Unacknowledged Legislation: Writers in the Public Sphere

by Christopher Hitchens

A celebration of Percy Shelley’s assertion that ‘poets are the unacknowledged legislators of the world’, these thirty-plus essays on writers from Oscar Wilde to Salman Rushdie dispel the myth of politics as a stone tied to the neck of literature; Norman Podhoretz’s ‘bloody crossroads’. Instead Hitchens argues that when all parties in the state were agreed on a matter, it was the individual pens that created the space for a true moral argument.

Genres: Essays, Nonfiction, Politics, Literature, Literary Criticism, Philosophy, Criticism

430 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2000

About the author

Christopher Hitchens was a British-American author, journalist, and literary critic known for his sharp wit, polemical writing, and outspoken views on religion, politics, and culture. He was a prolific essayist and columnist, contributing to publications such as The Atlantic, Vanity Fair, Slate, and The Nation.
A staunch critic of totalitarianism and organized religion, Hitchens became one of the most prominent public intellectuals of his time. His book God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (2007) became a bestseller and solidified his place as a leading figure in the New Atheism movement. He was equally fearless in political criticism, taking on figures across the ideological spectrum, from Henry Kissinger (The Trial of Henry Kissinger, 2001) to Bill and Hillary Clinton (No One Left to Lie To, 1999).
Originally a socialist and supporter of left-wing causes, Hitchens later distanced himself from the left, particularly after the September 11 attacks, when he became a vocal advocate for the U.S. invasion of Iraq. His ideological shift, combined with his formidable debating skills, made him a controversial yet highly respected figure.
Hitchens was also known for his literary criticism, writing extensively on figures such as George Orwell, Thomas Jefferson, and Karl Marx. His memoir, Hitch-22 (2010), reflected on his personal and intellectual journey.
In 2010, he was diagnosed with esophageal cancer but continued to write and speak publicly until his death in 2011. His fearless engagement with ideas, incisive arguments, and commitment to reason remain influential long after his passing.

Reviews

[Lobstergirl · Rating 4 out of 5]

I found that I like Hitchens best as a literary critic, reviewing really shitty authors like Tom Clancy.

But on another note, he needed to cut back on his Latin and French epigrams. I suppose people who graduated Oxbridge in the 60s and 70s knew their Latin and French, but people no longer do. Or even when they do it just seems phony. How many times do we need to hear plus anglais que les anglais?

There's also a careless error, one many others in the media also made out of sheer laziness. Hitchens repeats the false canard that it was Al Gore who introduced Willie Horton into the 1988 presidential campaign, during the Democratic primaries. Horton, an African American, was a murderer serving life without the possibility of parole whom Michael Dukakis, as governor of Massachusetts, had paroled under a weekend furlough program. On his weekend of freedom in 1987, Horton twice raped and violently assaulted a woman. In a primary debate, Gore brought up Dukakis's furlough program, but did not mention Willie Horton - because he had never heard the name. He would not have known to mention it. Gore mentioned that two furloughed prisoners had murdered while out on leave under Dukakis's program. (Willie Horton was not one of them.) It was the George H.W. Bush campaign and its proxies who released the name Willie Horton into the political ether, and made ads about it. Then the right wing media went on a stealth mission to associate Gore with Willie Horton, as a way of claiming that Gore had brought a despicable racist tone into the campaign. Then the nonpartisan lazy media picked up the claim and ran with it (as is their wont! That's why we call them lazy!).

[Matt · Rating 4 out of 5]

Hitchen's writing takes center stage here, not so much polemic or political activism.

He's an aesthete, dontcha know, and he digs into some of the canonical writers of his lifetime- Oscar Wilde, Gore Vidal, Anthony Powell, Fitzgerald, Wodehouse, on and on.

What makes this book valuable is his wit and the gracefullness that he brings to the page. He's retained quite a bit of the British way of elegance and understatement, as well as the cutting critical eye and the droll sense of humor.

To read these essays to to be treated to insight after insight and be all the richer for it.

The title and the thematic material is secondary- what's more important here is to get the opportunity to let Hitch be Hitch and benefit from his learning his shrewdness and his wit.

The way he writes situations and sketches characters is second to none. I'm telling you.

Literary skills applied to criticism is more rare than you might think it is.

here it's all for the taking....

[Mr. · Rating 4 out of 5]

Christopher Hitchens synthesizes his daunting knowledge of politics with his love of fine literature and letters in Unacknowledged Legislation, arguably his best collection of essays to date. Hitchens seeks to bridge the gap between art and politics through a critical review of the major English-speaking author's political views in the 20th century. Perhaps this critical effort could be construed as showboating as Hitchens' profession is political journalism, and this is one of his few collections which fits squarely into the literary criticism section. However, Hitchens is a fine writer and he knows his literature as well as anybody still living.

In this collection, we get a wonderful set of essays about Oscar Wilde and his contribution to the art of play-writing and support for socialism followed by his horrendous victimization as a homosexual. There's a passage from this section that I cannot resist quoting, "Wilde was able to be mordant and witty because he was, deep down and on the surface, un home serieux. May his memory stay carnation-green. May he ever encourage us to think that the bores and the bullies and the literal minds need not always win. May he induce us to rise from our semi-recumbent postures" (pg. 9).

Hitchens proceeds to run through nearly all of the crucial English writers of our era. He of course writes about Orwell, which I thought was a mute point after his Why Orwell Matters, but hey, the guy loves his Orwell. He discusses the anti-Semitism and fascism in T.S. Eliot, the racism of Rudyard Kipling, the historical depth of Gore Vidal, the heavy-handedness of Norman Podhoretz, Allan Bloom's influence on Saul Bellow, and of course, his solidarity with Salman Rushdie upon the declaration of the fatwa among Islamic Jihads, an action for which Hitchens rightfully boasts.

Hitchens also provides critical summaries of the arch-sensationalist Tom Wolf, and hack, Tom Clancy. He offers simply biting criticism of the former, and much needed as Wolf as enjoyed ludicrous financial and critical success for his quasi-journalism over the last few decades. Hitch examines Wolf's reliance on the cliché, and the cultural and racial stereotype for the sake of provocation. Clancy, while less deserving of a critical review than Wolf, is quickly wrapped up in a body bag and tossed overboard by Hitch.

Unacknowledged Legislation may be Hitchens' finest blend of the political and the literary, and it may be the best example of his prolific gifts. Don't miss this volume

[Alex Sarll]

A collection of Hitch's writing about writers - though you wouldn't know that from the blurb of the edition I read, which carefully avoids disabusing potential readers of the notion that they are picking up a single, coherent book. This was a problem in so far as I initially put it in my bag for the week, and then ran straight into several pieces on Wilde which repeated key ideas and quotes - but they were all very good pieces in themselves, and the rest of the book avoids quite so much overlap. As with any such collection, there are pieces whose topical interest has waned, demolition jobs on political thrillers which are probably now only remembered through this undeserved memorial and the like - but also insightful pieces on fine writers (F Scott Fitzgerald, Patrick O'Brian, the aforementioned Oscar) and those less fine but still of note. The pieces are generally fairly lengthy, so it's less bitty than a lot of journalism collections - and it's not as if one is going to stumble over a new Hitch piece in the papers anymore, alas.

[Joe · Rating 5 out of 5]

I'm a longtime admirer of Hitchens, but had not read most of the essays on literary subjects collected in this 2000 volume. (He was so prolific!) I perhaps enjoyed reading these pieces even more than the later, more political essays in Arguably and And Yet. They show his characteristic wit and willingness to argue, but are modulated by their focus on historical rather than current subjects.

I was also struck by a certain fey side of Hitchen's sensibility that I wasn't really that aware of before, with essays praising Oscar Wilde, Gore Vidal, Dorothy Parker, Andy Warhol, Patrick O'Brian, and Christopher Isherwood. Or perhaps this is just one of the effects of a British public school education?

[Alicia · Rating 4 out of 5]

The man writes like a demon. Erudite, widely informed, sending you to the dictionary and Google on a regular basis (how does he know the meaning of so many - to me - arcane words and references??). Not to mention Literary. Some of the things he says are two or even three-dimensional clever. I also loved how his word choice (particularly those lesser known ones) is immaculately precise for the meaning he wishes to convey. I went to Youtube to hear him speak and he's just as impressive on the hoof: speaking about the death of Jerry Falwell: 'if he was given an enema before he died he could have been buried in a match box'
Stay awake if you read this, your brain will be tested but you will emerge more aware, informed and often amused.

[Tyler Malone · Rating 4 out of 5]

The French and Latin phrases stop the prose dead, which is a shame. For his skepticism, one would think that Hitchens would have hated if or when he heard preachers speak Greek to their sheep, so why do the equivalent of that to bookish sheep?

That really is the only complaint, honestly. Even essays about Orwell or Wodehouse biographers are worth reading and contain a great of lines worth underlining, which is how you know a literary critics is worth reading and committing to memory.

Good book, really, just bogged down in, well, pretentious Latin phrases.

[James · Rating 4 out of 5]

One of the best essay collections by Christopher Hitchens, a skeptical wit of great power who was lost far too soon. This is the best set of literary/political essays written in the last few decades, excepting the work of the untouchable Gore Vidal, who is lovingly considered twice in this book (this was written and published before the Hitchens-Vidal falling out). Oddly, this book is one of Hitchens least famous books, but I can't recommend its crystalline, Orwellian political eye and penetrating literary and cultural criticism enough.

[Roz · Rating 3 out of 5]

A nice throwback to when Hitchens was able to trash Tom Clancy with a straight face and write with insight into 20th century British novelists: Amis, Waugh, Wodehouse, etc. Some of it’s pretty old hat, and you can see shimmers of his post 9/11 heel turn in the distance, but I enjoyed most of this

[Wendy]

Decided I needed a little more intellectual ambition. And heard Christopher Hutcheons on NPR podcast and he was extremely articulate, so I was intrigued.

[Mike Futcher · Rating 3 out of 5]

"Mr Benchley once observed that the joy of being a Vanity Fair contributor was this: you could write about any subject you liked, no matter how outrageous, as long as you said it in evening clothes. (I have devoted my professional life to the emulation of this fine line.)" (pg. 355)

A solid collection of essays from Christopher Hitchens, dating from the 1990s and the turn of the millennium. The argument introduced in the Foreword to the book – that individual writers provide, in their books, the 'unacknowledged legislation' that creates "the moral space for a true argument" (pg. xiii) – can be hard to engage with except in the broadest terms. Nevertheless, the intersection of politics and literature is a fruitful one for the well-read and unpretentious Hitchens, and there are particularly fine essays on Oscar Wilde, Rudyard Kipling, Roald Dahl, Philip Larkin, Salman Rushdie, Patrick O'Brian and Arthur Conan Doyle, among others, as well as a charming and provocative essay entitled 'In Defence of Plagiarism'.

There are some essays that require endurance, including the Ozymandian footprints of Isaiah Berlin, Saul Bellow and Gore Vidal, and you do get the sense that Hitchens is not necessarily choosing his battles when writing at length about, say, Anthony Powell or Christopher Isherwood. Quoting Harold Isaacs, Hitchens says that there are certain writers who leave "scratches on our minds", and there are not enough of them in this book. Hitchens writes better, and with greater variety, about literature in his later collections Arguably, And Yet and Love, Poverty and War, and it is perhaps important that in those books, the literary essays are part of a balanced diet alongside political and cultural pieces.

That said, Hitchens is still on form in Unacknowledged Legislation, whether that is in praising an author (on Dorothy Parker: "her habit of stretching like a feline and then whipping out with a murderous paw" (pg. 356)) or demolishing them (Tom Clancy writes "with more energy than grammar" (pg. 404)). Such bon mots are disappointingly few for a writer of Hitchens' calibre, and the best lines come from quotations. The title is from a line of Shelley's, and the final putdown of Tom Clancy ("his writing is to prose what military music is to music" (pg. 406)) is an appropriation of Groucho Marx. Regardless, Hitchens has his evening clothes on, and is nicely turned out.

[Mitchell · Rating 4 out of 5]

Christopher Hitchens was better (purely as a writer) on literature than on most other subjects. To paraphrase Martin Amis, Hitchens’ prose had an enhanced quality and freedom when not tied to the combat of politics. And although he never wrote fiction or poetry, his understanding of, and deep appreciation for, English was exceptional. This volume demonstrates all of the above with superb essays on Wilde, Rushdie, Bellow, and Orwell (among many others).

That said, Hitchens was always enjoyable to read in combat and at times in this collection his most acidulated prose is on full display. In a critique of Arthur Conan Doyle, Hitchens makes a brief aside to dismiss Agatha Christie’s work as ‘bigoted and semi-literate pulp’ - words I wish I could’ve found and deployed myself when I first read her overrated fiction in a high school English class.

What more to say? Highly recommend.

[Human Being · Rating 5 out of 5]

I was a huge fan of Hitch even after he switched over and became a neocon. Only because of his ever plodding debates for free thinking. He writes beautifully and this book is one of my favorites by him.

[Devin]

“Have a read of Hitch’s book, ‘Unacknowledged Legislation: Writers in the Public Sphere’. It is a wonderful collection of essays on writers he loved, some others he is more ambivalent toward, and a short list of selected enemies.”

[John Heieck · Rating 2 out of 5]

The chapters on Oscar Wilde were fascinating. However, unless you were a part of the Marxist movement in the 70s and 80s, the rest of the book will not make a lot of sense.

[Lordoftaipo · Rating 5 out of 5]

If only I were half eloquent, I would keep writing until the day I die. Being opinionated is different from forming a solid opinion. The former takes a mind, while the latter takes a sharp mind. While this collection of columns was dedicated to some outstanding writers, the publisher must have recognised Hitchens as also a case in point so much so the mantle of writing about them naturally became his.

For a journalist who prized hands-on experiences at perilous places, news reporting involved himself more than it should and than anyone else could. He presented first-hand dealings with Gore Vidal with whom he shared long-term friendship, which also went to show his admiration by putting Vidal among the cream of previous generations.

There is more to it than meets the eye. He talked about things as if he were chatting with you. No reservations. All attitudes. Readers turned into fans because he was a marvellous speaker, and for that matter, publishers had a proper reason to like him which further encouraged the already fertile columnist. The fact that more new edited books are going to press posthumously tells a lot.

We grew up to be heard and of which we sometimes take for granted. It should not surprise me that the spirit of Hitchens never went away. More people can make their opinions noticeable. More unpopular opinions can break the mould. More disruptions can shake the world. In that regard of impacts, I am more optimistic than not about our wave of democratisation.

[Mark Nenadov · Rating 3 out of 5]

As I began to read this book, my expectations were pretty high. Christopher Hitchens is a great writer and a witty literary critic. I was slightly underwhelmed, though.

All of these essays have previously appeared in publications such as Vanity Fair. If you've read a good chunk of Hitchens' published articles, you'll probably have already read the most worthwhile essays featured here.

There isn't much middle ground with this book, the essays tend to be either sheer genius or tediously uninteresting. If you decide to read this book, I suggest being prepared to do some skipping.

The selection process could have been tighter, the book would not have suffered at all from having the lesser quarter of the essays cut right out.

A good chunk of the essays are only tangentially related to the implied subject of the book. A few of them cover minutae so tedious that even the most pedantic trivia-monger might have to come up for air.

It should be said, though, that the brilliant moments are VERY brilliant. And the best essays of this book are true gems!

[Ernest Nabokov · Rating 5 out of 5]

Verso's publishing of a collection of Hitchens' essays in early 2000 was the last dealing the company ever had with the contrarian. This collection is not so much literary criticism as it is political essay writing on matters related to literature - akin to Perry Anderson. In fact, the Anderson comparison is apt because both were/are marxists, both write in olympian fashion - blow the reader with their sheer breadth of knowledge as opposed to their actual argument - and they belong to a tradition that is no long forgotten. The tradition of Trotsky, Orwell, CLR James, etc. The Marxist essayistic tradition that reads as literature. This collection is perfect example of this tradition and I think it's the best book Hitchens had ever published. I recommend this for those who don't know enough about how involved Hitchens was in leftist politics, and what his views were; and i also recommend this book to those who hate Hitchens because of his support for the Iraq War. 5 stars.

[Jonathan Kear · Rating 5 out of 5]

Every time I put a one of Hitch's book down, I can't help but be humbled by his literary wingspan and historical depth of knowledge – not to mention his superhuman prose. In fact, I think HItch may have been the only person who possessed all of the prerequisite knowledge to actually appreciate his essays in their entirety, and any average reader picking up his works should be prepared to occasionally tune in and out. With that said, I found this particular collection to be considerably more accessible than "Arguably" or "And yet...", though I'm not sure if this is attributable to my increasing familiarity with his style and field of interest or if it's a property of the compilation itself. In this series of essays, Hitch chronicles 20th century events refracted through prominent writers of his choosing, including Oscar Wilde, Gore Vidal, and Salmon Rushdie. The focus was intriguing, and as usual I've accrued a slew of notes, quotes, and authorial leads to follow.

[Mariano · Rating 3 out of 5]

A selection of essays focused on where & how the literary meets the political/historical. Hitchens makes remarkably ironic and humorous observations on a wide range of people and topics... such as Oscar Wilde, Philip Larkin (i.v. "Something about the Poems"), ebonics (ironic to now see him call Chomsky a 'trusted friend'), plagiarism, Rushdie, Kipling, Anthony Powell, and he scathingly reviews the likes of Tom Wolfe, Norman Podhoretz, Tom Clancy, T.S. Eliot and Conor Cruise O'Brien--this final one particularly bruising--et al.

[Leendert · Rating 5 out of 5]

brilliant guy, this ... you don't want to be tom clancy while hitchens is on the planet. nonetheless, someone decided to be and paid for it. maybe i'll give one of his other books a try again, since i tried a number of them and found him insufferable. this collection, though, was just truly awe-inspiring for, if nothing else, their verbal acuity. i don't own another book as much dog-eared as this one now is.

[Craig · Rating 5 out of 5]

If the essay misses the mark, the prose elevates it. If the prose misses the mark, the essay elevates it. Any which way, this is an excellent collection that awakens the inkling that the Islamofacism/atheism Hitchens might actually have been less gifted than the book reviewer/cultural essayist Hitchens.

[Blair · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is an excellent and unforgiving argument for the connection between fiction/literature and cultural sensibilities, especially as they pertain to politics. Hitchens takes issue with the "need" to separate the two, and makes a refreshingly straightforward case. His essay on Williams and Orwell is fantastic.

[severyn · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent writing on subjects I knew something about, curiously unengaging on subjects I knew nothing about. I can't decide if that's my fault or Hitchens'.

[Bobby Daugherty · Rating 5 out of 5]

A book of essays on how literature has effected public attitudes and political policy.

[Jack Fleming · Rating 4 out of 5]

A reminder that Hitchens was always a better literary critic than a polemicist.

[Brenden]

Unacknowledged Legislation: Writers in the Public Sphere by Christopher Hitchens (2003)

[Dayn]

Just started...