What do you think?
Rate this book
For the Sake of Argument: Essays and Minority Reports
The global turmoil of the last few years has severely tested every analyst and commentator. Few have written with such insight as Christopher Hitchens about the large events — or with such discernment and wit about the small tell-tale signs of a disordered culture.
For the Sake of Argument ranges from the political squalor of Washington, as a beleaguered Bush administration seeks desperately to stave off disaster and Clinton prepares for power; to the twilight of Stalinism in Prague; from the Jewish quarter of Damascus in the aftermath of the Gulf War to the embattled barrios of Central America and the imperishable resistance of Sarajevo, as a difficult peace is negotiated with ruthless foes. Hitchens’s unsparing account of Western realpolitik in the end shows it to rest on delusion as well as deception.
For the Sake of Argument ranges from the political squalor of Washington, as a beleaguered Bush administration seeks desperately to stave off disaster and Clinton prepares for power; to the twilight of Stalinism in Prague; from the Jewish quarter of Damascus in the aftermath of the Gulf War to the embattled barrios of Central America and the imperishable resistance of Sarajevo, as a difficult peace is negotiated with ruthless foes. Hitchens’s unsparing account of Western realpolitik in the end shows it to rest on delusion as well as deception.
The reader will find in these pages outstanding essays on political assassination in America as well as a scathing review of the evisceration of politics by pollsters and spin-doctors. Hitchens’s knowledge of the tortuous history of revolutions in the twentieth century helps him explain both the New York intelligentsia's flirtation with Trotskyism and the frailty of Communist power structures in Eastern Europe.
Hitchens's pointed reassessments of Graham Greene, P. G. Wodehouse and C. L. R. James, or his riotous celebration of drinking and smoking, display an engaging enthusiasm and an acerbic wit. Equally entertaining is his unsparing rogues’ gallery, which gives us unforgettable portraits of the lugubrious “Dr.” Kissinger, the comprehensively reactionary “Mother” Teresa, the preposterous Paul Johnson and the predictable P. J. O’Rourke.
368 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1993
55 people are currently reading
1136 people want to read
About the author
Christopher Hitchens
163 books7,894 followersChristopher 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.
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.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews
June 12, 2018
It's always Hitchens time for me! I genuinely enjoy having at least one of his books on rotation, reading a little bit at a time - seeing as, although he is accessible and clear as a writer, he has a knack for convoluted sentences packed with references. Forever critical and forever slightly arrogant, he allows the reader to analyze the world in tandem with him... albeit making sure that his own opinion is clearly expressed. This book contains an essay of his about the day the Ceausescu regime in Romania fell (1989), when he actually was in Romania, which I found poignant and well written. Would recommend to any Hitch fan, but then I would recommend that even those who dislike him read him... because Hitch is simply worth it.
July 6, 2020
I didn't like this one as much as I should have. Hitchens is one of the best, if not the best, essay writers I've ever read. Unfortunately, a lot of it--most of the essays taking place before I was born--felt dated. It's worth reading for the style, though, and his delicate mix of satire and seriousness.
I finished it--with minimal skipping--but the whole time I was wondering why I didn't pick up something else of his. His autobiography, writings on Jefferson and Thomas Paine, or God Is Not Great, could have easily replaced this book in my hand and I would have been better off for it.
I finished it--with minimal skipping--but the whole time I was wondering why I didn't pick up something else of his. His autobiography, writings on Jefferson and Thomas Paine, or God Is Not Great, could have easily replaced this book in my hand and I would have been better off for it.
August 11, 2020
Hitchens’ political conversion in the early 2000’s kinda messes with the way most folks feel about him. There is a good chance that, no matter where you are on the political spectrum, there was a period when his views aligned with your own, and therefore his writing was more enjoyable during this time.
I suspect most of us are of the “he was better when he was on our side” school of thought. This is my favorite collection of Hitchens essays because -you guessed it- this is the period of his writing that closely aligns with my own beliefs. I can step back and assess my own motives here, doesn’t mean I’m wrong.
I suspect most of us are of the “he was better when he was on our side” school of thought. This is my favorite collection of Hitchens essays because -you guessed it- this is the period of his writing that closely aligns with my own beliefs. I can step back and assess my own motives here, doesn’t mean I’m wrong.
September 25, 2011
Actually I got Christopher Hitchen's book of essays, For The Sake Of Argument, as a primer of his various positions (political and cultural) before reading his autobiography Hitch-22. However, I only read about a third of the essays before reading his memoir and then put it down for a while. So I recently picked it back up and finished the essays. Dare I say I enjoyed much of it and was influenced by his opinions in several areas.
Most of these essays appeared previously in publications like The Nation, The London Review of Books, and Times Literary Supplement among others. It shouldn't be surprising that his politics are pretty consistent with what he discussed in his memoirs and he is well versed in contemporary/modern world affairs which is mostly covered in the sections "The Power and the Glory" and "The Cunning of History." I think it's fair to say that he lands on the right side most of the time. I find him less accurate when dealing with American politics in "Studies in Demoralization." I will never completely understand his contempt for Clinton and his soft spot for Bush Jr.-well the fact that Hitchens pushed for the war with Iraq says it all really. He doesn't give Clinton much credit for anything, even his intervention in Bosnia. I have little interest/knowledge of British politics thus I found myself skimming through the section on British politics, "No Class: Toryism Today." I guess I know more about the royal family despite my contempt for them and therefore found the section on the royals, "Coach Into Pumpkin," entertaining. There is a section of his take downs, "Rogues Gallery," that had me siding with him about Mother Teresa and wanting to read his book on Henry Kissinger, The Trial Of Henry Kissinger. He has also alerted me to another conservative intellectual to avoid-Paul Johnson-who I haven't read yet and won't thanks to Hitchens. I also enjoyed his section on culture, "Critical Resources." There's an impressive defense of Salman Rushdie. And I found his essays on the artist Goya and British writer Kazuao Ishiguro particularly well crafted. There's a great bit in the essay about Ishiguro where he compares England and Japan:
Both nations have an ingrained, antique response to caste, class and station. Both are island peoples, at a an angle to the nearest continental landmass. Both are former imperial powers who held dominion over populations that far outnumbered them. And both are maritime; people forget that the Anglo-Japanese naval treaty of 1902 was an agreement between effective superpowers.
Some other observations include, the undercurrents of atheism, which would become his calling card in recent years. For example, the conclusion to his essay on Graham Greene reads: "Take away the cloying sanctimony, and thank God that on so many occasions Greene has shown that he can write like an atheist." I was won over by his praise of Evelyn Waugh, of whom I have read a few novels, and look forward to reading more of him as well as embarking on the work of P.G. Wodehouse as well.
Most of these essays appeared previously in publications like The Nation, The London Review of Books, and Times Literary Supplement among others. It shouldn't be surprising that his politics are pretty consistent with what he discussed in his memoirs and he is well versed in contemporary/modern world affairs which is mostly covered in the sections "The Power and the Glory" and "The Cunning of History." I think it's fair to say that he lands on the right side most of the time. I find him less accurate when dealing with American politics in "Studies in Demoralization." I will never completely understand his contempt for Clinton and his soft spot for Bush Jr.-well the fact that Hitchens pushed for the war with Iraq says it all really. He doesn't give Clinton much credit for anything, even his intervention in Bosnia. I have little interest/knowledge of British politics thus I found myself skimming through the section on British politics, "No Class: Toryism Today." I guess I know more about the royal family despite my contempt for them and therefore found the section on the royals, "Coach Into Pumpkin," entertaining. There is a section of his take downs, "Rogues Gallery," that had me siding with him about Mother Teresa and wanting to read his book on Henry Kissinger, The Trial Of Henry Kissinger. He has also alerted me to another conservative intellectual to avoid-Paul Johnson-who I haven't read yet and won't thanks to Hitchens. I also enjoyed his section on culture, "Critical Resources." There's an impressive defense of Salman Rushdie. And I found his essays on the artist Goya and British writer Kazuao Ishiguro particularly well crafted. There's a great bit in the essay about Ishiguro where he compares England and Japan:
Both nations have an ingrained, antique response to caste, class and station. Both are island peoples, at a an angle to the nearest continental landmass. Both are former imperial powers who held dominion over populations that far outnumbered them. And both are maritime; people forget that the Anglo-Japanese naval treaty of 1902 was an agreement between effective superpowers.
Some other observations include, the undercurrents of atheism, which would become his calling card in recent years. For example, the conclusion to his essay on Graham Greene reads: "Take away the cloying sanctimony, and thank God that on so many occasions Greene has shown that he can write like an atheist." I was won over by his praise of Evelyn Waugh, of whom I have read a few novels, and look forward to reading more of him as well as embarking on the work of P.G. Wodehouse as well.
March 4, 2014
Wow-- what Hunter S Thompson might have been, were it not for his copious use of mind-altering drugs. At times snarky and vicious, with a gift for clearing the bullshit away in one sentence, only to delve into vitriolic rancor the next.Chris really challenges you to give up then notion that you might actally know what goes on in government. After reading George Crile's "Charlie Wilson's War", and in light of the Iran-Contra affair, nothing, however preposterous it might seem, is unthinkable. P.S. Keep a dictionary handy, as he strays far from the pedestrian to make his points.
June 22, 2018
His goal when writing was, “[when writing about literature] not to leave the political dimension out, and when...writing about politics...[to] recall that politics isn't all there is to life [and to] import what you might call cultural or literary or aesthetic points to it." No one did it better than Christopher Hitchens, as demonstrated by his book “For the Sake of Argument,” an anthology of essays addressing a wide variety of topics.
.
Versatility is perhaps the greatest strength of the essay form: it’s short, thematically adaptable, and easily produced. The ultimate challenge for the anthology, however, is the applicability of the essays over time: will these writings be relevant fifty years from now?
Given that we live in what was referred to by the late Gore Vidal as “The United States of Amnesia,” it should come as no surprise that much of Hitchens’ analysis of past phenomena are eerily applicable today - perhaps the most salient example being the small man’s [Nixon] ability both to appeal to the little guy and to “mobilize resentment against those in power” - a form of deja vu today only made possible by the efforts of critics like Hitchens.
It was a form of writing that came naturally to “The Hitch,” a self-proclaimed radical forever in search of the next target. As a naturalized American citizen and polemicist, he was keen to enjoy his 1st Amendment rights to its limits. “It is not enough to ‘have’ free speech. People must learn to speak freely;” self-censorship being the kind of self-imposed prophylactic, alongside the “mind-forged manacle” of religion, that Hitchens spent the better part of his adult life fighting against. But as brave as criticizing religion may sound in today’s world, “The real test of a radical or revolutionary is not the willingness to confront the orthodoxy and arrogance of the rulers but the readiness to contest illusions and falsehoods among close friends and allies.”
Hitchens’ alignment with the Neo-Conservatives following the 2003 invasion of Iraq is proof enough of his own willingness to adhere to the principles of his own dictum. What was Hitchens? A Marxist? A Libertarian? A radical?
Yes.
.
Versatility is perhaps the greatest strength of the essay form: it’s short, thematically adaptable, and easily produced. The ultimate challenge for the anthology, however, is the applicability of the essays over time: will these writings be relevant fifty years from now?
Given that we live in what was referred to by the late Gore Vidal as “The United States of Amnesia,” it should come as no surprise that much of Hitchens’ analysis of past phenomena are eerily applicable today - perhaps the most salient example being the small man’s [Nixon] ability both to appeal to the little guy and to “mobilize resentment against those in power” - a form of deja vu today only made possible by the efforts of critics like Hitchens.
It was a form of writing that came naturally to “The Hitch,” a self-proclaimed radical forever in search of the next target. As a naturalized American citizen and polemicist, he was keen to enjoy his 1st Amendment rights to its limits. “It is not enough to ‘have’ free speech. People must learn to speak freely;” self-censorship being the kind of self-imposed prophylactic, alongside the “mind-forged manacle” of religion, that Hitchens spent the better part of his adult life fighting against. But as brave as criticizing religion may sound in today’s world, “The real test of a radical or revolutionary is not the willingness to confront the orthodoxy and arrogance of the rulers but the readiness to contest illusions and falsehoods among close friends and allies.”
Hitchens’ alignment with the Neo-Conservatives following the 2003 invasion of Iraq is proof enough of his own willingness to adhere to the principles of his own dictum. What was Hitchens? A Marxist? A Libertarian? A radical?
Yes.
August 3, 2021
A lucid collection of early(-ish) essays from Christopher Hitchens, For the Sake of Argument nevertheless lacks the vividness of his later writing. The content is familiar – literary criticism, support for Salman Rushdie, sallies against Bill Clinton, Henry Kissinger, the British monarchy and into political battles in general, with a regular focus on the United States' extracurricular activities in countries like Nicaragua and Iran. But it's also less appealing than his later selections.
This may merely be a sequencing issue; the book starts with a selection – depressing but interesting – grouped under the title 'Studies in Demoralization', and ends with a lengthy discussion of George Eliot, author of Middlemarch. But it might also be due to my over-familiarity with Hitchens' work by now, with the views expressed here further sharpened and improved in subsequent writings and debates. It might also be because For the Sake of Argument, compiling essays from the "Reagan-Bush-Thatcher decade" (pg. 2) of the late 80s and early 90s, is inevitably dated when read in 2020.
That said, it can be peculiar to read about Diana Spencer being discussed in a way we might speak of Meghan Markle nowadays – one can also substitute Reagan for Trump, or Mr Clinton for, well, Mrs Clinton. In this collection, one can read articles arguing against political correctness, identity politics, poll-driven media and, among many other uncanny things, the "fashion, in American black studies these days, for running down the DWEM – the Dead White European Male who is held to dominate the study of literature and civilization" (pg. 308). Were it not for the talk of Reagan and Thatcher and Diana in the present tense – with Bush not needing the further identification of Bush 'Senior' – I'd be inclined to double-check the dates. There is an arch contemporariness in all of Hitchens' writing, because he is concerned above all with matters of principle.
This may merely be a sequencing issue; the book starts with a selection – depressing but interesting – grouped under the title 'Studies in Demoralization', and ends with a lengthy discussion of George Eliot, author of Middlemarch. But it might also be due to my over-familiarity with Hitchens' work by now, with the views expressed here further sharpened and improved in subsequent writings and debates. It might also be because For the Sake of Argument, compiling essays from the "Reagan-Bush-Thatcher decade" (pg. 2) of the late 80s and early 90s, is inevitably dated when read in 2020.
That said, it can be peculiar to read about Diana Spencer being discussed in a way we might speak of Meghan Markle nowadays – one can also substitute Reagan for Trump, or Mr Clinton for, well, Mrs Clinton. In this collection, one can read articles arguing against political correctness, identity politics, poll-driven media and, among many other uncanny things, the "fashion, in American black studies these days, for running down the DWEM – the Dead White European Male who is held to dominate the study of literature and civilization" (pg. 308). Were it not for the talk of Reagan and Thatcher and Diana in the present tense – with Bush not needing the further identification of Bush 'Senior' – I'd be inclined to double-check the dates. There is an arch contemporariness in all of Hitchens' writing, because he is concerned above all with matters of principle.
April 7, 2021
The writing is, as always, superb. The reading is tough, however, though by no fault of Hitchens but of time. Many of the essays are based on events that surely made headlines for many days, months, or even years in the early 90's, but are barely worth a minor Wikipedia entry today.
The first third or so of the pieces collected here are of that sort, which makes reading slow if you resolve to look up the names and events Hitchens writes about. Big subjects like the first Gulf War or the fall of Communism are mixed with commentary on political polls and scandals of minor British or American political operators. Also, I get that Iran-Contra was a huge deal at the end of the Reagan years, but to open with six or seven consecutive essays on it seems overkill.
As politics is left for other, more evergreen subjects, one finally recovers their investment in the last half of the book. Hitch was in his late 30s-early 40s when he wrote these pieces, and already showed the intimidating rhetorical command he became so famous for in the age of YouTube, when I first discovered him. The elegant narrative, the laugh-out loud filthy word play, the beautiful turn of phrase, the pummeling insults, and the literary erudition are all there.
This book is probably not for those having their first try at Hitchens, but overall rewarding for those who, like me, are running out of unread Hitch pieces.
The first third or so of the pieces collected here are of that sort, which makes reading slow if you resolve to look up the names and events Hitchens writes about. Big subjects like the first Gulf War or the fall of Communism are mixed with commentary on political polls and scandals of minor British or American political operators. Also, I get that Iran-Contra was a huge deal at the end of the Reagan years, but to open with six or seven consecutive essays on it seems overkill.
As politics is left for other, more evergreen subjects, one finally recovers their investment in the last half of the book. Hitch was in his late 30s-early 40s when he wrote these pieces, and already showed the intimidating rhetorical command he became so famous for in the age of YouTube, when I first discovered him. The elegant narrative, the laugh-out loud filthy word play, the beautiful turn of phrase, the pummeling insults, and the literary erudition are all there.
This book is probably not for those having their first try at Hitchens, but overall rewarding for those who, like me, are running out of unread Hitch pieces.
July 12, 2019
Even with a handful of subjects I was not familiar with, the book has a lot to offer the reader. Smart wit, snarky criticism, hardline reporting, and many other traits show how Hitchens was primed for the large role he was to play in political writing and essays.
June 28, 2025
Diverse range of essays from Iran-Contra affair under Reagan, the implications of the fatwa on Salman Rushdie, the art of Warhol. Great writing, cutting. Often I would have trouble with the vast amounts of names and events he alluded to.
January 4, 2019
Incredible writing, but hard to understand in parts because it contains many references that I am unfamiliar with.
July 20, 2022
Notable essays:
-- The Autumn of the Patriarch
-- On the Road to Timișoara
-- The Free Market Cargo Cult
-- Neil Kinnock: Defeat Without Honour
-- Voting in the Passive Voice
-- The Autumn of the Patriarch
-- On the Road to Timișoara
-- The Free Market Cargo Cult
-- Neil Kinnock: Defeat Without Honour
-- Voting in the Passive Voice
June 10, 2024
Miss you Chris. You were my William F Buckley on the Left.
November 21, 2025
I've always appreciated Hitchens. But reading him sometimes is a slog. You want to know what he had to say. But what he had to say frequently came from a place of simply wanting to demonstrate erudition and superiority. He was full of himself. With Orwell, by contrast, someone Hitchens (somehow) claims, you see a writer at work seeking knowledge in order to understand. It is easy to see how Hitchens' career culminated, ironically (I guess), in support of the Iraq war.
August 20, 2012
Aside from being an outspoken anti-theist. Hitchens was primarily an essayist in the tradition of Orwell, commenting on any facet of society he laid his eye on. Particularly, this collection dances around politics and international conflict, something the author knew very well. These essays are excellent op-ed pieces in Hitchens' dry, British style.
March 7, 2012
As with long-form essay writing generally, there's an acute problem here of impenetrable writing when the particular subject matter is of no interest to the reader. The quality of Hitchens ensures that the rest is entertaining and insightful, bordering on magical!
January 31, 2016
Yet another marvelous, punchy addition to my library. I like the verbal fisticuffs and improvisation that characterizes Hitchens' earlier work. I look forward to an Everyman's Library collection of the Hitch. It would certainly be cheaper than gathering together some of his out-of-print work.
November 25, 2016
When he was good, he was very, very good. And when he was excoriating Mother Bloody Teresa, he was FABULOUS. That splendid rant is in here, along with the glorious description of famed left-wing nutjob turned RWNJ Paul Johnson as looking like 'an explosion in a pubic hair factory'.
I miss him so.
I miss him so.
March 14, 2014
Another vintage essay collection of Hitchens. This takes place roughly 1989-1993. Some extremely interesting pieces but there were a few confusing and dated ones as well.
Read
September 25, 2011good shit
January 29, 2013
Has me rethink some of my stances of thought.
And buy a magnifying glass cause the print is hideously tiny.
And buy a magnifying glass cause the print is hideously tiny.
August 12, 2016
The disputant at his best, on a cross-section of topics ranging from modernist painters to 60's realpolitik. There's a foreshadowing of his latter works on Bojaxhiu and Kissinger, too.
July 26, 2021
More essays by Hitchens.
December 16, 2023
at the twilight of the 20th century, some of the best prose writing in English, begrudgingly
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews