I was planning to sit this one out – so as not to perpetually adopt the role 
here of defender of what was it called... the mainstream, though it doesn't 
seem the right word here; then reading Tim’s response, seconded by David, a 
bad habit got the better of restraint.

So – my  view is that Muldoon’s poetry is not overrated.
I’m even tempted to say it's underrated, with respect to the culture at 
large, although the same would go for most worthy poets in most places.
Sure, he’s had a fair few accolades but his poems are much less known and 
appreciated  than a host of novels of far inferior quality.

David since you dug up the old references (2006 and 2009), and answer your 
own question:
"There are a few people saying Muldoon is overrated, which is obviously 
true, just going by all the accolades he’s had, which are very OTT, to say 
the least. " Did you have any particular reasons why you thought his poems 
were so "obviously" overrated?

I realize that I haven't offered any of my own views why it isn't overrated, 
but since no-one has offered any supporting reasons, I don't see why the 
burden of proof should fall on the defending side, as it so often seems to 
do on this list.

I read Michael Lally’s post which was no more than the usual bloggish 
kvetching  - though looking through other, more affable posts, often about 
his friendships with other writers, it doesn't at all look as if this is his 
usual thing. However it shows little to no knowledge of Muldoon's work. 
Leaving aside the pop songs, very much a sideline, he only gives one short 
quote from the poems, and doesn't even seem to have read the whole poem it 
comes from.

Tim, I see nothing wrong in your own uncertainty about Muldoon’s poetry, but 
it isn’t a strong position to start analysing the motives of those who are 
more certain and in favour of it.
You say darkly - "But I have my  suspicions. One of those suspicions is that 
those who think Muldoon is so great haven't really read him that much." 
Well, it's clear that this detractor fits your suspicion.
In your view his supporters merely want to fill the post-modernist slot or 
tick various boxes. Having written about Muldoon on a couple of occasions, I 
can assure you neither of these weirdly bureaucratic aspirations even 
vaguely entered my head.

Poetry’s reception is such a peculiar thing. Once any poet has a certain 
prominence a host of poets want to cut him or her down to size. This doesn’t 
seem to happen, at least to nothing like the same extent, with novelists or 
with artists where the attitude is far more laissez vivre.  I can see the 
point of a serious (or even a humorous) reassessment that challenges a whole 
set of largely adulatory and unexamined premises about a poet’s work, and 
admittedly Muldoon has tended to be written about over-reverently. But isn’t 
it a lot more likely that people who praise the work have a genuine - and an 
informed - regard for it?
Best,
Jamie


-----Original Message----- 
From: David Lace
Sent: Saturday, April 06, 2013 7:09 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Is Paul Muldoon overrated?

That sounds about right.




-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is Muldoon overrated? Maybe. I'm not sure. I'm not sure because I've
never been sure about what I think about his work. But I have my
suspicions. One of those suspicions is that those who think Muldoon is
so great haven't really read him that much. He fitted a slot the
literati were looking for - work that they could call postmodern while
still ticking their other boxes.

Tim A.