*Pisses off 2 billion people*

>gets numerous people killed
>makes fun of it all on a sitcom

what is his fucking problem?

Are his books any good though?

>If there comes a time when radical Islam isn't such a deadly threat to Europe
>Not realizing that this is the purpose of Islam

Does he still have the fatwa hanging over him?

Why Christopher hitchens is taken seriously?

he's not desu

because he's posh
that's true for most anglo intellectuals tee bee eight

because he's right. at least in that particular video he is.

Here are some things I see over and over again when Hitchens is brought up on this or any other board.

1. Critics criticize him in a general, non-specific way. This tells me that they probably don't like him for his role as an outspoken atheist and so must dismiss all of the other work he's done; works which they likely haven't read.

2. They never bring up legitimate criticisms of him. I like his work, but I see through his veneer a bit. He often drops names, pretending to do so ironically. And he is occasionally is mean-spirited when the situation doesn't call for it. Finally, some of his debate tactics are subtly hypocritical: he expresses outrage at a rabbi joking about circumcision two seconds after making a joke about it. NO ONE ON THIS BOARD OR /POL/ MENTIONS THESE THINGS EVER. They instead just hurl empty insults "he's a hack, he's a pseud," etc. Very lazy and dishonest of you all.

3. I think most people here, if they read his literary criticism - his essays on history, politics, and works of literature - they would LOVE him as a writer. He was a prodigious reader and writer with an astounding memory of details and circumstances surrounding historical and literary events. He interacted with and interviewed many dozens of prominent writers. And most importantly, he lived the literary life - he wrote, smoked, drank, experienced wars and movements as a correspondent, contributed to and edited high-brow and mid-brow magazines, dined and partied with political and literary elites all over the world, and did it all with the underlying love of America, free speech, and literature.

In other words: he lived the kind of life we all want to live.

You put yourself in a terrible position. Like you said, people rarely offer criticism on clear points, so you've merely made assumptions which can be debunked by variations of 'nah, that's not it, you're retarded'. Also it's unlikely that Veeky Forums has a problem with his atheism (aside from a small minority of newly born fedora Christians, most of them are leftist fedora atheists), so it's more likely that they don't like his support for Western interventionism.

Good point. That's another main position of his that causes automatic detractors, similar to the atheism. Yet with that, I don't think he was hypocritical or dishonest about it. He saw Saddam as a brutal dictator and considered it good that he was ousted by the US. He put himself into a bit of a corner by sticking to that position no matter how badly the war went, but as far as getting rid of Saddam, he explained it well on the Daily Show: "It had been the official position of the US to seek regime change in Iraq since 1998." He never addressed the clumsiness with which the Bush administration tried to link the invasion to 9/11.

I like him too. 'Arguably' is full of memorable articles. Such big personalities always draw excessive criticism.

At least he gets fatwa sex.

>>gets numerous people killed
>>makes fun of it all on a sitcom
>what is his fucking problem?

That's a really fucking stupid criticism and you know it. First of all, HE didn't get them killed, radical Muslims killed/attempted to kill some people associated with publishing/translating his works. It's not a poor reflection on him, since he was just exercising his freedom of speech and artistic expression; rather, it's a poor reflection on radical Islam. Second, THEY THEMSELVES chose of their own accord to translate/help in publishing these works, and so, they must have accepted whatever risks were there due to its controversial nature.

Third, considering the absolutely despicable, bigoted, fundamentalist, narrow-minded nature of the people he had extremely pissed off to the degree of wanting to even kill him just for writing a book, I think it's not only fair but great and ballsy that he rubbed it in their faces by showing that he wasn't going to become a cowed and overly serious coward even despite having to live in fear of assassination. Fourth, you don't understand how people react to extremely stressful situations; it's not like a switch turns on in your brain, "OK, you have to be serious 100% of the time now." Black comedy to relieve stress/suffering is a thing. People joking about/in times of tragedy is a thing. It's a natural human coping mechanism.

Anyway, I don't even like Rushdie much as a person since he's an edgy atheist and deliberately was sticking a stick into a bee's nest with the book. But on the other hand, all the controversy and even few deaths it caused is the fault of insane radical Muslims.

Satanic verses is unironically my favourite book of all time. I read it twice in less than a week and it's almost 800 pages, so that should mean something (sorry DFWfags)

lmfao

>TWN get order 66ed by butthurt readers of your book.

>people

Man, I miss Christopher Hitchens. He completely shit on that stupid leftist hag.

He's a Jew; the muzzies would have been pissed off with him no matter what.

Is the Satanic Verses actually a good book?

it's beautifully written but it's a bit boring tee bee h

I read The Satanic Verses when I was 17. I didn't understand much. Should I reread it? I remember it being written beautifully like said.

amateur

> named Rushdie
> is in no rush to die

Truly a master baiter.

If you don’t know who Salman Rushdie is, why the fuck are you on this board?

Midnight’s Children
Satanic Verses

These were major events in literature. When Satantic Verses was published Ayatollah Khomeini issued a Fatwa calling for him to be killed and he spend basically a decade in hiding from Muslim assassins.