Michael Kensley offers a fascinating review not only of his new book, but also of Christopher Hitchens himself. Based on TV interviews I had seen of Hitchens making the rounds, I had dismissed the book as an offshoot of Dawkins and Dennett (evangelical atheists). This review has caused me to reconsider.

Interesting story. Lousy journlism. There's so little about the actual book that is supposedly being discussed that the only certainty about the book is that the author is an atheist. Let's have a discussion of the actual book and its arguments against theism.

This article mirrors my personal view of Christopher Hitchens. Some things I agree with. Other things I don't. And through the years, like the rest of us, his views have changed. In this era of evangelistic fascist religion sweeping the world--Christians and Muslims included--it's refreshing to read a different view. Naturally history sees religion differently than evangelists. History understands that God did not create Man, Man created God in an effort to answer questions starting ... More »

An interesting review of Hitchens' latest book. It shows how difficult he is to categorize ideologically. He's a conservative to some and a liberal to others. A bit like Thomas Friedman. Reminds us that the New Republic strives for that ambiguity as well.

An overly flattering assessment of Christopher Hitchens and a meager, cursory review of his latest book. Not at all even-handed. Since I can't tell whether this was supposed to be a book review or an air-brushed mini-bio of Hitchens, I don't know whether to criticize the author not mentioning that this is the same person who *still* insists the (now completely discredited) "yellowcake" story Bush used to support his Iraq war plans is true, or whether to criticize him for not taking ... More »

A decent book review. Kinsley doesn't really put this book in context of other books published recently that make strong arguments against religion. Half of the review is a profile of Hitchens.

No, it is a total waste of time and space.

This review has Hitchens' number -- contrarian screeds. Mention of Kinsley and Hitchens' prior relationship through Slate might make this seem less like a plea to read his friend's book. It never occurred to me while he was so busily and loudly getting it SO wrong on Iraq (this is sadly not mentioned), but this review suggests that if you agree with Hitchens, as I do regarding religious fanatics, it must be very pleasant indeed to read a bombastic contrarian screed.

I cannot say the question "is this good journalism" applies in this instance it is just Michael Kinsley's knowledge and opinion of Mr. Hitchens', whom I am not familiar with, if I am not mistaken he quotes "no" sources but seems clear he knows the author's history. I personally would dispute Mr. Hitchens' knowledge of the Bible and Christian people's beliefs' I think he needs new sources in that area. Jesus did die in the flesh, was raised from the dead, and for Mr. Hitchens'es ... More »

This is a wonderful piece and great writing. As others have said, Kinsley does not review Hitchen's book as much as he describes the author. I'm still chuckling.

Mr Kinsley provides a very fair report on the views of Mr Hitchens as expressed in the book by him that is under review. However there is really not that much said about the book; the first half of the review is about Hitchens, and only a few paragraphs even report on the contents of the book. There is next to nothing said assessing the book and nothing said about alternative views (e.g., of Anthony Flew). So this review is rated as very fair to the author but lacking information.

Opinion piece on Hitchens new book. No real content, just a fawning review of the book and Hitchens. Was there any real question that Michael Kinsley and Hitchens weren't two peas in a pod? Maybe at their next dinner party together, he'll get to sit closer to him.