This letter is one that I found very interesting, for numerous reasons. This letter is written from one of the editors at The New Yorker to American poet, novelist, and short story writer Sylvia Plath. In the letter, the editor is critiquing one of Miss Plath's poems. They explain they cannot run the poem because they feel the first section does not coincide with the second.
At the time this letter was written, November of 1962, Plath was in the later stages of her career, even though she was only 30 at the time. She committed suicide only 3 short months later. This meant that the editor on some level felt he was a better writer than this woman who had already been published numerous times, though most of the works that she is now known for were published posthumously.
Due to the fact that this letter is from 1962, this letter is clearly from a typewriter, which makes perfect sense. This would definitely have been the most appropriate way to respond for the times, and it's not as if The New Yorker was hurting for typewriters.
The form is mostly correct, but for being a letter from an editor, there were some mistakes. There are a few different sentence fragments that would have worked better as one sentence, in my opinion. This letter also never states who exactly is the person signing it. It gives a name, but no inclination as to who that person is. The letterhead says its from the editorial office, but we do not know whether this person is a major editor, or just someone who was to type up the letter and send it back.
The style of the letter is direct and straight to the point, with no fluff to lengthen it. The letter is well organized, and has only a few points. The first is to let Miss Plath know why the poems were rejected and the second is to give feedback as to what could be done to correct the poems.
All in all, I'd say this letter is a very effective means of delivering a message, in the early 1960's. I thought it was interesting as well that even more famous authors are rejected now and again, and this was a polite way of doing so. The editor probably realized who she was and wanted to let her know the submission was appreciated, but not quite what they were looking for. It was very respectful, and I don't know how the letter was received, but that would probably go back to the type of person Miss Plath is. If the editor wanted a more personal touch, he could have chosen to hand write a letter, but this was probably done as a time saver.