It can be argued that the author's meaning is less important for us as readers and appreciators of poetry than the meaning we arrive at for ourselves by careful analysis. Such a stance, however, should be presented as a critical approach to poetry and not as the poet's intention. The translations themselves often succeed admirably in conveying the lucidity of Horace's language. At times, however, a striving for clarity engenders an oversimplification of expression and a somewhat prosaic rendering. In some places Horace's meaning is obscured instead of clarified.
Structure is sacrificed for simplicity as well.
M. often chooses words which reflect the original sound of the Latin. M. translates certain words in a way which supports his view that Horace had a sadistic streak, but these interpretations do not always ring true. The translations generally move smoothly. Often references which would be obscure to the modern reader are rendered more accessible by a periphrasis, making for us the association the Roman listener would have heard. M. is at his best, I think, in the more narrative poems.