Semester.ly

Johns Hopkins University | AS.220.201

The Craft of Poetry: Structure and Surprise

3.0

credits

Average Course Rating

(4.44)

In this course, we’ll examine a variety of structures found in contemporary poetry, framing structure as strategy, a primary means by which a poet’s vision is expressed. We’ll review a range of structures including narrative, rhetorical, meditative, digressive, hybrid structures, and more. We’ll also consider structure’s relationship to both prescribed and discovered forms, discussing the possible temperamental differences between closed and open form poets, what Denise Levertov calls, “people who need a tight schedule to get anything done, and people who need to have a free hand.” We’ll analyze the effects of line and stanza, and experiment with the techniques of juxtaposition, fragment, and collage. We’ll also consider the challenges of managing poetic turns, beginnings and endings, as well as structure’s relationship to broader aesthetic issues such as poetic process, readership, and accessibility/difficulty.

Fall 2012

(4.92)

Fall 2012

(4.07)

Fall 2013

(4.54)

Fall 2013

(4.86)

Fall 2013

(5.0)

Fall 2014

(4.43)

Fall 2014

(4.53)

Fall 2022

(4.25)

Spring 2013

(3.87)

Spring 2013

(4.65)

Spring 2014

(4.62)

Spring 2014

(4.69)

Spring 2014

(4.24)

Spring 2015

(4.67)

Spring 2015

(4.44)

Spring 2023

(4.2)

Spring 2023

(3.53)

Spring 2023

(4.45)

Fall 2012

Professor: Steve Scafidi

(4.92)

The best aspects of the course included the engaging professor who provided students with very helpful feedback and helped them to develop their poetry writing skills. The course was well organized and the class discussions were very insightful. The worst aspects of the course included the once a week class meeting time, as students would have loved to meet more. The course would improve if it offered more workshop opportunities and if perhaps the class could meet more often. Prospective students should know that this course involves reading, writing, and workshops for different kinds of poetry to develop their writing skills.

Fall 2012

Professor: Greg Williamson

(4.07)

The best aspects of the course included the engaging professor who provided students with very helpful feedback and helped them to develop their poetry writing skills. The course was well organized and the class discussions were very insightful. The worst aspects of the course included the once a week class meeting time, as students would have loved to meet more. The course would improve if it offered more workshop opportunities and if perhaps the class could meet more often. Prospective students should know that this course involves reading, writing, and workshops for different kinds of poetry to develop their writing skills.

Fall 2013

Professor: Greg Williamson

(4.54)

The best aspects of this course included the writing prompts, which students found fun and inspiring, as well as the in-class critiques, which students found very helpful for improving their craft. Many students found the professor to be very helpful when critiquing their work, and feel that their writing has benefitted immensely from this course. Suggestions for improvement included breaking the class into two weekly sessions to allow for additional workshop time and critique. Students also wanted more flexibility in the writing prompts and structures. Prospective students should be comfortable with

Fall 2013

Professor: Steve Scafidi

(4.86)

The best aspects of this course included the professor’s enthusiasm, passion, and knowledge about poetry. Students found his lectures engaging and the workshops very informative. Suggestions for improvement included changing the schedule to meeting twice a week, and perhaps building in more workshop times. Students also sometimes found the workload strenuous, so a biweekly meeting would alleviate some of the reading and writing assignments. Prospective students do not need to know anything about poetry, they just need a willingness to learn and to stay on top of reading assignments.

Fall 2013

Professor: James Arthur

(5.0)

The best aspects of this course included the very smal class size, which al owed students to quickly meet and get to know their peers. This led to intense writing workshops and very helpful critiques. Suggestions for improvement included exposure to even more types of poetry, as well as a chance to meet twice a week to allow more time for workshops and reading analysis. Prospective students need to be comfortable in pushing their limits and learning how to expand their creative writing comfort zones.

Fall 2014

Professor: Dora Malech

(4.43)

Students praised this course for having an approachable instructor who mixed a variety of teaching techniques such as in-class discussions and exercises in order to keep students engaged in the class. Perceived issues with the course included a belief that the course’s more than two-hour-long lectures were too long and led to flagging attention among students. Other students thought that they received 311too little individual feedback on their work in the course. Suggestions for improvement of the course included a desire by multiple students that there be more opportunities for critiques of students’ work with one student suggesting the course meet twice per week. Prospective students should know that students found that they should come into the course with a love of poetry and while the course is not extremely chal enging, students should be prepared to write and have their work critiqued.

Fall 2014

Professor: Greg Wil iamson

(4.53)

Students praised this course for having an engaging instructor who assigned a reasonable workload. Perceived issues with the course varied; while some students didn’t have any concerns with the course other students found that occasional y feedback in the course could be a bit rushed or repetitive. Suggestions for improvement included a desire by multiple students for a shakeup in the courses’ lectures with some students wishing they could be made more engaging either by incorporating additional small group discussions or by focusing on deeper analysis of students’ works during class. Prospective students should know that students found the course was a fun and comfortable space in which to write and that participation was important in the class.

Fall 2022

Professor: Greg Williamson

(4.25)

Spring 2013

Professor: David Smith

(3.87)

The best aspects of this course included the required reading selection, the insightful feedback provided by the instructor, and the extensive personal knowledge of the poetry-writing process the instructor shared with the students. Some students felt the instructor devoted too much time to lecturing and that, at times, even while lecturing he would run off-topic. One student felt the book reviews and readings were more like busywork. Suggestions included condensing the lectures, allotting students more time to critique their peers, and providing students with some sense of their grade throughout the semester. Prospective students should possess some level of comfort with both receiving and providing constructive feedback.

Spring 2013

Professor: Greg Williamson

(4.65)

The best aspects of this course included the creative and chal enging assignments, the instructor’s consistent feedback, and the helpful workshop sessions. One student felt that a lot of attention is paid 279 during workshop to trivial details. Some students felt that poems were often rushed through during the workshop process because time was not well monitored. Suggestions included incorporating a little more diversity in the assignments and making it so not every single student is workshopped each week. Prospective students should know it's important to read other peoples’ poems before class so you can contribute to the conversation.

Spring 2014

Professor: Callie Siskel

(4.62)

Many students agreed that this course was taught by an awesome instructor and that the poems read were incredible pieces to model writing after. The course was a dynamic introduction to contemporary poetry and writing poems each week helped students become better writers. However, many students wished that the time they spent on writing papers about poetry could have been spent actual y writing poems. Also, some of the writing prompts made students feel constricted. Suggestions for improvement include: more readings focusing on poetry and prose, more open-ended, engaging workshops, and more assignments to practice skil s. Prospective students should feel comfortable with their peers critiquing their work.

Spring 2014

Professor: James Arthur

(4.69)

The wonderful professor of this course was able to make learning about poetry captivating for non-poetry lovers. Many students enjoyed the workshops, where they developed their craft. Also, this course would be a good transition for prospective students who have taken Introduction to Fiction. The daily blogging was a bit much for many students and the course was somewhat disorganized. In addition, there was rarely discussion of the readings, so they were seen as useless. Suggestions for improvement include: limiting workshop time and making due dates clearer.

Spring 2014

Professor: Greg Williamson

(4.24)

During this course, students were granted access to varying genres of poetry. The professor’s straightforward and simple approach made many students feel understood and he set up the class to encourage the production of wonderful poems without spending time on the less appealing aspects of poetry. Also weekly assignments are made clear and students witness dramatic changes in their writing. But many students felt like assignments became redundant. It was suggested that the class size be smaller so that all students receive personal attention. Prospective students would be glad to know that this course is super helpful for writing improvement in general.

Spring 2015

Professor: James Arthur

(4.67)

The best aspects of the course included the passionate and helpful professor, whose enthusiasm for the material was infectious. Students praised the professor for fostering vibrant discussion, providing useful feedback on assignments, and helping students to improve their writing skil s. Some students struggled with the fact they had to memorize poetry, which at times felt tedious and irrelevant. Others found the daily blog entries to be difficult to keep up with. This class could be improved by having a more standardized grading. Prospective students should know this rigorous course will require weekly writing assignments that will help students improve writing skills.

Spring 2015

Professor: Introduction to Poetry Writing

(4.44)

The best aspects of the course included the approachable professor who provided clear expectations for assignments as wel as detailed, insightful feedback. Students found that the readings complimented the frequent writing assignments, and that the workshops helped students refine their writing skil s. Many students found the professor to be nit-picky about their poetry, and that the focus on the technical aspects of the poetry meant that others were ignored. This class could be improved by having more transparency about grades, and spending more time on each poem in workshop. Prospective students should know that this class is great for those looking to improve their writing skills.

Spring 2023

Professor: David Yezzi

(4.2)

Spring 2023

Professor: Landen Raszick

(3.53)

Spring 2023

Professor: Greg Williamson

(4.45)

Lecture Sections

(01)

No location info
B. Snider
10:30 - 11:45

(02)

No location info
Staff
17:30 - 20:00

(03)

No location info
G. Williamson
13:30 - 16:00