Hitchens in one!
On the eve of a great fight, Pierce Egan (1772-1849), the Alexander Pope of the sweet science, would call upon the champion in his quarters to compile an accurate picture of what would later become the printed account of the encounter and its atmospherics. A.J. Liebling, the great New Yorker essayist, continued this tradition, and an essential read for lovers of good writing is his report of going up to Harlem in 1951 to visit Sugar Ray Robinson before the fighter left his bar and headed out to the Polo Grounds where he defeated the English idol Randy Turpin in a sensational bout in front of 60,000 fans.
In keeping with this tradition, Rainy Day visited Christopher Hitchens this morning in his rather comfortable lodgings and found him dining on porridge. Breakfast of champions! To demonstrate that he was in fighting form, he then proceeded to sing the rambunctious "Whiskey in the Jar" and followed up in a pleasing baritone with the poignant Carrickfergus.
When it came to the great debate this evening, he emerged swinging, not singing, and proved too powerful for the local hero, John Waters. Now, John Waters is a sweet and thoughtful person, but he is not the kind of opponent for someone like Hitchens, a superb debater with a cyclopean memory and a sabre wit. The organizers of the event made a grievous error in not selecting David Quinn, who so memorably made mincemeat of atheist-in-chief Richard Dawkins last year.
The lack of challenge almost allowed a claque in the audience, no doubt planted by the Irish "anti-war movement", to hijack the proceedings. "What about your friend George?" and other inanities about the liberation of Iraq were shouted up by these rough and tiresome types. Hitchens was forced to silence this kind of nonsense with a resounding couplet in which one of the words was "off" and the other began with "f".
Comments
2007 has been a very bad year for John Waters. First, his Eurovision tune loses, and loses in a remarkably memorable manner: at the bottom with five sympathy votes. And now this debate. Doesn't God have any better champions in Ireland than John Waters and former priests and bishops on parole?
Posted by: Henry Barth | June 17, 2007 11:03 PM
We had a Holy Joe next to us who's chief criticism was Hitchens' use of that very term ending in 'off'.
The organisers really could have done better. At the very least, they could have found an opponent to Hitchens who, say, believed in something and not some arbitrary, inconsistent and vaguely supernatural things.
How did you know he was staying in the Morrison? And as the rest of that paragraph, is it to be taken with a tongue in cheek?
Posted by: Kevin | June 18, 2007 1:02 AM
You got to meet the man for breakfast? Damn, I only got to shake his hand (and put some money in his coffers from the bookbuying).
It's hard to be objective about a debate where you're sympathetic to one side, but Waters was pretty poor, alright. Even more so when you consider he was prepared for the opening statement, while the Hitch wasn't.
And yes, the obviously blockbooked SWP/IAWM hecklers were wankers.
P.
Posted by: Paul Moloney | June 18, 2007 10:37 AM
Too bad that Hitchens didn't face off against a worthier opponent. If he's sparred with anybody close to being his intellectual equal, I haven't heard of it.
I find Hitchens exasperating and infuriating at times, but he's about 50 times more interesting than most of the pundits and talking heads out there these days.
Posted by: Donna | June 18, 2007 5:02 PM
I believe the resounding couplet was in response to a valid and interesting question on whether Hitch would call himself a 'moral athiest' or what title he would chose for himself. he ignored and skirted this until the audience put pressure on him whereupon he was reduced to swearing and stupidness. moving on to questions then put out by the IAWM etc.
great debate but why the cynicism on Hitches part? he came across better when he was coming from the heart. and that was where Waters strength lay.
Posted by: naoise p | June 18, 2007 6:16 PM
Hi there, I was looking around online for evidence of how the debate went (I was too late for tickets I fear).
You don't by any chance know any site that may be hosting an audio recording of the evening?
Cheers,
Tempelton.
p.s. In regards to Dawkins and Quinn last year, Dawkins may be a snivelling git in many ways, but I would hardly call Quinn's bluster the equivelant of mincemeat (pate perhaps). Dawkins is just so irritating at the best of times I fear but I still feel he has the gamut of evidence on his side, no matter how much his fairytale opponents attempt to parade him as the fundamentalist-atheist-in-chief.
p.p.s. Good site by the way:)
Posted by: Tempelton | June 19, 2007 2:32 AM
Are you serious about the breakfast and "Whiskey in the Jar"? Because if so, you are a god.
Posted by: Angie Schultz | June 21, 2007 4:29 AM