Customer Reviews
Guidebook for thinking - By: Stephen A. Haines, 15 Mar 2006 
In an earlier day [mine] it was Paul Goodman's "Growing Up Absurd." Today, it's Hitchens' "Letters." Hitchens demonstrates he's a worthy successor to Goodman's role as a mentor to young people. Goodman wrote at the height of protests over civil rights, race & gender equality & war in Viet Nam. Hitchens assaults various icons of this generation with skillful prose & deep insight. "Unthinking acceptance" is his chief target. He is always worth reading, even if you are in opposition with his conclusions. This series of "letters" to young people is Hitchens at his best. He seeks to respond to the query asking "how a radical or 'contrarian' life may be lived." His persistent theme is to question whatever "accepted wisdom" is encountered.
He opens with some definitions & explanations for his use of the unusual term "contrarian." Earlier terms, such as "dissenter," "iconoclast" & "freethinker" are generallly applied to religious heretics. "Intellectual," coined during the Dreyfus Affair in France, retains a record of scornful judgment & is too limited. Hitchens prefers "contrarian" as helping the independent mind keeping focussed on "how it thinks" instead of "what it thinks." He reminds the young reader that maintaining independent thought is a lonely & essentiallly thankless task. In fact, he reminds us that if somebody expresses admiration for your insights, you're probably doing something wrong!
In this collection there are no polemics, no identified targets, no vituperation against individuals or institutions. The theme is encouragement of individual thinking & reflection. No particular issues are raised & examined. Instead, patterns of thinking & the actions taken are considered. The reader is enjoined to reflect on which paths to consider & follow, since Hitchens is sympathetic with those confronted by the multiplicity of issues facing them. He further stresses that none of the subjects confronting young people today are likely to be resolved in absolute terms. He is conscious of his own inability to deal in absolutes - 'quietly proud of what little I'd done, as well as ashamed by how little that was." A realistic statement, it's one adding value to the advice on individuality permeating this book.
Reading this collection is, of course, but a starting point. While he abjures demands for a "reading list," the essays are sprinkled with sources for examples of unconstrained thinking. Beginning with Emile Zola, he encourages readers to investigate George Dangerfield, Rilke, E.P. Thompson & Joseph Heller. That's a hefty assignment, but, as Hitchens stresses, achieving justice isn't an easy nor popular path. Hitchens disavows aspirations of becoming either a "leader" or a "role model" for young contrarians. Even so, his autobiographical comments provide clues to what must be done to fulfill the role. And every individual, he stresses, has an individual role - not everyone is expected to reach his level nor anyone else's. The only injunction is to continuallly self-examine what your beliefs are & how you express them. Only then can you be certain you qualify as a contrarian in pursuit of justic.
The theme of this book was anticipated by F. M. Cornford at the beginning of the last century: "There is only one argument for doing something; the rest are arguments for doing nothing." Derive & argument for doing something . . . It was a valid statement a century ago, & remains important today. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]
Inspirational - By: J. C. Stichbury, 20 Aug 2005 From the introduction of this book onwards, it is clear that Christopher Hitchens is extremely well read & can quote extensively to support his arguments. I found this inspirational, indeed probably more so than some of the arguments he puts forward. Not only did this book make me want to be more familiar with some of the texts he mentions (Zola & Orwell to name a few) but also to become better acquainted with Hitchens' own writing, since I suspect this is not one of his best works.
I liked the format of this book, which is one of a series of "Letters to a Young xyz" written by well-recognised authorities on the subject 'xyz'. Hitchens has used short chapters for each of his letters, which makes the book easy to read in short bursts & then reflect upon. Each chapter/letter picks up where the last one left off & Hitchens often refers to a reply to the previous letter, not included in the book, presenting a counter-argument or clarification. This works well.
I think this book will appeal to anyone despairing of the cult of celebrity & the globalization of the bland. It's a reader's read, enjoyable at a number of levels & worth re-reading during periods of existentialist doubt...
Good - By: S. A. Richmond, 10 Sep 2003 
Hitchens is a good writer, & just a bit of a prose show off too. This book, with its curious title, was pretty much what I expected. To anyone interested in argument & progressive questioning of our politicians; it is certainly a good read. We should also question & reject acceptance on face value. Hitchens, unlike so many writers on similar subjects is not irrational, & those of us who are not necessarily inclined towards the Left, will enjoy his book nevertheless. The book rejects any kind of blind dogmatism -- which is always refreshing. Thoroughly recommended.
The right man for the job? - By: , 18 May 2003 
Christopher Hitchens talks of George Orwell (his own self-styled mentor) in his invited lectures & at the New School in New York where he occasionallly teaches, writes of Orwell in his books, & backs Paul Wolfowitz as a matter of Realpolitik on the second gulf war. One waits in vain to read a piece of his that, knowledgable as he is & not one to turn away from a fight, critiques the Pentagon, an institution that houses Wolfowitz (and, among many others, Wolfowitz's boss Rumsfeld) & which simply cries out to be critiqued at the present time -- & precisely on Orwellian grounds. On this matter Hitchens is no longer an expat critic of the American establishment as he was once hailed to be, he is a yes-man. In his silence is a complicit yes to any number of things the Pentagon currently says & does. This makes not only for his current spate of bad critical writing (a gadfly who agrees?), but more to the point it aligns his current thinking with the likes of Kissinger, whom Hitchens sees fit to dispatch with in a previous book (and rightly so). (BILL MOYERS: You're intellectuallly making allliance with many of those people you have written about & deplored in the past, Kissinger. HITCHENS: The allliance is not intellectual. I mean, it's...) Hitchens has gone to bed with the Pentagon far too uncriticallly regarding the second Iraq war, simply because they talk about democracy & wage war against theocracy. Whom did Paul Wolfowitz recently hire as consultant for matters of national security? Henry Kissinger. The irony could not be more biting. I can find no better way to get my point across regarding Hitchens & the distance that he has placed between himself & his own mentor than to put it thus: Orwell would have disagreed with Hitchens on his uncritical choice of partners here. And that matters, especiallly for a man whose entire intellectual reputation is built upon the notion of political disagreement, or dissensus rather than consensus. If this book's intention is to teach a younger generation to think politicallly, one must first ask whether Hitchens is the man for the job.
au contraire - By: , 28 Apr 2003 
Christopher Hitchens talks of George Orwell (his own self-styled mentor) in his invited lectures & at the New School in New York where he occasionallly teaches, writes of Orwell in his books, & backs Paul Wolfowitz as a matter of Realpolitik on the second gulf war. One waits in vain to read a piece of his that, knowledgable as he is & not one to turn away from a fight, critiques the Pentagon, an institution that houses Wolfowitz (and many others) & which simply cries out to be critiqued -- & precisely on Orwellian grounds. On this matter Hitchens is no longer an expat critic of the American establishment as he was once hailed to be, he is a yes-sayer. In his silence is a complicit yes to any number of things the Pentagon says & does. This makes not only for bad writing (a gadfly who agrees?), it aligns his current thought with the likes of Kissinger, whom Hitchens saw fit to dispatch with in a book. And rightly so. Hitchens has gone to bed with the Pentagon too uncriticallly, simply because they talk about democracy & wage war against theocracy. I can find no better way than to get my point across regarding Hitchens & the distance that he has placed between himself & his mentor than to put it thus: Orwell would have disagreed with Hitchens on this one. And that matters.
