Where did his reputation come from? He apparently has a fairly good one, along with a devoted following.

I'll admit, I haven't really followed his career or anything; I just read what he posts on Slate. I've never read his books and I don't claim to be an expert on all things Hitchens. But his Slate postings seem to be laughably stupid. He's never said anything here that I would consider insightful or even correct. I mean he actually questioned why people like Al Gore and Mother Teresa might even be considered for a Nobel Peace Prize. What's Hitchens trying to do here, cement his chances for the Nobel Overly-Literal, Smug Asshole Prize?

In other words, why does Hitchens get to be on television and post on Slate when he knows just as little about the world as I do? I'm perfectly willing to loudly proclaim my ignorance for half the price. In fact, I just did it for free.

When the little guy with the funny hat comes out and acts foolish so the King can have a laugh?

Suggest you read Hitch's book on mother Theresa. You might see why. Gore -can't see he deserves the prize either. Hitchens can be an asshole but he can write and he provoke controversy. All in all, the perfect qualifications for writing his pieces on Slate and providing entertaining debate on television. Who would you prefer? Al Gore?

I, too, become nasty and vindictive when I've knocked back a few too many, not to mention entrenched in my opinions and agitated by any contradiction to said opinions. (I also carry a dictionary to thrust at my generally less educated listeners.) Needless to say I'm a big hit at parties for my intransigent views and personal attacks, interspersed with witticisms and literary quotes (you know those are sailing over their heads!).

Isn't he a gay ex-catholic anthiest or something? Just something I heard...

Anyway, I read him because he makes me laugh.

I forget, did he used to be liberal or something? Seems like there was something in his past.

He's like a young Rush Limbaugh for me, back when he was only on radio and only certain times of day on certain days, when he was just starting to be someone. I disagreed with almost everything he said, but he had valid arguments and points back then. The Clinton got in office and he got on TV and everything went to shit.

Hitchens used to raise a lot of valid points, and I find he still does now and then. But ever since his early, tragicaly wrong support for the Iraq war, he's been like Rush on Clinton, a one trick pony.

I see this Gore piece as an attempt to get off the pony and back on the track. In it, he made some valid points about Gore and his possible thinking about what comes after if he wins the Nobel, but IMO it's not much that hasen't laready been discussed adnauseum in this hyperinformational age we live in. HIllary burps at dinner, we know about it 30 seconds later, if not live. It's hard to come up with much new and insightfull when our election cycle essentialy starts the day after the last election.

But lets see more like this from Hitchens, IMO.

So, like, you've never read any of his books or anything, or followed his career, but you feel free to mouth off anyway.

Pretty much like most people here have never read any books on Iraq, or followed its history, but mouth off anyhow. Usually against US intervention.

I think the US needs a new political party for you people. Let's call them the Dumbocrats.

Apparently a daily update of (for example) DailyKos and/or Puffington Host (or possibly the The Daily Show) combined with trivia knowledge of Hitchens' penchant for drinking qualifies one for being an expert on U.S. foreign policy as well as a profoundly apt judge of Hitchens' character and critic of his career, even while admitting he/she hasn't bothered reading anything from him other than his Slate essays! Who would have thought?

Um...

First off, I never knew anything about his drinking. Refreshingly, I wasn't attacking him personally - just his work. I don't claim to be a foreign policy expert. I think I know a great deal more than most, but I don't have the free time to sit around and become an "expert" like Bill Kristol or, apparently, Hitchens. I have a job (which I'm neglecting as we speak.)

And why would I read any of his non-Slate essays when I clearly don't enjoy his Slate essays? I'm not a fan. I don't follow Ashlee Simpson's career either because what I've heard from her is really awful.

I was asking others (who might be Hitchens fans) where his reputation comes from because what he posts here tends to be, well, dumb and poorly thought out. And I for one don't think including a pointlessly obscure word with a link to a dictionary counts as good writing. Plus, I'm an atheist, so I should be his target audience, but his writings here give me no desire to read his book.

Hitchens clearly has fans. The question: Why? What am I missing?

So, lay off the ignorance crap. Who are you gonna trust more, the guy who claims to know everything or the one that admits he doesn't?

P.S. - I did enjoy his obit for Falwell. Again, it wasn't insightful or even witty. It was just plain mean and, in the process, kinda fun. Perhaps Hitchens is the intellectual/elitist version of an insult comic?

My comments in general were aimed more at the posters of the average unintelligent, abusive Hitchens castigation that pops up whenever he writes anything, not necessarily anyone in this thread. I'm sorry I was unfair in piling on and not taking your questions as being sincere.

I wouldn't call myself a fan, but mainly I always enjoy his prose and find his arguments compelling even when I'm disagreeing with or indifferent to the subject. It's true that it is humble to admit your ignorance, but you stretched it to say that he "knows just as little about the world" as you do. I don't know how much or how little you know, but I don't think it's true that he's all that ignorant of world events.