Pen names, pseudonyms and pseudepigraphy in golf and architecture writing

[TEPaul]

Probably because of the recent Tillinghast thread (with some really interesting new research production from Philadelphia's Joe Bausch) that eventually got into a discussion (argument?) on the identity of the early American Golfer magazine pen name "Far and Sure", some of us got interested in the entire subject of the use of pen names that seemed so prevalent back then.

What was that about really and what were some of the reasons they did it? Should it be done again like that? Should it even be done on this particular website like they did it back then? 

And how did it work? It seems to me those who did it, particularly if Tillinghast really did use both pen names of Hazard and Far and Sure (even if one or some may've used it too for convenience or deflection or whatever), it surely was a pretty cool and interesting literary tool or trick to use, particularly if and when he referred to himself in the third person.

It kind of reminds me of the final scene in the movie "The Sting". The denoument was even after they conned the hell out of the big Irish gangster from New York, the deal was not just to walk away but to do what Henry Gondorf (Newman) said was, "To Hold the Con."

The deal was that noone (other than the con artists) was to ever know that the Big Mick from New York got conned.

Did Travis and Tillie or whomever it was who used that or those "pen names" actually hold the con? It seems like they may have, at least with most of them who never knew them well personally, because as hard as some of us research it and try we may never really know who it was who used some of those pen names.

If the likes of Travis and Tillie can hear us somehow I know it would have to make them chuckle.

I think it's cool. What do you think?

[TEPaul]

According to Travis biographer, Bob Labbance (Travis was the Editor of American Golfer Magazine) here were some of the pen names used in that magazine through the years:

1. "Lochinvar"---Western region
2. "Bunker Hill"---New England
3. "Buckeye"---Ohio
4. "The Judge" and "The Colonel"---the South
5. "Hazard"---around Philadelphia
6. "Far and Sure"---Eastern Pennsylvania
7. "William Pitt"----Western Pennsylvania
8. "Argonaut"---Pacific region
9. "A Sufferer", "The Duffer", "The Philosopher", "Westward Ho!"----general


Who can identify who any of those pen names really were? And secondly, who thinks those pen names were not or could not be used by more than one person and why?

Is it possible that Wayne Morrison, Tom MacWood and TEPaul are pen names? If so what're their real identities? Well, what the heck, with me it's been going on too long anyway, so I don't mind finally revealing the con. TEPaul is not my real identity. My real name is actually Glenn "Fireball" Roberts.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I once wrote under the pen name of "Dat Effen, Golf Course Architect."

There is a family with several members who are gca's.  I have suggested to them that they write under the pen name of Fuggin.  That way, the whole Fuggin family can contribute to writings, just as they do to their designs......

[Dan Kelly]

I once wrote under the pen name of "Dat Effen, Golf Course Architect."

There is a family with several members who are gca's.  I have suggested to them that they write under the pen name of Fuggin.  That way, the whole Fuggin family can contribute to writings, just as they do to their designs......

Of course, then their competitors would have to adopt pseudonyms of their own -- if for no other reason than to just, you know, keep up with the Fuggins.

(P.S. Any eligible women in that family, Jeff? If you'd marry her, you could go by "Dat Effen-Fuggin, Golf Course Architect.")

[Tom Naccarato]

Would he be any relation to Dat Fuggin Arsehole Jr.? Of the Bumfug, Pennsylvania. Arseholes?

Tom Paul,
Pen names, pseudonyms and pseudepigraphy in golf and architecture writing have been around since the the beginning of time. It allowed the writer anonymity when it wasn't of a critical nature--but sometimes it did go beyond that. For example Boyles McCracken was actually Scotty Chilsolm, a well-known at the time writer/golfer-at-large, who took many of the pictures from California's architecture we so much admire today.

Tillinghast, it would seem loved to utilize a lot of nicknames and create unusual characters like Whiffenpoof, etc..

[Mike_Cirba]

I have to seriously wonder if we didn't get much better (at least more honest) critical review and analysis here on GCA back when various contributers participated anonymously using psuedonyms?   For instance, I miss "Sandy Parlour" and "Dr. Katz", and "Bendelow2". 

Of course, there's a downside to that if the attacks and criticisms are personal and not professional, which sometimes was the case.

More to the point, I see no reason why the same person or persons couldn't/wouldn't use multiple synonyms, especially for a fledging magazine with very few "experts" in the country at the time, who both knew the game well and had writing abilities.

To conclude that Tillinghast couldn't have been both "Far and Sure" and "Hazard", or any other name in the same magazine seems a bit unrealisitic.   Especially when we know both psuedonyms covered essentially the same territory under different bylines.

It would also suggest to the reader that the magazine had a breadth of coverage that might have been somewhat lesser in actuality through giving multiple names to single contributing writers.

[Dan Kelly]

I see no reason why the same person or persons couldn't/wouldn't use multiple synonyms, especially for a fledging magazine with very few "experts" in the country at the time, who both knew the game well and had writing abilities.

To conclude that Tillinghast couldn't have been both "Far and Sure" and "Hazard", or any other name in the same magazine seems a bit unrealisitic.   Especially when we know both psuedonyms covered essentially the same territory under different bylines.

As a guy who anonymously edits a newspaper feature, every day of every year, written by pseudonymous contributors, I can assure you that, even today, in the 21st century, it *is* possible for one human being to have multiple pseudonyms.

Why do a handful of my contributors have multiple handles? Because they're really prolific, and they're really good at it, and they know that other, less-really-good-at-it contributors would bitch and moan about them if they didn't disguise themselves even more than a single pseudonym would disguise them.

That could explain multiple Tilly-nyms, too.

[BCrosby]

Would architecture commentary in mass circulation golf magazines be better and more honest with pseudonymous authors?

I think it unquestionably would - though we are working from pretty a low bar. Almost anything would be an improvement on what we get now.

There's not much question but that pseudonymous pieces during the GA promoted the flow of honest opinions. That's part of the reason why architecture magazine commentary was so good in the GA.

I also agree with Dan and Mike above. I suspect these pen names fronted a stable of rotating writers from time to time. Which I assume is important if you are publishing weekly or monthly and you have a group of underpaid, hard to reach, cranky, spoiled, easily distracted contributors.

Bob
 

[TEPaul]

Bob:

It's hard to say if the plethora of pen names back in that day (American Golfer etc) had something to do with the concern of most of those writers, so many of which were good amateur golfers, with jeopardizing their amateur status. Technically, the USGA Amateur status philosophy of that day was that a good amateur player was not allowed to trade on his name to make money out of golf and that did include writing about golf. I do not recall that any well known amateur golfer of that era lost their amateur status merely for writing about it for pay but it had to concern the likes of Travis and Tillinghast anyway and may've been the best explanation for not just the use of a pen name but maybe a few of them.

A lot of that changed around 1920 when the USGA amateur status rules began to make exceptions for such things as professional architects and writers. That probably helped to slowly usher out such common use of that literary tool.

[TEPaul]

On the other hand, I could be wrong but it seems like the amateur status philosophy got quite a lot stricter in the teens than it had been in the decade before that. The reasons for that might be historically interesting too in American golf.

[Peter Pallotta]

TE -
I've been thinking about this for a couple of days, what with the other thread. It's hard for me to get any kind of clear picture or opinion.

If I knew nothing about the United States in 1910-1920 except what I read in American Golfer, I'd think that there were only about 400 people living in the entire country back then, all of whom knew eachother and all of whom either/and played the great courses competitively, belonged to those courses as members, designed those golf courses, or wrote about those courses, those designers, those members, and those competitions.

Which is to say, I can't imagine how the pen names helped the writers stay anonymous and hold the con, and for so many years -- but since they did manage to hold the con (in some cases for decades now), it means that I must be missing something, big time.

Peter

[Jay Flemma]

Hiya, Fireball!  My name's sunburst and I don't see roman candle anywhere, so he must have the night off or something.

I'd like to throw out the idea that somewhere...someplace same in his business records...Travis must have kept a log or journal of who posted under what fake names.  It only makes good business sense to do that.  Maybe pay stubs where he had to write out checks and what they were for.  Maybe a ledger.  But it seems likely something like that existed...hopefully...

[Mike_Cirba]

Speaking of names, I guess you can put lipstick on pseudepigraphy, but it's still pseudepigraphy.

I'm Mike Cirba, and I approved this message.   

[TEPaul]

"Which is to say, I can't imagine how the pen names helped the writers stay anonymous and hold the con, and for so many years -- but since they did manage to hold the con (in some cases for decades now), it means that I must be missing something, big time."

Peter:

I'm sure you're right about that and I don't think you're missing something, matter of fact you probably just pointed out a fairly obvious fact----eg the world of golf was pretty small in those days and certainly in those regions and obviously all the people who actually knew that actual pen name writer knew he was writing under those pen names, particularly when they read his copy that was frequently about them and even about him (the pen name writer) in the third person.

This probably isn't a matter of them trying to con anyone about their identity, it's probably just so long ago now there isn't any direct connection, and it's just hard to track now even if it may not have been that hard to back then.

Actually, I think Tillie used both those pen names and it's seems pretty transparent to me reading some of that copy that it's him.

[BCrosby]

Peter -

Great point about the same 400 people that show up in  golf magazines in the 20's. It was a rotating cross section of the same industrialists, society nobs, golfers and USGA/R&A big wigs.

Most of them probably had a pretty good idea of who was behind the pen names. But even, so the pen names gave the authors plausible deniability (as they say at the CIA).

Some of my British friends can set me straight, but I seem to recall that articles in The Times had no by-lines until 20 or so years ago. Darwin's articles were by-lined as "Our Golf Correspondent". Unlike the US, there is a long tradition of anonymous or pseudonymous journalism in the UK going back to Addison & Steele and The Tattler. No?

Bob

[Peter Pallotta]

Bob, TE -

I agree that the pen names provided plausible deniability, and I'd imagine that many back then also found the writing styles 'transparent'. Maybe it is simply that too many years have passed - but still, it sure seems like one of the best-kept-secrets-that-wasn't-a-secret ever... as if the 400 people made a pact to keep it that way. Which suggests to me that eveyone had an interest in staying on Far and Sure's good side and in Hazard's good books etc...which further suggests that the men behind he pens were heavyweights in that world.

But that's as far as I can get in my thinking.

Peter

[Tom Naccarato]

Hiya, Fireball!  My name's sunburst and I don't see roman candle anywhere, so he must have the night off or something.

Would someone please tell me what the Hell this is supposed to mean?

I'd like to throw out the idea that somewhere...someplace same in his business records...Travis must have kept a log or journal of who posted under what fake names.  It only makes good business sense to do that.  Maybe pay stubs where he had to write out checks and what they were for.  Maybe a ledger.  But it seems likely something like that existed...hopefully...

Jay, Are you really being serious? Please tell me your joking.

[Tom Naccarato]

Bob Crosby,
For what its worth, pseudonyms were a huge thing for a lot of guys in the old days, from all of the great magazines and periodicals. Scotty Chilsolm used to do a column called The Blitherings of Boyles McCracken, as Boyles was secondary persona--but he really didn't need it. Scotty's Scot roots always were evident! Tillinghast, and Phil will back this up--was sort of a master of pseudonyms, like Whiffenpoof, the dragon/dinosaur-like character seen from The Course Beautiful collection by Bob Trebus and Rick Wolf

Then there is that Sandy Barrens Jr. character...Whoever that guy was, he was GOOD!

[Sean_A]

Bob:

It's hard to say if the plethora of pen names back in that day (American Golfer etc) had something to do with the concern of most of those writers, so many of which were good amateur golfers, with jeopardizing their amateur status. Technically, the USGA Amateur status philosophy of that day was that a good amateur player was not allowed to trade on his name to make money out of golf and that did include writing about golf. I do not recall that any well known amateur golfer of that era lost their amateur status merely for writing about it for pay but it had to concern the likes of Travis and Tillinghast anyway and may've been the best explanation for not just the use of a pen name but maybe a few of them.

A lot of that changed around 1920 when the USGA amateur status rules began to make exceptions for such things as professional architects and writers. That probably helped to slowly usher out such common use of that literary tool.

TomP

Are you suggesting that amateurs were evading the rules of amateurism by using pen names?  That seems incredible to me especially since many people would have known who the author was.  Of course, there is plausible denial, but it doesn't seem like these guys would break the rules intentionally as there was a question of honour at stake- no?

Ciao

[TEPaul]

"I agree that the pen names provided plausible deniability, and I'd imagine that many back then also found the writing styles 'transparent'. Maybe it is simply that too many years have passed - but still, it sure seems like one of the best-kept-secrets-that-wasn't-a-secret ever... as if the 400 people made a pact to keep it that way. Which suggests to me that eveyone had an interest in staying on Far and Sure's good side and in Hazard's good books etc...which further suggests that the men behind he pens were heavyweights in that world.

But that's as far as I can get in my thinking."


Peter:

Your post there sort of outlines my own interest in this subject of pen names in that age of golf magazine and newspaper reporting. I'd just like to determine how close the people writing under those pen names really were to the people and courses they were reporting about. I think the reason for that should be pretty obvious.

As this particular medium was by far the best and most comprehensive way to get the word out about significant events in golf and architecture it seems like all those people relied on each other and the fact that they were all probably very close friends may be one of the reasons for the need to use pen names and hide the writer's identity from the general readership.

[TEPaul]

TommyN:

Regarding post #16, I think we've already had enough of the residuals of some personal battles between posters on this website recently. Whatever you and Jay have going with each other elsewhere and on other kinds of subjects it may be best not to get them on this particular thread. It looks like Jay's post was just a question and/or opinion on pen names and maybe your post #16 was too but I hope you two don't take it into something on this thread that doesn't really relate to the subject of this particular thread.

Thanks


Regarding your post #17----eg it looks like Tillinghast may've written under a few different pen names but noone who's even remotely familiar with his life and times in writing would likely deny that he also had a helluva imagination for songs and ditties and drawings (even if a lot of that was likely his father B.G.) and sort of cartoon characterizations of which things like "whiffensnoof" or "whiffensnapper" or whatever their actual names were. But I'd like to keep the distinctions between those semi-cartoon characterization names and the actual pen names these people in that time wrote under. The pen names use seems to be complicated enough as it was or is.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I once wrote under the pen name of "Dat Effen, Golf Course Architect."

There is a family with several members who are gca's.  I have suggested to them that they write under the pen name of Fuggin.  That way, the whole Fuggin family can contribute to writings, just as they do to their designs......

Of course, then their competitors would have to adopt pseudonyms of their own -- if for no other reason than to just, you know, keep up with the Fuggins.

(P.S. Any eligible women in that family, Jeff? If you'd marry her, you could go by "Dat Effen-Fuggin, Golf Course Architect.")

Yeah, there is one hot chick in the family.  I have often said I would like to work under her.......or over her!

I once heard that the late Ed Seay was going to partner with the tour pro Grant Waite and form the firm of Waite and Seay.........

If Brett Farve got into the business (and who isn't getting into the "easy money" of gca these days and he matched up with the Fuggins they could have designs with great Farve and Fuggins, not unlike VW cars.

Be sure and tip your waitresses!

Seriously,

Jay,

I think those reciepts might be out there. Not sure why Tom N thinks you would/should be joking. I doubt these guys wrote for free.  And if someone can find obscure shipping manifest records, there might be an attic containing the old business records of those old magazines.  Its amazing what kind of stuff is still around, although, never when you need it!

I think the whole pen name thing had to do with amateur status and a greater sense of propriety back in those days.  As always, I could be wrong.

[TEPaul]

"TomP
Are you suggesting that amateurs were evading the rules of amateurism by using pen names?  That seems incredible to me especially since many people would have known who the author was.  Of course, there is plausible denial, but it doesn't seem like these guys would break the rules intentionally as there was a question of honour at stake- no?"


Sean:

What I meant to say is it seems like the philosophy (I used the word "philosophy" on purpose) on what well known amateur players over here could do as far as any kind of financial remuneration from golf (via their reputations as good players) was beginning to seriously tighten up, get stricter and get questioned far more in the teens and particularly the mid-teens than it had been earlier and in the decade before the teens. It seemed to get very strict under USGA president Watson in the mid-teens.

I'm not saying those guys like Tillinghast were technically violating "amateur status" rules because mostly those rules hadn't been that specifically written but it seems like the USGA was evolving in their philosophy to a stricter interpretation (I can see this in most of Macdonald's writing about goings-on with the USGA committees and Board from his book).

This would significantly change and relax in the early 1920s with the USGA on Amateur Statue Rules but in the teens some significant amateur golfers came under some real scrutiny, including Travis. Quimet and Tillinghast who actually lost his amateur status and never even bothered to try to get it back.

[TEPaul]

This may seem like a digression from the subject of pen names, writers who were well known amateur players etc but I don't think so.

It seems like some of the distinctions  between those considered to be professionals and those considered to be "amateur/sportsmen" was becoming more distinct and defined into the teens and I think this included the difference between the developing professional architects and those who chose to remain "amateur" architects (and to some extent writers on golf and architecture).

And I also think this kind of ethos or philosophy was not exactly matched abroad by what was going on in America at that time in this context.

It seems like there were a lot of interesting and counterposing philosophies (and perhaps even rules) going on at this time---eg particularly the teens between America and abroad. We probably need to understand them better to understand not just what was happening with writing but also with architecture too in this way over here in America.

It is not lost on me that MCC (Merion Cricket Club, that most of us just refer to as Merion) was one of the most intensely dedicated clubs in America at that time to the entire idea of the "amateur/sportsman." I know this via at least one very significant speech given at that club by those who ran it then.

This could have a whole lot to do with the reason MCC chose to go with a group of "amateur/sportsmen" members to design their new courses in Ardmore and it could have a whole lot to do with why they turned for advice to Macdonald/Whigam both of whom were clearly at the pinnacle of what was then considered to be the golf "amateur/sportsman" ethos.

Macdonald did not hesitate to state that under no circumstances would he ever consider taking pay for anything he ever did or would do with golf or architecture. He didn't believe in that. It guess he felt he came from that old-fashioned world of the gentleman amateur sportsman who did what he did in golf and architecture, and frankly sport generally, for the love of it and definitely not for financial remuneration.

We need to understand how important that was to some of those people back then. Were there some perceived class perceptions or distinctions rolled up in some of these philosphies at that time? There is no question about it and it is pretty easy to track and document.

How did that dynamic begin to diminish and get resolved going into the 1920s and on? That's another story but certainly no less an important one!

[BCrosby]

I'd like to know if Tom Doak ever had regrets about his Confidential Guide getting out under his name. After all, it was intended to be, ... ahem, confidential.

Bob