Dated January 25th, 1979. A letter from Monica McCall at ICM to Louise Kertesz stating that Rukeyser liked the title of Louise’s book, and that she should be out of the hospital in a week to ten days.
Dated January 10th, 1979. A letter from Eric J. Carpenter to Louise Kertesz. Carpenter gives letters and microfiche to Louise Kertesz due to receiving permission from Monica McCall. Attached, another letter dated January 17th, from Eric J. Carpenter to LK. States that the letters 'crossed in the mail’. Carpenter had sent copies of Rukeyser’s letters on the 9th, and hopes Louise has received them by now. Louise did not request the microfilm of her manuscripts. Both letters from the University of New York at Buffalo.
Dated January 4th, 1979. A letter from Monica McCall at ICM (International Creative Management) to Eric Carpenter, Acting Curator of Poetry Collection at SUNY Buffalo, New York.. Authorizes Louise Kertesz to use letters from the poetry collection in her book. Some handwritten notes are on the paper.
Dated August 23rd. 1978. A typed letter from Miriam M. Reik to Louise Kertesz. Miriam M. Reik, a former student of Rukeyser at Sarah Lawrence recalls Rukeyser’s”unorthodox: but “entirely common sensical” teaching style. She provides one example when the class was assigned Blake’s poetry: “When we came to class, presumably having read it, Muriel asked us to write a description of Newton on the spot. Surprised by the instructions, most of the students set about the task armed with a set of predictable ideas: Newton meant reason as opposed to imagination, science as opposed to poetry; Blake was a mystic and disliked Newton and said so; scientists like Newton looked a certain bespeckled way, and so on. So most of us described an appropriately dry, professorial-looking Newton in this impromptu exercise. When we finished, Muriel managed to jiggle all of these simplicities out of our heads, merely by passing around Blake’s painting of Newton, in which he looks rather like a Greek God, preoccupied with the wonderful symmetries of geometry. This strategy did not solve the question of the relations between science and poetry, and it did not offer a specific interpretation of Blake, but for anyone with half a brain, it set you down a new track, gave you new access to the poems, and broke down what Muriel has called ‘the resistances’ to the work of the imagination.”
Dated January 2nd, 1979. A typed letter from Phyllis Leith to Louise Kertesz, writing on behalf of Denise Levertov. Levertov gives Louise Kertesz permission to use her quotes in her book, and brings up that two of her poems in Sorrow Dance, “The Unknown” and “Joy” are related to Muriel Rukeyser’s work.
Dated July 10th, 1978. A typed letter from Jane Cooper to Louise Kertesz. Cooper apologizes for replying to the letter so late, and expresses elation that Louise Kertesz is writing a book about Rukeyser. The letter suggests names of former Rukeyser students to contact. “Muriel’s writing has always meant an enormous amount to me. She was the first contemporary woman poet I read, when I was 13 or 14 … Later, in the 50s & 60s, we taught together at Sarah Lawrence. Her course then was the “Orlando” course–a marvelous, unorthodox history of English literature, which used the Woolf work as a sort of frame, read both at the beginning & end of the year. and some checks are next to the names of the sources. Some handwritten notes are also on the letter.
Dated November 7th, Unknown Year. A handwritten letter from Jane Cooper to Louise Kertesz. Cooper talks about a Writer’s Conference: A Day in Honor of Muriel Rukeyser that she hopes Kertesz will attend. Cooper regrets not having any photographs of Muriel. Letter is underlined in red (by LK) in some places.
Dated December 21st, Unknown Year. A typed letter from Gloria Bowles, University of California, to Louise Kertesz.. Bowles has included a mention of Kertesz’s book on Rukeyser in a review essay for Signs.
Dated August 3rd, 1977. A typed letter from the literary agent Richard Balkin. Balkin declines becoming the literary agent of Louise Kertesz, however, he does suggest that the book will find a publisher, and brings up another company. Some handwritten notes, including the name of another agent, are added. The letter is also underlined in parts.
Dated June 23rd, 1976. A typed letter from William Phillips of Partisan Review to Louise Kertesz: “It’s difficult to answer your questions since they all seem to have some hidden assumptions.”
Dated January 6th, 1978. Copy of a typed letter from Richard Eberhart to Beverly Jarrett, executive editor of Louisiana University Press. Louise Kertesz is CC’D. Contains a Eberhart’s blurb for Kertesz’s forthcoming book. Also contains Eberhart’s handwritten notes to Kertesz.
Dated August 1st, 1976. A handwritten letter from Kenneth Rexroth to Louise Kertesz, in which he agrees to write the preface to her book on MR (The Poetic Vision of Muriel Rukeyser) and discusses Rukeyser’’s relation to the San Francisco Renascence and the Beats: “She didn't associate much with other poets but she was a good friend of mine & of Duncan’s. Patchen had even less to do with the locals. The Beats publicity machine has obliterated the SF ‘renascence’--and, of course, they have no real connection with SF–they are New Yorkers. If Muriel wants to be connected with them, she’s crazy. I have spent 20 years trying to get them off my neck and out of my hair. She is an infinitely better poet than any of the Beats….
Dated October 13th, 1978. A typed aeromail from Clive Bush to Louise Kertesz, providing the full reference to his 1977 essay “Muriel Rukeyser: the poet as scientific biographer.”
Dated April 6th, 1976, a typed letter from MIT professor Cyril Stanley Smith to Louise Kertesz in response to her inquiries about Willard Gibbs and The Traces of Thomas Harriot: “You ask about scientists’ views on W. G. Frankly, I have never met one who liked it. Most of them think that it is not the biography of a scientist. For all of its studies of incoming and outreaching influences, it fails to catch the intellectual experience of the scientist in finding and clarifying his problem and doesn't distinguish between the moments of insight and the hard work of verification and transmission” (underlined in red by LK). Suggests that both WG and The Traces “are somewhat questionable if they are judged by the standards of down-to-earth well disciplined science or history of science, and they may even me [sic] a bit unreliable as biography.” Suggests that the two books need to be supplemented by more critical scientific biographies.The letters are underlined and have handwritten notes by Louise Kertesz.
Dated April 12th, 1976, a typed letter from MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) professor Dirk Jan Struik to Louise Kertesz, in response to her inquiries about Muriel Rukeyser’s Willard Gibbs: “I never read Muriel Rukeyser’s book on Willard Gibbs, but did read that one on Thomas Harriot. This was some years ago, and I only remember off hand the general impression it made on me, namely that I got little out of it.”
Dated December 13th, 1978. A typed letter from John Cheever to Louise Kertesz, talking about a photograph from Yaddo with Muriel in it. Also contains some handwritten notes by Louise Kertesz.
Dated September 20th, 1978. A typed letter from MH (Mary Hayne) to Louise Kertesz North recounting North’s experience in a class held by Muriel Rukeyser. Entitled: “Come To Your Shell: Muriel Rukeyser from the eyes of a student.
Dated September 12th, 1978. A typed letter from Mary Hayne North, a former student of MR at Sarah Lawrence, to Louise Kertesz, talking about contributions that she could make for Louise’s book, such as her review of THE GATES, as yet unpublished; she also offers to paint a portrait of Muriel Rukeyser and wonders if she knows of grants that might support such endeavor..
