what point he's making.
> Noam Chomsky's repeated assertion that Al Qaeda at
its worst
> is no better than American foreign policy on a good
day.
Shouldn't this be "Chomsky's repeated assertion that Al Queda at its worst is no WORSE than American foreign policy"?
All these are just bad writing. The rest of the column is full of egregious misrepresentation and sloppy thinking. If Chomsky has repeatedly asserted that, for instance, why not quote his actual words? Could people who point out that we used to support Hussein do so to make any other point than that renewed "complicity" with him would be fine? Does an internal Iraqi revolution against Hussein REALLY present all the same problems as a US invasion?
Since Hitchens wrote a book about George Orwell, here's an excerpt from "Politics and the English Language" that seems relevant to Hitchens' writing: a "mixture of vagueness and sheer incompetence is the most marked characteristic of modern English prose, and especially of any kind of political writing... Pretentious diction [is] used to dress up a simple statement... Foreign words and expressions... are used to give an air of culture and elegance..."
Again, I'm not attacking Hitchens just because I disagree with his views on Iraq. This kind of bad writing is everywhere -- there are lots of people with whom I agree who write horribly, too. But it's more dangerous when someone writes badly and is on the side that has all the guns.
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com