My Favourite Books

Number 13 - For The Sake of Argument - Christopher Hitchens Away back in February, I raved enthusiastically about Hitchens' book 'Love, Poverty and War'. Rather than repeat myself I have chosen another collection of his writings on various topics in the form of 'For The Sake of Argument' though I think perhaps the other book has a slight edge. Christopher Hitchens is one of the leading intellectuals of our age. Although apparently a product of the British 'left' he has come more and more to be identified with his own self-styled war on 'Islamofascism' and for a 'leftie' he has found himself in the peculiar position of supporting many of Dubya's 'initiatives' including the war in Iraq. Whether you agree with what he says or not, you must admire the courage with which he speaks his mind in relation to matters which many of his contemporaries find too hot or dangerous. For example, his support for fellow-scribe Salman Rushdie was unqualified and unstinting right from the proclamation of the fatwa - unlike many other gutless wonders who disappeared like snow off a dyke at the first hint of danger. Hitchens is a person who will literally defend freedom of speech to the death. The pieces in this collection were written post-Rushdie but pre-bin Laden, so that Hitchens views on the current world situation cannot be found here. But in his article on Rushdie one can see the genesis of his current position - "one must side with Salman Rushdie not because he is an underdog but because there is no other side to be on". Elsewhere he revisits Dealey Plaza in reviewing DeLillo's book 'Libra' about Dallas '63 - rails against first Governor then President Clinton - assesses the Labour Party under Neil Kinnock - reviews Andrew Morton's book about Diana Spencer - waxes lyrical in support of booze and fags - critiques inter alia Nixon, Kissinger, PJ O'Rourke, Warhol, James Baldwin, PG Wodehouse and C.L.R James - and ranges over the whole spectrum of current political and cultural life. All of it accomplished in his trademark mordantly witty style. I find all of this vastly entertaining - especially the bits I totally disagree with. I think Hitchens is an acquired taste - I have acquired it. In February I recounted the amusing spat between Hitchens and George Galloway. By way of illustration of Hitchens style here is a quote from his most recent piece about Galloway in Slate online magazine 30th May 2006 - "Galloway is a member of Parliament by the grace of an electorate in the East End of London but is widely regarded as a corrupt scumbag, an egomaniac, an apologist for tyranny, and a supporter of jihad.......... .............It was a busy week for Galloway. He went to Cuba and publicly embraced Fidel Castro on television, saying that the aging caudillo was a "lion" in a political world populated by "monkeys." The main distinction between Castro and his neighbors, however simian some of them might be, is that he is the only one left in Latin America and the Caribbean who does not submit himself for election. This seems to be the difference that appeals most to Galloway. In both Britain and America, this fawning and cowardly and sinister jerk is considered a hero of the "anti-war" movement. He is, in fact, an excuse-maker for totalitarianism and an apologist for nihilistic religious violence. How long before the democratic left starts to refuse him a platform and make him stand on his own? Some of us will be watching." You know that I'm a big fan of both Galloway and Hitchens, so this ongoing feud between the pair of them is richly comic and highly entertaining, though of course there is a deadly serious side to it as well.