Am I missing something (again)? It didn't seem to me Miller was remotely suggesting DeLillo doesn't "get" this crazy world of ours. Quite the opposite. And though she called Cosmopolis a debacle, she didn't indicate whether that was from a failure to "get it" or just the sort of aesthetic flaws that can ruin a novel whatever the novelist's perceptions.

I can't tell if you're faulting critics who evaluate a work's connection to the world, or specifically the practice of blase critics only excited by the latest trend and newest voice.

I kinda like that a critic would consider issues of morality, plausability and relevance in a work. Especially since I'm waaaaaaaaay sick of postmoderism/metafiction/etc. I've enjoyed some of Robert Coover's work, but Coover's usually savvy enough to keep it short. And a little of that goes a long way. I'm not even all that interested in Borges. Who would question his genius? But I don't connect with him, I don't really derive much of what you'd call pleasure from him. Truth be told, I was never crazy about Gulliver. Yes, it's a classic, but my preferences run in the direction of The Ambassadors.

I do like E.T.A. Hoffmann, though, whose Tomcat Murr predicted the whole post/meta movement. And I know many critics put Myra Breckinridge, which I think is one of the funniest novels of the twentieth century, in that category—I don't think so, though Myron belongs. But then, I didn't like Myron very much.

The point is, both sources provided anectdotal evidence with no concrete facts. You might think I'm stubbornly refusing to face the truth, but I'm not. I really have no stake in whether Mother Theresa was a saintly woman or not. If she was, great; if she wasn't, it really doesn't have an impact on what I think about religious people in general (same as you). I'm simply not convinced by the evidence.

did I only italicize Myra?

The massive overwhelmingly positive accounts of her life are too numerous to count. Just hit Google, for goodness sake. What about the people who spoke in favor of her beatification in Rome? Is there testimony someohow less relevant than the people who deride her?

Here's a first hand comment on her use of funds "Mother Teresa wanted her honorarium to be used to rebuild poor peoples' homes destroyed in a recent earthquake in Guatemala. Sr. Betty Lou Knox CSJ, recently returned from Guatemala, set up a contact to see that the money reached the poor for whom it was intended."

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0MKY/is_17_27/ai_111616401

Here is another personal testimony:

http://www.hindu.com/2006/08/26/stories/2006082604071000.htm

You could also check out Mother Teresa`s Lessons of Love and Secrets of Sanctity By Susan Conroy, a woman who knew and worked with her.

Why are these sources less trustworthy to you as first person accounts?

That's my question.

Guess we will have to make that agreement.

Why do you dismiss the first person accounts and books I list? They fit exactly the criteria you mentioned earlier of being eyewitnesses to her attitudes and activities. Who would have to endorse them for you to consider them viable?

Personally, I don't know if she was a saint or not. But I can't just dismiss on side of the argument because the other side insists they know the truth. In fact, having already heard the criticisms and, of course, the praise, my response has been to withold judgement. I really don't know, and it would be foolish to suggest I do.

It sounds like her basic beliefs are a problem for you. They aren't for me, but then, her attitude towards pain and towards contraceptives (what a combination!) makes sense if you know Catholic doctrine. As I said before, a Catholic who is not a hypocrite would have to hold those very positions. Doesn't make them right. I don't agree with them. But it doesn't bother me that people think that way. I'm way cool with plurality of opinion (if laws look like they will be changed/revoked, that's a different issue).

I'll let go of this discussion now. Ultimately, I don't think you and I are far apart on the issues this column has raised. Mother T is a sidebar.

I'm not religious, so I can't be a zealot. It's merely reasonable that if there are two sides to a story, both should be examined. If the point is that some of people who know a person (be it Mother T, Bill Clinton, or Abe Lincoln) deride that person, but other people as familiar with that person offer praise, both arguments should be examined.

Anytime one is relying on personal accounts, one should remember Rufus Griswald. This is the man Edgar Allan Poe Poe appointed as his literary executor, who made a living from then on speaking on Poe, and describing him as an alcoholic and a drug abuser? He lied. Hugely. And an accurate view of Poe was skewed for decades, mabye forever. The lies still linger in the popular imagination. He had a grudge against Poe, and though he knew Poe and was even appointed by Poe his literary executor, he's completley unreliable as a source, less reliable than biographers who never even knew Poe and did not even live in his time. And Griswald might have known Poe better than anyone else in his lifetime who commented on Poe. But he's still, as the facts have shown, utterly unreliable.

So it takes more evidence that a person's claims to prove, to document something. I've read the attacks on Mother Theresa. They aren't any better substantiated than those of people who knew and loved her. So I can't rely on one more than the other.