Review of Feinstein's new book, "Open"

[Brad Klein]

In light of all the discussion here of the U.S. Open, I thought GCAers might enjoy my review of Feinstein's book about the 2002 Open. You can read it on the lead page of today's Golfweek.com.

If I were more web-capable, I could set up the direct hyperlink. Perhap someone else can.

[Mike Nuzzo]

http://www.golfweek.com/articles/2003/features/reviews/books/33813.asp

[Jeff Shelman]

Brad,

Remind me not to ever send any of my work to you to read. Talk about laying the smack down.

[Dan Kelly]

Mr. Klein --

I humbly suggest that you change the headline to "A Good Book Spoiled."

[Carlyle Rood]

I enjoyed the book.  If you're looking for a blow-by-blow account of the U.S. Open, then you'll certainly be disappointed.  Nevertheless, I found all the background information very entertaining.  Particularly amusing is the dialog with Rees Jones regarding his "fee."

I thought the cited errors in the book were superficial.  (I noted one error in the review--and it was only ONE page!)

I've really enjoyed Feinstein's books over the years.  This is NOT his best work.  It's likely not in his top five.  Regardless, I'd still recommend it.  Borrowing from Siskel and the deceased Ebert, I'd have to give it a thumbs up.

[Brad Swanson]

Sigh :-/  This one is already in the big brown truck on its way from Amazon to my front door.  Oh well.

Cheers,
Brad Swanson

[Kevin_Reilly]

Nothing personal to Brad, but I thought the book was a decent read, like most of Feinstein's stuff.  I don't worry about nits too much.  Every movie has 'em, and guys on the internet go nuts trying to find everything wrong in popular movies.  The printed media has nits as well....for example, in the 7th paragraph of the review, "principles" should have been "principals." That didn't bother me...I was able to enjoy the review as well.  

[Phil_the_Author]

Brad,

I am just now starting to read it.

The most difficult thing for a good reviewer to do, despite what many readers may believe, is write an honest opinion that takes what he is reviewing to task.

A good writer must learn to accept that negative reviews of his work can be among the best of things. They are something to be learned from and used as a means of inspiration to grow in the craft. I hope John learns from your words.

[Brad Klein]

Kevin, all authors make mistakes here and there. I don't worry too much about that, though it's the job of proof readers and fact checkers to reduce those. Feinstein's book is overwhelmed by them - though not quite to the extent of "A Good Walk Spoiled," which is filled with dozens of mistakes about the game he covers. There's a point at which occasional mistakes add up to sloppy journalism. If all writers took a cavalier attitude, then readers would be in trouble, even if they didn't know it.

In a political world today in which lying is seen as acceptable if it gets you ahead, there still seems a place for adherence to the truth.

I don't think Feinstein's mistakes are politically dangerous, and I certainly don't think they are as consequential. This is, all, only golf. But the point of any serious writer or critic - which is not the same as a causal reader - is to point these out. Maybe it's my training as an academic, though I think it's my regard for journalism. His books might make for a good read, but I think it's a good read spoiled. Obviously you are free to dismiss this is as overdone on my part. I just think it's appropriate to put it out there for consideration.

[Robert_Walker]

Brad is right. I have heard about photographers who have been fired for misspelling peoples' names in captions.
Petty as it may seem to nit pick these errors, it does make one wonder whether major factual mistakes were made.
For instance, Feinstein uses Hannigan as his source for information regarding Harry Easterly's departure from the USGA, and he presents Hannigan's version as undisputed fact.
Many people that I know dispute his version.
I read bits and pieces at a friend's house, and I must say that Feinstein sugarcoats ALL of the people that HE deals with in the book, and he did the same in a good walked spoiled. This gets old.

[John_Conley]

I love Feinstein's books, so I'm sure I'll read it.  His best in my opinion is Last Amateurs.  Anyway, "turnabout is fair play", so can we expect a Feinstein review of Rough Meditations sometime soon?  

[Two-Ball]

If one reviewer found all those mistakes in one read how can you trust anything Feinstein states as fact? You can't. How can you assume he gets the big stuff right when the small stuff is wrong?

[Carlyle Rood]

None of the cited errors materially changes the story.

[Dan Kelly]

How can you assume he gets the big stuff right when the small stuff is wrong?

Here's my advice:

Don't "assume" that any writer ever gets the big stuff right.

Some do most of the time. Some do some of the time. Some do none of the time.

Some are smarter than others. Some are more careful than others.

Make your own judgments.

Over time, writers tend to reveal themselves -- as smart or not, careful or not.

I'm more or less with Brad Klein (and Ludwig Mies van der Rohe) on this one: "God is in the details." I find it very disturbing -- but not at all surprising, based on my experience with publishing-house so-called "editors" -- when I find a bunch of small errors in a book.

Even if Feinstein gets all of the big stuff right (and I haven't read the book, so I don't know -- and I'm not sure I'd know even if I did read it!), and even if none of the plethora of little errors changes the story "materially,"  the little errors are legitimately criticized, because they tend to undermine the whole effort ... the same way one bad hole, or a couple of Stupid Trees, or a few misplaced bunkers undermine an otherwise-admirable golf course.

Luckily for Feinstein, his errors are more easily (and much less expensively!) remedied than those of a golf-course architect.

It'll be interesting to see if the next printing, or the paperback edition, contains the same mistakes.

[Jeff Goldman]

I agree with Robert Walker about Feinstein's portraits of golfers in both A Good Walk Spoiled and The Majors.  They are monotonous applications of "The Whig Interpretation of History" i.e., everyone (except John Daly) is decent, honorable, reaching high, overcoming life's challenges, advancing foward........and totally blah.

The interesting parts of his books are the "inside baseball," and it appears from Mr. Klein's review that it may be worth reading for that, albeit with grains of salt.  (is this a record for mixed metaphors?)

Jeff Goldman

[Bob_Huntley]

Carlyle Rood.

Siskel is dead, Ebert alive and well!

Dan Kelly.

Like you I hate mistakes in books that I have spent good money buying.

I bought a rather expensive golf book a few years ago and found an error, called the publisher(SBP), who in turn called the author. We had a chat and a correction was made and since that time we have become good friends. I did some proof reading of a well known writer for a couple of his books and found a few niggling mistakes, which although minor in nature, would be annoying to a knowledgeable reader.

[George Pazin]

Errors aside, I haven't found this on all that compelling thus far (maybe 70 pages in).

My way of rating books is as follows: I start reading 4 or 5, picking up & putting down as interest waxes & wanes. If I finish a book, especially without putting it down for another, it's a darn good book.

I've already put this one down numerous times - don't know when I'll pick it up again. I made it through The Majors & A Good Walk Spoiled relatively quickly.

Smooth sailing through Rough Meditations & Brad's Ross book as well.

This rating method does not work well with fiction (or golf courses).

[David Kelly]

I just don't find Feinstein's books to be very interesting no matter what the subject.  As Brad wrote, he churns out his books very quickly (at least 13 since 1990) and he relies on a formula that becomes tiresome after a while. I question how much research, as opposed to interviews, that he really does for these things.  

He is known by his colleagues as someone who is always chasing the buck but I wish that he would slow down and put his narrative skills to work on a substantial, well-researched book.

[John_Conley]

David:

Last Amateurs is such a great subject, I presume you didn't read that.  The fact that he devoted time to such an obscure collegiate conference was enough for me.  If you haven't read it, I highly recommend it.  You will look at March Madness with a whole new outlook and realize - once again - what a joke big-time college sports have become.

[Rick Shefchik]

Brad:

I just finished the book, and will probably review it for the St. Paul Pioneer Press. I noticed a few of the mistakes you pointed out; most went right past me, and wouldn't have made much difference in my appreciation of the book. I agree with your assertion that most of the cast were not well developed personalities. I think had Feinstein winnowed down the list to perhaps Fay, Catalano, Currier and Meeks, he could have told the same story in a more interesting way. As it was, he seemed to be trying to fit too many people into a story that gets better the more narrowly you focus it.

For me the most interesting part was Feinstein's account of how NBC went from off the radar screen to a broadcast golf dynasty, surpassing the smug ABC -- and how it never would have happened had they not been able to convince Johnny Miller to move into the booth. (Now, I'm taking Feinstein's word that this is the way it happened; some on this board may know better. But the account of ABC being stunned at losing the Open to upstart NBC certainly has the ring of truth.)

To those who have already ordered or bought the book, I suggest reading it anyway; despite the errors and the lack of focus, there are bound to be details and quick character studies that you find to be worth your while. I concur with Brad's overall assessment, however: If Feinstein is going to crank them out this fast, he's got to improve on the story-telling and the accuracy.

  

[Brad Klein]

Rick, a very fair assessment. Had I been writing for Golfweek instead of Superintendent News, I might have covered more of the media component. It does make for interesting reading, and it's obvious in his account that Feinstein has little regard for Hannigan's (curmudgeonly) role in all of this. He does have good material on the behid the scenes negotiations; it is certainly more interesting than the minute details of toilets and security guards.

By the way, we all make mistakes - in Golfweek we make them, but we also agonize over them, kick ourselves, and make sure we figure out how they could have happened. It's an embarassment that any journalist should learn from.

[Mr._B]

Brad Klein
Did you review "the evangelist of golf"? I recall more than a few errors...did you point these out? I found the macdonald book very interesting...but the writing was not quite up to par with the material.

[Brad Klein]

I did not do a formal review of "The Evangelist of Golf" because it was published in the same series by the same publisher as my Ross book, and so it's best to avoid what might look like a conflict of sympathies. I did note on this website the use of duplicate photos - a very poor decision by my way of thinking. - as well as some other issues that disappointed me somewhat. But the fact that Bahto gets the Crimean War three decades later than it actually happened (p. 90) doesn't affect his account of The Redan or my appeciation of his knowledge.

[Mr._B]

Brad Klein

I understand.

Is it awkward for an author to also be a critic? I would think it might be....personally I like the idea.....who has greater insight and knowledge....plus I imagine it makes your own work better. I agree with your take on the book and Feinstein....his greatest strength in my opinion...promotional genius.

[Mr._B]

please don't misunderstand me....I like the idea of golf writers critiquing other golf writers...I also love Bahto's work...I just thought he might have used a ghost writer.