Who is an easier read for you, Dawkins or Hitchens?
Offline When I first heard about these authors knowing that Dawkins is a biologist, I thought he would be a harder read for me as a laymen. I also thought that Hitchens would be an easier read because he is not a scientist. But the reverse was the case. I found Dawkins much easier to read than Hitchens.
It was a suprise to me. From what I understand, Dawkins says that experts tend to write for experts and not laymen. Hitchens however, seems to not care if you get it or not and seems to treat everything as if it is common knowledge.
What is your take between the two?
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
- Login to post comments
Dawkins
I would agree. I also thought Dawkins was a better more interesting writer. He's probably a great professor in that he can explain complicated things in a way that's easier to understand.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
I also agree Dawkins may be an easier read. And that may make him preferable to those just beginning to explore the atheist perspective. But for me, Hitchens offers the much more provocative, harder hitting points, and some brilliant/amusing ironies/sarcasms. He very often causes me to verbally blurt out, "WOW!". Just because he may be the less easier to read, one would greatly miss out on some really amazing stuff in avoiding him.
I'm only half way through god is not great. So far I would have to say that while Hitchens is easier to read his points don't appear to be as good or anywhere near as entertaining. As with many here, I'd take Dawkins over Hitchens any day.
Organised religion is the ultimate form of blasphemy.
Censored and blacked out for internet access in ANZ!
AU: http://nocleanfeed.com/ | NZ: http://nzblackout.org/
Dawkins for me.
It's an incredibly rare ability for someone to not come off as a demeaning asshole when explaining his scientific expertise and though he can at times, he doesn't in his writing. I also find him to be good in interviews particularly when the interviewer is not being a dick to him.
hitchens. he's a great storyteller with a tendency for painful sarcasm and brutal honesty. his own first person accounts of other cultures provides a depth for me that i didn't get from dawkins, although i love his books as well.
www.derekneibarger.com http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=djneibarger "all postures of submission and surrender should be part of our prehistory." -christopher hitchens
The difference between Dawkins and Hitchens is that Dawkins realizes that the message he conveys is not merely use for the elite. Hitchens seems to think that the general populous already has the same info he does.
Hitchens seems to take a "sink or swim" approach to his use of writing stlye. On every page of every book I have read by him, my head swims. It is because it seems Hitchens is more interested in name dropping than explaining. In "God Is Not Great" on just about every page of that book I felt like he was juggling 50 different topics.
As complex as Dawkins is, in reading his book, he flowed much better not carpet bombing the reader with impressing them with what he knew. It seems that Dawkins was more concerned with the reader getting it, than Hitchens is with name dropping.
Hitchens is a great voice for atheists as well as Dawkins. But Hitchens needs to know that having a 5 billion word lexicon does not mean you can convey your point to someone with less of a lexicon. Dawkins seems to take into account that not everyone shares the same language he does.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
~ Brian37,
I learned MUCH more from Hitchens' book than I did from Dawkins, and I'm hardly an 'elite'.
To assert that Hitchens seems to write 'info' only for those who already have it, just doesn't make any sense whatsoever. If that were the case, I'm certain it would not have been the bestseller it was.
The ease of 'flow' in a book is a fine quality in itself, but for me, the overall value and usefulness of the content is of the utmost importance -- and Hitchens wins out on this point IMHO.
With all due respect, I think the bulk of your expressed criticisms speak more of yourself than of Hitchens.
Personally, I found Dawkins the easier and more enjoyable read. Although I’ve only read God is not Great and The God Delusion. I’d also say that due to its small size and impact I'd recommend Sam Harris’s Letter to a Christian Nation above them both.
Admittedly I've only read God Delusion, but Dawkins writes in a very simple matter and uses a lot of metaphors and examples.
Of course it does speak of me, and others here have the opposite view, and their criticisms of Dawkins would speak of them as well. It is called "personal taste".
I myself don't get his style of writing. The constant name dropping and juggling multiple topics ON ANY GIVEN single page, to me, is a distraction to getting to the point. I think he does not have to point out every fine detail to cut to the chase. Others like the scenic route, and for them Hitchins IS a good read.
Dawkins, FOR ME, is much more to the point and quicker to get to it. You are trying to make the issue about whose writing style is better and I am merely asking people in this thread what their personal taste is and why.
It is not a right or wrong issue.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Hitchens was easier to read, but harder to source. The body of his notes for 'god is NOT great' was in the text itself.
Dawkins' 'The god delusion' took me a while to read because I stopped when there was a reference and checked it to put it into the same context with the book.
As with every great author, in my opinion, I walked away with a much longer reading list than when I began reading both of their recent works.
Dawkins 'Ancestor's Tale' was quite interesting to me. 'The selfish gene' was ok. I think he would do well to revisit both of those works and publish any errata or clarifications to date.
Hitchens writes excellent pieces for magazines. If we were to dissect 'god is not great', I think we would find many of the same phrases and structure in his articles long past. Consistency in style is very admirable.
End result: Tie.
If CNN were to have yet another discussion on the topic of religion and they had Dawkins, Hitchens, or darth_josh to pick from for the interview, I can guarantee I would be their absolute LAST person to call. LOL.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
~ brian37
WTF!? You're a walking contradiction.