The reason I
mention this here is because Hitchens wrote with massive wit, humour and grace
about his cancer. I started this blog in an attempt to look at the disease with
a certain amount of humour, and I would like to point to someone who did it a
lot better: I recommend his Vanity Fair piece Topic of Cancer as an example.
I also
admire the bravery and logic of the man, who kept writing pretty much to the
end with incisiveness, scathing wit and humanity. Look at his
last piece for Vanity Fair, Trial of the Will, dated in the odd way of
magazines January 2012, to see his maintained contempt for platitude.
In this
spirit, he seems to also have maintained his atheism – or, as he would have it, anti-theism
– defying fear-driven hedging and the virus of faith. He despised
religion, believing that it poisons everything (see his best-seller God Is Not Great - Kindle edition here), so I'm pleased by that, although I would have expected nothing less.
My cancer
is less serious than Hitchens'. While my condition is incurable, it is
controllable with a relatively kind treatment regime, and I am not labouring
under any deadline. Hitchens' cancer had already metastasised into his lung and
other organs when it was found; he was given a year to live, that time in
exchange for the organ-wracking pain of heavy-duty chemo, scorching radiation,
and a loss of ability. I would like to think I would also resist hedging my
bets when faced with that, but I can't be certain I would. I think I would.
I'm sure
there are elements out there currently celebrating the demise and even the
damnation of the old unbeliever. Some reportedly welcomed his illness,
including one Christian - a credit to his religion of peace - who apparently
insisted that loving, fatherly old God had given Hitchens "throat"
cancer because that was the body part he used for his blasphemy. Hitchens
replied: "My so-far uncancerous throat is not at all the only organ with
which I have blasphemed."
I would
simply applaud the man's humanity and invite the well-meaning religious to join
me in that. To the less well-meaning, well… they deserve all the life-wasting
fear they are inflicting upon themselves; it's just a shame theirs is a
delusion they insist on inflicting on others as well.
You didn't have
to agree with Hitchens on everything to appreciate him. You didn't even have to
agree with him on much. Even his best friend Martin Amis cheerfully said in The Quotable Hitchens, "hardly anyone agrees with him on Iraq ". I
certainly didn't, although at least his position was honest and consistent,
unlike many. You just had to appreciate what he said and how he said it, and
that was often a joy in itself.
And now to
this morning. I've been watching the Hitchens coverage on the BBC with some irritation.
Why is it necessary to describe the man as "alcoholic" with the same
apparent weight as "intellectual" or "essayist"? Is it even
relevant to the story?
Indeed, was
it even true? While Hitchens himself in 2003 cheerfully admitted that his daily
intake was "enough to kill or stun the average mule" he wrote in his 2010
memoir Hitch-22 (Kindle edition here) that while he still drank with some enthusiasm, he had in
recent years begun to do so "relatively carefully", pointing to his
prolific output as proof that he was no kind of piss artist. You can read that
extract A Short Footnote on the Grape and the Grain on Slate.
Also, there
seems to be an insistence on stressing that while Hitchens began his career as
a radical in the 1960s, he had moved to the political right in recent years.
Not true. Hitchens believed in opposing totalitarianism in all its forms, and as
Woody Guthrie owned a guitar bearing the slogan "this machine kills fascists",
Christopher Hitchens should have owned a pen engraved with the same. This gave
him some strange allies at times: he was a post 11/9 hawk who found himself standing
beside neo-cons on the subject of Iraq , but that hardly made him one
of them. In fact, in his November 2010 BBC interview conducted by JeremyPaxman, Hitchens insisted that he remained a Marxist, agreeing that he still
believed in the dialectic.
It's a pity
that, when dealing with a man who saw so much value in precision, the BBC
couldn't have made a better job of his obituary.
Lastly: why
the headline, God bless Christopher Hitchens? Well, Hitchens wrote at length on
the importance of irony. I felt that an atheist who hates cliché using a
religious cliché to pay tribute to another atheist who hated cliché had a
certain something in that direction. I hope the old bugger would have approved.
I'm now
going to raise a glass of whisky. A futile, empty gesture, I realise - but I
like whisky. I think he might have approved of that as well.
Cheers, Mr Smith!
ReplyDeleteGrainy kNowledgeable Sincere = Pure GNS
ReplyDelete