Hitchens contends that "anybody who can talk can also write." But he means those who can really talk. The ones who can really get your attention, keep it and leave you with an eloquent argument. How many people do you know who can really talk? I personally don't know many.
Essentially he is saying that good writing should be like a good conversation: "The realizing that decent points are being made and understood, that irony is in play, and elaboration, and that a dull or obvious remark would be almost physically hurtful." I have had several such conversations, and I understand his point. I have similar, but not the same, feelings when I read good writing.
The central argument of the section of this his piece most centered on writing is, "If something is worth hearing or listening to, its probably worth reading. So, this above all: Find your own voice."
I've never felt that speaking and writing were so epically bound as Hitchens claims. Clearly we use the same words, constructions and expressions in both forms of communication, so writing and speaking are by default connected. I would disagree, though, with Hitch that he who can really talk can also write.
I read this piece just after trying to explain to a friend why I need to write. My writing helps me to make sense out of all the things I have floating in my head. Most of the ideas and issues I write about, I've already discussed with others, and its not that our discussions do not suffice, but the writing down of these ideas allows me to more fully and successfully express them. I am one who can usually come up with a stinging reply, but always after the moment has passed.
Writing just works for me. Maybe it is that it takes longer for my thoughts to travel from my brain to my hand than from my brain to my mouth that my written thoughts are more cohesive. Who knows.
I (humbly) bring another point of contention to Hitchen's claim of the link between speaking and writing. There are some things that simply do not, cannot, will not, and should not have the same effect spoken aloud as read off the page. Speech offers different (not necessarily better or worse) nuance to language. The written word can make alliteration and construction more important or obvious while speech allows for emotion and expression to be more obvious to the listener. All of these qualities can be both read and heard, but some are just more pronounced in one form or the other. I think poets and speech writers, among others. would readily say the same.
I would never go so far as to say that either method of communication could ever be better or worse. My point is simply that my thoughts generally make more sense once I write them.
I believe that I write because I cannot speak well (at least not off-the-cuff), opposite of Hitchens's point. And, rather than ideas being worthy of being written only if they are worthy of being heard, I like to think that the things I write become worth listening to after they are written down and I have crafted them into a form that will make the most impact or at least the most sense.
Hitchens is struggling with throat cancer and his loss of his physical voice. I would not try to belittle that loss and the immeasurable emotional and physical pain he is going through, but I think he should find comfort in his writing. I would argue that he has not truly lost his voice, but, as a writer, he never can. He can speak for those who cannot (perhaps including himself someday). He may not be able to shout it from the roof tops for all to hear, but, and I think this is more important, he can 'say' it on paper, in print for all to read and to live on as a part of our collective history.
Hitchens says, "Above all, you must find your voice." I would be content to have my voice live on paper. I can speak my mind when necessary, but the things I have to say always sound much better on paper.