English-Speaking Atheists Lose Their Columnist Saint

I can’t say that I am particularly struck by the loss of Christopher Hitchens but its in the same way that I was not moved by the death of Steve Jobs. Like Jobs, Hitchens was something of a presentation of himself – not a bad thing in itself but it does distract from whether the output was as valuable as claimed. That being said, David Frum has an excellent memorial to the man in the National Post that captures bits of his appeal:

As the event broke up, a crowd of questioners formed around him. I created a diversion thinking it would help him escape for some needed rest. But Christopher declined the offer. He stood with them, as tired as I was, but ready to adjourn to a nearby bar and converse with total strangers till the bars closed. Hitchens was not one of those romantics who fetishized “dialogue.” Far from suffering fools gladly, he delighted in making fools suffer. When he heard that another friend, a professor, had a habit of seducing female students in his writing seminars, he shook his head pityingly. “It’s not worth it. Afterward, you have to read their short stories.”

Frum called him “a man of moral clarity.” I would have thought “amoral” or perhaps ethical was more the proper word. The man he most reminded me of was Mencken. Both had that sort of rhetorical skill that aligned well with their failure to actually meaningfully participate in anything that added to the public good. Both were keen observers and skilled reporters. The sort of person who can tell you what a poor job someone, anyone, yourself even has done but would not actually engage with the doing themselves. Both were famous drinkers.

I am sure that we benefit somewhat from these columnists, folk who can sharply report on the human condition. But they never really get to anything of value as to the why of it all. They have their own belief system which is immune to denting and judge all from that place on the orb with skill, charisma and something of an ultimate pointlessness. Humans already know life is hard and confused, that our leaders make many bad calls. Directing us to that obvious state of affairs, however insightfully or entertainingly, is not the stuff of heroes.

One thought on “English-Speaking Atheists Lose Their Columnist Saint”

  1. [Original comments…]

    Alan – December 17, 2011 9:06 AM
    Example: wit and strength of opinion do not equal wisdom but there is nothing wrong with a scouring mind either.

    Ben (The Tiger) – December 17, 2011 10:12 AM
    http://tigeronpolitics.wordpress.com
    Don’t know if “amoral” is right for Hitch.

    He just had different morals from most. And was a bracing read.

    Alan – December 18, 2011 7:45 PM
    Well, I think morality requires an objective construct not something you make up yourself. He had an ethical system, not a moral one. Which is fine, just different.

    Ben (The Tiger) – December 19, 2011 9:33 AM
    http://tigeronpolitics.wordpress.com
    There speaks the preacher’s son!

    Alan – December 19, 2011 10:26 AM
    See, you are learning through this relationship.

    Ben (The Tiger) – December 22, 2011 5:09 PM
    http://tigeronpolitics.wordpress.com
    I am generally pro-Christian, but I still think you’re being unfair to atheists here…

    Alan – December 22, 2011 5:21 PM
    How? That they operate on a un-admitted self-defined belief system? Much of what I say up there is actually a specific comment on Hitchens but most of it is really about our relationship as a culture with celebrity. He was an example of that sort of forceful but disengaged eloquence that one needs to be wary of. Not acting on any virtue personally but happy to disassemble others.

    Ben (The Tiger) – December 25, 2011 7:02 AM
    http://tigeronpolitics.wordpress.com
    Are you anti-postmodernist, Alan? Down with the deconstructionists?

    Alan – December 25, 2011 11:27 PM
    What better to be “anti” than a thing that only exists to negate the prior? The modern is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay neater than the post-modern. If Hitchens was post-modern that explains why he was so eloquently forcefully shallow. Happy to be against that.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *