but I have trouble with a lot of your statements regarding Mother Theresa.

She publicly lobbied to outlaw abortion and even contraception. That is simply totalitarian.

Of course, this isn't even remotely totalitarian. If she said "I am the law, and as of now I will physically enforce my beliefs no matter what the wish of the people" that would be totalitarian. Given her beliefs (that a soul is present from conception, and thus it is a human being not a bunch of tissue we're dealing with), her wanting to outlaw abortion is understandable. I don't agree with it, but she has a right to want abortion and contraception outlawed, just as I have a right to want them legally available.

There is lots of evidence demonstrating clearly (to those for whom evidence matters) that she was uninterested in alleviating suffering (as she explicitly believed it brought people closer to Jesus)

This is a statement frequently misunderstood by non-Christians. The doctrine of being closer to Jesus through suffering and finding grace in suffering does not mean that one in uninterested in alleviating suffering. No Christian tells a person "Don't take an asperin for that headache. Don't get that cancer removed from your lung." But if suffering cannot be avoided, it can still be something other than uselses. A suffering person is sharing, in a particular way, Christ's carrying of the Cross. A person in pain can utilize their suffering and offer it up for the sins of the world. But this belief has absolutely nothing to do with not wanting to help people to be healed, or to alleviate their suffering in any way you can. That you misread her comments on suffering demonstrates pretty clearly you aren't familiar with Catholic doctrine or how that doctrine is acted upon.

and that she didn't use the billions of dollars given to her to help people, but to build convents.

I'd really have to see the financial reports for that.

One of your links is to an article by a woman who only worked with her in the States and Rome, never saw her actions in Calcutta, and left because she was "disillusioned." Well, that's an objective source, now isn't it! Tell me, if I post a letter from a devoted follower of Mother Theresa, will you accept that as a sound, objective source from which to determine the truth about her?

The other is to an article supposedly from a conservative German magazine "not known for anti-Catholic bais." Well, maybe, but is "not being known" for something identical to "not being" it? And if the newspaper hasn't a bias, does that mean the writer hasn't any? How am I supposed to know who this is and how trustworthy? Or the newspaper which printed it? How can I research the author or publisher? It's an unsubstantiated piece that can't be verified at all. About on par with the original news reports on the Amityville Horror. "So and so said this occured. He was there, he saw it. There's your proof!" Not great investigative journalism.

I don't find either article helpful in discerning what was really the case.

used both the words "Christian" and "Catholic" in referring to the doctrine of suffering as a blessing, when it's a specifically Catholic teaching. My post makes it sound like all Christians believe this, and that's a misrepresentation.

that booklength thirtysomething episode, culled from crumpled pages found in the the wastebasket of Raymond Carver?

While writhing under the scorn of your withering response, some questions come to mind:

What do you mean by "enormous influence"? Who is influenced by him? He seems to me to be spitting out imitations of Pynchon and Coover and Heller and Phillip K. Dick. Postmodernism. It's sort of all over the place, but not because of him.

I'm an extremely well-read person, and I've only read a little of DeLillo, and felt no need to read more. I can't think of anyone in my acquaintance (and I spend my time with writers and obsessive readers) who speak of him at all.

I have no idea why the cover of Underworld would haunt you "after the fact." It's a fairly obvious bit of iconography.

I grant you I am not nearly as familiar with his work as you are. I certainly grant you have answered the question I asked. He's paranoid about Big Conspiracies and he is a current literary figure. Thanks for that.

At the moment I'm wearing a pair of scrubs.

Point well taken. I guess contemporary culture has seemed too fragmentary for any particular writer to achieve dominance, outside of whatever circle admires him or her. But the poll you cite challenges my assumptions. It's funny the way there can be a major writer making a huge impact, and you aren't even aware of it. Or, I'm not.

By the way, I can laugh at spelling errors, but I make plenty of my own. None of us here has an editor in tow, and it's hard to focus on a point, express it as eloquently as possible, and make sure we don't leave out a letter or something. That kind of slip is not the best tool for evaluating someone's intellect.