I feel no need to eulogize a man whose claim-to-fame was being a contrarian. The Buckley eulogy just points out one of the bizarre aspects of his writing: He could tear apart some ignorant, unsophisticated nun for a pound (from the original Mother T-bashing Chatterjee) but he reserved a softspot for the Commies of his youth, even in his more recent writings.

I consider the following the best illustration of his character:

“For a lot of people, their first love is what they’ll always remember. For me it’s always been the first hate, and I think that hatred, though it provides often rather junky energy, is a terrific way of getting you out of bed in the morning and keeping you going.” — Christopher Hitchens, 1993

Today everyone’s an iconoclast, so someone’s who’s an iconoclast is no iconoclast. Today the heretic is the defender of orthodoxy, the iconoclast is the one who keeps icons whole, and no greater butcher of sacred cows can be found than the one who stands up for the sacred in an age when everything is up for grabs.

Hitchens’ true idol-smashing consisted in his skewering of Marxist orthodoxy-posing-as-heresy. His anti-religion writings… well, that stuff was old when Napoleon Bonaparte was young.

A magical ride through Horror. A Must Read.

Upon reading the news of Mr. Hitchens death I, too, felt a sense of loss. He had a big voice – one quite difficult to ignore. And whether one agreed with him or not (me, usually not, but he had the capacity to surprise), he provoked thought which I think he viewed as his mission. And in that he was most successful.

I just checked in for neo’s daily posts, after spending some time “wandering” on the Internet. I ended up at several liberal blogs via links and commentaries. I have to say I was stunned at the many comments by liberals — self-aggrandizing holier-than-thou attack dogs who bash anyone with different beliefs unbridled gusto — needless to say, zero of Hitchens’ thought, wit, style, and panache.

Such people are not interested in thinking. They have closed minds, blinders on, and perhaps earplugs, too. They revel in the company of like-minded compatriots in attacking”the enemy” (as Barak Obama has referred to conservatives — I know, I know — off subject but couldn’t resist) with self-congratulatory zest. That is exactly NOT what Hitchens did. He wasn’t just preaching to his choir. I think he relished his confrontational writing with (at least the appearance of) complete confidence and invited readers — maybe dared is a better word — to participate in critical thinking before assuming an immutable position. And that was his purpose: provoke emotion, then critical thinking. They say art is all about provoking emotion from the observer. He was exceedingly successful at his art.