GolfClubAtlas.com > Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group

Review of Feinstein's new book, "Open"

<< < (2/8) > >>

Brad Swanson:
Sigh :-/  This one is already in the big brown truck on its way from Amazon to my front door.  Oh well.

Cheers,
Brad Swanson

Kevin_Reilly:
Nothing personal to Brad, but I thought the book was a decent read, like most of Feinstein's stuff.  I don't worry about nits too much.  Every movie has 'em, and guys on the internet go nuts trying to find everything wrong in popular movies.  The printed media has nits as well....for example, in the 7th paragraph of the review, "principles" should have been "principals." That didn't bother me...I was able to enjoy the review as well.  :D

Phil_the_Author:
Brad,

I am just now starting to read it.

The most difficult thing for a good reviewer to do, despite what many readers may believe, is write an honest opinion that takes what he is reviewing to task.

A good writer must learn to accept that negative reviews of his work can be among the best of things. They are something to be learned from and used as a means of inspiration to grow in the craft. I hope John learns from your words.

Brad Klein:
Kevin, all authors make mistakes here and there. I don't worry too much about that, though it's the job of proof readers and fact checkers to reduce those. Feinstein's book is overwhelmed by them - though not quite to the extent of "A Good Walk Spoiled," which is filled with dozens of mistakes about the game he covers. There's a point at which occasional mistakes add up to sloppy journalism. If all writers took a cavalier attitude, then readers would be in trouble, even if they didn't know it.

In a political world today in which lying is seen as acceptable if it gets you ahead, there still seems a place for adherence to the truth.

I don't think Feinstein's mistakes are politically dangerous, and I certainly don't think they are as consequential. This is, all, only golf. But the point of any serious writer or critic - which is not the same as a causal reader - is to point these out. Maybe it's my training as an academic, though I think it's my regard for journalism. His books might make for a good read, but I think it's a good read spoiled. Obviously you are free to dismiss this is as overdone on my part. I just think it's appropriate to put it out there for consideration.

Robert_Walker:
Brad is right. I have heard about photographers who have been fired for misspelling peoples' names in captions.
Petty as it may seem to nit pick these errors, it does make one wonder whether major factual mistakes were made.
For instance, Feinstein uses Hannigan as his source for information regarding Harry Easterly's departure from the USGA, and he presents Hannigan's version as undisputed fact.
Many people that I know dispute his version.
I read bits and pieces at a friend's house, and I must say that Feinstein sugarcoats ALL of the people that HE deals with in the book, and he did the same in a good walked spoiled. This gets old.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page