A commentary on "Rhyming Action"

Baxter seems to have some inkling of where he is going in this commentary ( I hesitate to call it criticism), but does not seem to have the conviction to actually get there. It is filled with so many I think’s and perhaps’ that I cannot allow myself to believe anything it is saying. Baxter’s vague points about memory and rhyming action, if studied, can seem to make some manner of sense, but his lack of sincerity puts the reader off from the very beginning.

Only one phrase in the entire piece rung true to me: “No technique can ever take precendence over vision. It must be its servant.” Baxter’s examples are well-taken, but his observations are bored and lack any cohesive point. Not only does he alienate the reader with his initial tirade against writers of all stripes, he voices so much internal dissonance that the reader is unsure if he making a parody of postmodern literary criticism. His vague ideas about memory and rhyme, consciousness and unconsciousness seem to have some overarching dynamic common to them all, but it is difficult to imagine and we are certainly never clued in. Ironically, Baxter seems to fall victim to his own accusation about Robert Creeley: “The immediate return of a story to its beginning would be like a rhyme that insists too quickly and bluntly on itself.” Baxter’s narration turns around and around but never gets anywhere, leaving the reader with a dizzy sensation.

On a personal note, I found reading this piece to be an abhorrent waste of time and am now much more annoyed than informed. There is no real information to be found, only navel-gazing observations whose meaning and direction is obvious to their author only, if anyone. Nietsche’s Eternal Return is a quaint, if poignant aphorism, and nothing more. To base an entire aesthetic solely on such vagaries takes a person so simple it is a wonder they managed to stumble across it between reading their horoscopes.