Whatever you think about Christopher Hitchens, I think you’ve got to appreciate his iconoclasm. His review of David Nasaw’s book about Andrew Carnegie gives me the slight feeling that he wishes he had written it himself, or at any rate that he appreciates it very much for the many-sided story that it tells. It is the kind of review that can’t help repeating as much of what is in the book as will fit in the assigned space.
(Am I imagining it or is Hitchens’ point of view becoming rounder and fuller now that he has reasons to identify with the bad guys he likes to write about?)
