The fourth typewritten letter, undated, is from Louise’s husband, Chris Kertesz, to Barbara Holliday, asking if she was interested in having the book for review purposes. There are several handwritten notes on the letter.
The third typewritten letter is dated March 6th, 1980, from Louise Kertesz to Catherine Silvia. Louise is concerned that she hasn't heard any replies to her previous letters. She notifies Silvia of Rukeyser’s death and encloses her obituary. She wonders if journals such as The Nation would include a review of her book. Louise also had a long poem published in the New Orleans Review,and wonders if it would be a good idea to send them a copy of the book for review. Louise mentions that her husband is an editor at the Detroit Free Press, and hopes Silvia will send them a copy for review as well.
The second typewritten letter is dated March 12th, 1980, from Catherine Silvia to Louise Kertesz. The letter states that review copies will be sent to Lawrence Ferlinghetti and Henrietta Epstein, and that she is enclosing the review list for the book. Louise will receive ten complimentary copies of her book. The print-run of the book is 1,500 copies and the books are expected in the warehouse on February 28th; the publication date will be March 28.
A collection of typewritten letters. The first letter is dated March 17th, from Louise Kertesz to Catherine Silvia. Says that advance copies of the book will be sent to Hayden Carruth and Michael True, who later reviews the book. Barbara Holliday of the Detroit Free Press also requested a copy, and should receive one. Finally, Grace Schulman of Nation should receive a copy as well.
Dated December 21st, 1980. A typewritten letter from Louise Kertesz to Denise Levertov. Louise states that it was good to hear from Denise on “the 4th.” Louise states that LSU Press sent Denise a copy of the book, and that in one of its sections, Louise discusses Denise’s poetry. Louise asks Denise to tell her what she thought of that chapter. The letter also discusses Muriel’s appreciation of the book. When the manuscript was being read to her, she cried and kept saying, “Right on!” Rukeyser also called Louise Kertesz “her best reader.” However: “I'm starting to feel that because I didn't work at promoting the book (what could I have done?), I have failed Muriel in this way : in ten months, no one in the poetry and poetry-teaching community has noticed the book, the first to try to assess the scope of Muriel’s work and describe her rich tradition, a book she was enthusiastic about since its beginning. None of the poets close to Muriel who were sent galleys or the book itself has said a word that I know of. I feel the book has fallen into that proverbial void. I just don't understand this.” Louise realizes that it “is abrupt to lay this on you, but I really do feel my work is incomplete and unfinished now.”
Dated June 24th, 1977. The original copy of a handwritten note from Muriel Rukeyser to Louise Kertesz. States that Louise’s book is”‘astonishing and beautiful.” Rukeyser had written to Bernard Perry to “hasten things along” and asks if Louise wants her to write to another press. Rukeyser also looks forward to seeing Louise.
Dated June 24th, 1977. A photocopied handwritten note from Muriel Rukeyser to Louise Kertesz. States “It is an astonishing and beautiful book, and brings through the structure and vocabulary.”’ Rukeyser had written to Bernard Perry to “hasten things along” and asks if Louise wants her to write to another press. Rukeyser also looks forward to seeing Louise.
Dated October 10th, 1975. A photocopied handwritten note from Muriel Rukeyser to Louise Kertesz. The note thanks Louise for reading “Theory of Flight '' with the “deepest understanding and for the grace of your work.” Muriel is willing to answer Louise’s questions, and asks if Louise had already sent them. Muriel had just come back from Korea where she has been “trying hard, with P.E.N, for Kim Chi Ha.” She ends by writing “Your book means very much to me. Good life to it - .”
Dated September 11th, 1976. A typewritten note From Muriel Rukeyser to Louise Kertesz. Muriel had received Louise’s questions on August 25th, and she praises “The depth of perception, the beauty, of your work - what you have written and your questions lead me now to make a further commitment to your work.” There is “one condition, very important, that I must make: will you send me a confirming note that all passages in your manuscript concerning my son and his birth be sent to him, and none of those passage be published without his consent?” Muriel ends by saying, “Your book, as it is taking form, seems extraordinary to me. It is not a thesis.”
Unknown date. An old, typewritten piece of paper, a poem, “Woman by the River:,” written by Louise Kertesz after visiting Muriel Rukeyser in her apartment at Westbeth. Kertesz states that the poem came to her on the way home, and she thanks Muriel for the afternoon.
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).
One Dated February 14th, 1980, the other dated February 13th, 1980. Two original newsprint copies of an obituary for Muriel Rukeyser published in the New York Times titled Muriel Rukeyser, Poet of Social Protest, Is Dead at 66 written by Wolfgang Saxon. The obituary details Rukeyser’s life, highlighting her travels in Europe, an incident with the police that she was held in contempt of court for that inspired some of her poetry, and her authorship of several children’s books. She was survived by her son, William,and three grandchildren. The article dated February 13th includes two of Rukeyser’s poems,”One Soldier” and “Chapultepec Park.”
Dated February 14th, 1980. Three photocopies of an obituary for Muriel Rukeyser published in the New York Times titled Muriel Rukeyser, Poet of Social Protest, Is Dead at 66 written by Wolfgang Saxon. The obituary details Rukeyser’s life, highlighting her travels in Europe, an incident with the police that she was held in contempt of court for that inspired some of her poetry, and her authorship of several children’;s books. She was survived by her son, William,and three grandchildren.
Dated Spring 1980. Unknown Month, unknown day. A photocopied page from the publication American Literature. Titled “Books For All Seasons,” it contains an ad for Louise Kertesz’s book, The Poetic Vision of Muriel Rukeyser. A blurb by Richard Eberhart says, “Readers interested in modern poetry should be fascinated with this thorough, masterful study of the life and works of one of our best poets.”
Undated A typewritten green piece of paper that says, “Anyone wishing to read a poem in the open reading, please contact Jan Heller Levi in the Public Relations Office by April 23.”
Dated April 8th, 1980. From Swinford House at Sarah Lawrence College to Louise Kertesz. An invitation to an event held on Sunday, April 27th that will honor the life of Muriel Rukeyser.
Dated Saturday, December 9th, 1978. A flier titled ‘Writers Conference: A Day in Honor of Muriel Rukeyser’ held by Sarah Lawrence College. Has a schedule for the event, some checkmarks next to sverla names on the back side, and a handwritten note that says ‘arrive early; see film, at 10:00’.
Unknown date. Louise Kertesz’s poet’s credo: “I think of writing as a way to explore and clarify my perception of the world – my personal sphere of relationships, work, place, and sometimes, through these, the larger world as well…” On back page is a draft from Kertesz’s book on Rukeyser.
Dated August 31st, 1978. A typewritten publishing Agreement for “A Procession of Images” A Study of Muriel Rukeyser’s Work and Its Reception, 1935-1977. Signed by L.E. Phillabaum, Director of the Louisiana State University Press.
Dated May, 1981, unknown day. A photocopy of Annette Kolodny’s review of Louise Kertesz’s book in the publication Literature. Kolodny states that “The difficulty, I think, stems from the fact that Kertesz could not contain her (often quite justified) anger at the stupidity which marked many reviews of Rukeyser’s work, and the lack of generosity which marked critics’ responses to Rukeyser herself.” Kolodny believes that Louise spent too much time going after old reviews that have long since faded from memory’ and not enough time analyzing Rukeyser’s poetry. Another bigger flaw is that Kertesz wanted to define Rukeyser as “essentially a modern poet of possibility…in the transcendental writers of America's Golden Day, Emerson, Whitman, Thoreau,” but falls short of doing so in any satisfyingly sustained or concentrated way. The chapters, according to the review, “...falter into repetitious contention, awkward in organization.” Yet, the reviewer states that Kertesz points to useful directions for future studies.
Dated July 13th, 1981. A typewritten letter from Louise Kertesz to Esther Broner who taught at Wayne State and Sarah Lawrence) on a “number of bad encounters (non-encounters) in connection with my work.” The letter thanks Esther for speaking to people about LK’s The Poetic Vision of Muriel Rukeyser and mentions Louise Bernikow who had used Kertesz’s book for an article for MS magazine without any acknowledgements. Kertesz’s had not been for a full-time job at Wayne University. Apparently, she did not “interview well” and the committee who read Kertesz’s book were unimpressed. Kertesz then asks Esther for suggestions for editorial work or writing in Detroit.
Dated March 3rd, 1981. A typewritten job application letter from Louise Kertesz to James S. Malek, the Chairman of the Department of English at Wayne State University. Kertesz writes to apply for one of the tenure-track assistant professorships that Malek advertised. Louise states that she has taught writing and literature for many years, and has published a book, The Poetic Vision of Muriel Rukeyser, and numerous works of poetry. She has taught at many places, worked at Forbes Magazine while earning her M.A. from Columbia. Kertesz wants a position that will leave her time for research and writing. One of the projects that she wants to work on is a book about Richard Eberhart geared toward an audience of “educated non-specialists” rather than strictly academics. She also plans to write a number of articles on women poets, and finally, Kertesz intends to write more poetry.
An envelope and card, dated August 4th, 1981. From Livia L. Balkus to Professor Louise Kertesz. A thank you note to Professor Kertesz from a student who praises her ‘uncompromising standards, honesty, and guts in teaching our class’. The student also lists their phone number, since they want to keep in touch.
An original magazine page (with added, hand-written note, “The Spaces’), entitled Where It All Happened: Westbeth Artists Housing, written by Bill Hayes. On the back, there is an article titled THE LOST, which shows people who died due to HIV or AIDS.
An original page of a calendar, unknown year, for the month November. The calendar page has Rukeyser’s photo and her poem “Rune,” on the back. The calendar seems to celebrate poets, since the birthdates of several poets, such as Anne Sexton,Vachel Lindsay, Allen Tate, Alexander Blok, and Wiliam Tate are on the calendar.
Unknown year and date. A typewritten letter from Louise Kertesz to someone named Elaine. Louise says that she enjoyed Elaine’s poetry, especially those in which she offered “pictures of people in her past” such as her father, brothers and their wives, her mother, Patsy, and Elaine as a child. Elaine has stated that she doesn't think that poetry sells, and indeed, Louise confirms it doesn’t sell. Big newspapers and publications such as the New Yorker and The Atlantic are not that interested in poetry. The best selling poet, Kenneth Rexroth, only sells about a thousand copies per book. Louise then looks at Elaine’s poems and says that she tells rather than shows, and to cut down on generalizations. Louise says that she sent this letter in the spirit of mutuality, and that if Elaine wants to send her poems to small publications, Louise would be willing to give her addresses. Someone, possibly Louise Kertesz, has handwritten on the top of the first page of the letter, ‘Who is this addressed to?’.
A collection labeled ‘MY PHOTOS’ A collection of an old negative order form, two negatives, and five black-and white photos labeled December ‘78. Photos are labeled on the back, 1 through 5.
Dated April 19th, 1947. Photocopy of a statement from Muriel Rukeyser, naming Marie W. West and Betty B. Hogan joint executors of her will should she not survive her pregnancy: “I should like Betty and Marie to be my executors, with my lasting thanks, and it is my wish that Betty and her husband be guardians of my child….If there is no survivor, Marie W. West is to have everything–little enough.” on top of the note, a handwritten note by Rukeyser: “superseded–MR. 1963.”
Photocopy of two letters from Anne Sexton to Muriel Rukeyser. Dated November 1st, 1967, Sexton states that she keeps Muriel’s “The Speed of Darkness” on her desk. Notable lines: “It glistens here like the first washed flowers in spring when you sent it to me. Section one goes whammy! Then flows out like an infusion of blood into the body.” Dated December 19th, 1967, Sexton’s letter states that she loved Muriel’s telegram and their quick hug at the Guggy (Guggenheim Museum). States that Muriel’s new poem is splendid. Notable lines: “Your poems move like dreams and sink into my unconscious to reappear at night. They frighten. They become a memory. I love you.”
Dated December 1st, 1942. Photocopy of a typed note written by an unknown person, most likely Rukeyser, on the word “surpass”: “Somehow, the word for surpassing, the word for a tremendous spiritual effort that will bring our total culture through, discarding and refining as it strengthens–that word is needed.” Handwritten notes in Rukeyser’s handwriting:”by a tremendous and total effort, one civilization can grow in every part so that it can forever crush the fascist threat of brutalizing [?] whatever good we have gained, and killing a great part of both good and evil.”
Undated, labeled ‘San Francisco 1944-1949. Handwritten by Muriel Rukeyser, it contains a list of people that Muriel was close to and their occupations while she lived in S.F.: Herbert Evans, US anatomist, biologist; Mare de L. Welch, writer, poet, “close friend”; Matthew Barnes, painter, plasterer for Diego Rivera; Alfred Marshak, geneticist, U-C, radical; Glyn Collins, “painter, husband”; Donan Jeffers, “one of the twin sons of Robinson Jeffers–unique, wild, splendid, ‘out of time with the century’”; Kenneth Rexroth, “poet, scholar”; Freda Koblick, “sculptor, artist in plastics; Josephine Miles, poet; David Jenkins and Louise, California Labor School; Thomas Addis, renal scientist, radical; Emmy Lou Packard, artist, muralist; Dorothy Erskine, social activist, city planning; Lene [?] Goldsmith and Nancy Naumburg, “friends from earliest life in New York”: Dr. Eric Bena, psychiatrist Carmel–wrote Innas [?]; Robert Duncton, poet. People Play, died in Action: Stapled to a postcard from Muriel Rukeyser to Louise Kertesz in which she mentions additional people who “were important to me in California.”
Undated. A big paperclipped pile of Kertesz’ handwritten research notes from the Rukeyser Collection of papers at the New York Public Library. Contains addresses, many underlines, and other written in additions. Eleven pages, double-sided (22 pages written).
Dated 1970, unknown month and year. An article, xeroxed from a book, titled ‘THE BARFLY OUGHT TO SING’ by Anne Sexton (from Triquarterly 7, 1970).. Details her relationship with Sylvia Plath, and that the two women bonded over their “first suicides.” Includes a poem titled “Sylvia’s Death,” The article is underlined in several places.
Unknown date. Another syllabus for Louise Kertesz’s class on Women. Seems to be a whole different syllabus than the last one. Has some handwritten notes.
Dated February 17th, 1977. A letter from Alan Shaler to Stephen Seybolt. States that Shaler visited Louise Kertesz’s class on Thursday, February 17th. Notes three problem students that Shaler was never able to draw out in his own class. Shaler was prepared for “a rather dull period,” but was pleasantly surprised that the students were “generally responsive and seemed genuinely interested in what they had been reading.” Kertesz allowed the students to speak freely, but she was in control of the class the whole time and there was never any really unrelated discussion. When a student proposed a point of view, Kertesz did not treat the point of view like it was unreasonable, but she questioned the student so they could understand a wider point of view and not make a fool of themselves in front of the class. Kertesz did not like to lecture her students, but there were some who didn't say anything at all during the class, and there were a few lapses when the class said nothing at all. Shaler suggested drawing the more reticent students out, but was afraid that this would be time consuming. In general, he enjoyed his visit to the class and feels that the college faculty is fortunate to have Louise Kertesz as part of their staff. Louise Kertesz has seen the letter, and has written, “Approved! And Thanks,” signing her name under the comment.
Dated Spring, 1977. A Syllabus for Louise Kertesz’s class, Women Poets. There are many handwritten revisions, with added pages to read, notes, and more.
Dated May 26th, 1977. Louise Kertesz’s essay exam for a course she taught on Women Poets. The assignment is in two parts. Part One: “So you took a course in Women Poets!” wheezes your elderly great-uncle Jasper. “Isn't that sweet,” he continues, sipping his camomile tea. “More young ladies should read pretty verse. Then maybe we'd have sweet young ladies again, like that lovely Miss Dickinson in Amherst, so quiet and demure. Ah yes…one of my favorites is the ‘How do I love thee’ verse by that frail Mrs. Browning…” Fill Uncle Jasper in on 20th Century poetry by women. Discuss poems of Plath, Sexton, and Rukeyser, explaining the themes these poets explore and the ways they shock–or at least stimulate–readers into a new awareness of the world and of women’s lives. Take some time to tell Uncle Jasper about the real Dickinson and Browning, Discuss specific poems and themes. Mention other women poets of the past such as Bradstreet and 1) the way their writing reflected or defied the expectations of a patriarchal society and 2) the way literary historians have dealt with their lives and work. [SUGGESTED TIME: ONE HOUR AND 15 MINUTES]. Part Two: ``Write an essay entitled “Adrienne Rich: A Poet’s Evolution.” Discuss key lines and images from the following groups of poems (as many poems from each group that you can), explaining how Rich’s consciousness of herself, her craft, her relationships and society changed over the course of her career. Point out how her later development is foreshadowed in specific early poems, and note the change between her early and later styles of writing. Several of Rich’s poems are presented in groups. Published in 1951-1955: “An Unsaid Word” , “At a Bach Concert”, “Living in Sin”, “Autumn Equinox”. Published in 1957-69: “The Knight:, “Snapshots of a Daughter-in-Law”, “Necessities of Life”, “In the Evening”, “Tear Gas”. Published in 1971-72, “Planetarium”, :'' The Burning of Paper Instead of Children”, “Incipience”, “Diving into the Wreck”. “Rape”, “From a Survivor”. Published in 1974, “White Night”, “For L.G.”, “From an Old House in America”. [SUGGESTED TIME: 45 MINUTES)
Dated 1974, unknown day or month. Louise Kertesz review of Sexton’s “The Death Notebooks” for the Daily Hampshire Gazette. Entitled “Sexton’s poetry: ax for our frozen sea,” Kertesz summarizes some of Sexton’s works and refers to the “frozen sea,” or our numbed consciousness of the special horrors of the 20th Century, from World War I through Hitler and Vietnam. Sexton was the ax for our frozen sea, which means that she awakened our consciousness to these horrific times in history.
Dated October 5th, 1974. A New York Times article titled “ANNA [sic.] SEXTON DIES, PULITZER POET, 45’ that details the death of Anne Sexton, a poet that Rukeyser was compared to in terms of the content of their poems.. Suffering from “deep melancholy” or depression, Sexton was recently divorced from her husband, Alfred, and had two daughters, Linda and Joyce. The death was either natural causes or suicide. She was found in an idling car parked in her garage.
Undated. A poem by John Tagliabue titled “American Complicated With Integrity: Homage to Muriel.” Her poems, he writes “have collected our hope and power, to walk with / her and them makes us see bold incorrigible / indivisible Whitman ahead.”
Dated 1980, unknown day and month. A review of Louise Kertesz’s book that appeared in the Albuquerque Literary Supplement. The review states, “Kertesz’s work suffers a bit from her too obvious loyalty to her subject, though this is also its strength as her volume becomes not only the first book-length explication of Rukeyser’s writing, but a spirited defense of a relatively neglected (thanks to her efforts to do battle with the New Critics 40 years ago) American poet of power, range, and sensitivity.”
Undated. A review of Louise Kertesz’s book that appeared in the Journal of Modern Literature. The review states that “Kertesz argues convincingly that the time is right for full appreciation of a vigorous woman who wrote poetry both passionate and controlled.”
Dated December, 1979. A review and summary of Louise Kertesz’s book, The Poetic Vision of Muriel Rukeyser, that appeared in the Library Journal. The review states that the book “guides the reader through decade after decade of publishing, explicating poem after poem, line after line. It reveals crosscurrents of thought and technique pointing to Crane, Eliot, Whitman, and others.”
Undated. A note from Catherine Silvia to Louise Kertesz. Silvia, the Promotion Manager of LSU (Louisiana State University) Press states, “Enclosed are reviews and/or advertisements of your LSU Press book. The publication in which the review/ad appeared is noted on each enclosure.”
Dated July 22nd, 1979. “Daughter of the 19th Century Poet’s Best Efforts are in Romantic Vein,” a review of Rukeyser’s Collected Poems by B. R. Cohen, published in the Courier Express, Buffalo, New York. Cohen finds it interesting that Rukeyser, despite having been born more than 70 years ago, wrote poetry “almost as rugged, as sexually explicit as that of Anne Sexton.” And yet, he continues, “the end effect is curiously neuter” and her sexually explicit words are, “rather, like words issuing from a poetic eunuch, peculiarly asexual, oddly abstract, diffuse, not felt.” Indeed, as “mother of us all,” Rukeyser, Cohen asserts, “shares with many out mothers the terrible ambivalence that comes from being born and reared so close to the turn of the century. She is split down the middle… by the contradiction between what she has, despite herself, internalized from the teachings and behavior of her parents, her milieu, and what she has labored so staunchly to teach herself about the proper role (and language) of women.” Muriel’s poetry tells us that “Women are meant to be fully fleshed, strong, natural, passionate, sexual, solved–everything, that is, that men are supposed to be,” yet, he goes one: “So the poet tells us, but she doesn't believe it–not really–not so that these sentiments, this rhetoric is transmuted into something genuine enough to become a real poetry.”
Undated. William H. Pritchard’s review of recent poetry for The Hudson Review. The review states that Muriel Rukeyser is on her way to becoming “The Grand Old Woman” of American poetry, or at least that’s what Prichard gathers from the glowing reviews of her collection of twelve books. Erica Jong called Rukeyser “the mother of us all” and Prichard hastens to add that Rukeyser is not his mother. Prichard calls Rukeyser “one of the great bores of American poetry,” comparable to Oscar Williams, Stephen Spender, and Gene Derwood. He also states that Rukeyser has “a reverence for life, complete with deep thoughts about ultimate things,” such as that “it is wrong, evidently, to despise either the clitoris or the penis,” which the reviewer states is “too deep for a simple fellow like me.”
Unknown date. Photocopy of Rukeyser review of Robert Duncan’s book of poems Heavenly City, Earthly City. Entitled “Myth and Torment,” Muriel’s review is glowing. She states at the end that Robert Duncan ‘...has struck past his apparent flaws; I think he has found his own voice, and among the Miller-haunted writers of this coast, he is building the scene into poems, making experiment, music, debt, into a personal and widening art.” There are underlinings by Louise Kertesz in the article.
Unknown date. Titled “Bibliographies of Past Faculty From the Sarah Lawrence College LIbrary” and subtitled “Bibliography #2 Muriel Rukeyser.” Includes a short biography of Muriel Rukeyser, a list of her poetry publications and other works, selected articles by Muriel Rukeyser, selected articles about Muriel Rukeyser, and recordings of Muriel reading her poems.
Dated Unknown Day 1973. A sheet featuring lyrics from Muriel Rukeyser’s musical Houdini. These include “The Mediums,” “Coney Island,” “Chains,” “Beer and Bacon,” “Yes,” “Chow,” “What the King Said,” and “I Make my Magic.” The play was directed by Grover Dale, and the music was by David Spangler. According to Bill Rukeyser, who was in attendance at the opening performance of Houdini at the Lenox Arts Center, copies of this sheet were handed to each member of the audience.
Dated March, 1974. A whole issue of American Poetry Review (Vol. 3, No. 3, 1974), with a picture of Muriel Rukeyser on the front cover and the heading, “Muriel Rukeyser on Kafka’s Letters.” Includes nine poems by Rukeyser: “How We Did It,” “Then,” “‘Before Danger,” “The Iris-Eaters,” “Not to Be Printed, Not to be Thought,” “Recovering,” “Trinity Churchyard,” “Parallel Intervention” and “IVES.” Also contains a Rukeyser’s review “The Life To Which I Belong: Kafka’s Letters to Felice.” Issue also includes Virginia R. Terris’s“Muriel Rukeyser: A Retrospective.”. There are many handwritten notes in the article, and underlinings of passages by Louise Kertesz..
Dated February 20th, 1979.Cut-out of Michael True’s review of Rukeyser’s Collected poems, titled ‘The Collected Works of a Persevering Poet: Muriel Rukeyser’s Unique and Therapeutic Vision.” Michael True was professor of English at Assumption College. The review also covers her career as a poet, and states that Muriel had numerous false starts, to which someone, most likely Louise Kertesz, handwrote next to that passage, ‘“What?”. There are also other comments and underlinings on the article.
Dated February 11th, 1979. Cut-out of Anne Stevenson’s “With Head and Heart,” a New York Times review of The Collected Poems of Muriel Rukeyser and May Swenson’s New & Selected Things Taking Place. The article reviews Rukeyser’s poetry in complimentary terms, placing her in “a central tradition in American writing–Melville, Whitman, Crane, Snyder. But, like Melville’s, Miss Rukeyser’s realism is really a bridge to an intensely visionary state of awareness. The line between world and world is indistinct. The threshold of the miraculous and mystical is never far away. It is as if life were always happening to her on two or three levels. Beneath her passion for social justice and her empathy with all sufferers lie deeper apprehensions of what existence and its paradoxes can lead to… ‘No more mask[sic] ! No more mythologies!’ Miss Rukeyser cries in a poem called ‘Orpheus’ (from ‘The Poem as Mask’). But in truth, the coherent body of her poems comprises a mythology that poetry cannot do without. The body of symbol and belief which she has nurtured over the years has worn its masks memorably. All have been worth keeping, as Yeats’s masks were worth keeping….”.
Dated Sunday, January 21st, 1979. Cut-out of a review of The Collected Poems of Muriel Rukeyser by Jane Cooper, Washington Post. Cooper was poet in residence at Sarah Lawrence College. The review, which is on multiple pages, taped together, asserts: “The best thing the publication of The Collected Poems can do is to right a balance, to set the work of Muriel Rukeyser where it belongs, at the center of the poetry of her generation written in America. Once again now we can read all the poems of that first dazzling decade and understand why they were celebrated. Can we also manage to understand why, in the 15 or so years between the end of World War II and the publication of Waterlily Fire, the work came to be neglected, even disparaged? Our health depends on this understanding, too. My guess is that the New Criticism set up exactly the wrong standards by which to measure a poet of Muriel Rukeyser’s concerns. In the McCarthy era her political material was suspect. Was her very openness to the truths of her inner experience, “as in sex, dreams,” equally suspect? What did people want from a poet in the 1950s, especially from a woman poet?”
Unknown Date. A photocopied description of a movie about Rukeyser (available as video cassette and a 16mm film), focused on her life and poetry. (Library of Congress No. 78-701170). States that Muriel was rated as one of “The most interesting and individual poets” in 1935 by Stephen Vincent Benet. Describing Muriel’s work, it says, “Always a political poet, she selects those who demean the value of human life as her targets.” “When asked to talk about the obstacles a poet faced, Rukeyser mentions misunderstanding–misunderstanding from oneself, one’s family, the audience. Rukeyser strives to overcome these and the most recent barriers to her poetry, two disabling strokes… Muriel Rukeyser is continually challenged by the difficult job of writing poetry that reaches the people.”
Dated January 20th, 1981. A handwritten letter on three small pages from Denise Levertov to Louise Kertesz. States that Louise has done a good job publicizing the book and getting people’s attention. Denise suggests that Louise write to Hayden Carruth from the University of Syracuse (which Louise later does) and get him to review it. Says that one day, Louise’s book will be looked at as important. Also contains a photocopy, dated October, 1980, from Choice, of a description of Louise’s book. “Along with the recently published Collected Works …, this book should do much to locate Rukeyser within the pantheon of modern American poets. Whether or not the high praises Kertesz lavishes on the poetry will hold up in later years remains to be seen in further, possibly more disinterested, studies.”
Dated March 29th, unknown year. Postcard to Louise Kertesz from Mary Baldwin. States that Baldwin got a copy of the book, and that she loves it. She also thanks Louise for putting her in.
Envelope dated February 2nd, 1989, while the letter is dated February 1st, 1980. Letter is to Louise Kertesz from Hayden Carruth from the English Department of Syracuse University. Carruth acknowledges that he received both galleys and a finished book, and that everybody in the literary world, including Denise (Levertov?) is pushing him to do the ‘same sort of thing’, but he can't. He also states that he wrote a collective elegy for the poets who died last winter and spring, including Muriel, and that it will be published somewhere soon. Noteworthy lines: “Why don't the young assume some of the burden? If I sound old and peevish, I am. But of course I mean nothing personal.”
Two reviews titled ‘First Extended Study of Muriel Rukeyser’. One is undated, the other has the title of the heading it appeared under, which is ‘Books’, with the date November 9th, 1980. By Michael True, who was a professor of English at Assumption College,the article discusses Louise Kertesz’s book, The Poetic Vision of Muriel Rukeyser.
Dated December 22nd, 1980. A letter from poet Marge Piercy to Louise Kertesz.. Piercy writes that she misunderstood the content of Louise’s book, and thought Louise was writing a biography instead of a scholarly book. States that many of the people Louise approached were poets and writers. Piercy states that she usually does not read scholarly literature, and does not feel qualified to review the book. She then goes on to say that the book is not for a general audience, and that she spoke to Grace (most likely Grace Paley) and that she had a similar reaction to Piercy.
