But would you pronounce it correctly?

He's had a few years to practice, Cathy . . .

Cathy is referring to the fact that, while Teresas Heinz Kerry and Nielsen Hayden spell their given name alike, they pronounce it differently.

This isn't the first time you've spoken highly of Garry Wills, but I've never been particularly impressed by his writing. What about his work do you like so much?

Cathy is referring to the fact that, while Teresas Heinz Kerry and Nielsen Hayden spell their given name alike, they pronounce it differently.

I was not aware of that (I've been avoiding tv news that isn't The Daily Show for a while now, so I don't think I've ever heard Teresa Heinz Kerry's name said out loud).

And now I'm wondering what the other pronunciation could possibly be... I just don't see a lot of options, there.

Chad: She pronounces it "Teyreyza".

And now I'm wondering what the other pronunciation could possibly be... I just don't see a lot of options, there.

I'd guess that the pronunciation of the 2nd 'e' could differ. I've always heard Mother Teresa's name pronounced Tuh-ray-suh, while I'd assumed Ms. Kerry and Ms. Nielsen Hayden both pronounced their names Tuh-reese-uh.

Obviously, I'm wrong on at least one of them, but it's clear to me that there's more than one way to pronounce T-E-R-E-S-A.

So now I'm curious, how do the ladies in question pronounce their names?

Oh, and I just started reading the Lord Owen article, and I'm wondering what medical ethics says about withholding a diagnosis from a patient, or lying to him about it?

Nielsen Hayden: tuh-REE-sa

Mother: tuh-RAY-sa

Heinz Kerry: tuh-RAY-za

Of Avila: Whichever you prefer; saints are tolerant

As to why I like Garry Wills, well, he's a writer who tells me stuff I didn't know, brings to life things I never cared about before, and turns out to be worth reading even after I've decided he's dead wrong.

Among his best books are Nixon Agonistes (a meditation on American politics ca. 1969, built around a study of Richard Nixon); Lincoln at Gettysburg (the literary and cultural roots of the Gettysburg Address); and Papal Sin (the moral corruption of the Papacy and its destructive effect on the Catholic Church).

Some of Wills's best work is rooted in his vigorous but highly critical Catholicism. His brief biography of St. Augustine (written for the Penguin "Brief Lives" series) is a gem of close argument and makes rubble out of many lazy cliches about the Bishop of Hippo. Here's a brief newspaper column explaining why the Church has no special competence to rule on the issue of abortion. An easy enough argument to make, you might think, but the bravura aspect of it is that Wills anchors the entire proposition in the intellectual and moral tenets of Catholicism itself. Similarly, here's Wills calmly undermining the whole right-wing cultural claim to be defending "the classics," by showing that in fact it's precisely those sinister "multiculturalists" who are doing the most to revive them.

Wills can be dumb. He doesn't get the libertarian strain in American life and thought, and his book on Americans and guns was seriously off base, even aside from its dependence on dodgy research. But I like his turn of mind, his ability to tease new insights out of contrary facts. Some of his best essays are collected in Lead Time (1983). Hope this helps.

Thanks for the recommendation on the Augustine biography, Patrick - I think I have some new material for the book-buying list. :-)

The NYTM piece did give me a bit of a shiver; it's overall tenor seemed to be, "we may have to destroy the party in order to save it", but I'm not clued-in enough on American politics to know whether this was deliberate but subtle axe-grinding by the columnist or a genuine appraisal of the situation.

I have this nasty vision of US politics in eight or twenty four years time, with two sets of rich oligarchs locked in an endless mutual tail-chase after an ever-diminishing pool of voters who can be bamboozled into thinking that there's some difference between their two hollowed-out sock-puppet parties. A vision, in other words, of the Democratic party remade in the mold of the Republican party in order to defeat it. I just hope it's a combination of post-prandial indigestion and ignorance ...

Charlie, have an antacid. Then read Ruy Teixeira's posts.

Mmm, that's better.

(Y'know, I can't help thinking that it is distinctly odd that a Brit like me is more worried about -- and directly influenced by the outcome of -- a US election than the next upcoming British parliamentary election: but that's globalization for you. I fear that an adverse result in November is likelier, and would have more immediate effect on me, than anything that's going to happen next time Tony Blair goes to the polls.)

Speaking of names, I wouldn’t turn down one of these red signs, should one come up spare. Just a thought…

Shameless. Just shameless. But, you know, in a good way.

As to why I like Garry Wills, well, he's a writer who tells me stuff I didn't know, brings to life things I never cared about before, and turns out to be worth reading even after I've decided he's dead wrong.

And we were just speaking of Teresa, too...

Gary Wills. My first encounter with Gary Wills was his Lincoln at Gettysburg, required reading for all Penn undergrads of the class of 2001. I started reading on the six hour drive from Boston to Philly and my father woke me up when we got there. Come orientation, I made my way to the appointed classroom, Wills in hand. There were ten of us and a professor, all nervous, and with reason. First thing, a show of hands: How many people have read the book? All arms in the air, but wilted like overcooked aspargus. Next question. How many people finished the book? All arms down, including the professor's. Later, I heard from my roommate that his group had the same reaction with the same results.

I'm not totally down on Wills. I've found the essays that Patrick posts more engaging than Lincoln. It's arguable that I could have changed in the course of the past seven years, and might find Lincoln bearable now. But I don't feel motivated to find out.

Please mentally add an 'r' to Garry's name in my last post.

"But I don't feel motivated to find out."

Yes, well, strangely enough, I no longer "feel motivated" to explain my interests and enthusiasms to hostile strangers.

In fact, to quote a great American: shove it.

My post wasn't intended as a personal attack on you, Patrick. I'm not hostile toward your enthusiasms. (Or I wouldn't read this blog.) Like I said, I've enjoyed various Wills essays. I am hostile to the particular book Lincoln at Gettysberg. Have you ever read a book that you intensely disliked to such an extent that you wish never to re-read it, because the experience was so terrible the first time? That was Lincoln for me. Can we all just get along?

You know, I can understand saying to someone "Interesting that you like such-and-such, which I've never liked. What do you like about it?"

That's what Josh did, and I did my best to answer.

Now imagine you're at a party. Fred has just made a casually positive reference to Renoir. Jennifer has said, "You know, I've heard you praise Renoir before, but I've never gotten much out of his paintings, and I wonder what it is you like about them." In response, Fred has paused and then spoken at some length about what he finds valuable and excellent in Renoir.

At which point, Bill pops up to explain that he once saw a Renoir, and it looked to him like dogshit.

What sort of impression do you suppose Bill has just made?

What sort of impression do you suppose Bill has just made?

Probably about the same one I did. It was a tactless comment, and I'm sorry.

(I do post here, so I'm not sure what you meant by the "pops up" part of your analogy, and the "stranger" comment before. I post more often on ML, so maybe you're just not used to seeing me? But it doesn't matter to your point.)

Does "QJM" stand for anything? I spent ten minutes at various links on its website, and it seems to stand for nothing.

I'm going to assume it used to be "The Queen's Journal of Medicine", but that became anachronistic.

[suppresses an urge to list 10 silly things QJM could stand for - as a joke already done elsewhere on this selfsame site]

Well, QJ was the old designation for the Jamaica BMT line (Now J/Z) and M is the Metropolitan Ave BMT which shared tracks with the QJ from Myrtle Ave to Broad Street making all the intermediate waypoints QJM stops, back in the day. (OK, I'm a transit geek, shoot me now. And I'm commenting without context for the QJM reference. Not that I didn't try to figure it out. Maybe I'm just dense.)

[sets phaser on "hurt a lot," shoots Larry]

Xopher - Hey, you went all high-tech on me. All I was looking for was the traditional double-barrel blast, only sufficiently strong to spin my beak around to the back of my oddly duck-like head.

Quarterly Journal of Medicine.

Except that QJM is, of course, monthly. But it used to be quarterly, so they kept the name because it was easier than changing it and everyone was familiar with the old name.

It is probably significant in this context that QJM is published in Britain. The above explanation, with suitable substitutions, will work as an answer to any foreigner's question that fits the pattern "Why does [British thing] [happen in this bizarre way] when [logic and/or the experience of the entire rest of the world would indicate that there is a far simpler and more rational alternative way]?"