Love, Poverty, and War : Journeys and Essays

Rating:
Summary: One great essay
Review: Hitchen's is "prolific" and "brilliant" so it says on the cover. Prolific is not a compliment. Brilliant? He certainly wouldn't let that go unquestioned were it applied to someone else. That's part of his appeal, he is relentless, unyielding, and "pugilistic" as it says on one of the flaps. Like all good journalists and most writers, he has a gift for research and a seeming encyclopedic knowledge to draw upon. One of the benefits to reading him is that you'll discover a myriad of writers, historians, philosophers, and schools of thought that you'll want to explore further.

The best essay in the book is the first, a serious look at Winston Churchill and the tendency of historians to stick to an accepted storyline. This is Hitchens at his best, advocating for historical truth and recognizing the complexity of character. One of his least convincing essays concerns Fahrenheit 9-11. In "The Lies of Michael Moore," he doesn't name any outright lie. Hitchens finds the movie offensive, simplistic, dangerous, and manipulative--all of which is true--but he does not locate within it a deliberate falsehood. Moore's interpretation of facts may be self-serving and one-sided, but that does not a lie make. Hitchen's also resorts to name-calling, wondering if Moore is as stupid as he looks. It is beneath Hitchen's to attack Moore in this way (and inadvertently revealing) especially since Hitchens's "look" --unkempt hair, loosened tie, wrinkled suit jacket--is itself a cliche of the deadline driven journalist. I suspect, but of course have no real proof, that his vitriol for Moore and (elsewhere) Clinton has an element of the personal to it.

The rest of the book is the usual high IQ stuff on literature, history, America, religion, and war. Something good in each one. But I'm beginning to think that he's at his best when looking at the past rather than the present.

Rating:
Summary: Have writers the right to be wrong?
Review: Hitchens is getting boring. His contrarianism feels more and more like schtick and his rabid support of the Iraq catastrophe is the stuff of sour grapes and DT's. HOWEVER, as far as Iraq and Mother Teresa and, yes, even the Dalai Lama go, he has an absolute right to be wrong as long as we have the right to shoot his lies and mistakes down in flames.

Rating:
Summary: Excellent Book, As Ever
Review: I do love Hitchens, and I'm quite fond of his tone. I wholeheartedly recommend his work. While he's not entirely convincing on the "War" issue(I think his abstracting of a "theocratic fascist" enemy is a bit problematic), otherwise he's always tight and if nothing else, fun to read. He's a bit tedious in the last Orwell book, but his essays have no remotely blunt areas--i.e., very sharp-like, all the time.

As to the Dalai Llama issue raised at length below...let's see, "he has no right to denigrate our religion." No. No, that's objectively wrong. He has every right to denigrate your religion. Of course there's so many moral cowards running around right now, I can see why you'd think that. Nobody's ever bothered to denigrate your religion before. One would think there were a law against it, or something. Of course if you substitute the "religious" in "anti-religious bias" with "nonsense," as in "anti-nonsense bias," Hitchens' position may be more comprehensible.

Rating:
Summary: Angry , Unprovoked, and Incorrect: A Review of One Essay
Review: The only reason I rated this book 4 stars is because I've only read one of the essays and I don't want to look unfair by rating the entire book down. The essay on the Dalai Lama is ridiculous, and I would like to share with you a counterpoint to it.

This is from Salon.com, a letter to the editor from a Tibetan fellow named Bhuchung Tsering:
I would have welcomed any unbiased critical analysis of not just the Dalai Lama, but of the entire Tibetan community. We Tibetans have suffered much on account of our past isolationist policies and so we certainly need to be told when the emperor is not wearing his clothes.

However, Christopher Hitchens' article, far from doing that, picks up on a few pieces of disinformation and expands them to support his case, the purpose of which is nothing but to vilify the Dalai Lama. Let me explain.

On the nuclear test issue: It is evident that Hitchens has not seen the Dalai Lama's full statement on his reaction to the Indian nuclear tests. I was privileged to be present on May 13 in Madison, Wisc., when the Dalai Lama answered a reporter's question on the issue. The Dalai Lama at no time supported the test. He said he was saddened by it and mentioned that he was for complete nuclear disarmament. However, he did mention that it was undemocratic for a few nuclear powers to be asking others not to indulge in actions they themselves are undertaking. Is that supporting India's nuclear tests?

On the Steven Seagal issue: The Dalai Lama is nowhere involved in the picture concerning the recognition of the actor as a reincarnated being. Steven Seagal was recognized by his teacher, Penor Rinpoche. While the issue may appear controversial, it has nothing to do with the Dalai Lama.

It is also unbecoming for the writer to denigrate the Buddhist concept of reincarnation, as if this was something started by the Dalai Lama for his own benefit. It is the writer's choice not to believe in this theory but he has no right to denigrate our religion.

Finally, the whole tone of the article is to undermine the institution of the Dalai Lama rather than to give a dispassionate appraisal. The reference to the Dorje Shugden controversy only furthers my suspicion as to the motives of the writer. He fails to mention the killing of three prominent Tibetan monks in Dharamsala, India, at the suspected hand of some Dorje Shugden practitioners.

I do not think the article adds any credibility to Salon's image.

-- Bhuchung Tsering


Another reads as follows:

It shouldn't come as a surprise that Christopher Hitchens felt the need to train his laserlike critical gaze away from Mother Teresa and onto the Dalai Lama. I actually appreciated his desire to debunk the "merciful angel" view of the nun who hoarded money and counseled against birth control, but his comments regarding the Dalai Lama are full of misinformation and reveal his anti-religious bias. If Hitchens aspires to save the world from charlatans and magical thinking, he will have to at least be accurate and ethical, if not balanced.

First of all, the Dalai Lama admitted rather sheepishly that his organization had accepted a donation and given a brief audience to Shoko Asahara. His comment was, "Well, if you need any other proof that I'm not an omniscient Buddha, here's some more evidence to that effect!" The Dalai Lama is consistently humble and straightforward. He is a monk in the difficult position of bearing responsibility for a large secular organization with many subordinates. His roles as spiritual leader and secular statesman are in dynamic tension all the time, and I think he does an amazing job.

The Dorge Shugden deity brouhaha is an example of doctrinal dissent within the Tibetan Buddhist community that has been gleefully seized upon by skeptics and contrarians as evidence that something dark and rotten is at work in the Tibetan Buddhist community. The Dalai Lama has responsibility as a spiritual leader to address doctrinal issues, and he has done so. For those who can't agree with his views, he has simply asked those who practice Dorge Shugden to refrain from taking teachings from him. But people are free to practice as they wish otherwise. It's a shame that this doctrinal dispute that is of private concern to serious tantric practitioners has been made into a public issue that's inadequately explained and reduced to an image of infighting.

Nancy Jacobus Dadak


I hope that these shed some light onto the truth of the matter. Still though, I'm a little puzzled as to why Hitchens "set his sights" on the Dalai Lama. The only logical answer I can think of is that Hitchens wants to make it seem like he's "speaking out against the issues that no one else will speak out agaist" when in reality he's insulting the intelligence of his readers and misinforming people by writing a false and divisive essay. If you want to be shocked I suggest reading some of the other letters to the editor of Salon.com which praised Hitchens.

By the way: If you have not read this book and I have sparked your interest, just Google "Christopher Hitchins" with "Dalai Lama" and you can read the entire article for yourself. Please do, and then make up you mind on the matter.



Rating:
Summary: great read..
Review: this book is full of intelligent essays written by the hilarious and knowledgeable Hitchens..great read that was hard for me to put down

Rating:
Summary: Funny, but with the Ring of Truth
Review: This series of essays and stories cover a whole gamut of subjects from Love, Poverty, War and many more. Mr. Hitchens clearly likes to discuss, if not recommend, a contrarian or revisionist point of view on nearly any subject. No subject is ignored: Churchill, the Holocaust, Mother Teresa, the Bible, North Korea, Michael Moore and many more.

It is easy to see why Mr. Hitchens is so widely published and sought for comments on radio and TV. This is one of those can't be put down books. But since it's broken up into individual essays, you can at least find a convenient place to stop.