Christopher Hitchens Gives David Mamet a Baptism by Fire
As wars of wit go, you couldn't pick two more imposing contestants.
While most of the right is busy welcoming legendary playwright, screenwriter, and director David Mamet into the fold upon the release of his conversion testimonial, "The Secret Knowledge" (which Peter ably previewed here), the truly daunting Christopher Hitchens (whose loyalties lie outside of any conventional partisan lines) has taken to the pages of the New York Times book review with his sights set squarely on Mamet's temples. Just a few samplings of Hitch's Greek Fire:
This is an extraordinarily irritating book, written by one of those people who smugly believe that, having lost their faith, they must ipso facto have found their reason.
and
Quoting Deepak Chopra, of all people, as saying, “Our thinking and our behavior are always in anticipation of a response. It [sic] is therefore fear-based,” he seizes the chance to ask, “Is it too much to suggest that this quote contains the most basic prescription of liberalism, ‘Stop Thinking’?” On that evidence, yes, it would be a bit much.
and
In case by any chance we haven’t read it before, he twice offers Rabbi Hillel’s definition of the golden rule and the essence of Torah: “What is hateful to thee, do not do to thy neighbor.” As with Hayek’s imperative of choice, the apparent obviousness of this does not entirely redeem it from contradiction. To Colonel Qaddafi and Charles Manson and Bernard Madoff, I want things to happen that would be hateful to me. Of what use is a principle that is only as good as the person uttering it?
Hitch has drawn a line in the sand. Will Mamet cross? If only someone here was preparing an episode of Uncommon Knowledge where he could press the latter to weigh in on the former.
- Comment (14)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (0)
Comments:
Mar '11
Re: Christopher Hitchens Gives David Mamet a Baptism by Fire
Last night, on the member side, I argued that the Times hired Hitchens to tell Times' readers not to buy the book. I don't think Hitchens went to the Times with his completed arrogant essay.
Edited on June 21, 2011 at 7:51amJan '11
Re: Christopher Hitchens Gives David Mamet a Baptism by Fire
The New York Times offered Hitchens the chance to attack. Will any news outlet offer Mamet a chance to respond?
Mar '11
Re: Christopher Hitchens Gives David Mamet a Baptism by Fire
I am about half-way through the book, and have to say it is a little disappointing. It's not as bad as Hitch makes out, though.
Although I am an admirer of Hitch, it has to be remembered that he is still a leftie, and probably the Times wanted to discredit Mamet, as an apostate.
In his interview with Hugh Hewitt, if I recall, Mamet mentioned that he doesn't pay much attention to reviews, so I doubt he is surprised by all this. No doubt Peter will give him an opportunity to respond.
Apr '11
Re: Christopher Hitchens Gives David Mamet a Baptism by Fire
Mixing up Mamet, Hayek, Hitchens, and Sowell
"But then I ran into Christopher Hitchens' waspish review of Secret Knowledge in The New York Times. And he repeats the "tragic view" error. So now we are getting into the Churchillian problem that a lie gets halfway around the world before the truth gets its pants on."
(Hitch says) Hayek identified what he called "the Tragic View" of the free market: the necessity of making difficult choices between competing goods.
OK, this time I checked out the tragic view with Google Books. There is no discussion of "tragic view" in The Road to Serfdom; The word "tragic" appears twice, but not as a Weltanshauung. The Constitution of Liberty?; There is one hit for "tragic,"
Hitch would have known this if he had read, learned, and inwardly digested his Hayek as a young schoolboy in Britain, before he squandered his life chasing leftist chimeras until the day of his 9/11 epiphany.He'd have known that Hayek doesn't go in for ringing phrases and overarching paradigms."
No, the chap with the tragic view is Thomas Sowell."
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/06/mixing_up_mamet_hayek_hitchens_and_sowell.html
Edited on June 21, 2011 at 12:20pmApr '11
Re: Christopher Hitchens Gives David Mamet a Baptism by Fire
"Hitchens wants you to know that Mamet is not part of the in-crowd. Remember, he is speaking to New York Times readers. These people want to be stroked. Think of Frank Rich's former column, Your Weekly Ten Minutes' Hate: We're smart; they're dumb. We're experienced; they're naive. We're good; they're evil. We're right; they're wrong. We're with-it; they're hopeless. We're superior. This kind of writing appeals to other self-regarded in-groupers. It is a collection of sentiments and postures designed to signal their membership and the exclusion of Mamet. It is meant to be reassuring to the liberal left elite--to salve the wound of losing Mamet, to make the existential threat he poses go away, and to remove the challenge he posed to their cognitive biases. And when they read Hitchens words, they will breathe a sigh of relief, knowing they are still wearing the white hats."
http://minx.cc/?post=317786
Nov '10
Re: Christopher Hitchens Gives David Mamet a Baptism by Fire
From what little I have read of both, I have found Hitchens to be somewhat sophomoric. It is seemingly juvenile to attempt to belittle a person and minimize his words simply for a difference in opinion.
Again and on the little evidence I have, Hitchens has done little to argue why his points of view have value whereas Mamet seems to be focused directly on that particular aspect. However, Hitchens is a creative writer, which makes him sound impressive.
Sep '10
Re: Christopher Hitchens Gives David Mamet a Baptism by Fire
Christopher Hitchens once referred to himself as a "recovering Marxist" on Cueball with Chris Matthews. As part of his recovery, he views himself as an evangelist of sorts to those of us who self identify as conservative gorillas in the mist. Mamet's unpardonable sin in Hitchens' eyes is to not assume the requisite missionary position when entering the jungle: a sin on par with mixing up the shrimp and the salad fork at a Washington correspondent's dinner.
Sep '10
Re: Christopher Hitchens Gives David Mamet a Baptism by Fire
I could not get past the first line of Hitchens's review: that he found the book irritating indicated an emotive rather than an analytical response, so my mind turned wary. I have not read Mamet's book, but I suspect, from having been a hugh fan of Hitchens for more than two decades, that it's Mamet's religious tone that bugs him—and having something nice to say about Sarah Palin. (I have to agree, though, that taking a moral cue from Deepak Chopra is like following a silly cloud.)
Sep '10
Re: Christopher Hitchens Gives David Mamet a Baptism by Fire
I saw Mr. Hitchens on Dennis Miller's show several years ago. He exclaimed that John Edwards was the "Real Deal" and he was 100% in support of his candidacy. I thought that he must be joking. He was not.
While a talented man, his ability to look into the soul of men and divine their intent floats only in shallow waters. A mirror would better suit his skills.
Sep '10
Re: Christopher Hitchens Gives David Mamet a Baptism by Fire
I agree. When it comes to politicians, Hitchens is impressed with how people speak to the detriment of being able to intuit what they actually say.
Andrew: I saw Mr. Hitchens on Dennis Miller's show several years ago. He exclaimed that John Edwards was the "Real Deal" and he was 100% in support of his candidacy. I thought that he must be joking. He was not.
While a talented man, his ability to look into the soul of men and divine their intent floats only in shallow waters. A mirror would better suit his skills. · Jun 21 at 10:53am
May '10
Re: Christopher Hitchens Gives David Mamet a Baptism by Fire
It is absolutely true that 1) Hitchens is an enormously interesting and iconoclastic writer, 2) talented man, and 3) leaves his thought behind and his emotions in charge when the subject is at all related to religion. That is the reason that Chris and Peter Hitchens were estranged for so many years.
Dec '10
Re: Christopher Hitchens Gives David Mamet a Baptism by Fire
Troy Senik
and
·
To come to the conclusion that he does in this quote, Hitchens makes a superficial reading of Hillel whereby he confuses malice with justice. Despite it's double edged nature, I would assume Hitchens does desire justice for himself as he does for Qaddafi.
I agree with Leslie Watkins that this is at least as much an emotional quarrel as it is an intellectual one. I think the first sign of the effect of emotions is a reduction in the powers of reason.
Edited on June 21, 2011 at 8:53pmJun '11
Re: Christopher Hitchens Gives David Mamet a Baptism by Fire
I find Hitchens always interesting, witty and honest, but he's not careful, a trait which suits a hired gun. His review of Mamet is honest (he's irritated) but not serious.
I found Mamet's latest to be honest, serious, but odd. While it's primarily a polemic, it's also a memoir. In this instance, I don't think the blend is well crafted. Regardless, Mamet's voice is engaging throughout. He leaves little doubt about what he thinks. I recommend the book.
I'd love to see these two square off in a real debate.
Apr '11
Re: Christopher Hitchens Gives David Mamet a Baptism by Fire
Christopher Barr: I find Hitchens always interesting, witty and honest, but he's not careful, a trait which suits a hired gun. His review of Mamet is honest (he's irritated) but not serious.
I found Mamet's latest to be honest, serious, but odd. While it's primarily a polemic, it's also a memoir. In this instance, I don't think the blend is well crafted. Regardless, Mamet's voice is engaging throughout. He leaves little doubt about what he thinks. I recommend the book.
I'd love to see these two square off in a real debate. · Jun 21 at 12:55pm
The things you (and numerous others above) cite about Hitch are precisely the reasons why you never get a "real debate" whenever Hitchens is involved. Is he serious about what he thinks & says? Yes. Witty? Yes. Honest? Mostly. Careful? Well-reasoned? Frequently not very on either count. Emotional? Entertaining? Always.
Then again, since high school Forensics class, when's the last time you saw anyone in a "real debate" about anything?