Letters to a Young Contrarian

Rating:
Summary: Not Gore Vidal, alas.
Review: Other reviewers have certainly pointed out the book's and Hitchen's stong points, but I think that they're too generous. The remarkable thing about Hitchens is his rise to such great fame and authority on what is really a meagre spread. He likes to tout his receipt of the mantle from Gore Vidal, but he's neither as gifted as a writer nor as searching in his critique. It's possibly an unfair comparison, but it's one that we're invited to make, and given the contrast, the invitation seems more aggrandizing than accurate.

This book, while fun, ... Well, to my eye, that's its strong point. It seems a bit of a knock-off and perhaps has it's audience among the fresh-faced and fawning.

If I were looking for someone more in the line of Gore Vidal I'd suggest John Ralston Saul. Compared to Hitchens, Saul's observations and analyses are often more readable, delivered without the abrasion, and are part of a larger, coherent fabric.

Rating:
Summary: A must read for any young iconoclast or contrarian!!
Review: Praise:
"Letters to a Young Contrarian" is a fun mental strength building exercise; a thought provoking read! Hitchens' letters on religion, arrogance and the life of the contrarian are brilliant; every one of his essays inspires introspection and reflection. At times you will wholeheartedly agree with Hitchens' beautiful aureate prose and then, just as ardently, you will find yourself disagreeing with every idea he puts to paper. Whether you agree or disagree with Hitchens, he will refine your own views and opinions.

Criticism:
The book seems a little rushed and annoyingly desultory and at times I found Hitchens' language to be verbose, prolix and at its worst, euphuistic; he often makes obscure and, in my opinion unnecessary references to esoteric literature or (tragically) overlooked history and current events, not to mention his avid use of recondite Latin and French aphorisms.

Conclusion:
The book is obviously not for everyone, but for those young (or old) contrarians struggling with their solitude, identity, methods and purpose, the book is a must.

Rating:
Summary: A must read for any young iconoclast or contrarian!!
Review: Praise:
"Letters to a Young Contrarian" is a fun mental strength building exercise; a thought provoking read! Hitchens' letters on religion, arrogance and the life of the contrarian are brilliant; every one of his essays inspires introspection and reflection. At times you will wholeheartedly agree with Hitchens' beautiful aureate prose and then, just as ardently, you will find yourself disagreeing with every idea he puts to paper. Whether you agree or disagree with Hitchens, he will refine your own views and opinions.

Criticism:
The book seems a little rushed and annoyingly desultory and at times I found Hitchens' language to be verbose, prolix and at its worst, euphuistic; he often makes obscure and, in my opinion unnecessary references to esoteric literature or (tragically) overlooked history and current events, not to mention his avid use of recondite Latin and French aphorisms.

Conclusion:
The book is obviously not for everyone, but for those young (or old) contrarians struggling with their solitude, identity, methods and purpose, the book is a must.

Rating:
Summary: Stirred but not shaken
Review: Recently stumbled onto this little book that wants to make a stir, somewhere, somehow. I think that and wanting to become a national best-seller is on the list for Hitchens, i.e., to write something intellectual, controversial and garner broad public attention (like the Closing of the American Mind was for Mr. Bloom). Both authors are roughly in the same camp and enjoy the fine art of biting.

But I could be wrong in my impression and perhaps this is just for those rebels on the fringe who enjoy free thought. But there is something ambitious about this book. If Thomas Paine could write pamphlets and be famous, why not Hitchens! Not to detract from what Hitchens is saying throughout the book, it is a good message, and the cover gives us the right image of the rebel (Bogey and Dean). But will America be stirred, provoked? Probably not and controversy remains more in the hands of the irrationally rational, eg., somebody like a David Lynch. Still a good biting message!

Rating:
Summary: Stirred but not shaken
Review: Recently stumbled onto this little book that wants to make a stir, somewhere, somehow. I think that and wanting to become a national best-seller is on the list for Hitchens, i.e., to write something intellectual, controversial and garner broad public attention (like the Closing of the American Mind was for Mr. Bloom). Both authors are roughly in the same camp and enjoy the fine art of biting.

But I could be wrong in my impression and perhaps this is just for those rebels on the fringe who enjoy free thought. But there is something ambitious about this book. If Thomas Paine could write pamphlets and be famous, why not Hitchens! Not to detract from what Hitchens is saying throughout the book, it is a good message, and the cover gives us the right image of the rebel (Bogey and Dean). But will America be stirred, provoked? Probably not and controversy remains more in the hands of the irrationally rational, eg., somebody like a David Lynch. Still a good biting message!

Rating:
Summary: It's so cool to be Contrarian
Review: This book, and all of Christopher Hitchens' books for that matter, are perhaps the most irrelevant and yet most interesting books written on current history. Yes, Hitchens is extremely bright (even in an extremely bright profession) , controversial, radical, iconoclastic, informed, experienced, and still very very irrelevant. One time he is taking on Mother Teresa, then appearing as a huge liberal on C-SPAN against his conservative British brother, then he turns up on Charlie Rose saying he is a libertarian, then he writes regularly for The Nation (while preferring globalization), and finally he applauds an article in National Review or the Weekly Standard. This latest book is the most scattered of all amounting to little more than a general pep talk about how to keep up your radical credentials, or, how to be Christopher Hitchens. Being so cool and intellectual and affected may be good for ones' career but how does it really help the reader who time and again is given only the choice of voting for a Democrat or Republican?
In the beginning there was Thomas Jefferson arguing for freedom and Alexander Hamilton arguing for Government. Today the Democrats and Republicans are arguing about the same issue, while Mr. Hitchens is oddly arguing about something else not even defined, let alone on the ballot? Why doesn't he write a book on why Trent Lott and Sam Daschel have spit the United States gov't along stupid or irrelevant lines? In truth, the more relevant and central an issue is to World history the more Mr. Hitchens stays away from it. So, if you want to be a proud but harmless radical, read this book. But, please consider that when you are done, like Marlon Brando in "The Wild Ones" you'll still have to figure out what it is that you want to be radical about, if that should matter to you at all. Perhaps in an existential world "cool" has a value all by itself? If you want to read a book that seeks to be relevant as much as this book seeks to avoid it try "Understanding The Difference Between Democrats And Republicans"

Rating:
Summary: on a practical level
Review: This is supposed to be a book for young people - I'm assuming by young they mean late high school or college.

I am a high school teacher and I can tell you that Hitchens' repeated use of foreign phrases without translations (such as "saeva indignatio" - p. 8 and "dei sacrificium intellectus" - p. 23 and "cette 'fugutive du camp des vainqueurs'" - pp. 91-2) and his continual references to the 60s and the Cold War without any background will lose nearly every young person who attempts to read it.

If by young, they meant 36 years old, than this 36 year old found the text to be interesting and challenging. However, I have to give it a poor score because he will fail to hit the stated target audience - and he will miss by a long shot.

Rating:
Summary: Stylish but erratic
Review: This short book has much that is good and much that is infuriating. Hitchens's strengths include a graceful prose style, impressive literary knowledge and, most particularly, a keen ear for cliche and vacuity.

In his 'letters to a young contrarian', Hitchens is at his best when he skewers some notably vapid instances (some hypothetical, some actual) of moral and intellectual reasoning, regardless of the supposed authority of the source. He has particular sport with what he aptly terms 'a string of fatuous non sequiturs' presented by the Dalai Lama. Most important, he presents the reasons that argument is healthy and necessary in a free society; he rightly cites Popper, and then extends his point with apt reflections on other writers, such as Mill and Milton.

This is all good stuff, but there is one large conceptual problem with the book and many judgements that can only politely be described as tendentious. The problem at the heart of the book is that one cannot sensibly advise someone on how to be contrarian, because contrarianism consistently pursued becomes devoid of moral content and descends into cynicism. The most extreme example I know of this is the linguist Noam Chomsky, whom Hitchens cites approvingly in this book but has rightly castigated - in the context of the war on terrorism - as being 'soft on fascism'.

The tendentious judgements arise from Hitchens' being rather more willing to forgive moral turpitude on the Left than its equivalent on the Right. For example, in pronouncing his willingness to make common cause on specific issues with those he disagrees with in general, he disclaims willingness to appear on public platforms with an outright fascist but states willingness to do precisely this with Communists. Those who are indiscriminate in their loathing for totalitarianism will wonder why Hitchens makes this distinction. A further instance of skewed judgement is when Hitchens makes the ludicrous claim, when considering the anti-nuclear movement of the 1980s and the courageous struggle of eastern bloc dissidents, that 'the two movements for human rights and disarmament were latently symbiotic at the beginning, and had become quite closely related by the end'. They weren't symbiotic at all: they were completely antithetical throughout the Cold War. Had the liberal democracies of the west adopted the prescriptions of the anti-nuclear movement, eastern Europe would certainly not now be free and western Europe would probably not be. Former eastern bloc dissidents know this perfectly well, but it would appear that for Hitchens, his declared contrarianism has limits, marked by certain aspects of the received wisdom of the New Left.

Rating:
Summary: Not Hitchens at his Best
Review: This small book by Christopher Hitchens is written as a series of letters to a young protege. The beginning of each letter begins by pretending to answer a question, which provides Hitchens with a jumping-off point for his own observations. Hitchens is extremely well read and his letters are peppered with quotations and allusions.

The point of this book is to instruct others in how to follow his skepticism. In one "letter" he writes, "For the dissenter, the skeptical mentality is at least as important as any armor of principle." As a college professor, I could not agree more that a critical stance is absolutely necessary. For him, skepticism must equal protracted and painful conflict. He considers compromise and deliberation as a means to resolving disputes, but rejects them in the end, calling them "pointless" and "mindless." He argues that "in life we make progress by conflict and disputation," a point with which many would agree, but he puts his own unique stamp on it by casting normal debate as a fight to the death.

Although the aim of the book is to create young social critics, it's not likely that one should surpass Hitchens himself in being refractory. Hitchens has turned contrariness into an art form. As a journalist, he has criticized Mother Teresa, Princess Diana, Bill Clinton, Henry Kissinger, as well as efforts to bring Serbian strongman Slobodon Milosevic to justice. For Hitchens, the more sacred the cow, the more attractive it is as the target for his barbs. It will be interesting to see if he will long remain silent on President Bush and his administration's handling of America's "New War."

In the course of the letters, Hitchens offers a few nuggets of advice that are actually constructive. For example, he urges the young to live "as if." Live "as if" racism, sexism, or any other prejudice do not inform one's actions, he advises. This advice seems particularly naive coming from America's leading curmudgeon. He would have laughed if anyone else had suggested it.

Rating:
Summary: Reviewers need to read the book
Review: Two criticisms of this book have been 1. it does not address practical topics of todays politics and 2. Hitchens has a large ego and wants to be Gore Vidal. What is truly inspiring about this book is that it is not an argument on current affairs. You can get this from a newspaper. I find Hitchens fascinating because he is one of the few writers who courageously tries to change how you think and not just your opinion on an issue. In fact Hitchens states that "how" and not "what" you think is what is truly important.

As for point number 2 regarding Gore Vidal and the authors ego I have no idea where this comment comes from in fact the Hitchens is self-deprecating in several parts of the book.

I have read the book three times now and to me it is a concise and powerful argument for why we need people who are what Hitchens calls "apart" (think differently). In fact my favorite part of the book is a discussion around the folly in trying to create consensus. You always need a cadre of strong viewpoints to reach a good decision.

When reading some reviews I wonder if readers have read the book or have simply pigeonholed Hitchen's work and want to discredit him. I would highly recommend this book who sincerely wants to change how they think but people like this are few. As Hitchens points out many of our institutions, particularly religious institutions actually ask that you "check your intellect at the door" and listen to the wise person or book of wisdom. This subtle imposed ignorance keeps the masses in a haze but sufficienty free to do the bidding of its leaders, however, harmful they may be.

I see a great service that Hitchens offers us which is the constant questioning of the existence of any large institution in the world whether it be government, religous, or business.