Thought Catalog

10 Things Bloggers Could Learn From Christopher Hitchens

  • 0

When Christopher Hitchens passed away last December, the world lost one of its most eloquent, outrageous, and courageous public intellectuals. Whether he was writing about religion, politics, or Johnnie Walker, Hitchens never suffered from a shortage of opinions—or an arsenal of words with which to express them. To be sure, I didn’t always agree with him. But then again, who could? I suspect even dear ol’ Hitch disagreed with himself from time to time. Such are the hazards of being a contrarian.

Hitchens the man may have left us, but thankfully his works remain, and will continue to be read long after his passing. Of that I’m sure. That said, in the age of Facebook and the constant need to be “likeable,” I suspect there’s a great deal that we (and writers/bloggers in particular) could learn from Hitchens’s contrarian example, lest we all turn into polite, vacuous, inauthentic zombies in the quest to amass as many “friends” as possible.

1. Don’t be boring. You could accuse Hitchens of many things—but being boring wasn’t one of them. Gifted with a flair for the dramatic, Hitchens turned intellectual discourse into performance art. His style was often a cross between George Orwell and Oscar Wilde, and while the results were sometimes offensive, they were rarely dull: “The Bible may, indeed does, contain a warrant for trafficking in humans, for ethnic cleansing, for slavery, for bride-price, and for indiscriminate massacre, but we are not bound by any of it because it was put together by crude, uncultured human mammals” (God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything). Dull? I think not.

2. Don’t be afraid to pick a fight. From Bill Clinton to God, Hitchens sure picked his share of fights. He employed words as a form of combat, a civil means through which truth could be vindicated and hypocrisy exposed. Here’s what he once wrote about Mother Theresa: “She was not a friend of the poor. She was a friend of poverty. She said that suffering was a gift from God. She spent her life opposing the only known cure for poverty, which is the empowerment of women and the emancipation of them from a livestock version of compulsory reproduction” (The Missionary Position). For Hitchens, writing—writing that matters—requires courage. And if you aren’t willing to go up against some heavyweights (and the occasional Catholic saint) every now and then, you might as well stay out of the ring.

3. Don’t be afraid to be “unlikeable.” When you write with courage and conviction, don’t expect everybody to like you. Hitchens in particular made it difficult for political partisans to embrace him. Conservatives loved him when he defended the Iraq War, but steered clear of him when he excoriated religion. Liberals praised him when he skewered Henry Kissinger, but were less than enthused when he skewered Bill Clinton. Hitchens’s only intellectual loyalties were to the truth and his own conscience. Though we may not all want to go to the extremes Hitchens did, it’s good to be reminded that following your conscience won’t always make you popular—but it’s the only way to make a difference.

4. Don’t be afraid to wrestle with an idea.So much of the content on the web these days is about solving our problems. And I’ll admit, much of this material is extremely useful. But while it’s great to find “how to” articles about virtually any topic, there are some things in life that don’t have a ready-made, ten-steps-to-done solution. There are some things in life you just have to wrestle with—and Hitchens was an intellectual wrestler if ever there was one. In an essay on Aldous Huxley’s novel Brave New World, he wrote: “The search for nirvana, like the search for utopia or the end of history or the classless society, is ultimately a futile and dangerous one. It involves, if it does not necessitate, the sleep of reason. There is no escape from anxiety and struggle” (Love, Poverty, and War: Journeys and Essays). Some things have no easy answer. Some things necessitate struggle. Removing a wine stain is one type of problem; the pursuit of happiness is quite another. Don’t confuse the two. Know when to offer a solution… and when to wrestle.

5. Have a sense of humor. For all his passionate intensity when it came to certain matters, Hitchens had a robust sense of humor—both about himself and others. He understood that humor is a powerful tool for disarming readers and making them more receptive to your ideas. Moreover, as a fan of literary shock and awe, he took the epigram to perversely hilarious heights (or depths, depending on your point of view). Here’s one example: “The four most overrated things in life are champagne, lobster, anal sex and picnics.” But for Hitchens, humor wasn’t simply an antidote to seriousness; it was an essential ingredient to political freedom. A society—or any group for that mater—that takes itself too seriously is more likely than not a repressive one: “The people who must never have power are the humorless. To impossible certainties of rectitude they ally tedium and uniformity” (Arguably: Essays). Humor allows us to laugh at our flaws and pretensions, and softens the edge in controversial debates that could otherwise spill into violence. In short: if more people could laugh at themselves, or convince others to laugh at themselves, the world would be a better, saner place. (North Korea, please take note.)

6. Be passionate in your enthusiasms. What Hitchens hated he loathed, but what he loved he loved in extremis, and he often championed the people and things he cared passionately about. He wrote books about three of his favorite intellectual heroes: Orwell, Thomas Paine, and Thomas Jefferson. He ardently praised people (from political leaders to everyday citizens) who risked their lives in the name of justice and liberty. And he consistently extolled the virtues of friendship, laughter, great literature, and good scotch. Here’s Hitchens on the subject of alcohol: “Alcohol makes other people less tedious, and food less bland, and can help provide what the Greeks called entheos, or the slight buzz of inspiration when reading or writing… Visiting today’s Iran, I was delighted to find that citizens made a point of defying the clerical ban on booze, keeping it in their homes for visitors even if they didn’t particularly take to it themselves, and bootlegging it with great brio and ingenuity. These small revolutions affirm the human” (Hitch-22). The lesson here: if you care about something, convey to us just how much you care about it. Make us feel it. Don’t be bashful, don’t be politically correct. Seek to make your enthusiasms ours as well. (You may not succeed, but at least you’ll keep us interested.)

7. Don’t be afraid to be wrong. If you take a stand about anything—whether it’s a serious political issue or something trivial—accept the possibility that not only will people disagree with you, but that occasionally you might actually be wrong. That future evidence will later undermine your assertions. But don’t let that possibility scare you into silence. From Hitchens’s voluminous output, it’s clear he didn’t suffer much from this fear. If he had, he might never have put a single word into print. To be sure, people may disagree about which issues Hitchens got wrong (personally, I think religion is far more complicated than he makes it out to be, and that women can be quite funny). But that’s the risk of expressing your opinions. Standing up for something is never error-proof.

8. Questions clichés (even good ones). Shortly before Hitchens’s death, Vanity Fair published one of his last pieces, “Trial of the Will.” In the piece, Hitchens takes umbrage with Nietzsche’s famous line, “Whatever doesn’t kill me makes me stronger.” Hitchens, who wrote the piece while undergoing intensive chemotherapy, suspected that the line smacked more of trite optimism than actual wisdom, an inspiring cliché unthinkingly adopted by popular culture. (Indeed, thanks to legions of self-help gurus, not to mention Kanye West, the quote has become fairly ubiquitous.) Hitchens didn’t believe that chemotherapy and its crippling side-effects were making him any stronger, and suggests that not everything we successfully endure has an upside. At the conclusion of the piece, he writes: “So far, I have decided to take whatever my disease can throw at me, and to stay combative even while taking the measure of my inevitable decline. I repeat, this is no more than what a healthy person has to do in slower motion. It is our common fate. In either case, though, one can dispense with facile maxims that don’t live up to their apparent billing.” In other words, don’t take clichés at face value, even if they come from as venerable a source as Nietzsche. (For another angle on this idea, see point #2.)

9. Take pride in being an “unacknowledged legislator.” The poet Percy Shelley once wrote that “poets are the unacknowledged legislators of the world.” It was an idea that deeply appealed to Hitchens (he in fact titled one of his books Unacknowledged Legislation). Hitchens never held political office, but he was firmly of the belief that writers, intellectuals, and artists (not just poets) are responsible for creating unacknowledged legislation—laws and ideas that society might not recognize, but that we recognize in our hearts. This type of legislation typically precedes the formal legislation enacted by politicians, and in some ways is more important. (Think of Henry David Thoreau’s writings on non-conformity, Orwell’s novels and essays, Martin Luther King Jr.’s speeches on civil rights, not to mention Hitchens’s own work.) Whether you’re trying to influence someone’s political opinions, or their spiritual outlook, or their taste in music or books or running apparel, realize that your words have the potential not only to change people’s minds, but to change the world. We should embrace that fact—and, following Hitchens’s example, embrace it responsibly and with gusto.

And finally…

10. “Live, live all you can. It’s a mistake not to.” This quote, from Henry James’s The Ambassadors, was the epigraph Hitchens used at the beginning of his last collection of essays. And from all accounts, he embodied it till the day he died. In a loving article he wrote about Hitchens just after his death, novelist Ian McEwan paints a portrait of a man who refused to go quietly into the night, who read and wrote and debated and laughed with family and friends until the very end. Devout atheist that he was, Hitchens didn’t believe in an afterlife. For him, this was it. And he would either use the short time he had left wisely—or lose it entirely. While not everyone may share Hitchens’s views about religion or the afterlife, one could do worse than adopt Hitchens’s noble example of living life bravely, vigorously, and urgently—right down to the last moment.

Hitchens was more than just a journalist or intellectual provocateur. He was committed to nothing less than teaching people how to live—more passionately, sanely, intelligently, and with less human-inflicted suffering. It’s a goal worth striving for, and one that writers should, indeed must, remain committed to. Our prescriptions to life’s problems may differ, and, like Hitchens, we may occasionally be wrong. But we should never lose sight that more life—a fuller, richer, better life—is what most people, online and off, are truly searching for. And perhaps the best answer we can give them (and ourselves) isn’t the one we can formulate into words, but the one that we exemplify with our lives.

So in sum: don’t be boring, pick fights, be unlikeable on occasion, wrestle, laugh, love, dare to be wrong, question clichés, live all you can, and do your best to change the world. These tactics might not win you any popularity contests on Facebook, but they’re the best ways to keep Hitch’s legacy alive—and the only afterlife he might actually approve of. TC mark

image – Andrew Rusk
Powered by Revcontent

Severe(d): A Creepy Poetry Collection

I used to get butterflies when I looked at you, but now they feel more like maggots feasting away on the heart you slaughtered.

More From Thought Catalog

10 Things Bloggers Could Learn From Christopher Hitchens is cataloged in , , , , , , , , ,
  • SayWhat

    Maybe you should take your own advice.

  • Anonymous

    (www) . (iairmaxshoes) . (com)

    Cheapest Air Jordan Shoes,Tiffany Jewelry Company,Wholesale AF Clothing

    Online Store:

    Cheapest Vans Shoes  $37

    Fashion Tiffany Bangles $20

    Wholesale Hollister Tshirt $18

    jordan shoes $38

    nike shox $37

    Christan Audigier bikini $18

    Ed Hardy Bikini $18

    Sinful short_t-shirt_woman $16

    (www) . (iairmaxshoes) . (com) 

    • Michaelwg

      I hope you get eaten by Fascist fire ants.

  • http://www.facebook.com/f0rgettery AnYee Lovegood

    Beautiful. 

  • Michaelwg

    One of my favorite quotes: “Heroism breaks its heart, and idealism is back, on the intransigence of the credulous and the mediocre, manipulated by the cynical and the corrupt.” —Christopher Hitchens

  • http://notveryraven.tumblr.com/ Andrew

    I don’t know, as someone who vehemently loathes Hitches I think a lot of these points are fine and even good but if anyone is going to be an unacknowledged legislator I’d prefer it be someone

    • http://notveryraven.tumblr.com/ Andrew

      also I’m not sure shouting a lot and misrepresenting your opponent’s views is enough to constitute a public intellect, but that’s probably my prejudice creeping in again

      • Michaelwg

        probably

      • LETME

        Most likely…

  • http://christophermluna.com Christopher Michael Luna

    Hitchens is fun to read, and he gives a compelling presentation of his opinions. It’s all the more sad then, the extent to which he distorts his source material in ways that promote some of the most banal forms of divisiveness and factionalism. His prose always reminded me of G. K. Chesterton’s non-fiction writing: if you agree with Chesterton, and you’re not being intellectually honest with yourself, it’s delightful to read. It’s bombastic, inflammatory, and the man turns a good phrase. Otherwise he comes across as childish, and much more committed to driving home a point than to giving an honest account of the topic. It strikes me that the best prose doesn’t need to sacrifice nuance for entertainment. We can have both.

    So, I’m not sure his is the kind of material we need more of in the world; though given a choice between badly flawed ideas expressed in bad prose, or badly flawed ideas expressed well, sure, I’ll take the latter.

    • http://notveryraven.tumblr.com/ Andrew

      eh, I think I’d take the former so as not to convince people of the bad ideas’ legitimacy

      • http://christophermluna.com Christopher Michael Luna

        The other day I was watching this documentary on 9/11, and there was this large part about the way the word “evil” was deployed. You know, there were tons of shots of W squinting into the distance with his puckered smirk honking something only half-intelligible about evil.

        Then they went to this woman who saw Putin being interviewed by NPR. So the interviewer asks Putin about what he thinks of Nixon calling them “the evil empire,” and he says something like, “Oh, I think of that just as a turn of phrase,” something like that. Then he’s asked about W calling Bin Laden evil, what he thinks about that, and he apparently replies, “I think that’s really mild language. We are as dust to them.”

        When I heard that, it gave me chills. I mean, the NPR woman was eating it up, like “yeah, this is evil!” but think about that rhetoric: “We’ll get’em” versus “We are as dust to them.” And we did a lot of stupid shit because of the former, and I don’t really know if we would have done anything worse with the latter. The latter is terrible, yes, but at least there’s a poetry to it. I feel like Putin respects me enough to make his propaganda touch something in me, like a aphorism etched in the ice-block of his dead soul. The fact that we followed W indicts us, doubly though. Not only was he wrong, he expressed himself poorly.

        Give me beautiful adversaries over idiotic ones any day.

      • http://notveryraven.tumblr.com/ Andrew

        I’m still not sure I 100% agree but your point is well taken (and eloquently expressed) regardless 

    • Hry

      This is a perfect description of why I can’t stand the man, much better than I could have written. The problem I have with Hitchens and Amis, in particular, because everything they ever write is, at a fundamental level, about themselves. It’s a staggeringly egotistical way of writing.

      • http://thefirstchurchofmutterhals.blogspot.com/ mutterhals

        Everything everyone writes is about themselves. How could it not be?

  • http://twitter.com/robwoh Robert Wohner

    Point 1 is seemingly so obvious but too often forgotten. I went on a binge a few years back watching his debates on YouTube. One of the fascinating things about Hitchens’ career was that his ideological foes were personally mesmerized by him and personally loved hearing his views. Even to the point they almost relished being on the receiving end of an insult. Hitchens never tried to pretend he didn’t love his own power with words, which might have turned a few people off.  But he embraced the idea that how something is said is almost as important as what is being said. He utilized all the tools to win an argument – humor, profound intelligence, and sometimes, manipulation and distortion. Whatever side of the spectrum you landed on, you wanted to hear/read more. 

  • http://www.facebook.com/leianne.tan Leianne Tan

    Christopher Hitchens is my hero!

  • Kaitlyn

    Actually, Hitch has said (in Letters to a Young Contrarian) to not be afraid of being boring, because sometimes it’s what is required if you are really passionate about something. I understand the point you’re making, and obviously Hitch was not a boring man, but it’s just he did allow that, sometimes, under the proper circumstances, it was necessary to be boring. He was a bit of a bore about, say the Clintons or Kissinger. And that is what makes him great. Because if he cares, he cares, and does whatever he has to do to get his message out. (Recognized in #6, oddly enough. His enthusiasm led him to be boring, a fitting irony for the man who loved irony so much.)

    Also, the “Why Women Aren’t Funny” article is so often misrepresented and anyone who takes offense to it, obviously hasn’t read or understood it. Disagree with it, yes, which is what I think you’re doing – saying he was wrong. But he was not being degrading to women, and it’s sad that usually that’s the only argument to come out of the article.

    The greatest of men, and this is a really good ode to his memory.

  • AngieJ

    Hitchens may have been a boar,but he he certainly wasn’t boring. Well said.

  • Anonymous

    Although I’m not 100% enamoured of the man, this was a lovely, inspiring and most importantly intelligent piece. Thank you for that.

blog comments powered by Disqus