Bob Hope: a quick rant
So, Bob Hope died recently. I'm vaguely familiar with Bob Hope, although I have never, to my knowledge, actually seen him in any of his movies or comedy acts except perhaps in brief excerpts; the general consensus seems to be that he was a pretty funny and influential guy. Good for him.
Which brings me around to the point of this rant. In my Internet travels over the weekend, I came across this article at Slate (found by following a link from AndrewSullivan.com) about Bob Hope. Specifically, about completely shredding Bob Hope's life and career on the grounds that he wasn't really all that funny.
Now, I'm a pretty average sort of person, intellect-wise, but "humor" seems to me to be one of the more subjective, eye-of-the-beholder type concepts out there, which makes me wonder why a journalist is taking time out of his busy schedule to rip apart a (recently deceased, remember) comedian that he doesn't happen to find funny. Along the way we are treated to a nice quotable quote about the sort of people who apparently enjoyed Bob Hope's jokes:
This is comedy for people who have no sense of humor and who come determined to be entertained and laugh to show that they "get it."
So it turns out that everyone who found Bob Hope funny is a dull-witted moron whose intelligence pales before the vast and witty intellect of Christopher Hitchens.
But this gag-inducing pretentiousness aside, after reading this article, I was left with one question: What is the point of this exercise in bitterness? And how does it come to grace the (virutal) pages of a major online journal? What would inspire someone, especially a trained journalist, to take up their pen and spew such vitriol all over the life of a harmless person whose jokes, funny or not, so many people appreciated? I'd like to think that when you set out to write something--be it a humorous piece, informative story, thoughtful critique, or thought-provoking opinion--that writers are bound by some sort of moral injunction that they be doing so for purposes loftier than simply reveling in the puerile glee of having savaged something that others cherished. Did Mr. Hitchens put down his pen after writing this article and feel anything like pride at what he had written? Of all the evils he could be addressing from behind his Internet pulpit, the target of his viciousness is... Bob Hope. The sheer pettiness is just astounding.
Ahem. Apologies for the rant. Nothing to see here--move along, move along.
Comments
What if he was shredding CarrotTop?
Posted by: Ron | August 4, 2003 1:59 PM
Well, then it would be OK... I mean, that's totally different.
I jest, of course. My righteous indignation would impel me to come to the defense of even Carrot Top, should he die and then be verbally assailed in the pages of Slate.
Posted by: jrau | August 4, 2003 2:29 PM
I don't know if you're aware of Hitchens' rather interesting career - makes a living off trashing conservatives, and then when you least expect it, trashing liberals - all in the name of a post-neo-modern-secular-libertarian-whoknows ethic. Check out these:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/104/12.0.html
http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2002/005/11.22.html
Posted by: KDC | August 6, 2003 12:10 PM
Hi Karl-Dieter, those articles were interesting. When I read Hitchens' article I thought, "I bet he doesn't like Bob Hope because he was patriotic and wholesome." The comment about Lenny Bruce tipped me off.
Posted by: michele | August 7, 2003 5:53 PM
Interesting articles, Karl--especially the one about Hitchens and Orwell.
Based on his Hope-trashing article and the two links you sent, Hitchens sounds to me like one very unpleasant person. Methinks I'll avoid reading him in the future.
Posted by: jrau | August 7, 2003 6:54 PM