Throughout the twentieth century there are numerous examples of polemics arising from posthumous editions of texts by culturally significant authors. Some of these polemics relate to what we – as Jacques Derrida puts it – conventionally call ‘literature’, and others to what we tend to denote as ‘intimate genres’, encompassing that peculiarly ambiguous space inhabited by correspondence, diaries, memoirs, notes and even marginal notes. Pizarnik's work – and I use that term in a Foucauldian sense, fully aware of the fact that we have no absolutely fixed idea of it – has joined the long list of examples, basically since the publication of her Diarios in Lumen, which their editor Ana Becciú refers to as ‘un libro más en la obra de Pizarnik’ (Diarios, p. 7). A polemic surrounds not only this text and the two previous volumes edited by Becciú, but also other texts, and its theoretical implications are far-reaching. Indeed, shortly after the long-awaited publication of the Diarios in Spain, Ana Nuño – who wrote an enthusiastic prologue to the Prosa completa, which had appeared two years earlier (Prosa, pp. 7–9) – published a somewhat negative review in La Vanguardia, outlining certain shortcomings of the edition, which may be summarized in two basic points. First,there is a question mark over Becciú's interpretation of the censorship imposed by Pizarnik's sister Myriam on any reference to the writer's private life; Becciú subsequently presented the cuts she had made as artistic choices, stemming from a desire to offer a ‘literary diary’ along the lines of the now legendary diary of Virginia Woolf (edited by her husband Leonard). Secondly, it is not clear why Becciú only decided to explain a few of the many abbreviations which occur in the text; unless the reader is from Buenos Aires, and of a certain age and cultural background, he or she is faced with what Nuño terms a ‘sopa de letras’, lacking explanatory notes with regard to places, books, and poems cited.