[Tim Gavrich]

I love short stories, and I discovered the strange, wonderful work of Donald Barthelme once I started listening to the New Yorker Fiction Podcast (which I highly recommend for anyone with periodic urges to revisit English class).


Anyway, one of Barthelme's greatest stories is "The School," which is as great an assemblage of about a thousand words as I know of in fiction. You can read it here: http://www.qcounty.com/SCC/ShortStories/Barthelme--TheSchool.pdf.


One of the greatest living writers of fiction, George Saunders, wrote an essay called "Rise, Baby, Rise!" in which he discusses "The School" as a great example of Freitag's Triangle, which models the general way in which works of fiction try for and, when successful, seize the reader's attention: https://paulsaxton.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/saunders-barthelme-a.pdf





I think what happens in "The School" and other great short stories, as Saunders discusses, also happens at compelling golf courses. And it happens differently at different compelling courses, just as different stories effect different shapes. ANGC seems to model Freitag's Triangle, where 17 and 18, being less showy holes than their antecedents, represent something of a "falling action" in the narrative of the course.


TPC Sawgrass, on the other hand, exhibits no real falling action, with the early back nine representing what Saunders would call escalation, and 16-18 reminding me of this line from Saunders: "He seems to intuit that the next order of escalation has to be escalating escalation."


Is this an interesting or potentially instructive way to think about golf courses, particularly ones that thrill you into wanting to march straight back to the first tee after holing out on the 18th?


Does Freitag's Triangle suggest a certain dynamics of a golf course?


For the architects on the site: Do you take Freitag's Triangle, or something like it, into consideration with regard to hole sequencing and attempting to establish a sort of rhythm on your courses?


In the context of competitive golf, do match play events merit a course with a falling action, since matches seldom get to 18? Do the most exciting stroke play courses follow a different shape?

[Ronald Montesano]

I like fiction. I'm more of a magical realist myself, and I consider Barthelme and Barth to be northern descendants of that nuance of the genre. Every now and again, you turn to Carlos Fuentes and his penchant for multiple narrative voices. You're not certain that you are comfortable, as it is unlike anything you've encountered before. On you press, into the void. Ron considers "The School" to be not his cup of tea, for the massive and unexpected juxtaposition of tone and technique that happens midway through. However, since Jimmy likes Elaine, Ron appreciates Barthelme in this instant.


On to Freitag's Triangle. It will be challenging to provide a universal interpretation of any golf course, and the particular set-up and conditions of the day might impact the interpretation in some way or another.


The rise and fall of a play are written infinitely; the wording doesn't change, nor does the action. A golf course cannot be read in the same way, as a player impacts it (and vice-versa) in a way unlike the interaction of play-audience.


One of my favorite, Buffalo-area golf courses, designed by former GCA denizen Scott Witter, is called Arrowhead. The course is brilliant in its subtlety. It never gets too high nor too low, but around the 14th hole, you begin to suspect that a dramatic conclusion is at hand. Here's how it plays out:
14-Short par four, driveable, plenty of space for a lay-up, not as much when you go for the green in one;
15-reachable par five, just barely. Lots of room to give it a go, so a three-metal doesn't get penalized;
16-superb par three, about 185 and a bit uphill, green is very puttable and birdies happen if you get to the frog hair;
17-another shortish par four, driveable if you can carry it 280, but easily wedged/short-ironed from the lay-up zone;
18-If into the wind, the beast, 430 with a possible carry over a pond (but not necessary, you can play around it) to a nuanced green.


This is a fabulous counter-example, I think, to Freitag's Triangle. If I were an architect, I believe that I would want my golfers breathless as they leave 18, for the correct reasons. I wouldn't want them to think "it ended kinda, well, kinda, I dunno."


Sex based on love, on the other hand, is Freitag's Triangle to the max.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()