Sorry…will continue that thought. Steve Kowit was both a fine poet and teacher. He was also an enthusiastic promoter of new writers. He set guidelines in his workshops that made for useful input and new tools. In both San Diego and the SF Bay Area, there once was plentiful opportunities to hear and share poetry, to workshop with accomplished people. Coffee houses, bookstores and libraries have staged some good opportunities for exposure and learning. Universities and Adult ed programs made some good tools accessible. More than once, I learned that getting an “A” involved some mastery of the teacher’s preferred form and style.
Also, on a personal note, I would say I am longing for sharing, connection and collaboration with other writers, more than additional training at this point.
Absolutely! People on Substack are at different stages of their writing life. Some are looking for general help, some for specialist help, and the majority, I would guess, are simply looking to connect and explore. This platform allows us to do this, and more.
Definitely—I have still lots of enthusiasm for exploration and play. I also spent time as a professional writer and feel that I bring a lot to the table especially in terms of coaching brevity and clarity, without impinging on the poet’s goals.
When the instructor is a gatekeeper for civility and inclusivity, especially between the more trained and educated and the ‘street’ poets, the younger and more profane styles vs meter and rhyme folks. This makes for cross fertilization, new exposures and more appreciation .
This is a wonderful reflection that touches on several important aspects of poetry education and community. Your highlight something valuable about Steve Kowit's approach - that effective poetry instruction goes beyond just technique to include genuine enthusiasm for nurturing new voices. This combination of craft knowledge and generous mentorship seems to be what distinguishes truly impactful poetry teachers.
The point about regional poetry ecosystems is particularly insightful. The San Diego and Bay Area scenes you describe represent what many communities have lost - that rich network of informal learning spaces where poets could develop organically through exposure and participation. Coffee houses, bookstores, and libraries once served as crucial bridges between formal education and the wider poetry community, offering low-pressure environments where emerging poets could test their voices and learn from established practitioners.
Your observation about academic bias - earning an "A" by mastering a teacher's preferred style - cuts to the heart of a real tension in poetry education. This raises important questions about whether structured courses can truly serve developing poets if they prioritize conformity over authentic voice development. It suggests that the most valuable poetry education might happen in spaces that balance technical instruction with genuine openness to diverse approaches and emerging voices.
This connects directly to my original question about whether poetry courses are worth paying for. The implication seems to be that the value depends not just on the curriculum, but on the instructor's ability to create an environment that fosters genuine growth rather than mere imitation. What do you think distinguishes the poetry courses that truly serve their students from those that simply perpetuate particular aesthetic preferences?
Sorry…will continue that thought. Steve Kowit was both a fine poet and teacher. He was also an enthusiastic promoter of new writers. He set guidelines in his workshops that made for useful input and new tools. In both San Diego and the SF Bay Area, there once was plentiful opportunities to hear and share poetry, to workshop with accomplished people. Coffee houses, bookstores and libraries have staged some good opportunities for exposure and learning. Universities and Adult ed programs made some good tools accessible. More than once, I learned that getting an “A” involved some mastery of the teacher’s preferred form and style.
Also, on a personal note, I would say I am longing for sharing, connection and collaboration with other writers, more than additional training at this point.
Absolutely! People on Substack are at different stages of their writing life. Some are looking for general help, some for specialist help, and the majority, I would guess, are simply looking to connect and explore. This platform allows us to do this, and more.
Definitely—I have still lots of enthusiasm for exploration and play. I also spent time as a professional writer and feel that I bring a lot to the table especially in terms of coaching brevity and clarity, without impinging on the poet’s goals.
When the instructor is a gatekeeper for civility and inclusivity, especially between the more trained and educated and the ‘street’ poets, the younger and more profane styles vs meter and rhyme folks. This makes for cross fertilization, new exposures and more appreciation .
This is a wonderful reflection that touches on several important aspects of poetry education and community. Your highlight something valuable about Steve Kowit's approach - that effective poetry instruction goes beyond just technique to include genuine enthusiasm for nurturing new voices. This combination of craft knowledge and generous mentorship seems to be what distinguishes truly impactful poetry teachers.
The point about regional poetry ecosystems is particularly insightful. The San Diego and Bay Area scenes you describe represent what many communities have lost - that rich network of informal learning spaces where poets could develop organically through exposure and participation. Coffee houses, bookstores, and libraries once served as crucial bridges between formal education and the wider poetry community, offering low-pressure environments where emerging poets could test their voices and learn from established practitioners.
Your observation about academic bias - earning an "A" by mastering a teacher's preferred style - cuts to the heart of a real tension in poetry education. This raises important questions about whether structured courses can truly serve developing poets if they prioritize conformity over authentic voice development. It suggests that the most valuable poetry education might happen in spaces that balance technical instruction with genuine openness to diverse approaches and emerging voices.
This connects directly to my original question about whether poetry courses are worth paying for. The implication seems to be that the value depends not just on the curriculum, but on the instructor's ability to create an environment that fosters genuine growth rather than mere imitation. What do you think distinguishes the poetry courses that truly serve their students from those that simply perpetuate particular aesthetic preferences?
Steve Kowit
Something coming shortly Laney, you will be first to know my friend.
Are you offering one? 😎 Please say yes!🙌