Kenneth’s overall performance in this class was poor. Kenneth did
not turn in either of the assigned essays. Kenneth
did average on the midterm, and did not attend the final on the
final. Kenneths participation was below average. He attended some
sections but did not vocally contribute to discussion. Kenneth is
an undedicated student.

Ken worked hard to venture into new poetic territory in this course, which meant taking intellectual risks and experimenting bravely with new structures and voices in his writing. Ken’s final versions of the poems he wrote were very significant revisions of the initial drafts. He crafted narrative structures, added details, made his imagery more immediate, refined his language, and rewrote sections of his poems for clarification. His poem “Round two” is a particularly remarkable piece of writing. Due mostly to circumstances beyond his control, Ken was absent from class a great number of times, and attendance is essential in a small, discussion-based class like ours. However, when he was in class, he was a leader in our classroom conversations and consistently raised the level of the discourse. Ken’s analytical essays were some of the very best I have encountered. His first essay, a gorgeously composed theoretical analysis of two poems, was nothing short of brilliant. His second essay, an insightful exploration of one of his own poems, was a marvelous display of Ken’s powerful analytical and interpretive abilities. The structures of language and thought in Ken’s essays were complex and sophisticated; both of his essays on poetry read like graceful poems themselves. His close readings were consistently perceptive and well-written interpretations of the assigned poems. Ken has developed a strong poetic voice and is unafraid of expressing powerful, transformative emotion in his work. He is a gifted writer, and I encourage him to continue writing poetry.