The early chapters on Homer are highly derivative, the Theocritus chapter is almost unreadable at times but he provides a necessary corrective to didactic readings of Aristophanes. The Pindar chapter is possibly derivative but seems to be presciently close to modern consensus otherwise. Goldhill's unsure about his deconstructionism here for some reason, maybe because his earlier attempts just emphasized textual uncertainty and lacked critical edge; certainly the Pindar reading lacks radicalism. Valuable for me, taught me a lot particularly on unfamiliar Hellenistic poetry.