The title of this blog posting will make sense at the end of the blog post. (No peeking!)
This post is in two parts, corresponding to the two parts of the blog title. The first part deals with a person who I count among my heroes. The second with a small
incident that happened yesterday.
Part 1: Christopher Hitchens
==================
Prayer is flattery. But ...
"Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery". (Charles Caleb Colton ) (Love the alliterative initials of his name!)
Christopher Hitchens dislikes prayer. What would be his reaction to imitation, I wonder ....?
I have never had the chance to meet the writer, journalist, polemicist and public speaker Christopher Hitchens. (But I would love to). I first came across his work when I was a grad student at MIT circa 1999-2000. It was an opinion piece by CH or an interview of CH (I forget which) in which he explained (extremely cogently) his strongly negative views regarding Mother Teresa. My intial reaction was one of extreme distaste (that anyone could criticize Mother Teresa), but after much thought, I concluded (and still feel) that his criticisms were and are largely valid.
I have always felt that an essayist and/or writer who can cause a person to change his views as thoroughly and completely as Hitchens changed mine through the clarity of his arguments is worth deeper study.
Since then, I have been a regular reader of his column "Fighting Words" in Slate.
I strongly recommend this column for those who love a good intellectual dust-up.
As a book lover and a (somewhat) impecunious graduate student, I tend to spend more of my stipend than I can really afford to on books - both technical (Math, Physics, Electrical Engineering and CS) and non-technical (both fiction and non-fiction). (My non-fiction non-technical reading list consists mainly of books on history, economics and finance, biography and evolution - more on that later, in another blog post).
I have, in the past few days, acquired three of Hitchens's books. Well, actually collections of his essays. I have not the slightest doubt that these book purchases will prove to be "paisa vasool" i.e. value for money. (I think the Hindi phrase has more "kick").
In order of purchase, I list them below:
1. Letters to a Young Contrarian: Art of Mentoring (Mother obtained this at my request from the Harvard Coop bookstore on her recent trip to the U.S).
2. Arguably: Essays by Christopher Hitchens (a few days ago, at the Crossword bookstore at Hiranandani).
3. Hitch-22: A Memoir (Obviously the title is a play on Joseph Heller's Catch-22)
Yesterday evening at the bookstore in Lokhandwala Market
Besides P.G. Wodehouse, who (for those who are not of the cognoscenti) was a writer of humorous fiction (and thus the comparison is perhaps unapt), Hitchens (who sticks almost exclusively to non-fiction) is the writer whose quality of language never ceases to entrall me. (I have already mentioned the quality and cogency of his argumentation).
For a while, I found myself in broad agreement with him on almost all topics of current interest (politics, the Rushdie affair, Henry Kissinger, views on the value of (or lack thereof of) religion and many other such matters). This was mildly annoying. I don't think any self-imagined self-respecting contrarian (as I like to think I am) likes it when he finds that another human mammal, no matter how cultured has pre-empted his own thoughts. ("Human mammal" is partly tautological, but still an eye-catching turn of phrase. It is due to CH in his book "God is Not Great: How Religion Spoils Everything).
Anyhow, I find myself in disagreement with CH's views regarding Mahatma Gandhi. Hitchens is very strongly critical of Mahatma Gandhi. In some places, unfairly so, in my opinion. CH's visceral distaste for religion (something which I partly share) and for mixing religion with politics colors his views about the Mahatma, who freely used "religious" symbolism in his peaceful campaigns to awaken India's masses against the British Empire. However, in a short biographical sketch about Salman Rushdie, titled "Salman" (sorry, can't find the link), Hitchens writes approvingly about the "... Iranian revolution that pitted masses of unarmed (emphasis mine) civilians against a crazed megalomaniac ...". (reference to the Shah of Iran). The operative words are "peaceful" and "unarmed" (presumably implying peaceful as well). I used "religious" in quotation marks above. Let me explain.
Surely a person of CH's intellectual caliber can see that what really mattered was not whether the language and idioms employed by a political leader (Gandhi) do or do not come with "religious" baggage, but the intent and execution.
Intent: MG's use of Hindu symbolism and phrases such as "Ram Rajya" in no way meant a return to a monarchy and/or theocracy, but only good governance). MG gave ample evidence of that in his writings and speeches.
Execution: Unlike demagogues such as Hitler in the 1930s and religiously inspired nutcases, such as the mullahs of Iran in the present day, Mahatma Gandhi at no point attempted to mix the (admittedly extremely potent) brew of religious symbolism and political grievances into the Molotov cocktail of hatred and violence against an occupying power and/or defenseless minority. As he could have easily done - the British were the first, but could have easily become the second, as they (quite rightly) feared. (Indeed, following the naval mutiny in 1946, this fear was one of the primary causes for their "inglorious scuttle" (CH's phrasing again) in 1947). But the credit for the awakening of the Indian masses in general and making the sailors think of themselves as part of the Indian navy and not the "Royal" Indian navy must largely go to Mahatma Gandhi, gainsayers notwithstanding. (Swapan Dasgupta has made the same point in his blog "Right and Wrong" in his opinion piece "Gandhi: The only Visionary among Many Patriots").
Indeed, MG was largely a voice for sanity (in the political realm certainly). His decision to call off the non-cooperation movement as a result of the Chauri-Chaura incident was, in my view, the correct one. (It is another matter that his currying favor with the religious obscurantist Ali brothers to obtain their - and by (incorrect) extension, Muslim - support for the movement was a matter of poor judgement).
(I should hasten to add that any political leader - of any political stripe whatsoever - in the India of 2011 who attempts to call for Ram Rajya would meet with my skepticism and/or derision. Our middle class and intelligentsia are of sufficient critical mass (or at least I hope that is the case) that appeals that might spark atavistic/millenial/utopian passions should be considered unnecessary and/or dangerous. But that was not the case with the India of 1920, where the aim was to galvanize people against British imperialism).
Some of Hitchens's criticisms about Mahatma Gandhi are spot-on. MG's belief in a country of self-sufficient village republics (Babasaheb Ambedkar has also criticised this view - sorry I can't find the reference) and his (non-violently) Luddite views regarding machinery and industrialisation and anti-scientific world view and attitudes towards sex are worthy of criticism.
Anyhow, regarding CH's views on MG, that is all for the moment.
Now for the second part of this post.
Part 2: Conversation with a girl of 10
=======================
It happened yesterday evening at a bookstore in Lokhandwala market. I enquired of the bookstore propreitor (as I think she was - or should it be proprietress?) whether she had a particular book. She was unsure, but a little girl sitting next to her (who turned out to be the lady's daughter) piped up and said that they did not.
Further conversation revealed that she was 10 years old and in the 6th standard. (This was a little surprising. At age 10, most kids are in the 4th standard (as I was), or at most, the 5th standard). I was impressed and asked her whether she enjoyed school. Receiving an affirmative answer, I asked the usual questions "What subjects do you like?" and so forth.
She said that she liked Mathematics (in response to a specific query).
You see, by this time, I had spent some time browsing in the bookstore and came upon Christopher Hitchens's "Hitch-22" (see above). (Not the book I had gone to the store to buy).
Anyhow, recently Hitchens was asked by a little girl Mason Crumpacker (all of 8 years of age) for a reading list. (Oh, and by the way, the link preceding is to a blog by Jerry Coyne, author of "Why Evolution is True", a magnificent read, and another book I am proud to say I possess).
And now we come to the title of the blog.
Let us see. A Hitchens admirer holding a book by Hitchens is in conversation with an intelligent little girl of 10 who is the daughter of a bookstore owner and who loves Math.
So I did the only thing I could do. I suggested to her authors whose books she should read. She dutifully noted down my suggestions.
I named:
1. Martin Gardner (recreational math puzzles)
2. Raymond Smulyyan (recreational math puzzles)
3. Richard Dawkins (biology, especially evolution).
I felt that she was too young to comprehend Hitchens's work. Blog followers' opinions are welcome.
Thus "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery".
I hope Christopher Hitchens -- if he ever reads this blog, which seems a priori unlikely at the moment -- will approve of my imitating his actions.
To conclude, a collection of Hitchens quotes, to whet the reader's appetite.
This post is in two parts, corresponding to the two parts of the blog title. The first part deals with a person who I count among my heroes. The second with a small
incident that happened yesterday.
Part 1: Christopher Hitchens
==================
Prayer is flattery. But ...
"Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery". (Charles Caleb Colton ) (Love the alliterative initials of his name!)
Christopher Hitchens dislikes prayer. What would be his reaction to imitation, I wonder ....?
I have never had the chance to meet the writer, journalist, polemicist and public speaker Christopher Hitchens. (But I would love to). I first came across his work when I was a grad student at MIT circa 1999-2000. It was an opinion piece by CH or an interview of CH (I forget which) in which he explained (extremely cogently) his strongly negative views regarding Mother Teresa. My intial reaction was one of extreme distaste (that anyone could criticize Mother Teresa), but after much thought, I concluded (and still feel) that his criticisms were and are largely valid.
I have always felt that an essayist and/or writer who can cause a person to change his views as thoroughly and completely as Hitchens changed mine through the clarity of his arguments is worth deeper study.
Since then, I have been a regular reader of his column "Fighting Words" in Slate.
I strongly recommend this column for those who love a good intellectual dust-up.
As a book lover and a (somewhat) impecunious graduate student, I tend to spend more of my stipend than I can really afford to on books - both technical (Math, Physics, Electrical Engineering and CS) and non-technical (both fiction and non-fiction). (My non-fiction non-technical reading list consists mainly of books on history, economics and finance, biography and evolution - more on that later, in another blog post).
I have, in the past few days, acquired three of Hitchens's books. Well, actually collections of his essays. I have not the slightest doubt that these book purchases will prove to be "paisa vasool" i.e. value for money. (I think the Hindi phrase has more "kick").
In order of purchase, I list them below:
1. Letters to a Young Contrarian: Art of Mentoring (Mother obtained this at my request from the Harvard Coop bookstore on her recent trip to the U.S).
2. Arguably: Essays by Christopher Hitchens (a few days ago, at the Crossword bookstore at Hiranandani).
3. Hitch-22: A Memoir (Obviously the title is a play on Joseph Heller's Catch-22)
Yesterday evening at the bookstore in Lokhandwala Market
Besides P.G. Wodehouse, who (for those who are not of the cognoscenti) was a writer of humorous fiction (and thus the comparison is perhaps unapt), Hitchens (who sticks almost exclusively to non-fiction) is the writer whose quality of language never ceases to entrall me. (I have already mentioned the quality and cogency of his argumentation).
For a while, I found myself in broad agreement with him on almost all topics of current interest (politics, the Rushdie affair, Henry Kissinger, views on the value of (or lack thereof of) religion and many other such matters). This was mildly annoying. I don't think any self-imagined self-respecting contrarian (as I like to think I am) likes it when he finds that another human mammal, no matter how cultured has pre-empted his own thoughts. ("Human mammal" is partly tautological, but still an eye-catching turn of phrase. It is due to CH in his book "God is Not Great: How Religion Spoils Everything).
Anyhow, I find myself in disagreement with CH's views regarding Mahatma Gandhi. Hitchens is very strongly critical of Mahatma Gandhi. In some places, unfairly so, in my opinion. CH's visceral distaste for religion (something which I partly share) and for mixing religion with politics colors his views about the Mahatma, who freely used "religious" symbolism in his peaceful campaigns to awaken India's masses against the British Empire. However, in a short biographical sketch about Salman Rushdie, titled "Salman" (sorry, can't find the link), Hitchens writes approvingly about the "... Iranian revolution that pitted masses of unarmed (emphasis mine) civilians against a crazed megalomaniac ...". (reference to the Shah of Iran). The operative words are "peaceful" and "unarmed" (presumably implying peaceful as well). I used "religious" in quotation marks above. Let me explain.
Surely a person of CH's intellectual caliber can see that what really mattered was not whether the language and idioms employed by a political leader (Gandhi) do or do not come with "religious" baggage, but the intent and execution.
Intent: MG's use of Hindu symbolism and phrases such as "Ram Rajya" in no way meant a return to a monarchy and/or theocracy, but only good governance). MG gave ample evidence of that in his writings and speeches.
Execution: Unlike demagogues such as Hitler in the 1930s and religiously inspired nutcases, such as the mullahs of Iran in the present day, Mahatma Gandhi at no point attempted to mix the (admittedly extremely potent) brew of religious symbolism and political grievances into the Molotov cocktail of hatred and violence against an occupying power and/or defenseless minority. As he could have easily done - the British were the first, but could have easily become the second, as they (quite rightly) feared. (Indeed, following the naval mutiny in 1946, this fear was one of the primary causes for their "inglorious scuttle" (CH's phrasing again) in 1947). But the credit for the awakening of the Indian masses in general and making the sailors think of themselves as part of the Indian navy and not the "Royal" Indian navy must largely go to Mahatma Gandhi, gainsayers notwithstanding. (Swapan Dasgupta has made the same point in his blog "Right and Wrong" in his opinion piece "Gandhi: The only Visionary among Many Patriots").
Indeed, MG was largely a voice for sanity (in the political realm certainly). His decision to call off the non-cooperation movement as a result of the Chauri-Chaura incident was, in my view, the correct one. (It is another matter that his currying favor with the religious obscurantist Ali brothers to obtain their - and by (incorrect) extension, Muslim - support for the movement was a matter of poor judgement).
(I should hasten to add that any political leader - of any political stripe whatsoever - in the India of 2011 who attempts to call for Ram Rajya would meet with my skepticism and/or derision. Our middle class and intelligentsia are of sufficient critical mass (or at least I hope that is the case) that appeals that might spark atavistic/millenial/utopian passions should be considered unnecessary and/or dangerous. But that was not the case with the India of 1920, where the aim was to galvanize people against British imperialism).
Some of Hitchens's criticisms about Mahatma Gandhi are spot-on. MG's belief in a country of self-sufficient village republics (Babasaheb Ambedkar has also criticised this view - sorry I can't find the reference) and his (non-violently) Luddite views regarding machinery and industrialisation and anti-scientific world view and attitudes towards sex are worthy of criticism.
Anyhow, regarding CH's views on MG, that is all for the moment.
Now for the second part of this post.
Part 2: Conversation with a girl of 10
=======================
It happened yesterday evening at a bookstore in Lokhandwala market. I enquired of the bookstore propreitor (as I think she was - or should it be proprietress?) whether she had a particular book. She was unsure, but a little girl sitting next to her (who turned out to be the lady's daughter) piped up and said that they did not.
Further conversation revealed that she was 10 years old and in the 6th standard. (This was a little surprising. At age 10, most kids are in the 4th standard (as I was), or at most, the 5th standard). I was impressed and asked her whether she enjoyed school. Receiving an affirmative answer, I asked the usual questions "What subjects do you like?" and so forth.
She said that she liked Mathematics (in response to a specific query).
You see, by this time, I had spent some time browsing in the bookstore and came upon Christopher Hitchens's "Hitch-22" (see above). (Not the book I had gone to the store to buy).
Anyhow, recently Hitchens was asked by a little girl Mason Crumpacker (all of 8 years of age) for a reading list. (Oh, and by the way, the link preceding is to a blog by Jerry Coyne, author of "Why Evolution is True", a magnificent read, and another book I am proud to say I possess).
And now we come to the title of the blog.
Let us see. A Hitchens admirer holding a book by Hitchens is in conversation with an intelligent little girl of 10 who is the daughter of a bookstore owner and who loves Math.
So I did the only thing I could do. I suggested to her authors whose books she should read. She dutifully noted down my suggestions.
I named:
1. Martin Gardner (recreational math puzzles)
2. Raymond Smulyyan (recreational math puzzles)
3. Richard Dawkins (biology, especially evolution).
I felt that she was too young to comprehend Hitchens's work. Blog followers' opinions are welcome.
Thus "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery".
I hope Christopher Hitchens -- if he ever reads this blog, which seems a priori unlikely at the moment -- will approve of my imitating his actions.
To conclude, a collection of Hitchens quotes, to whet the reader's appetite.
