[George Pazin]

I think not noticing the errors in even worse.

Next thing you know, you'll be telling me that dancer wasn't interested in me, only my cash....

[Tom Huckaby]

She was, George.  Sorry man.

I think in the end Dan Kelly may be the wisest of all.  We seem to have a situation regarding these books where some value truth absolutely, some relatively, some not at all.

And the different categories are just never going to agree, nor budge the others.

Still to me it is fun discussion.

TH

[SL_Solow]

Tom;  I don't want to go back and look at that book again.  At the time of the first thread I posted noting that I couldn't get through it (a rarity for me) because of the profusion of errors.  I also thought the writing was mediocre at best but we all have different tastes.  I must confess that I am somewhat amused that the inaccuracies about matters known to you such as those alleged to exist in the new book bother you, but those you didn't notice are irrelevant.  So the truth matters when you are aware but you would prefer to remain ignorant and entertained?  Harsh  but accurate?  Isn't that part of the point and the reason some of us place a consistent value on the truth?  How many are misinformed because they don't have the background to judge.  Is that a good thing?

As for the argument that it doesn't matter because sports writing is the "toy department" we are not talking about "little white lies" to children (a practice which I don't condone very often), we are talking about big business.  Moral and ethical standards don't change with the subject matter and once one starts down the slippery slope of overlooking half-truths, sloppy work and outright untruths because they are "not important" or "inconvenient" we can't forsee the next area where the truth becomes unimportant.  This is not the most important issue any of us (with the possible exception of the author) will ever face but each person must decide whether to start down the slippery slope.  I can't claim that I always get it right and in certain more complex circumstances one might be willing to forgive an untruth but here there is no compelling reason to understand why the untruths occurred and there is no reason to forgive other than the entertainment value of the book.  Thats not nearly enough for me.

[Dan Kelly]

Dan:  come on, don't bail on me now!

But I understand.  Sides aren't tending to budge at all in this issue.  Such happens in here.  Oh well.

But maybe, if you want to take a couple more whacks at the wall, well....

Did you read Greatest Game?

If so, did you notice errors in it?

That seems to be the real sticking point between me and Dan King.  If errors are in that book - and he sure pointed them out to me years ago when this first came up - they seemed so inconsequential and so trivial that well... I couldn't see getting that hot and bothered about it.

I guess I have no absolute love for the truth.

TH

Tom IV --

Since you asked me not to leave ...

This is my last whack at the wall. Really, my head felt so much better for a few minutes there; I owe it to myself to stop.

The reason you have so much trouble explaining your "position," as you put it in your post to Mr. Solow, is that you don't *have* a position that makes any sense.

Inaccuracies bother you -- but they don't really. Sometimes they do; sometimes they don't.

"I have no absolute love for the truth" is the closest you've come to articulating a coherent position. And I accept that. Thanks for your honesty.

I DO have an absolute love for the truth. It's my business, and usually my pleasure, to have it.

Mr. King has it; Mr. Solow has it; Mr. Shefchik has it; Mr. Pazin has it; Bob "He Told Me Once to Call Him Bob" Huntley has it. Others have it, I'm sure -- and many others don't. (Note to self: Duh.)

I did read "The Greatest Game." I was not particularly bothered by any of the factual inaccuracies Dan King cited -- because I was not aware of them. When he pointed them out, they bothered me.

What bothered me originally -- feel free to read my comments In that original thread -- is that Mr. Frost did not disclose, till the Afterword (or whatever it was called) that he had embellished the truth. He and his publisher let the reader believe that the reader was reading a work of history -- not a work of historical fiction.

Had he labeled it, up front, "historical fiction," I'd have had no trouble with it. My absolute love for the truth would have been perfectly content with being told the absolute truth that what I was reading was a work of imagination, not history. (Of course, that would not have excused the ACTUAL historical errors Dan King pointed out.) Historical fiction must, first, be historical.

You say it was obvious and abundantly clear to you that it was fiction, in that Mr. Frost had gotten inside the minds of the participants. Well, guess what! It's possible to do that (sometimes) if one does exhaustive enough research.

Have you ever watched one of Ken Burns's documentaries? He gets inside the minds of his "characters" via good old research -- reading their diaries, and their letters, and their published works, and newspaper accounts, and other books.

That is all for me.

Dan

[PThomas]

But there is no way of knowing if it is new historical facts or just information coming from Frost's imagination.

this thought made me equate this book with the movie JFK, which tells a lot of non-truths behind the assassination

[JohnV]

There is a really interesting article in the Autumn edition of The Wilson Quarterly by Max Byrd who was commissioned to write a "historical novel" about Thomas Jefferson.  Unfortunately it isn't on the web.  But, he makes the point that even in fiction that is based on history, the writer must get the little details correct.  Before he wrote it, he had to figure out how to write a historical novel as he had just written detective fiction before.  He offers the following example:

But, there is another sense in which the writer of historical fiction wants to be realistic.  Perhaps the single most interesting and suggestive fact I know about novels is this: When he was writing Tom Jones, Henry Fielding set a scene on November 28, 1745, not long after sunset, as, according to the novel, the full moon rose.  Historical records show that there was indeed a full moon on November 28, 1745, and that it rose at just the time Fielding had it rise.  In his biography of the novelist, Wilbur Cross confirms that "Fielding, in his aim to give an air of perfect reality to Tom Jones, actually consulted an almanac for his sun and moon."  This is an amazing thing to ponder - why would Fielding go to so much trouble? ...

One answer may be that the ultimate goal of the novelist, any novelist, is not "creation" or "creativity" as those words are so carelessly used.  The goal is mimesis - imitation so complete and faithful to experience, so widely connected to the larger order of things, even of sun, moon and stars, that imitation at its furthest point of accuracy passes over and becomes truth.

If a novelist can show such depth of caring, why can't someone is purportedly writing non-fiction? And why shouldn't he be held to an even higher standard?

[Rick Shefchik]

As an alluded-to writer who has participated in this thread, I simply want to say that I have made mistakes when writing about facts, and it has mortified me -- every single time. I die a little when I make a mistake.

I don't envy Mark Frost. Not one iota.

[Sean Leary]

I am reading it now, and it is not nearly as good as "Greatest Game". I haven't finished yet, but I am almost positive that the "Highway 1" reference came from the reviewer, not the author.

[Tom Huckaby]

Dan Kelly:

Thanks for the final whack.  That does help.  And I guess in the end, it does come down to this:

I have a relative love for the truth, not an absolute one like you and the others you name.  I do sincerely believe there's a time and a place to be persnickety, and none of Frost's books merit that level for me.

All the rest truly matters not.

But again, thanks for boiling it down.

Shel:  thanks for your efforts also.  But our differences also come down to your absolute love for the truth and my relative love for such.  When someone says Ouimet hit a cleek on a hole in 1913 and it really was a rut iron, well that doesn't bug me, because I don't know for sure and I really don't care... but if someone says Highway 1 runs by ther side of 18 at CPC, well that does bug me because I know that's not true and damn likely never was.


Some facts matter to me, some don't.  I live a pretty light existence.

Maybe that makes sense to you, maybe it doesn't.  I will say I am pretty happy with the way I look at things... as I'm sure you are as well.

Vive' l'difference.

TH

[Jason Topp]

I've read this thread with interest but little enthusiasm for either side of the debate.  That has changed after reading the arguments here, reading the book and reflecting on my life experiences.

I read the book without knowing and without having much interest in determining whether Frost got his facts right or, at a minimum, made the necessary effort to get them right.  However, upon reading the Appendix, I was astounded to learn that, after Cypress point , Mackenzie "enjoyed a career renaissance, traveling around the globe designing courses that are still regarded among the finest in the world:  Crystal Downs, Royal Melbourne, the Valley Club, Lahinch and Pasatiempo." (Appendix, p. 247)

I'm not a Mackenzie expert by any means but this assertion cannot withstand 20 minutes of research.

First - at least two of the listed courses predated Cypress.
Cypress opened in 1928.  Mackenzie travelled to Australia in 1926.  Mackenzie's last trip to Lahinch was in 1927.  It is unclear to me whether the Valley Club pre or post dated Cypress.  

Second - Mackenzie did not travel the globe to design courses after Cypress Point, at least he does not appear to have done significant design work out of the US after 1928.  
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/opinionbeck.html  

Finally - I think it is tough to charecterize Cypress as spurring a career renaissance.  It looks like he was busy on many great designs before and during Cypress as he was afterwards.

Failure to check readily available facts is inexcusable, particularly in a book where Mr. Frost asserts that the facts are based on either firsthand accounts of events or memoirs.  (Notes on Writing - 249-50)

I also think it is important even though the subject here is decidedly not important.  First off - you never know when a misstated fact is important.  I'm a lawyer and have watched reporters at the competing papers in my city disagree with each other regarding who won cases I litigated.  (They could have called me to confirm I lost).  I have also seen reporters take the most readily available take on a story without considering the perspectives of both sides.  I have seen halfhearted efforts to get the facts right cost people their credibility, cost their employers millions of dollars and create embarassment for everyone involved.  During clinics in law school, I saw police reports that were loosely based on fact, not because of any malice on the part of the officer but rather because of laziness.  

Anyway  - I've decided I'm on Dan's side on this one.  Frost's failure to make sure this simple sentence was acccurate sheds significant doubt on the accuracy of his book.

[Tom Huckaby]

Jason:

I'm not sure you're on Dan's "side", given I have never doubted there are historical errors in Frost's books.  That's not what we are taking sides about.  If the issue is "are there errors", then put me on the side of YES for sure also!  But I don't think that was the argument here.

The argument remains how much these errors matter.

Because you see, this sentence about Mackenzie would bug me also.  Note I haven't read this book.

But it also changes none of the points I've made.  This bugs me, but arcane details about what he said or she said or what club he used or which way a hole went in the 1913 Ouiment match don't.

I've said all along I sure as hell don't rely on Frost for history.  And yes it's pretty sad that he characterizes these as non-fiction.

But to me, "Greatest Game" remains a fun, harmless read.

Thus my "relative" love for the truth.

One thing's for sure:  I can certainly undertand how those with absolute love for the truth dislike Frost as an author.

TH

[Jason Topp]

Jason:

The argument remains how much these errors matter.

Tom - I agree with this framing of the issue and I struggled with it a bit, in part because of how much I too enjoyed the Ouimet book.

I have no problem with an author making a mistake.  What I have a big problem with, however, is an author not making a reasonable effort to determine the accuracy of his work.  

One could not make the Mackenzie mistakes if one made any sort of reasonable effort.  

I think that accuracy is important even if the topic is not.

[Tom Huckaby]

Jason:  fair enough.  So it would seem you have an absolute love for the truth as well.

I do not.

Again, I could care less how much effort a writer makes to accurately get each club used correct in a 1913 match, or how much effort he goes to to determine the color of one of the player's trousers, or the effort gone to to determine other details I see as trivial.  But I do care if he mischaracterizes an architect's body of work.

Certain things matter to me more than others.

But again, vive l'difference!

TH

[Dan King]

Tom, maybe you should go back and read the earlier threads. The argument wasn't so much about his making up quotes or picking the wrong club. The bigger issue was his getting easily verifiable information, such as Vardon's record or MacKenzie's work, wrong. This is why it first came up was his mention of Mackenzie's work redesigning Gaston prior to 1896 and that there was a course at Muirfield prior to the Honourable Company building a course there. At the time you thought these were trivial details. Now you are creating a new argument about the color of someone's trousers.

If Cypress Point suddenly makes Mackenzie a world-famous architect, doesn't that make The Match a better story? So what difference does it make if it wasn't true?

Cheers,
Grandan King

Facts are many, but the truth is one.
 --Rabindranath Tagore

[Tom Huckaby]

Grandan:

In the discussions of "Greatest Game", what you saw as easily verifiable information he got wrong, as I saw as trivialities.

So I didn't care if he failed to verify them.

And I still don't.

But I do care if he totally mischaracterizes Mackenzie, as he seems to in the instance Jason lists.

I realize this makes little sense to you, but you are among those who have an absolute love for the truth, and I am not.

And this is just one of those binary things... we're never goint to see this eye to eye.

Which to me is just fine.  

TH

[Bob_Huntley]

Grandan:

In the discussions of "Greatest Game", what you saw as easily verifiable information he got wrong, as I saw as trivialities.

But I do care if he totally mischaracterizes Mackenzie, as he seems to in the instance Jason lists.


TH

Thomas,

Trivialities to you, might well be something of importance to me. It would seem to me that Frost needs to attend a class given by Dan Kelly and told that the details count.

Bob

[Tom Huckaby]

Bob:

I fully understand that trivialities to me may well be very important to you and to many others.

But that doesn't change the fact that I enjoyed Greatest Game, and that I will continue to look on the truth in a relative fashion.

Again, vive l'difference.

TH

[Dan King]

Tom Huckaby writes:
I realize this makes little sense to you, but you are among those who have an absolute love for the truth, and I am not.

Originally that was our argument. But what now makes little sense to me is the inconsistency of your argument. To you, it was important Frost gets Mackenzie's late career right, but trivial that he get his early career right. Who knows why you make this distinction. Only you could tell us the difference and you haven't yet.

Trivial to Tom: Mackenzie redesigned Gaston prior to 1896. (absolutely wrong.)
Important to Tom: Following Cypress Point, Mackenzie enjoyed a career renaissance. (arguable)

This has nothing to do with love or lack of love of truth, this just shows an inconsistency that makes no sense.

Cheers,
Grandan King

We despise all reverences and all objects of reverence which are outside the pale of our list of sacred things and yet, with strange inconsistency, we are shocked when other people despise and defile the things which are holy for us.
 --Mark Twain

[Dan Kelly]

I'm hoping that this thread just goes on and on and on, ad infinitum -- for one reason, and one reason only:

I want to read every last one of Dan King's fantastic signature quotations. That Twain line is one for the ages.

Speaking of twain, and their never meeting -- inspired by the reference to things "binary":

Did you know that there are only 10 kinds of people in the world? Those who understand the binary system, and those who don't.

As the French say: Vive la difference!

[Tom Huckaby]

Dan:

When one deals in absolutes, it easy to be consistent.

Mine is a relative position so of course it will seem inconsistent to you.  That's because by it's very nature it IS inconsistent.

And I continue to have no problem with it.  It makes sense to me.  I also fully understand how it makes little sense to you.

TH

[Tom Huckaby]

I'm hoping that this thread just goes on and on and on, ad infinitum -- for one reason, and one reason only:

I want to read every last one of Dan King's fantastic signature quotations. That Twain line is one for the ages.

Speaking of twain, and their never meeting -- inspired by the reference to things "binary":

Did you know that there are only 10 kinds of people in the world? Those who understand the binary system, and those who don't.

As the French say: Vive la difference!

Well Dan K. II (King was here way before you, so you get II), your wish may be fulfilled if you guys keep trying to convince me to become a an absolute lover of the truth, and tell me how much I shouldn't have liked Greatest Game.

I too enjoy Dan K. I's quotes... and I appreciate the French spelling correction.  I have very little knowledge of that language, sadly.

TH

Tom Huckaby, to Dan Kelly:  Bite me.  Relatively, not absolutely.

 

[Dan King]

Tom Huckaby writes:
And I continue to have no problem with it.  It makes sense to me.  I also fully understand how it makes little sense to you.

So help us Tom, why is Mackenzie's early fictional career trivial but his fictional career late important?

Cheers,
Grandan King

He knows nothing; he thinks he knows everything - that clearly points to a political career.
 --George Bernard Shaw

[Tom Huckaby]

Grandan:

No explanation I could possibly give you will make sense to you.  Thus I shall not try.

But I assure you that's my inconsistent position on this.

TH

Some things are neither meant to be explained nor understood.
 - Tom Huckaby

[George Pazin]

Huck, you can put the whole thing to bed by simply saying you really enjoy Frost's fiction.

 

[Tom Huckaby]

Huck, you can put the whole thing to bed by simply saying you really enjoy Frost's fiction.

 

I really enjoy Frost's fiction.

But then again George, I've said that many times along the way.   If my inquisitors have any wish to continue, I'd be quite surprised if this puts it to bed.

TH

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()