Paul:
If that happened today, no embellishment would be possible, we would have all seen it on TV.
The fact is that this 1913 event had no such thing; in fact media accounts from the time even differ on details (don't they, Dan? I remember that from previous discussions).
And of course there were no recordings of conversations, nor can anyone know for sure what was going through Ouimet's head.
I do find it pretty inexcusable that the author apparently didn't even consult Ouimet's autobiography. He surely could have done a better job getting the story right, and some of the factual errors are cringe-inducing. Dan showed me the light there.
But in the end, well... where I differ from Dan - and perhaps you - is that I think the world is a BETTER place for this book. Like Kyle said, we can and should use it as a gateway drug. Yes, there is danger in that too many take it as gospel truth, but heck, in the end the more people know about this event AT ALL and about Ouimet at all the better... so for me the good of this outweighs the bad of the factual errors.
But like I say, I'm a golf yokel consumer and follower of reality TV; Dan is a writer, historian and devotee to causes. If one has to err here, err with him.
TH