Letter from Kertesz to Grace Paley, June 9 1981

Title

eng Letter from Kertesz to Grace Paley, June 9 1981

Description

eng Dated June 9th, 1981, a typewritten letter from Louise Kertesz to Grace Paley. While there is no name after the valediction "sincerely" at the end of 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 upset that the first review of her book, published in American Literature, “doesn’t 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, one from Hudson Review, the other from Buffalo Courier-Express, and asked if Louise would answer those reviews. At the time, Louise reassured her that her book would be the answer. Louise then 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.”

Identifier

eng 018_LK_01_19_017.jpg

Creator

eng Louise Kertesz

Date Created

eng June 9th, 1981

Medium

eng Paper

Subject

eng Louise Kertesz, Muriel Rukeyser, Grace Paley, Female Poets, Correspondence, Photography

Is Part Of

eng 018.LK, Louise Kertesz papers

Contributor

eng Andrew Schick

extracted text

- ' 1 . - 1300 Joliet Place
, Detroit, MI 48207
9 June 1981

Dear Grace,

I won't be oasming'the check you sent for my book because I got
some extra copies frow the press. | ' -

I m‘writing now because I'm diqmayed that the first extended revééw
of the book to appear (in American Literature -- see enclosed) dowon't
acknowledge the irportance of material in the book and so doesn't ade-
quately call readers' attention to 2 very important fact in Muriel's 1£fe.
for yvears her work and often her person were disparaged and even vilified
in print. In one of her last letters to me she gsent coples of the reviews
I enclose (from Hudson Review and Buffalo ”ouri@rmfixanSQ), asking if
I wouvld answer these r@viewu. I told. hmr my book (then in press) would
be my answer.



It?'s not true, as the Am, ILit. reviewer imrli@m, that now people
recogmize 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
know better. Pesides, I wamn't writing for those who knowe I bellieved
1t was important to document and to try to analyze anc T@prfld 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 1t newsi sts and because it shows how steadfast





Muriel was.



I was hoping that discussions of my 1noo‘fiff by reviewers would clte
materiel I documented and thus call readers! attention to the pattern
of obtuseness in critics' response to her wnr“ and to the work of others
who do not fit the moid, Of aourme, T was also horing that reviewers
would find my reading of Muriel's poems and thelr relationships ilfumi-
natine. There is more in my book than what the Am, ILit. reviewer found
there. Muriel thought so. She wis h@fl the book "good 1life," for it meant

much to her.







But so far, there hag been only Qilpflfifi -- and the reviewer 1n
Am. Lit. saying 1 wasted space. -

. Would vou please give me some advice? What should I do now about

this project that meant a Wrmat deal to Muriel? I have the gnawling
gense that I haven't finished with it, that I haven't eiven 1t proper
"exposure." (Yes, I did write to Jane Cooper a long time ago, but 1





‘got no answer, Murlel was allve then., )

Sincerely,

o
£
g