Hitchens

Can I be alone in my dislike of Christopher Hitchens, the ubiquitous polemicist, critic, columnist and self promoter that is to be found in so many magazines? Writing on subjects from blow jobs (blow jobs?)  in the latest issue of Vanity Fair to criticism of Updike’s latest novel to the politics of the Iraq war, he always manages to give an impression of overarching smugness. I am sure it is part of the trade to have great belief in what one writes, but most columnists seem to manage that without always giving the impression that they could have done so much better than the people of whom they write.

I picked up the July/August Atlantic Monthly with some glee noting that Hitchens wasn’t listed among the contributors but he wasn’t entirely absent  and managed to slip in a response to a letter writer that had the temerity to disagree with something the great man had written. Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit and Hitchens the lowest form of writer that employs it.

What is really sad is that there are others that aspire to the same level of crassness. Sandra Tsing Loh comes to mind. Her polemic criticism of a book attracted a number of disagreeing responses and her response was, similar to Hitchens, full of sarcasm and ill-temper. One of the correspondents pointed out that Loh had been asked to contribute to the book and had declined, apparently, only due to the fact that the pay was not going to be enough. Honesty should have compelled her to reveal this fact in her review. She reaches for further heights in more reviews in the magazine. Sad that such a fine journal considers such writing to be attractive.