I made a copy of the only book ever produced to get an autograph out of Frigman. He was so sensitive then he did not respond to ordinary requests. I pretended to review this book to gain admission to the master’s hand. He was head of the Society for Literature and Science where I sent it in as a review. He did respond:
“I take exception to your assertion that were Pismuth to pee with its mouth that this would merely symbolize an orifice of literature. This oracular confusion may symbolize something more complex than our society and art, but not the cannibalism or government that the ancients mistook for an Ape. Literary speech may reflect this freedom, at that to call it free it is free as a slave, or, if that’s not enough, the split transformed to turn the kidney into a third brain causes grave reservation in the review process, especially in what appears to be a wholly self-published and promoted work without any sign of external standards or review. Your press is not listed in any of the standard guides to books in print, nor are your individual titles. In a field where psychology is so well served by a myriad of small presses, we view self-publication as vanity publication, which lacks any external review prior to publication, as well as to the implication that the book in question has not been accepted externally prior to publication. Occasionally one manages to go undiscovered through the cracks save for a small coterie of admirers, but let us hope that a Joseph Johnson may appear to publish Blake. As to the instance of a giant kidney in the form of a building in the nation’s capital, need I say that such fantastical architecture externalizing human organs outside the body is just the kind of thing external review is fashioned to prevent.
Although you may be indisposed to reading avuncular advice let me suggest you circulate your “psychology” among the little magazines to get a fuller sense of what external standards obtain and please find a local psychology workshop of peer-criticism. Both exercises are calculated to impart some humility which I, for one, find notable in its absence in writing that, far from being prophetic, is presumptuous. To put the case succinctly: a poetry and psychology that actually achieved the ends you propose would not need a “dear reader.” Readers would share the book without asking your leave . Anyone who “humbly send[s]…verses” probably is not humble at all.