A three page question sheet labeled “Questions 5 July 1977”. The page contains questions about Speed of Darkness, someone called Matthiessen, whether or not Rukeyser was writing poetry around WWII, all the details about Rukeyser’s teaching experience, such as when and where she was a teacher, and Rukeyser’s actions in 1947 and the 1950’s, among others. Louise has written notes on all three pages of the question sheet.
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.
A typewritten, original copy of a stapled sheet called ‘Questions June 10, 1977’ . There are fourteen questions, and the first question is, “Who is “Mr. Crystal” These are questions about ‘Breaking Open’ and ‘The Speed of Darkness’. Louise has handwritten some notes by each of the questions.
A typewritten, original copy of a paper called ‘Draft of answers to questions of August 5th, 1976’, which was stapled onto the question page,. Written on with a green marker or pen.Presumably, these are Muriel Rukeyser’s answers to the questions.
Two original, typewritten question pages, dated August 25th,. 1976. The first question on this page reads, ‘Are any of the Mexican poems in Beast in View addressed to Octavio Paz?’ Page is written on with a red pen. Some of the questions are checkmarked.
Two pages of original, handwritten questions. The first page is written on with black, blue, and red pen. One of the eight questions on the first page is ‘You do indeed write all night long?’ The second page is written with black and blue pens. The first question on this page is, ‘Was the film ever made?’
Another question sheet, labeled ‘Questions’ and ‘Never Answered’ A question in this sheet reads, ‘I would like to see Houdini and All the Way Home. May I have xeroxes?’ The sheet is written on with red and black pen.
Original three page question sheet, dated August 25th, 1977. Questions include, ‘Did Einstein see the manuscript (or part of it) of Willard Gibbs before he declined to write a preface to your book?’ and ‘How much did you know about Bruno before you wrote “Theory of Flight”? Can you tell me about a paper you wrote in college about Bruno?’. Someone, presumably Muriel Rukeyser, has written answers to some of the questions in blue pen.
Original typewritten letter, dated February 24rth. 1978. From Muriel Rukeyser to Louise Kertesz. Muriel thanks Louise for her letter and what she says about her preface. The letter says that Muriel will be at Mount Holyoke for the two days of Glascock judging, and that she would love to see Louise during that time. Muriel is being driven to Boston as the event ends on a Saturday. The letter ends with Muriel saying that she hasn't heard a word about Louise’s book.
An original handwritten two page letter to Louise Kertesz from Muriel Rukeyser, dated August 9th, 1976. Muriel states that whatever happened to Louise’s daughter is wonderful news, and sends good wishes to Louise and her family. Monica McCall had found a copy of Body of Waking'' in her office, along with a copy of “Houdini”. She is willing to let Louise use them. The second part of the letter states that Muriel will be in London from the 19th to September 3rd at a poetry conference.
Three pages of handwritten notes, dated January of 1968, unknown day. The notes are called “Tape Jan. ‘68”. They may be a transcription of a cassette tape. May be written by Muriel Rukeyser.
An original, typewritten letter, dated March 2nd, 1981. The letter is from Clive Bush to Louise Kertesz. Clive begins the letter by saying that he has meant to write to Louise after reading her book on Rukeyser, but that time and various other pressures have interfered. Bush enjoyed the book, and he was interested in the reception of Rukeyser;s work and was relieved that Louise had not gone overboard with abstractions in her commentary. Bush thinks that it is a good book and that would open up further interest in Rukeyser’s work, but that it won't “fit” with the various obsessions of the Academy. He does hope that the book succeeds in spite of that. Clive also requests that Louise helps one of his students form Warwick University who has decided to travel the United States this summer in the hopes of meeting women writers and interviewing them Since Muriel had died, he had no one to turn to for advice about her, and he asks if the student can write to her for information about Rukeyser. The student’s name is Sarah Barclay. Bush is currently a visiting fellow at Yale for the year, and he is trying to finish a book on Henry Adams, William James. And Gertrude Stein. He was also planning on traveling this summer and he hopes to spend some time meeting and interviewing some poets himself in July and August. He also may spend a month teaching at Naropa. He has no idea where Farmington Hill is but it seems on the way to Colorado. He wanted to meet Louise and talk about Muriel and other poets if a time and place could be arranged during this summer.
Original, typewritten letter, dated March 10th 1981, from Clive Bush to Louise Kertesz. Bush thanks Louise for her letter, and for agreeing to help Sarah (no last name). Bush states that everything that he has read about Detroit is worrisome, but he understands that Louise wants to get out of the suburbs, which he states that Muriel stated that nothing ever happens in the suburbs. Bush wonders when Americans will realize that “...you can’t for ever “move out” from your crimes and mistakes”. Bush states that he visited Wayne State University in 1988, and that he started with someone who had visited his University, Warwick, in England, the year before. His name was John Reed, and Bush wonders if he was still there. Bush has written to Modern Literature Review to see if they would be interested in a review of Louise’s book. Bush will let Louise know what happened. He says that basically academic publishers and few others give a damn about pushing books, and soon there will be no academic books of merit at all. Bush states that his book,which was extensively reviewed, didn't sell. He will write one more book,and then spend the rest of his energy on lithographs and poetry. Bush ends the letter by saying that he will be visiting his brother in Chicago some time in early July, and that Detroit is five hours from the bus in Chicago. He wonders if Louise will be in Detroit at that time.
Dated August 28, 1980, Denise Levertov’s four page, typewritten description, “‘About Muriel,” that she appears to have sent Louise in a separate envelope at a later date.. Levertov recounts how she first met Rukeyser at a dinner event in New York City. Levertov describes Muriel as ‘tall’ and ‘massive’. She remembers Muriel’s deep, rich voice when she greeted her with, “Ah, you've come at last: I've been terribly bored, waiting to meet you!” Muriel outshone all of the other people there, and Levertov describes this effect as resembling “...the cinematic technique which puts all but one character out of focus and concentrates the spectator’s awareness wholly on that central personage.”
Dated July 19, 1977, from Louise Kertesz to Denise Levertov, stapled to Levertov’s response.. Louise tells Denise that she is writing the conclusion of the first book-length study of Muriel Rukeyser. And she adds that some of Levertov’s poems, such as “Living,” “The Freeing of the Dust,” and “The Wealth of the Destitute” mean a lot to her. Louise asks Denise to give her a phone call or send her a letter that details what Muriel meant to her, and for her to comment on which of Rukeyser’s books meant most to her. At the end of the letter, Louise gives Levertov her phone number.
From Denise Levertov to Louise Kertesz. Original typewritten letter stapled to a letter from Kertesz to Levertov (see below) and a four-page description, clearly by Denise Levertov, entitled, “About Muriel,” and dated August 28, 1980. The latter description does not appear to belong to the letter’s envelope, dated August 8, 1977. Levertov’s letter talks about how Muriel became important to her after she wrote her poem ‘no more masks’: “It was with her poem ‘no more masks’ written after her first stroke and followed by the evident effort to carry through that resolve, as one can see in the tighter, tauter, far more direct language and rhythms of the book from Speed of Darkness on, that her poetry began to interest me.” Levertov also praises Muriel’s work as an activist, such as when she went to South Korea on behalf of the poet Kim Chi Ha. The letter also states that Denise tried to contact Muriel after Denise’s mother died, but she has not heard from Rukeyser, which worries her. Levertov also suggests contacting Jane Cooper. Interestingly, the letter is on two pages, with the very end of the letter being on the beginning of the first page, upside down. Letter has handwriting and underlining with a red crayon or pen on both sides.
A collection of papers that is paperclipped. On the top of the papers is an envelope, addressed to Louise Kertesz from Denise Levertov. The envelope is dated August 8th, 1977.
Dated April 17, 1981, from Grace Paley to Louise Kertesz. An original, typewritten letter. Envelope dated April 20th., 1981. Grace states that she doesn't know what to tell Louise, and suggests she talks to Esther Broner at Wayne State, who is a poet and a scholar and may be interested. Grace enclosed a ten dollar check in the letter, saying she wants a copy of Louise’s book. She also suggests contacting Jane Cooper, but guesses that Louise has already written to her.
Dated September 8th, 1978, from Muriel Rukeyser to Louise Kertesz. Envelope with three sheets of paper inside. Muriel has written Louise a short letter that says, “These scribbles are mainly proofreading, uninvited and almost involuntary. Thank you for your letter. Either date is possible.” The other two pieces of paper have page numbers with Muriel’s comments next to them. There is a message on the back of the envelope in Muriel’s handwriting: “jotting–a pen just given me by Bill Meredith.:
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.
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.
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.”
Dated March 26th, 1981. A typewritten letter from Paula Rabinowitz, from the editorial collective at Wayne State University, to Louise Kertesz. Paula is happy to inform Louise that they will publish her long poem “Elegy for Lillian.” Wayne State University was hoping to publish an all Michigan issue in the near future, which would be volume 10,. Number 1. They would like Louise's permission for her poem to be published in the upcoming issue, Volume 9, Number 2, or to hold it for the Michigan issue.
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 July 6th, 1981. A typewritten letter is from Esther Broner to Louise Kertesz. The letter begins by saying that Carolyn Kizer, “the fine poet,” is willing to review Louise’s book. Bauer asks that LSU send her a review copy and that Louise send a note to Carolyn’s address. Bauer then goes on to say that she talks to everyone about Louise, and to send a copy of the book and a note to Susan Jordan of the New Women’s Times Feminist Review at her address. Broner had also talked to Louise Bernikow [sic], but states that ‘...she’s competitive—wants to do a bio of Rukeyser herself.”
Dated June 8th, unknown year. The letter is from Esther Broner at Wayne State University to Louise Kertesz. The letter states that Bauer has been inquiring about Louise’s book, and that Cathy Davidson suggested that Louise sent a copy to Linda Wagner at the Department of English at Michigan State University. The letter ends by saying that Bauyr hopes that they can bring “this fine book to the attention of the critical world.”
Undated. A typewritten letter from Lyn Lifshin to Louise Kertesz. The letter states that Lifshin is working on an anthology of women’s diaries and journals called Ariadne’s Thread, which will be published by Harper and Row. Lyn had been trying to find some unpublished journals and diaries of Muriel Rukeyser and wonders if Louise knew whether or not some existed, Lyn would appreciate it. Lyn had been reading Louise’s book “with admiration and enjoyment.”
Undated. A typewritten letter from Lyn Lifshin to Louise Kertesz. Lifshin tells Louise that she was at a dinner party, and no one could understand why the book didn't get reviewed. Lifshin had given Louise’s name and address to one of the people at the dinner party. This person also had some other people in mind. She really hopes something comes from that person because the book was fascinating to them.
Undated. A typewritten letter from Lyn Lifshin to Louise kertesz. Lifshin wants to include a diary entry of Muriel’s in her planned anthology of women’s diaries, and asks Louise for more information about Rukeyser’s Diary of Change, in the Berg Collection. Lifshin is amazed no one had reviewed Louise’s book. She thinks a friend from the New York City Newspaper, Judith McDaniel from the English Department of Skidmore College, Rachel Devries and/or Rita Speicher at the Women’s Writing Center. Cazenovia College might review Louise’s book. All three women are poets and scholars and Muriel “was a hit” when she went to Cazenovia for a week a couple of years ago, and she was at Skidmore, but she was quite ill then.
A rejection letter in two pages from the New York Quarterly. The first page is typewritten, with a handwritten note, while the second page is handwritten. The first page states: “The editors regret that the enclosed manuscript does not meet the needs of the magazine at this time. But we appreciate your letting us look at this material, and we hope that you will send us more of your work in the future.’ There is a handwritten note that states, “William Packard is interested in your work and would like to see more poems- 3 to 5 at a time.”. The second page is handwritten, and is to Louise Kertesz from someone(?) that has signed their name on the bottom. The letter states that NYC doesn't do reviews, and that they are sorry about that. It then goes on to say that it is too bad that Louise couldn’t be at the banquet in honor of Muriel Rukeyser, and that they would have been pleased to have Louise say something in her honor about her and her work. It then goes on to ask if Louise had sent a copy of the manuscript to the Poetry Society of America library, and gives the address for the library. Then, the letter states that the picture of Muriel with her mother is haunting, and that she looks so mature, she could be the mother. The letter ends by asking Louise to continue sending them her work. A postscript on the other side of the second page says that in this group of poems, the writer liked ‘Staying/Going’ best. A second Postscript says that the writer showed the book to Dennis Bernstein, who used to work for WBAI-Radio in New York City, and that he was quite impressed with it.
Dated October 12th, 1979, a typewritten letter from Frish Corcorran to Louise Kertesz. The letter starts by thanking Louise for the letter that she sent on June 1st. Corcorran is requesting information regarding the reproduction of a photograph by Imogen of Muriel Rukeyser. The fee will range from $50-$100 dollars, depending on certain details. Corcorran asks them to let them know about how the photograph will be used, such as inside the text or the cover, and what size it is to run, such as ½ page, ¼ page, or full page, how many books would be published, and the price of the book. As soon as they have this information, they can draw up a reproduction agreement and finalize the use of the photograph.
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.
Dated October 16th, 1979, a typewritten letter from Frish Corcorran to Louise Kertesz. The letter states that the last time that they corresponded was in June, and that Corcorran had informed Louise of the reproduction fee-range depending on use. Corcorran wondered what had happened to Louise’s project, and that they looked forward to hearing from Louise.
Dated January 10th, 1980, a typewritten letter from Louise Kertesz to Ms. Frish Corcorran at the Imogen Cunningham Trust.. In the letter, Louise states that she is enclosing a check of 50 dollars for the reproduction of the photo of Muriel Rukeyser in her book being published for the LSU Press.
Dated October 4th, 1978. A typewritten letter from Beverly Jarrett, LSU Press, to Kenneth Rexroth. It notifies Rexroth that they are publishing a critical study of Muriel Rukeyser called “A Procession of Images, a Study of Muriel Rukeyser’s Work and Its Reception, 1935-1977’.” LSU Press is delighted to publish the first major critical study on Rukeyser, especially since Richard Eberhart gave it a very enthusiastic endorsement. Louise Kertesz had told LSU Press of Rexroth’s interest in writing a foreword to the book, and that LSU Press would be honored to have the book introduced by Rexroth. Jarrett is writing to Rexroth now because deadlines are approaching, and the press needs to know whether or not Rexroth still intends to introduce the volume and if they can expect to have the foreword by mid-November.
A typewritten letter on two pages from Marie J. Blanchard to Louise Kertesz ℅ Annetta Cristina. Marie thanks Louise for her efficient work on the proofs.
Dated May 4th, 1979. Beverly Jarrett of LSU Press to Louise Kertesz. A series of typewritten letters between Beverly Jarret of LSU Press and Louise Kertesz, concerning Louise’s book manuscript.
Dated May 8th, 1979. Louise Kertesz to Beverly Jarett of LSU Press. A series of typewritten letters between Beverly Jarret of LSU Press and Louise Kertesz, concerning Louise’s book manuscript.
Dated May 21st, 1979. Beverly Jarett to Louise Kertesz. A series of typewritten letters between Beverly Jarret of LSU Press and Louise Kertesz, concerning Louise’s book manuscript.
A series of typewritten letters between Beverly Jarret of LSU Press and Louise Kertesz, concerning Louise’s book manuscript. Dated May 2th, 1979. Louise Kertesz to Beverly Jarret of LSU Press.
Dated March 12th, 1979, a typewritten letter is from Beverly Jarett of Louisiana State University Press to Louise Kertesz. The letter thanks Louise for the letter she sent on March 7th and says that the press would take Louise’s manuscript under review.
Dated May 11th, 1978, a typewritten letter is from Ms. Beverly Jarrett to Louise Kertesz. Jarett informs Louise that the Press Committee has met and a publishing offer has been secured.
Dated May 22nd, 1978. A typewritten letter of two pages, from Ms. Beverly Jarett, executive editor of Louisiana State University Press, to Louise Kertesz. Jarett states that it was a pleasure “...to receive a letter from an author who has clearly read and carefully considered the instructions on all the style sheets.”
PRC Newsletter and calendar, dated March 1982. Muriel Rukeyser will be the topic at “Talk About Poetry,” in a session led by Louise Kertesz. The newsletter says that Rukeyser’s poetry stands in contrast to many of her contemporaries, and many of her early poems celebrate her humanitarian spirit. It then goes into a short description of her career, and events that influenced her, such as the death of Otto Boch, an athlete turned soldier who was killed in the Spanish Civil War. The short article also covers her scathing critics, such as William Prichard, who called Rukeyser “...one of the great bores of American poetry.”
A typewritten letter, dated November 15th, 1980. From Louise Kertesz to Richard Eberhart. Louise thanks Eberhart for sending her the copy of her book, since the cost of copies is steep and people are always asking if she has an extra copy. Louise appreciates Eberhart’s good words about her book, and thanks him for sending it to Robert Pinsky. Kertesz states that the book will be in libraries, and that is what’s important. Louise says that she wished she could be there during Eberhart;s award ceremony at the Hotel Pierre, and that she remembers Eberhart made way for Muriel. She hopes Eberhart will be coming her way before long, since Chris and she had a wonderful time in Cranbrook. The DIA is bringing in poets for a series in 1980-1981, and Louise would be glad if Eberhart appeared in that series. Louise says that she is teaching Freshman English part-time at Wayne State University in Detroit, and that she and her husband moved to downtown Detroit in September, and that they find it “...a very stimulating city whose ‘renaissance’ we are counting on.” Louise describes her job as honest and basic, like carpentry or something utterly useful like that. Louise states she wouldn't mind if the school asked her to stay a while, (or forever) and teach poetry or higher matters, but Michigan’s economy is doing poorly, and President Bonner announced budget cuts for the University, and that may mean the elimination of Louise’s job. Louise sent Eberhart a copy of one of her poems that appeared in a literary magazine. If Louise loses her job, there is always poetry ,which is “...nourishing in its way, as I needn't tell you.” If Louise is cast out of academia, perhaps work in the Motor City would be good for her muse, but Joyce Carol Oates has “mined this vein.”’ Louise gives Eberhart her best wishes.
Dated November 8th, 1980. A typewritten letter from Richard Eberhart to Louise Kertesz. Eberhart states that he is returning the second copy of Louise’s book, which he was sure she would be glad to have. Eberhart had sent it to Robert Pinsky, in hopes that he would review the book, but Pinsky replied that “he was not reviewing these days” and sent it back. Eberhart states that Louise’s book has been around the country, and that she is sorry about this turn of events, but he does’;t know what to do about it. Eberhart tells Louise to be patient, and that her book will be reviewed in due course, and that he thinks 1981 would be a likely year for this to happen. Eberhart states that it was a pleasure receiving the NY Quarterly 1980 Poetry Day Award at a $100 a plate banquet at the Hotel Pierre in New York on October 15th. Eberhart ends the letter by saying that he will be going again to U of Florida Gainesville for Spring Term. Last week, Eberhart had a fun time in Tulsa.
The fourteenth and final typewritten letter, dated March 14th, 1979. The letter is from Michael True to Louise Kertesz. True apologizes for taking so long to reply to Kertesz’s letter. True is happy to get to know Rukeyser’s poems better and finds his enthusiasm for them increasing with each reading. He states that Rukeyser was a “a gift to the time” and that he remembers when Louise first met Rukeyser at the NECEA meeting at Assumption College. True wants Louise to send him a copy and that he will place a review somewhere, and that he will send a copy to Margaret Weeks at the Chronicle.
The thirteenth typewritten letter, dated May 4th, 1979 from Susan Highleyman to Louise Kertesz. The letter tells Louise that Highleyman has written to Michael True, letting him know when bound pages will be available, and to Margaret Weeks, informing her of True’s intent to review Poetic Vision.
The twelfth typewritten letter, dated May 8th, 1979, from Louise Kertesz to Susan Highleyman. The letter thanks Ms. Highleyman for writing to Michael True and Margaret Weeks, and for copies of her letters to Denise Levertov and Jane Cooper. Louise then asks who else Ms. Highleyman will be contacting for advance comment and review consideration, and that Louise sent a rather long list of possibilities, and a few names stand out for reviewing Rukeyser’s Collected Poems: William Meredith, Grace Schulman, and Hayden Carruth. Louise suggests that these names should be on the top of Highleyman’s list if she sends out more requests for review.
The eleventh typewritten letter, dates June 20th, 1979. From Susan Highleyman to Louise Kertesz. The letter states that Ms. Highleyman will contact William Meredith and Grace Schulman for advance comments, and she will send Hayden Carruth a review copy of the book.
The tenth typewritten letter, dated September 13th, 1979, from Robert T. Summer to Louise Kertesz. Summer agrees to send a review copy of Louise’s book to Thomas Lask at The New York Times. They have not received responses from Jane Cooper or Grace Schulman that would indicate that they are interested in reviewing Louise’s book. William Meredith said that he was overcommitted, and Denise Levertov’s secretary said that Levertov could not take on any more work at this time. They have the quote from Richard Eberhart, and will use that. In closing, Summer says that they are all looking forward to the publication of Louise's fine book.
The ninth typewritten letter, dated September 27th, 1979, from Louise Kertesz to Robert T. Summer. Louise thanks Summer for his letter on September 11th. Louise is sorry to hear that Susan Highleyman is no longer at LSU Press. Louise received a copy of the page proofs today, and she wants to make sure a copy was sent to Michael True.
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.
The eighth typewritten letter, dated October 9th, 1975, is from Catherine Silvia to Louise Kertesz. It notifies Kertesz that Silvia has been named promotion manager for the LSU Press to replace Ms. Highleyman. Ms. Silvia is sending galleys of Louise’s book to Mr. True and to Hayden Carruth of Harpers.
The seventh typewritten letter is dated October 12th, 1979, from Louise Kertesz to Catherine Silvia. It thanks Silvia for her letter of October 9th, and that Kertesz is happy to be working with Silvia on the promotion of her book. It also states that Michael True is expecting the proofs of the book, but Hayden Carruth has not been asked whether or not he wants to see proofs.
The sixth typewritten letter, dated January 4th, 1980, is from Louise Kertesz to Catherine Silvia. The letter requests that Silvia send a review copy of her book to Jack Zucker of the Birmingham Observer/Eccentric. It also states that Kertesz would like to know who the other people that will review her book are, other than Carruth and True, and asks if Silvia can suggest more reviewers.
The fifth typewritten letter, dated February 11th, 1980, is from Louise Kertesz to Catherine Silvia. It notifies Silvia that Lawrence Ferlinghetti has asked Louise to send him a review copy of the book. Louise states that a review by Ferlinghetti would be “a boon” and lists his address. Next, Louise states that she would like to send a copy of her book to Monthly Detroit, to a reviewer that would either place a review in that publication or in the Michigan Quarterly Review. She ends by stating that Carruth and True have received advance copies, and wonders whether or not Silvia could think of more places to review her book.
