Interesting, well-written book explicating some of Hitchens' beliefs. Primarily geared toward those interested in furthering critical thinking skills. ( )

This slim volume by Christopher Hitchens is aimed at igniting the “contrarian” (as he calls it) in all of us. Letters to a Young Contrarian mimics Rainer Maria Rilke's Letters to a Young Poet, except instead of writing on the subject of poetry, Hitchens writes on the subject of dissent.

He describes what it means to be an oppositionist, and recognizes that the title of “dissenter” is to be earned; this view deflates the egos of all the self-proclaimed “dissenters” out there. He also elucidates a few other intellectual positions, mainly: argument is good, and people are much too comforted by the thought of being apart of a crowd. As he says, “I don't think that the solidarity of belonging is much of a prize.”

As usual, Hitchens' wit and erudition shines through in his writing; he gives the reader prose that is simply delightful to read. It is simple, however what he writes about is nothing of the sort. Often, one can get lost in the references to certain historical figures and events. It isn't entirely over the heads of the average, well-educated person, but prepare to find out who people like Jean Jaures, Karl Liebknecht, and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn are if you don't already. Hitchens also sprinkles Latinisms here and there throughout his letters. Obviously the books is not to be taken as an easy read, for Hitchens expects the reader to have a good grasp of history and its great men and women. If not, well, one will gain an education just by reading the book.

The figures in history Hitchens refers to are Emile Zola, MLK Jr., Thomas Paine (to name some of the more well-known ones)—people who represent what it means to be a dissenter. He notes—drawing from his vast knowledge of history, politics, and philosophy—that dissenters are rarely the people one expects them to be. More often, it's the person on the corner that's rarely seen sober; one day he is put in a situation in which he must choose to speak out, to act in the name of Justice, to do what is right without being told by anyone that he should do so.

Hitchens makes an eloquent case for oppositionism, convincing the reader that it is an honor to be known as an iconoclast, as contrary. What you get from the author is graceful prose combined with an uplifting message. That message: "Seek out argument and disputation for their own sake; the grave will supply plenty of time for silence." ( )

Turgid in tone, flaccid in execution. Not words I would have thought to associate with Hitchens, one of our foremost thinkers, orators and writers, ruthless in debate. I always appreciate hearing Hitchens opinion and voice whether in writing (Slate, God is Not Great... etc), or discussion. His fearlessness is wholly admirable, he makes eminently understandable and rational arguments to defend his reasoning and pushes his audience to try harder when examining the world and their own views. That is why I was so disappointed to read this slim tome that spends far too much time in idea obfuscation - one can, however gain a coherent overview of Hitchens contrarian world view by reading the short intro, and the last 2 pages of this book which punchily summarize and present his case. What lies in the middle does little to elucidate, but contains much ostentatious puffery, needless name dropping and faux humility.

I continue to greatly admire Hitchens, and will seek out his future work and continue to read his fantastic slate essays, but this book is not up to his own fastidiously high standards. ( )

I disagree with almost everything Hitchens says politically, except when he talks about the rights of the individual, the War on Terrorism, and the evils of all kinds of totalitarianism. Yet, I have always enjoyed his wit, his writing, and his liver. It is a treat to read Hitchens because he is funny, he does make you think, and he does make some points. But then again, I don't know if I learned anything from this book. How to be a contrarian? He never gives a precise definition, yet it seems at times to be less "to thine own self be true" than "piss everyone off and don't be in the majority." In Texas we call that "on'ry." There is a lot of history and literature thrown in, some biography, and, of course, opinions left and right. He takes left and right to task, and, again, makes the condescending assumption that "religion posions everything," to quote the subtitle to his most recent tome. Hitchens seems to take the position in this book that you are lead astry if you believe in anything greater than yourself, if you have any set of unifying (or edifying) principles that you subscribe to. I think you can be an "individualist" (this is a better term than "contrarian," though he never uses it) and still believe in God or America or capitalism or any -ology or -ism (even the bad ones, like communism). There is no necessary conflict between skepticism and belief, or God and science. You can believe in God and not be fooled by religious totalitarianism, you can be a Republican and not be fooled by a "Republican" and so on. Still, a short, interesting read if you can get it cheaply. ( )