GolfClubAtlas.com > Golf Course Architecture

Review of Feinstein's new book, "Open"

<< < (6/8) > >>

Brad Klein:
Ghost writer? Now there's a cop-out.

The NYTimes won't let people review a book if they are friends with the writer, have published with the same press, or have been involved in any way in that book's production. Those are pretty good rules.

As much time as I spend on golf courses, I am really above all else an editor. One thing I've learned is that you really cannot fairly evaluate a book in terms of a public, published review unless you have actually written a book yourself. The process of doing a book - the writing is the easy part - involves years of research, editing, collating, leaving things. That what makes it a truly different experience from merely writing.

I have a lot of experience with books, having published three of them, contributed to 20 others, and have served as a paid consulting editor on several dozen, half of them golf related, the other academic. So somewhere along the way you learn to be fair. You learn to judge and appraise a book in terms of what it sets out to do, how well it achieves it, and whether after reading the book you found something worthwhile during your four hours or four days that you would not have otherwise acquired.

You can tell pretty quickly if a book is really a serious book and what its tone, texture and basis are. It doesn't take long reading or redaing his work to see that Feinstein is your basic lightweight sports journalist with an impressive knack for self-promotion. He types quickly, does some research, relies exclusively on interviews, and the
result is your typical decent sports book. Some of his topics are better than others, but too often you read him (on golf, baseball, tennis) and what you realize is that he's trying real hard to write a book. His college basketball stuff is very different. There he knows what he's talking about. But on golf, he's on unsteady ground. He mkes up for it, however, on radio and TV by being forceful and eloquent in his pronouncemnet. Not to be mistaken for sound journalism, however.

My point is that reviewing requires making a series of jugements and then finding out how best to say that. Sometimes you say it directly, other times indirectly. I think what is important is that a review is just not a series of observations about a book; it is, itself, a piece of writing with a theme, argument, tone and direction. That's why writing reviews is not a simple matter and why there's always a bit of judgment, insider-ness and decision-making involved.

Phil_the_Author:
As a person who has one book out there, another that is waiting for my publisher to just set the release date, and two more on the way, I have a view of this subject that is from a different perspective.

Most writers are thrilled to be receive a good review by GolfWeek and refer to it that way with pride. When it turns out to be a bad review, then its that son-of-a-gun Brad Klein at GolfWeek. He has no idea what he is talking about. The review process is a highly personal one for both reviewer and reviewee.

What reviewer wants to be known as someone who pans or rips apart everything? That type of reputation will only sell the journal he writes in; but for the reviewer, it labels him in ways that can not be good for him professionally or personally. If he or she wants to be accepted as a person whose opinions are to be valued, then he must be honest and balanced in his approach to and review of those works he will be writing about.

Brad is right, researching a book is a long and tedious process, one that can take years of a life from the writer. For those who find joy in what they write, it is a very sweet wait.

I have just started research for a book I dearly want to write. In order to do it properly, I have to travel to California, Florida, Minnesota, Virginia. New Jersey Long Island and upstate New York. Thatis a tremendous amount of traveling to do research and conduct interviews. It also involves a tremendous outlay of funds. These come from the writer. It is the extremely rare writer aho sells a book based on an idea.

With that in mind, only someone who has been through the research process And has written a book, can understand what goes into producing a published work. When it is obvious that the research was either incomplete or shoddy, then the end result may be a pleasant read, but it doesn't bring about agood book.

For a reviewer to do his job well, and he is writing to advise people on a purchase, he must be aware of what was needed to create the book that was written, and judge the work on how well that was done.

A good writer recognizes the difference between a bad review and a review that is bad.

A.G._Crockett:
I'll admit up front that I haven't read the book, though I did read the review.  The review is as far as I will get, though.

I swore off Feinstein after "A March to Madness", which was about one of the things most dear to my heart, ACC basketball.  The author, who was the sports editor of the Duke Chronicle while a student, took the opportunity in that book to absolutely trash Dean Smith.  His comments were the cheapest of cheap shots, and reportedly had to do with the fact that Coach Smith would not give him free access to his practices.  It forever called in to question both his objectivity, and with it, the accuracy of what I was reading.

Brad Klein:
Shivas,

I think something needs to be clarified. You can't write a review and a publication won't let you if there's an overt conflict such as friendship, a shared publisher or some  rivarly.

Otherwise, you just go and do your best to be fair. I don't know how else to say it.

Brad

Martin Del Vecchio:
A. G. Crockett:  I also read "A March to Madness", and I must disagree with your assessment.  

You say that Feinstein "took the opportunity in that book to absolutely trash Dean Smith."  You say that Feinstein was the sports editor of the Duke Chronicle when he attended Duke, and the implication is that he is therefore biased against Smith.

Assuming that you attended UNC, I think you would be just as biased about Dean Smith as you imply that Feinstein is.

As someone who attended neither Duke nor UNC , I would say that Smith got treated fairly in the book.  I went to the University of Virginia, and therefore hated both schools.

There were good things about Smith in the book bad things.  It seems clear that since Smith didn't grant Feinstein the access that others in the book did, he suffered a little.  I think it has been pointed out in this thread that Feinstein tends to gush over people who were friendly to him, and I agree with that.

But there's no way Dean Smith got trashed in that book!  Smith is a surly curmudgeon to those on the outside of his world, and a wonderful coach, leader, and civil libertarian to those on the inside of his world (which includes just about every UNC graduate I have ever met).

Kind of like Bobby Knight, who got "trashed" in Feinstein's first big book, "A Season on the Brink."  That's his best book ever, I think.  All of Bobby Knight's supporters went ape-$#!t when it came out, but I think it showed the good and bad of the man.

Please note that I am NOT comparing Smith's behavior with Knight's; just their cult-like followings.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page