Christopher Hitchens, a fine lefty writer, wrote a review of Martin Amis's new book Koba the Dread for this month's Atlantic Monthly. I had a problem with his review, so I wrote a letter:

On Hitchen’s review of the Martin Amis’s Koba the Dread: I know far less about the events involved than Hitchens or Amis, and Hitchens writes far more authoritatively about the era than I ever could (and I enjoy reading his writing); however, he also (somehow) misses the point.

Amis is absolutely correct: figuratively speaking, nobody does know about the horrors perpetrated under Stalin, not compared to Hitler's atrocities. In the language of argumentative hyperbole, simply read “nobody” as most of us, the overwhelming majority of us even. This hyperbole is understood; there’s no intention on the part of Amis to deceive by exaggeration here, as Hitchens would normally understand were his eyes not clouded by his personal engagement in the proceedings.

"Nobody" does know of Yezhov and Dzerdzhinsky, nor of Vorkuta and Solovetski. The fact that there exists an apparently rich body of literature on the subjects, largely ignored by the rest of us certainly says something about our culture, our narrow attention spans, and perhaps most pointedly, the selective interests of the media, Hollywood and publishers (those informing everybody, feeding and shaping our limited interests). When the average person thinks of atrocity his mind jumps to Hitler. Stalin’s not even a close second. It's just Hitler. Why that is the case is a problem ripe for investigation. But Hitchens passes on this opportunity entirely.

Instead, he focuses on those statements Amis makes which affected him most personally. The fact that the whole piece seems to center on this anti-nobody argument undermines Mr. Hitchens credibility since it soon dawns on the reader that the piece serves simply as an opportunity for the writer to lick his wounds, an opportunity to ask to be understood. He does nothing to dispel the visceral and obvious truth of Amis’s thesis.