A Conversation with Richard Seymour
Вставка
- Опубліковано 19 кві 2013
- A Conversation with Richard Seymour
Author of UnHitched, The Trial of Christopher Hitchens
Major contributor to Lenin's Tomb - www.leninology.com
Interviewed by Shaun Joseph, International Socialist Organization
I liked Hitchens, but Seymour has some great points. And also, the most annoying part is probably the sainthood status that has been given to Hitchens.
Was the beginning of this cut off?
I enjoyed this fantastically insightful talk, and the book.
Good talk.
Also, none of his books make use of in-text citations or footnotes. There will be a passing mention of a book or essay title, but try finding a three line quote in a 400 page book being referenced. Including citations would have immensely increased his logos, and it would have helped him avoid his little errors.
The admiration many felt toward Hitchens was earned, not given.
Yes, but what do you think about Seymour?
Hitchens' behaviour makes sense if you see him as what he called himself, a "contrarian". In Hitch 22 he says: "I can't bear to lose an argument" and in the Four Horsemen movie he says, slightly tongue-in-cheek, "I would mourn the decline of religion because I'd have nobody to argue with". He just loves a wrangle, argument for the sake of argument. This means he always has to surf the leading edge of any controversy and take an unorthodox stance. Who knows what he REALLY believed about anything?
He never called himself a contrarian. He hated the the title “Letters to a Young Contrarian” which his publisher picked. You can think he’s lying, but he said that he did not take opposing positions simply for the sake of argument. I believe him. He loved arguing, that’s true, but his positions always had plausible reasons backing them. His mind just worked different than most other people, leading to many “contrarian” views.
Most of Seymour's critiques were spot on, especially Hitchens' inability to get minor facts right in his writing. Take, for example, his intro to a 2004 edition of Brave New World: "the psychedelic properties of peyote and mescaline and their derivatives, such as LSD." LSD is a derivative of the ergot fungus, and mescaline is the drug extracted from the peyote cactus; they are not separate compounds. An obscure detail, I know, but if you're going to talk about it and publish it, get it right.
I don't think Hitchens would have made much of a debate "partner" if the Hitchens/Hedges or Hitchens/Galloway debates are anything to go by. Hitchens was mostly about incendiary statements and posturing. If he could make Galloway look like a cool reasonable analyst, that's saying something.
Oh.
Bold statements, but can you cite your sources? I know that Hitchens wrote a rebuttal against Seymour once, but I didn't know that they convened. Nice ball of asinine assumptions you have there. So did you save any for someone else?
No, he's not. I'd challenge you to read some of the reviews on this book. And small articles would not get Hitch's attention the way this book would.
Towards the end of his life, Christopher Hitchens developed a cult following every bit as obnoxious as that of any AM radio shock jock. He became the thinking man's Bill O'Reilly, People loved his particular brand of boorish bullying, which they called "Hitch-slapping." I'm not sure how happy Hitchens was with this silly hero-worship of himself...
Invent penicillin ? Braille ? Quantum theory ? Steam engine ? what the fuck did he ever really do...........just a lot of supposition and conjecture , Scoffer ? ...easy to do
Someone insulted saint Hitchens? Quick cobble up an insult to show how upset you are.
Seymour had a long time to debate Hitchens. And didn't. in fact the only debate Seymour had with Hitchens was when he was safely 6 feet under.
mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2005/seymour261105.html
According to Mr. Seymour, Hitchens' main fault seems to be that he sometimes changed his mind. I see that as a sign of intellectual honesty and refusal to retreat in the comfort of all-encompassing ideologies. As for the accusation of Hitchens switching his interest to atheism/religion for the money, they are, it seems, obscenely gratuitous. Hitch provided several new, starkly brilliant arguments to that discussion. I'm sure Hitchens had flaws and Mr. Seymour might have identified some of them, but he's not convincing me of anything here.
No one is challenging the right to change one's opinions.However.Hitchens' volte face lookes less like honest intellectual endeavour and more like craven sucking up to the power elite.By supporting the war in Iraq he came across as the worst apologist for war crimes imaginable,sometimes exceeding the Bush Admistration in his propagandism.Norman Finkelstein best sums up the whole phenomema with this quote (taken from an article about Hitchens here normanfinkelstein.com/2006/on-christopher-hitchens/) :
"If apostasy weren’t conditioned by power considerations, one would anticipate roughly equal movements in both directions. But that’s never been the case. The would-be apostate almost always pulls towards power’s magnetic field, rarely away. However elaborate the testimonials on how one came to "see the light," the impetus behind political apostasy is - pardon my cynicism - a fairly straightforward, uncomplicated affair: to cash in, or keep cashing in, on earthly pleasures. Indeed, an apostate can even capitalize on the past to increase his or her current exchange value."
Adam Smith I read the whole piece, and can't bring myself at terms with the use of the word "apostate" in a political context. But let's put that aside. If there is only the left and the right, as this article seems to imply (apparently the left is right about everything and the right is left with nothing), and if Hitchens was originally on the left, and left the left, where else could he go than on the right? So the "power's magnetic field" (what a poor image, by the way) argument falls flat.
Hitchens's analysis of issues was always a posteriori (instead of based on ideology). Mr. Seymour, on the other hand, is an ideologist. I have no problem to pick whom I trust more.
IndieRockOwns Just adding: I would love to see someone taking Hitchens on the facts. Just the facts. I've read many pieces attacking his position on the Iraq war. Every time there is a lot of ad hominem, people calling him an ex-leftist, a traitor, a hero turned villain, etc. I don't care for these non-arguments.
IndieRockOwns Er yeah mate,some Hitchens fan you are.Referring to Hitchens as an apostate is not some errant concept Finkelstein introduced just to be perverse ,it is the way Hitchens often reffered to himself in private correspondence.A somewhat irritating attempt at a faux enfant terrible status by a man old enough to know better.Finkelstein runs with Hitchens' conceit purely as a metaphor and explores it's implications.Using the concept of apostasy to look at the not uncommon phenomena of those on the left who undergo an a damascene conversion to the right that is often very lucrative.The career of Horowitz,Gitlin,Kristol,and others all seem to follow a similar trajectory.
The process of conversion always seems to follow the same script,in short there is a internal or external crisis that causes a questioning of ones overall viewpoint;a complete rejection of friends colleagues and some cases even family; a swift and complete conversion to worship of state and corporate elites alongside an adoption of right wing values to the point of parody,that would make even Ann Coulter embarassed; with the huge rewards of book contracts media adulation and a sort bad boy celebrity status being the end the result.Whatever you feel about Finkelstein's language this whole process is so predicatable it could be a law of nature.Reading about the career of Hitchens and the others I have mentioned one can reasonably argue that the huge rewards are the whole purpose,with any sincere commitment to truth or justice running a poor second at best.
I may reply to your other statements on this matter since they are quite fatous.However,since they are so full of inconsistencies unpacking them could take longer than I am willing to devote to what is essentially a leisure activity
Adam Smith Being deemed unworthy of your time is not nearly as insulting as you would like it to be. Your calling Hitch more right-wing than Ann Coulter is about as much as I need to know of your ideas to lose interest in whatever you have to say.
To end this conversation on a friendlier note, I want to advise you to learn the rules of typing (spaces after full stops, etc.). I'm not trying to be condescending here. I have to say I find your prose quite agreeable to read. As much as I disagree to what your sentences convey, I insist that they deserve properly placed punctuation.
Hitchens was right about the danger of political islam to middle eastern countries and their citizens, even the muslims.
Exhibit A: the current civil wars in Iraq and Syria.
Exhibit B: the retarding effect political islamic groups have had on nearly all the Arab uprisings and political development overall in the past 3-4 years.
This man is a coward, and a fool. IMHO.
In my "humble" opinion. XP
***** Agreed; for someone who might be jealous. I like my hair, just fine.