Jay
I really enjoyed "The Greatest Game..." , and have promptly ordered "The Grand Slam" .
I believe "The Greatest Game " is being made into a movie?

Dan,
   I haven't read the Frost book, but I take it from your post that he took some liberties with the facts? Were there just a few isolated ones, or did he go overboard?
   Lets get out and play before KPIV.

ed_getka writes:
I haven't read the Frost book, but I take it from your post that he took some liberties with the facts? Were there just a few isolated ones, or did he go overboard?

I only got about 100 pages into it and quit reading. There were too many factual errors to continue. The problem was every time I read something I didn't know before I wasn't sure if I was learning something new, something Frost made up or where he did shoddy research.

The made-up dialog I guess I can live with. I don't like it, but others have done it in the past. But they usually say it somewhere up front not on page 490-something.

My problem was with factual errors such as how many matches Harry Vardon won on the trip or that Alister MacKenzie designed Ganton. These can be easily fact checked.

Link to The Greatest Game Ever Played discussion two years ago

Lets get out and play before KPIV.

I'd like that. I haven't played since KPIII and would like to be much less rusty for KPIV. But as seldom as I play, I've become the ultimate fair-weather golfer. Hopefully we will get some good weather soon. There was some talk about some of us Northerners going to Stevenson Ranch before the event.

Robert Thompson writes:
I'll say it made Frost's book on Ouimet so much more entertaining than many dry, but entirely historically correct, bios.

Sometimes facts can be dry. It is much more entertaining to say Vardon had a record of 87-1 while he toured the U.S. rather than 75-13 record Vardon said he had.

We could stop saying George Washington was the figurative father of the country and start saying he really did father all our founding fathers. Wouldn't that be more entertaining? Give whole new sub-plot to the Continental Congresses.

I'm only half way through, but so far, I'd say Frost has another hit on his hands.

That is sad. There are real historians out there doing real research and instead Frost is getting kudos for his crappy research. There are lots of people accepting what Frost says as fact and that is too bad. The USGA has done many things they should be ashamed of, but handing Frost The International Book Award for 2003 has to be fairly close to the top of the list.

Dan King

Did Lincoln go to Gettysburg and give a little speech beginning "Fourscore and seven years ago..."? He did. Historians didn't invent his visit; they didn't fabricate his speech. And no "dramatist's license" would excuse the rewriting of that speech!
 --Dan Kelly

There is no excuse for factual errors, period IMO. Years ago I read a number of of Michener books, The Covenant and Poland come to mind particularly. As far as I know he set a fictional story into a historically correct context, and I enjoyed reading them very much. I see no reason why Frost couldn't do the same.
 

Robert Thompson writes:
that is, a history that takes some liberties based on the research the writer has done. You can dislike it and that's fine -- but this is pretty widely accepted these days.

Please give an example of another non-fiction book which takes liberties with research. I don't believe it is widely accepted, but look forward to hearing your example.

I find it incredible that so many excuse Mark Frost for his shoddy research by saying at least he made it interesting.

There is a good reason books are divided between fiction and non-fiction. They are two completely different types of writing. It is imperative that non-fiction writers do the required research so they are not passing on incorrect information. Non-fiction writers should see themselves as being part of building a body of work. They owe it to the future to get their information as right as they possibly can. A fiction writer can do as much or as little research as they think they need because future generations won't be using their information for further non-fiction works.

John Steinbeck wrote wonderful novels based on real events. He never once claimed they were non-fiction. He was up-front in saying they were based on real events. The Grapes of Wrath is fascinating reading, but it is not factual. It might get people interested in that time period, but it won't be used by future generations as historical information.

Gore Vidal has some similar books. I read his book 1876 and ended up reading other books and info on that election. But I didn't just rely on Vidal's book to tell the story. He made it very clear he was writing fiction. He got me interested in the subject and it was up to me to learn more. How different it would have been had he claimed 1876 or John Steinbeck had claimed Grapes of Wrath were non-fiction. My complaint with Frost isn't with what he wrote but that he and his publisher are pushing the book as non-fiction.

I'm not claiming Frost didn't do research. He has said he went to the USGA and looked through old newspapers. But historians know better than to rely on a single newspaper account. Newspaper writing, often because of deadlines and relying on word of mouth, will sometimes get facts wrong. Just because Frost read somewhere that Vardon had a record of 87-1 on his U.S. tour isn't enough to then print that. He should do a bit more research or else say where he got that info. When he hears that MacKenzie designed Ganton, it isn't enough to accept that as fact. A trivial amount of investigation would prove that wrong.

I do not think Frost's book is good for golf. Especially because it got the stamp of approval from the USGA it is especially damaging book. Future historians might write that Vardon's record was 87-1 because they got that information from Frost's book or someone who accepted Frost's writing. Come back in a few decades and my bet is anybody writing about Vardon will accept the 87-1 record as a historical fact.

Sure, in the grand scheme of things such tidbits are trivial, but that doesn't make them any less wrong. Matter of fact, it would have been a no-brainer for Frost to get this tidbit correct. Anybody with just a basic knowledge of golf history could have gone through his book and found at least a dozen such errors and corrected them. Why not do that? Why only rely on single sources, and from the sound of it, newspaper sources?

By the way where is his bibliography? Where is his notes?

It's shoddy research and it is unfortunate so many are giving him kudos despite his shoddy research and excusing his lax work ethic with "at least he made it interesting."

Many of you are saying Frost deserves a free pass because he made the story interesting. So poor storytellers don't deserve the free pass? Perhaps authors like Steinbeck and Hemingway missed their calling. They could have written exactly the same books and be declared wonderful historians by those of you looking for only a good story.

Dan King

History is more or less bunk. It's tradition. We don't want tradition. We want to live in the present and the only history that is worth a tinker's damn is the history we make today.
 --Henry Ford

Dan: You are clearly widely read, so I assume you'll recall the clip below (see the end of my note).
I think it illustrates the way some historians are writing these days, even if it is controversial. I see Frost may have gotten Vardon's exhibition record incorrect (though I don't recall the bit about MacKenzie and Ganton) -- but I have a hard time discounting an entire book (that was more than 300,000 words long) based on a couple of errors. It was a fairly massive undertaking and errors do slip in. Having written a book, I can understand how this occurs. To disregard a book (without finishing it) on the basis of not liking the style of writing is completely fair. Disregarding it based on an error or two is an over reaction.
Frost's work has done a lot for making historical golf writing more accessible to more people. I don't see how that can be a bad thing --
In an review of Pierre Berton's Canadian history, noted historian and professor JL  Granatstein said Berton "jazzed up Canadian history" in his books. Berton responded by saying every writer should aim to "jazz" up their work. After all, who wants to read a dry, dull book.
Anyway, here's the note on the biography of Reagan. It was controversial, but accepted.

By POLLY ANDERSON
Associated Press Writer

NEW YORK (AP) - The book that was planned as Ronald Reagan's authorized biography raised instant controversy in September 1999 when it was revealed that author Edmund Morris had reinvented himself as a semifictional character in the story.

"Dutch: A Memoir of Ronald Reagan" was 14 years in the making, and Morris had unusual access to Reagan, with regular interviews, and access to his diaries and his friends and relatives. A publisher advanced Morris $3 million for the book.

But in a daring twist, Morris recast himself as another, older "Edmund Morris," a contemporary of Reagan who encounters him off and on in various stages of his life. In fact, Morris is nearly 30 years younger than his subject. He also made up a few other characters who bring various points of view as they comment on Reagan.

Robert Thompson writes:
I see Frost may have gotten Vardon's exhibition record incorrect (though I don't recall the bit about MacKenzie and Ganton) -- but I have a hard time discounting an entire book (that was more than 300,000 words long) based on a couple of errors.

It was more than just a few errors. If you go back to the earlier thread there were a large number of errors. Like I said, I only got through a hundred pages or so and found at least half a dozen easily verifiable errors. I first brought up the subject because I wasn't sure if I was learning new things or not. I am in no sense a golf historian, I just tend to read a lot about golf history. So I wasn't sure if Frost had discovered new information or not. It's clear he didn't. My guess is he relied on questionable sources.

It was a fairly massive undertaking and errors do slip in. Having written a book, I can understand how this occurs.

Of course errors occur. But when faced with a number of easily verifiable errors it is fair to question why they occurred. Since in interviews he makes a big deal about all the newspaper accounts he read of the 1913 U.S. Open and the participants I'm guessing he relied on single sources of information and he never bothered verifying things he read in newspapers. It wouldn't have been all that tough to run the manuscript past someone who knew something about that golf era prior to publishing.

What book did you write?

far more fun than the reprint of CB Macdonald's work that I forced myself to make it through over the holidays. I feel better for having read it -- but it wasn't a great read.

I loved every minute of reading Scotland's Gift: Golf and have revisited it many times.

Disregarding it based on an error or two is an over reaction.
Frost's work has done a lot for making historical golf writing more accessible to more people. I don't see how that can be a bad thing

Perhaps this is where we differ. I like reading non-fiction. I like learning new things. When I first began reading Frost's book I assumed originally I was learning new things. When later I discovered they were just poorly researched it bothered me. I didn't continue reading because I had no way of knowing what was fact and what was fiction of the new tidbits I read. I would have preferred Frost be up-front about the whole thing and admit he wrote a novel based on historical events.

I think Dutch: A Memoir of Ronald Reagan illustrates my point. Edmund Morris nor his publisher made any secret to the fact that part of the book was fiction. I don't think there were any reviews that didn't mention Morris' controversial technique.

Interestingly, I am currently reading Theodore Rex. I earlier read The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt. If Morris had asked me about his technique in Dutch I would have advised him not to do it. (He didn't.)

And if you read Dutch or any other Morris book (far as I know) you will notice a bibliography and a huge quantity of notes. I forget exactly how he noted his fictional characters but I think he made it clear that they were fictional.

I don't believe Dutch started any huge movement toward adding fictional characters to history and I also don't believe his technique was as accepted as you seem to believe.

Dan King

Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
 --George Santayana

Frost's book on Jones is better than his book on the 1913 Open because he quotes extensively from O.B. Keeler in the Jones book.

O.B. Keeler:

(i) was a better writer than Frost,
(ii) understood competitive golf better than Frost, and
(iii) unlike Frost, was there.

Bob

Tom Huckaby:

I agree with everything you've said (and thanks for the kind words), and I'd be the first to admit that there's a lot of dry history out there.  Thus I especially agree with:

"Learning is paramount, yes.  But there is room in the world for trifles."

But Frost's book wasn't billed as trifles.  Call it fiction (or a suitable mix of truth and fiction) and this entire thread disappears.  As a supposed exercise in research and factual presentation, however, I find the book to fail dismally.

DW

I was sifting through some items in my attic when I discovered an old book I used to read regularly.  While I enjoyed the book as a child, I decided to browse the pages again and evaluate it as an adult.  My new perspective allowed me to review the book far more objectively and accurately.

I made some startling observations:

(a) The entire book seems to be constructed from hearsay--and many of those observations weren't written down for hundreds of years.

(b) Thousands of quotes included in the book are undocumented elsewhere.

(c) There seems to be multiple authors, though the book suggests one ultimate source.

(d) The most widely read versions of the book aren't even published in the language it was written in originally.

(e) And most controversially, many of the claims made in the book actually contradict modern scientific theories that are already universally accepted.

Needless to say, I was flabbergasted.  I turned to my wife and began to recount the litany of flaws in this alleged "non-fiction" book when she interrupted and replied, "Oh, honey.  Relax.  It's your Bible."

I'm half way through "The Grand Slam" book on Jones with a growing list of errors and inconsistencies. Those really bug me - almost as much as outright errors. By the way, if you think Frost is bad, try reading John Feinstein. His golf stuff is laced with errors, to the point where I can't read anything he writes.

As for Mark Frost, he's a wonderful writer and story teller and a great portraitist of human character. Accuracy is not the same thing, however, and yet there's no reason that a good story can't also be truthful. Obviously, some issues are a matter of interpretation. But having Vardon and Ray start playing their 1913 exhibition in July even when he then says they first arrived in the States in August (p.10); or declaring a British Amateur to be eight rounds of match play while only in fact being able to account for seven (pp. 144-45); or having Jones walk to the 13th hole at Merion 4+ in a match, then halve the hole and walk off to the 14th hole up "dormie 5" (p.218) - these start creating credibility problems.

I'll keep reading, but I'll also send the list to Mark Frost, and I would urge other careful readers to do the same, with this book and with the Ouimet book, which I also read and enjoyed despite occasionally stumbling over.

As for Frost's "Grand Slam," was there ever a time when Merion's 7th was a par-3? (p. 74). Perhaps. But I know Worcester CC was not close to 7,100 yards in 1925, nor "the longest parkland playout most had ever faced." (p. 227) National Golf Links of America is not on Long Island's North Shore (p.65). Ross did not design private 9-hole golf clubs for Hollywood stars (p.94). President Woodrow Wilosn ende dhis term in March 1921, not Nov. 1920. (p. 141) MacKenzie wasn't 34 years old when he won the design contest for Country Life; nor was Augusta National built a decade after Lido, when MacKenzie was 44. (p.226).

More: on pp. 272-273, the narrative of Jones and Turnesa at Scioto in 1926 becomes impossible to follow because Frost mistakenly has Turnesa bogeying the par-5 13th (sic) when it was the 12th - the result is that the ensuing account makes no sense.

I had less of a problem, with the manufactured dialogue. That's a stylistic thing. But at least don't manufacture or botch basic factual dimensions. We all make mistakes, and in second printings we then try to correct them. But Frost did have a paid researcher for this project, and that makes these kinds of mistakes really annoying.

I'll keep reading, but I'll also send the list to Mark Frost, and I would urge other careful readers to do the same, with this book and with the Ouimet book, which I also read and enjoyed despite occasionally stumbling over.  

That's a good thought.  Do you suppose he has any idea?

I'm only about half way through too but now I've got my fingers crossed that Jones actually wins it in the end.