The first thing that struck me about Charles Baxter's “Rhyming Action” was characterizations of poets and prose writers. He describes poets as being very alive and in-the-moment, and prose writers as being very distant and observant. I don't think these descriptions are necessarily accurate, though I do think they do a good job of describing the two literary genres themselves. I think it would be more accurate to describe prose as being distant and calculated whereas poetry is much more alive and exists in a specific movement.
Another thing that struck me was his idea that things that elicit a subconscious are those that recall some other element of the work. That in order for something to be “aesthetically correct and just,” it must “rhyme,” or create the same response in the reader that a good rhyme in a poem does.
I also like his ideas about elements of art echoing each other, and how that creates a satisfying effect. But what is found most interesting was his idea about consciously trying to make events in a work of fiction echo each other, or “rhyme,” causes it to feel hackneyed or corny. He touches on one of the most frustrating things about being a writer, that one's conscious mind is the biggest roadblock when it comes to writing something meaningful. Anything that is truly meaningful is usually something that came out accidentally without the writer consciously willing it into being.
-Jonathan Nelson
As I wrote my blog about the same topic, I have to say I get the feeling Baxter was right about the differences of poets and prose artists. True, it doesn't fit every spec, but from what I've seen and heard I thought he was right on.
ReplyDeleteAnd I totally agree with you about the elements of art echoing each other- it does definitely wrap up a story quite nicely and gives you that relief in the end.