fait accompli: "'...I agree that the American poetry scene is dominated by 'false reputations.'" --Charles North, quoted by Nick Piombino.

I've been thinking about this topic quite a bit. There are relatively modest local poets I know, poets who wouldn't make inflated claims for themselves, yet whose poetry causes no "vergüenza ajena" [second-hand embarrassment?] in the reader. I figure if I know one or two or three of these people in Lawrence, Kansas, there must be hundreds of poets in this category whom I've never heard of. Almost any poet of this type is better than, say, than __________ [fill in your choice for most overrated famous poet here].

This paradox might be explained, in part, by shifting horizons of expectation. We find it hard to believe that a poet THAT HORRIBLE could be so famous, but if we were told that the same poet was completely unknown, we would judge the same work to be not half bad. Yet I am not convinced that this is an adequate explanation. That is to say, I sincerely think Jim McCrary is a whole lot better than Mr. or Ms. False Reputation. I'll have to think about this a little more...