18525 research outputs found
Sort by
Letter from Rukeyser to Kertesz, February 24 1978
No full textOriginal typewritten letter, dated February 24th. 1978. From Muriel Rukeyser to Louise Kertesz. Muriel thanks Louise for her letter and what she says about her preface [Rukeyser\u27s preface to The Collected Poems of Muriel Rukeyser, published in 1978]. The letter says that Muriel will be at Mount Holyoke for the two days of the Glascock Poetry Contest, 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
Letter from Rukeyser to Kertesz, May 11 1979
No full textAn envelope dated May 21st, 1979, with a letter dated May 11th, 1979. The letter is from Muriel Rukeyser to Louise Kertesz. Rukeyser begins the letter by thanking Louise for her note. Rukeyser also tells Louise to not mind the two-month delay and to hope that LSU catches up. Furthermore, Rukeyser says that she will be glad to see MOVING TO DETROIT [Kertesz\u27\u27s manuscript of poems which she submitted to Louisiana State University]. Rukeyser ends the letter by saying that she is doing well and that she may be ready to leave the hospital
Letter from Kertesz to Rukeyser with attachment, February 17 1978
No full textOriginal letter, dated February 17th, 1978 , written by Louise Kertesz to Muriel Rukeyser and attached to a typed copy of Rukeyser\u27s preface to her forthcoming Collected Poems. Louise begins the letter by thanking Muriel for the Preface to the book. The Preface is “...beautiful and so recognizably yours.” It speaks directly to Rukeyser’s “one reader,” to Louise and to each person who will hold Rukeyser’s book. Louise then states that the fact that Muriel did not cut the poems, and that “...retaining for us the large castings forth in their original bold, hopeful gestures—that is also recognizably you.” She thanks Rukeyser for her truthfulness in “\u27how things formed\u27 for you which will encourage many to cast forth, which has encouraged me and will always encourage me: put heart into my imagining. As Louise read the Preface over and over, she felt like “my lifetimes” was not a typo, and that Rukeyser creates the creative. Louise ends the letter by saying that knowing Rukeyser’s poems is one of the greatest gifts of her life. There is a postscript to the letter that asks whether or not Rukeyser is still coming to Mount Holyoke College in the Spring
Handwritten notes
No full textOne page of original, handwritten notes, referring to folders at the Berg Collection
Letter from Phyllis Leith to Kertesz, January 2 1979
No full textDated 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 notes that two of her poems in Sorrow Dance, “The ” and “Joy,” are connected to Muriel
Question sheet with answers, August 25 1977
No full textOriginal three-page typewritten 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 \u27Theory of Flight\u27? Can you tell me about a paper you wrote in college about Bruno? Louise Kertesz wrote short handwritten notes, in blue pen, beside some of the question. Page 1 of 3
Letter from Cyril Stanley Smith to Kertesz, April 6 1976
No full textDated April 6th, 1976, a typed three-page letter from MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) Professor Cyril Stanley Smith to Louise Kertesz, in response to her inquiries about Muriel Rukeyser’s Willard Gibbs and The Traces of Thomas Hariot: “You ask about scientists\u27 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\u27t distinguish between the moments of insight and the hard work of verification and transmission. Stanley himself, though he often argued in favor of the book, thinks these criticisms are justified. Nevertheless, he was both moved and puzzled by it when it first came out. He points out that in both books is a strong admixture of imagination; starting off from a factual script of information and extending it imaginatively
