Search
245 items
-
Dated June 9th, 1981, a typewritten letter from Louise Kertesz to Grace Paley. While there is no name after the word ‘sincerely’ in the letter, it can be assumed that this letter is from Louise Kertesz to Grace Paley. In the letter, Louise states that she won't be cashing in the check that Grace sent for her book because she got some extra copies of the book from the press. Louise wrote to Grace because she is was upset that the first review of her book, which was published in American Literature , “does not acknowledge the importance of material in the book and so doesn’t adequately call readers’ attention to a very important fact in Muriel’s life: for years her work and often her person were disparaged and even vilified in print’. In one of the last letters Muriel Rukeyser had sent Louise, she had enclosed two negative, even vicious reviews from the publications Hudson Review and Buffalo Courier-Express, asking if Louise would answer those reviews. Louise had stated that her book would be the answer. Louise the goes on to say that it is not true, as the American Literature reviewer states, “that now people recognize how stupid and ugly was a great deal of the response to Muriel’s work; it’s not true that that response was largely ignored by those who knew better.” Louise believes that “it was important to document and to try to analyze and respond to that stupidity (especially on the part of influential people like Randall Jarrell, R.P. Blackmur, M.L. Rosenthal, Louise Bogan, Joseph Warren Beach, etc.) because it persists and because it shows how steadfast Muriel was.”
-
Dated January 25th, 1981, an unsigned typewritten letter from Louise Kertesz to Hayden Carruth asking him to review her book for Hudson Review.
-
An original, typewritten letter dated January 26th, 1984. The letter is from Louise Kertesz to Kate Daniels. Louise begins the letter by saying that she is happy that Daniles is working on a biography of Muriel, and Louise will help in any way she can. Louise also congratulates Daniels for getting Random House as he publisher. Louise will send Daniels xeroxes of her correspondence with Muriel. She will also xerox letters some of her colleagues wrote about her and her work. Louise will have to locate some of these items, since she has moved. Louise has a xerox machine, and she just asks Kate to reimburse her for the postage. Louise has also taped interviews with Muriel. They are precious to her. She will allow Daniels to listen to them, but she doesn't have equipment that would let her make transcriptions, and she is nervous about mailing the originals. They can discuss this at a later date, and Louie is sure that hearing Rukeyser with an interviewer will interest Daniels. While she was writing her book about Rukeyser, Louise describes her relationship with Muriel as “...a student trying to understand her work in its context. I grew to admire it and her more and more a I read her work and interviewed her and spoke to her on the phone. She was very strong, despite strokes. I felt she had the inner strength and insight and the “magic” of utterance of the true artist”. Louise is sure that people close to Rukeyser can describe her personality and mind in greater detail. Louise was with Rukeyser, in person, not more than 10 times, and maybe less. Louise had lunch with Rukeyser in her apartment once, drinks once, and the rest of the time they worked and Louise had a bus or plane to catch. They did speak on the phone frequently. Louise describes Rukeyser as “...warm, welcoming, generous”. Her standard exclamation when Louise announced she was on the phone was “Oh, Good!” She never said anything about anyone, or took swipes at her detractors on the phone. As Daniels may know, Louise’s book is about Rukeyser’s work and her critics. Besides showing the interconnecting themes of her work, she also wanted to illustrate the phenomenon of the verbal abuse of a great artist by small (sexist) minds. Louise has enclosed a review of Rukeyser’s Collected Poems, which was her last published book, that appeared in the Hudson Review. The review demonstrated how disgraceful “respected “ critics could be, until the very end. Muriel mailed Louise that review, with no comment. Prichard used to teach, or maybe still does, at Amherst College. Muriel saw all of Louise’s chapters before they went to press. The books were published and a copy appeared in Louise’s mailbox two weeks after Rukeyser died. Her secretary, a woman from Sarah Lawrence called Jan Levi, was reading Rukeyser Louise’s page proofs on the last week of her life, and she was weeping and saying, ”Right on.” Jam Levi told Louise this when she phoned with the news of Muriel’s death. Louise ends the letter by saying that she will mail Daniels anything she has on hand that might interest her. Louise wishes Daniels good luck on her book. Louise has also handwritten more questions and comments on the sides of the letter, such as “Why have you decided to write your book?”
-
A collection of three letters, all from Louise Kertesz to Lawrence Ferlinghetti. The first letter is dated July 10th, 1980. The letter states that in the spring, after Louise sent Ferlinghetti copies of the book’;s galleys in response to his questions, he also asked Louise to send him a review copy of The Poetic Vision of Muriel Rukeyser. Louise had asked the LSU Press to send him one. In March, they said that they would, and Louise is wondering whether Ferlinghetti has received the review copy. Louise was writing this letter to say that she would be grateful if Ferlinghetti reviewed her book: “I'm writing to say again that I would be very grateful for a review from you in a publication. I have had little response from people I've asked to review the book, and I'm asking you since you said you found the pages I sent you helpful.”
-
The second letter, dated February 16th, 1980, is from Louise Kertesz to Lawrence Ferlinghetti. At the beginning of the letter, Louise states that she heard of Muriel’s death two days ago, and that she is still stunned. Responding to a postcard Ferlinghetti had sent, Louise had two statements in writing about Octavio Paz from Muriel. Muriel states that she first met him in Berkley in 1944. She also stated that Octavio Paz was one of the people who was important to her in California, although she didn't think of him as Californian. She also went to California with Robert Payne (someone, probably Louise, has written ‘terrific author’ next to his name) in 1947 (Someone, probably Louise, has circled the year and handwrote,, she wrote this to me, according to other information she gave me, this date seems wrong, unless she made trips back + forth (Calif.-Ny.) In my book I am not specific about the California Residence dates). Louise suggests that Ferlinghetti contact Payne for more California information. Louise then says that since Ferlinghetti asked to have a review copy sent to him by LSU Press, would he now place a review in a periodical? Thus far, Louise had found someone to review her book in the Chronicle of Higher Education, and that was all. The book got a good review in the Library Journal.
-
The third and final typewritten letter, dated February 2nd, 1980, from Louise Kertesz to Lawrence Ferlinghetti. Louise states that the fastest way to send Ferlinghetti the information that he wants is to send him xeroxes of uncorrected page proofs of her book, The Poetic Vision of Muriel Rukeyser, or the ones used to index, which would explain the markings on them. Ferlinghetti wrote that he hoped that Louise “...won’t spend too much time or effort” getting facts about Muriel Rukeyser in San Francisco.
-
Dated June 15th, 1979, a typewritten letter from Louise Kertesz to Marie J. Blanchard. Louise had enclosed a letter that she had received from the Imogen Cunningham Trust. Louise asks if Marie will replace the Cunningham photo on the tentative January 30th list with the Yale photo if the fee proved to be too high.
-
Handwritten letter, dated September 29th, 1975, from Louise Kertesz to Mike (no last name). Louise tells Mike that Muriel Rukeyser sent Louise the enclosed reviews of her book [most likely the Collected Poems] and asked if Louise would be interested in answering them. Louise doesn't know what form her answer could take, since she is the author of a book written to enlighten (she hopes) reviewers like these. Louise thinks that perhaps Mike will find the review of interest as he reads her book.
-
Dated January 10th, 1976. A worn, typewritten letter from Louise Kertesz to Muriel Rukeyser. Kertesz hopes that Muriel’s trip to Ottawa was good and that she is in good health. The American Council of Learned Societies turned down Kertesz’s request for a grant, and she is applying to them again. LK asks for Rukeyser to send her a letter supporting her petition for a grant. She is asking for $1,200 dollars, for one year of child-care and some funds for travel to New York and Cambridge. (Today, that amount would be approximately $6,028).
-
An original, two page letter, dated June 27th, 1977. From Louise Kertesz to Muriel Rukeyser. Louise had written Rukeyser to send “The Chronology of Important Dates” that she would like to verify with Rukeyser the next time they meet. Louise had also sent her many questions on sheets enclosed in the envelope. In her “Chronology of Important Dates’, Louise would like to include the date of any of Rukeyser’s awards, significant changes in residence, or Rukeyser’s work with organizations such as the Writers’ and Teachers’ Collaborative. Louise had also found Denise Levertov’s poem dedicated to Rukeyser. Louise has also been reading Levertov’s work Sorrow Dance, and had noted the “unknown”, the “waking” and the “transformation”, and also the attempt to see “Paradise in the dust”. In Levertov’s work, there were also focuses on the sacred body and anti-war emotions. Levertov's poems shared the spirit and vocabulary of Muriel’s. Louise asks Muriel if she could get in touch with Levertov and find out whether or not Levertov would be receptive if Louise wrote Levertov about her poetry. If so, Louise asks Rukeyser if she could give her an address. Louise had also read Gary Snyder, and his work Earth House Hold and Turtle Island. Snyder is associated with the ‘Beat’ poets, and he uses Buddhist terms, but his vision of the world as one living creature, or “the body of the soul”, and of “singing/the proof/the proof of the power within” is another indication to Louise that what the “Beats” started singing in the late Fifties had already appeared in Rukeyser’s poetry in the 30’s. Louise hopes Muriel will talk with her about this when they meet. Rukeyser’s letter had arrived the same day, which listed the names of people who she knew in San Francisco. Louise thanks her for her letter, and for writing to Bernard Perry. Louise also says that Rukeyser’s statement for the Copernicus award was wonderful. As for Rukeyser’s question, which was, “Do you want to ask another press?”, Louise replies that she has no experience in these matters, so she is trying to hear from Indiana after sending them an impatient letter, trying to contact a literary agent and have him handle the manuscript if he wants to (the same literary agent had plated two books on film for a friend of hers), and finally, waiting for Rukeyser to talk to McGraw-Hill about her manuscript, as Rukeyser said she might do. Louise will follow the path that is available. If Rukeyser could suggest another press or agent, Louise would look into those as well. Since Indiana is taking so long and does not seem to care very much, Louise feels justified in choosing another press if she can, even before Indiana answers. So if an agent takes Louise on, she will let him do his work. Louise ends the letter by saying that she will write again in a few days with more questions for Rukeyser and her meeting in July. Louise hopes Muriel continues to do well. There is a sentence of handwriting on page two of the letter.
-
Original, very fragile, typewritten letter, dated March 18th, 1975. The letter is from Louise Kertesz to Muriel Rukeyser. While Louise was preparing a talk on contemporary women poets several months ago, she was surprised to find that no substantial study had been done on Muriel Rukeyser’s work. Since then, Louise had been reading her poems, from Theory of Flight on, and Louise is engrossed in the biography of Gibbs. Louise has compiled a long bibliography of the reviews of Rukeyser's work and of the studies of Rukeyser’s work in journals and in books such as Gregory and Zaturenska’s A History of American Poetry, Rosenthal’s The New Poets, Beach’s Obsessive Images. For Louise, reading through this material, which was helpful at times but far from satisfying, compelled her to write a book-length study of Muriel Rukeyser’s work. Louise asks Muriel if she knows whether or not anyone has been working on a study already, Rukeyser’s account of Josiah Gibbs Sr. 's experience with Gesenius prompted Louise to ask Rukeyser. Louise is a former college English teacher at home with two small children. Louise holds a PhD, earned in 1970, from Illinois. Contemporary poetry by American Women is Louise’s main interest. Louise would like to devote her scholarly energies to demonstrate the vitality of Rukeyser’s work and give it its proper place in literary history. The task that Louise is setting for herself is a great one, which is to understand the development of Rukeyser’s work in its historical, political, and philosophical contexts and in a context in which the work of women poets is not slighted. Louise will learn a lot, and hopes to teach it well. If Rukeyser’;s says that no one else has undertaken a study of her work, Louise will begin her own. Louise ends the letter by saying that she hopes that Rukeyser will receive questions from Louise as the work progresses.
-
An original, typewritten letter, dated April 15th, 1975. The letter is from Louise Kertesz to Muriel Rukeyser. Louise states that it has been wonderful talking with Rukeyser on the telephone. Louise has been intensely involved with Rukeyser’s work, and Louise has been with her work during her hours of reading and even throughout the day when she watches her children do chores. Louise sent Rukeyser samples of her writing. The book reviews are from Northampton’s Daily Hampshire Gazette. The long article, which Louise doesn't expect Rukeyser to read fully or even send back to her, is intended to show that Louise can do scholarly work. It is an excerpt from her dissertation. Louise does not apologize for it, but the style is often stiff because she was bent on academic demonstration. The work that Louise proposes to Rukeyser’s writings will be through and documented, but Louise plans to write in a style that reflects her deep personal response to her work. Louise also sent Rukeyser Stephen Stepanchev’s review of Waterlily Fire. The bibliography had misled Louise into thinking it was a long study of Waterlily Fire. Once again, this gives Louise evidence of the need for a substantial study of Rukeyser's writings. Louise asks if Rukeyser will give her Sylvia Bowman’s address so that she can write to her immediately about her project, or does Muriel think she should wait until she has a chapter or outline to send. Louise has been writing to New York University to try to get them to send our local library copy id M.L. Rosenthal’s 1949 thesis entitled “Chief Poets of the American Depression: Contributions of Kenneth Fearing, Horace Gregory, and Muriel Rukeyser to Contemporary American Poetry”. Louise had offered to buy a copy of the dissertation, but she hadn't had any response from the English Department or from the reference department of the Bobst Library at New York University.Louise asks what she can do to see the dissertation. Louise also asks Muriel Rukeyser to send her a copy of American Poetry Review in which her work is featured in an article. Louise will send it back to Rukeyser. No library around Louise carries that publication. At the same time. Louise would appreciate it if Rukeyser returned some newspaper clippings. Louise ends the letter by thanking Rukeyser for her encouraging telephone calls. Louise wants to give her very best to that study because she admires Rukeyser’s work and her vision, and also due to the fact that Rukeyser’s response has heightened her enthusiasm.