Great architects in their final years.

[T_MacWood]

"I think he was a better writer and had a better understanding of competitive golf at the highest levels."

Bob
What kind of golfer was Keeler? Darwin competed in numerous British Amateurs--he made it to the semifinals in 1921 at Hoylake (with a field that included Bobby Jones, Chick Evans and Francis Ouimet). He won the President's Putter in 1924 and the Gold Vase in 1919. And he was a member (albeit substitute member) of the first Walker Cup team in 1922 at NGLA (he won his singles match against William Fownes).

HW Wind said of Darwin: "There is little disagreement that the best golf writer of all time was an Englishman named Bernard Richard Meirion Darwin." I guess little disagreement is not the same as no disagreement.

[BCrosby]

Tom -

Keeler was a mediocre golfer. But he lived inside the head of the best golfer of the era for about 15 years. His accounts of Jones's tournament play are unsurpassed. Easily the best "tournament" reportage ever. Better than anything by Darwin, Longhurst or Ward-Thomas.

Keeler had the gift of writing clearly and concisely. Darwin did not.

Darwin often rambles. I get the sense reading him that he is trying to figure out what he wants to write about by writing, until somewhere near the end of his piece he hits on something.  Too often his is essays never lift off.

The truth is that Darwin was not - I think - a gifted writer. In fact he was rather clunky. His gift was (i) the breadth of his interests and (ii) uniquely among golf writers, a confessional, deeply personal approach that is irresistable. Not many golf writers showed their souls the way Darwin did. His essay on quitting golf, for example, is terrific stuff. But terrific stuff despite his writing style, not because of it.

Compare Keeler's and Darwin's accounts of Jones's tournament play in the UK in the '20's when both were covering the same event. I only wish that Keeler had spent more time writing about things not named Bobby Jones.

I don't mean to make too much of either of these guys. In the pantheon of great writing, neither deserves a statue. World class writers are at a different level. You want to read a really good writer, read Updike on golf. Neither come close to his mark.

Bob

[T_MacWood]

Bob
I've never seen Darwin's writing described as clunky...evidently I like clunky. Keeler is a very good writer, definitely clear and consise, almost simple. I'd certainly give him the nod over Longhurst and Ward-Thomas.

I would agree with your assessment about Darwin ability to bear his soul....I'd also say he had a unique ability to reveal the souls of others, sometimes poignantly. I also enjoy Darwin's sense of humor...his humor combined with the ability to dig into the personalities of these great golfers and golf architects--both their strengths and weaknesses--is what appeals to me.

He was also very good at setting the scene and describing the great golf courses and great holes--he had a keen interest in golf architect. Keeler was excellent in describing a match or a tournament...not so good at describing the golf course. Updike is great writer as well, very insightful, but the golf course is not a major character in his essays either.  

[BCrosby]

Tom -

I mean "clunky" in the sense that I find myself having to reread some of Darwin's sentences three or four times before they make sense to me. You don't have to do that with his contemporaries like DH Lawrence, George Orwell or Bertie Russell.

Don't get me wrong. Darwin was a gift to golf. A treasure. But with a grandfather who may have been one of ten smartest people since the Crucifixion, I guess I expected a little more when he focused that incredible gene pool on golf.

Bob  

 

[ForkaB]

Bob

If you can understand anything Bertrand Russell wrote, you get my vote for Editor of "The collected wit and wisdom of Max Behr and TE Paul".........

[BCrosby]

Rich -

Other than his early book on logic with Whitehead, Russell's writing was pellucid. He wrote some popularizations of the philosophical debates of his time that were (and remain) models of their kind.

A problem with Russell was that he sometimes wrote too clearly about things that were intrinsically ambiguous. Darwin, to his credit, was consistent.  He wrote ambiguously about things that were intrinsically ambiguous.

Russell was unlike Darwin in two other ways. (i) Russell was a jerk and hated by everyone who knew him, and (ii) he thought golf was a pastime for morons. But fair is fair. The guy could write an English sentence.

Bob

   

[ForkaB]

Bob

I find Russell's language so perfectly crafted as to have no soul.  Darwin is less precise, but manages to convey not only meaning but sensation.  I prefer that, but to each his own.

[BCrosby]

Rich -

Russell wrote for a different audience. But bascially, I agree. I have gone back and reread Darwin from time to time. Whatever I or anyone else may think of his style, he tried to paint a picture of his tortured golfing soul. I find that irresistable.

I have never gone back to my Russell volumes.

Bob