News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Brad Klein

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Review of Feinstein's new book, "Open"
« Reply #25 on: June 21, 2003, 12:03:45 PM »
Ghost writer? Now there's a cop-out.

The NYTimes won't let people review a book if they are friends with the writer, have published with the same press, or have been involved in any way in that book's production. Those are pretty good rules.

As much time as I spend on golf courses, I am really above all else an editor. One thing I've learned is that you really cannot fairly evaluate a book in terms of a public, published review unless you have actually written a book yourself. The process of doing a book - the writing is the easy part - involves years of research, editing, collating, leaving things. That what makes it a truly different experience from merely writing.

I have a lot of experience with books, having published three of them, contributed to 20 others, and have served as a paid consulting editor on several dozen, half of them golf related, the other academic. So somewhere along the way you learn to be fair. You learn to judge and appraise a book in terms of what it sets out to do, how well it achieves it, and whether after reading the book you found something worthwhile during your four hours or four days that you would not have otherwise acquired.

You can tell pretty quickly if a book is really a serious book and what its tone, texture and basis are. It doesn't take long reading or redaing his work to see that Feinstein is your basic lightweight sports journalist with an impressive knack for self-promotion. He types quickly, does some research, relies exclusively on interviews, and the
result is your typical decent sports book. Some of his topics are better than others, but too often you read him (on golf, baseball, tennis) and what you realize is that he's trying real hard to write a book. His college basketball stuff is very different. There he knows what he's talking about. But on golf, he's on unsteady ground. He mkes up for it, however, on radio and TV by being forceful and eloquent in his pronouncemnet. Not to be mistaken for sound journalism, however.

My point is that reviewing requires making a series of jugements and then finding out how best to say that. Sometimes you say it directly, other times indirectly. I think what is important is that a review is just not a series of observations about a book; it is, itself, a piece of writing with a theme, argument, tone and direction. That's why writing reviews is not a simple matter and why there's always a bit of judgment, insider-ness and decision-making involved.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Phil_the_Author

Re: Review of Feinstein's new book, "Open"
« Reply #26 on: June 21, 2003, 03:59:55 PM »
As a person who has one book out there, another that is waiting for my publisher to just set the release date, and two more on the way, I have a view of this subject that is from a different perspective.

Most writers are thrilled to be receive a good review by GolfWeek and refer to it that way with pride. When it turns out to be a bad review, then its that son-of-a-gun Brad Klein at GolfWeek. He has no idea what he is talking about. The review process is a highly personal one for both reviewer and reviewee.

What reviewer wants to be known as someone who pans or rips apart everything? That type of reputation will only sell the journal he writes in; but for the reviewer, it labels him in ways that can not be good for him professionally or personally. If he or she wants to be accepted as a person whose opinions are to be valued, then he must be honest and balanced in his approach to and review of those works he will be writing about.

Brad is right, researching a book is a long and tedious process, one that can take years of a life from the writer. For those who find joy in what they write, it is a very sweet wait.

I have just started research for a book I dearly want to write. In order to do it properly, I have to travel to California, Florida, Minnesota, Virginia. New Jersey Long Island and upstate New York. Thatis a tremendous amount of traveling to do research and conduct interviews. It also involves a tremendous outlay of funds. These come from the writer. It is the extremely rare writer aho sells a book based on an idea.

With that in mind, only someone who has been through the research process And has written a book, can understand what goes into producing a published work. When it is obvious that the research was either incomplete or shoddy, then the end result may be a pleasant read, but it doesn't bring about agood book.

For a reviewer to do his job well, and he is writing to advise people on a purchase, he must be aware of what was needed to create the book that was written, and judge the work on how well that was done.

A good writer recognizes the difference between a bad review and a review that is bad.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

A.G._Crockett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Review of Feinstein's new book, "Open"
« Reply #27 on: June 21, 2003, 07:22:21 PM »
I'll admit up front that I haven't read the book, though I did read the review.  The review is as far as I will get, though.

I swore off Feinstein after "A March to Madness", which was about one of the things most dear to my heart, ACC basketball.  The author, who was the sports editor of the Duke Chronicle while a student, took the opportunity in that book to absolutely trash Dean Smith.  His comments were the cheapest of cheap shots, and reportedly had to do with the fact that Coach Smith would not give him free access to his practices.  It forever called in to question both his objectivity, and with it, the accuracy of what I was reading.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
"Golf...is usually played with the outward appearance of great dignity.  It is, nevertheless, a game of considerable passion, either of the explosive type, or that which burns inwardly and sears the soul."      Bobby Jones

Brad Klein

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Review of Feinstein's new book, "Open"
« Reply #28 on: June 23, 2003, 07:09:26 AM »
Shivas,

I think something needs to be clarified. You can't write a review and a publication won't let you if there's an overt conflict such as friendship, a shared publisher or some  rivarly.

Otherwise, you just go and do your best to be fair. I don't know how else to say it.

Brad
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Martin Del Vecchio

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Review of Feinstein's new book, "Open"
« Reply #29 on: June 23, 2003, 09:08:52 AM »
A. G. Crockett:  I also read "A March to Madness", and I must disagree with your assessment.  

You say that Feinstein "took the opportunity in that book to absolutely trash Dean Smith."  You say that Feinstein was the sports editor of the Duke Chronicle when he attended Duke, and the implication is that he is therefore biased against Smith.

Assuming that you attended UNC, I think you would be just as biased about Dean Smith as you imply that Feinstein is.

As someone who attended neither Duke nor UNC , I would say that Smith got treated fairly in the book.  I went to the University of Virginia, and therefore hated both schools.

There were good things about Smith in the book bad things.  It seems clear that since Smith didn't grant Feinstein the access that others in the book did, he suffered a little.  I think it has been pointed out in this thread that Feinstein tends to gush over people who were friendly to him, and I agree with that.

But there's no way Dean Smith got trashed in that book!  Smith is a surly curmudgeon to those on the outside of his world, and a wonderful coach, leader, and civil libertarian to those on the inside of his world (which includes just about every UNC graduate I have ever met).

Kind of like Bobby Knight, who got "trashed" in Feinstein's first big book, "A Season on the Brink."  That's his best book ever, I think.  All of Bobby Knight's supporters went ape-$#!t when it came out, but I think it showed the good and bad of the man.

Please note that I am NOT comparing Smith's behavior with Knight's; just their cult-like followings.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Dan Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Review of Feinstein's new book, "Open"
« Reply #30 on: June 23, 2003, 09:21:56 AM »
Quote
As someone who attended neither Duke nor UNC , I would say that Smith got treated fairly in the book.  I went to the University of Virginia, and therefore hated both schools.

Exactly what Thomas Jefferson had in mind, I'm sure!  8)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:06 PM by -1 »
"There's no money in doing less." -- Joe Hancock, 11/25/2010
"Rankings are silly and subjective..." -- Tom Doak, 3/12/2016

Scott Seward

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Review of Feinstein's new book, "Open"
« Reply #31 on: June 23, 2003, 11:07:59 AM »
To me, there is a difference in a typo and something that is factually wrong. A typo is annoying in a magazine but tolerable given tight production schedules. A typo in a $25 book is not acceptable.

Also, when you read something that you know to be false but said in an authoratative manner that Feinstein conveys (i.e. Tim Moraghan's wife is Karen not Nancy), this casts a negative light on anything else you read that you might not know.

Finally, while this book goes into a subject I find fascinating, Feinstein's choppy writing style gets very trite. There are way too many sentences that begin with conjunctions, and far too many paranthetical statements to show the reader how much Feinstein knows. In "The Majors", my favorite example of this is when he told us in paranthesis that the Stimpmeter was invented by a man names Stimp. Unnecessary and wrong.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Steve Lang

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Review of Feinstein's new book, "Open"
« Reply #32 on: June 23, 2003, 11:42:55 AM »
:o

I appreciate seeing reviews such as Brad Kein's, I won't pay for the book, but maybe I'll read it for free some day and certainly not dwell in it..  Having not seen Feinstein's face ever, then seeing him on countless times before and during this year's Open makes me think its all Marketing.. get a product to sale at the right time, in front of the popular undiscerning media needing lead-ins and talking heads etc.. and voila, exposure pushes sales!

maybe the things exposed will be corrected in the second printing
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Inverness (Toledo, OH) cathedral clock inscription: "God measures men by what they are. Not what they in wealth possess.  That vibrant message chimes afar.
The voice of Inverness"

JohnV

Re: Review of Feinstein's new book, "Open"
« Reply #33 on: June 23, 2003, 01:29:30 PM »
I agree that the book should be more factually accurate, but I did find it an enjoyable read.  That is probably because I know quite a few people that are key players for the USGA.

Just as there are two types of novels, literature and summer reading, there are two types of non-fiction, real studies of issues and history and quick hits that entertain.  Feinstein's books seem to be of the later type.  They should be factually accurate though because someone else might use them as a source for a real history in the future and it would be nice if the mistakes didn't get perpetuated.

Whenever I hear Feinstein on NPR's Morning Edition talking about golf, I do get the feeling that he really doesn't get it, but he can tell an interesting story.   Just don't assume that it is all true.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

A.G._Crockett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Review of Feinstein's new book, "Open"
« Reply #34 on: June 23, 2003, 02:35:03 PM »
Intermurph
I am a UNC graduate.  I'm also a Duke graduate, for what that's worth, as is my sister.  I also have the advantage of knowing Coach Smith.  It also happens that my father, a U.Va. alum and former sports editor of the Durham paper, is friends with Coach Smith.  I assure you (and My-Dad-From- The University who is no fan of UNC wholeheartedly agrees) that Feinstein used that book as a pulpit to trash, relatively speaking, Coach Smith.  You're welcome to disagree.

By chance, did you see Rick Reilly's recent column about Smith in SI?  Reilly isn't a UNC grad, and seems to have a reasonably high opinion of the man.  

My only point here is that Feinstein has in the past used really strong "literary license" and seems willing to play awfully fast and loose with facts.  It robs me of interest in reading his work because I don't know what I'm reading.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
"Golf...is usually played with the outward appearance of great dignity.  It is, nevertheless, a game of considerable passion, either of the explosive type, or that which burns inwardly and sears the soul."      Bobby Jones

Martin Del Vecchio

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Review of Feinstein's new book, "Open"
« Reply #35 on: June 23, 2003, 08:22:25 PM »
AG, I read both "A March to Madness" and Rick Reilly's column.  I hope you can accept two things:  1) I am slightly less biased than you, and 2) I disagree with you about Feinstein trashing Dean Smith.

I really appreciated Reilly's article; that's why I put "civil libertarian" in my list of Dean Smith attributes.  In addition to that,  he is an intimidator of referees, and opposing players and coaches.  Also, he is an extermely loyal man.  Plus he's a whiner.  He's also just the kind of person you would trust with your son.  And he's vindictive.

Etc.

PS  Since you capitalized both "The" and "University", I know that your father attended UVA.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back