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.


Jim Nugent

Re: The August 4, 1951 Issue of The New Yorker
« Reply #25 on: March 21, 2011, 03:32:25 PM »
Guys, I have to take the contrarian view.  Pithy rules.  Short sentences.  One thought per sentence, if possible.  Short, elemental words.  Action verbs. 

I read Elements of Style.  But the book I recommend writers read each year is "How to Write, Speak and Think More Effectively," by Rudolph Flesch.  It will make your writing sharper, more powerful and easier to understand. 

Dan Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The August 4, 1951 Issue of The New Yorker
« Reply #26 on: March 21, 2011, 03:48:45 PM »
Guys, I have to take the contrarian view.  Pithy rules.  Short sentences.  One thought per sentence, if possible.  Short, elemental words.  Action verbs. 

I read Elements of Style.  But the book I recommend writers read each year is "How to Write, Speak and Think More Effectively," by Rudolph Flesch.  It will make your writing sharper, more powerful and easier to understand. 

There are great writers of various sorts. Some write simply; some don't. I wouldn't trust any writing expert who didn't acknowledge as much.

Rudolf Flesch -- author of "Why Johnny Can't Read" and originator of the Flesch–Kincaid readability test (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flesch%E2%80%93Kincaid_readability_test) -- was the writing consultant to my first employer out of college. I spent a day with him in 1976, at Prentice-Hall's HQ, in Englewood Cliffs, N.J. He read -- and critiqued -- a bunch of the articles I'd written. His overall judgment was memorably succinct: "Too much Harvard. Not enough Kalamazoo."

Of course, we were writing for busy professionals, who hadn't time for our highfalutin college-boy nonsense. "I'm a busy man. Get to the point!" So Flesch's advice was right on the money (pun belatedly recognized -- and apologized for).

He was advising, too, against the kind of bureaucratic doublespeak and gobbledygook that have plagued us all for generations -- and that are always wasteful of time and money.

If you ask me (and you didn't need to!): Fleschianism has a place in this world -- but count me with Peter Pallotta in ruing the day we go the way of all-Flesch.

"There's no money in doing less." -- Joe Hancock, 11/25/2010
"Rankings are silly and subjective..." -- Tom Doak, 3/12/2016

BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The August 4, 1951 Issue of The New Yorker
« Reply #27 on: March 21, 2011, 03:50:00 PM »
Peter/Dan -

One of the remarkable things about David Foster Walllace is off topic reflections done through footnotes. I don't know if he invented it - it's always been a function of footnotes, perhaps - but DFW took it to another level. To the extent that he holds togther parallel themes concurrently. Brilliant stuff.  See essays in Consider the Lobster.

I've often thought that the DFW footnote system would work well in essays on golf architecture. Because there are so many themes that weave in and out.

In more traditional essay forms, I too enjoy an author wandering a bit. But just a bit. As a matter of personal taste, he'd better have something to say in his diversions. I tend to turn the page if it sounds like merely showing off.

Bob
« Last Edit: March 21, 2011, 04:33:35 PM by BCrosby »

JMEvensky

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The August 4, 1951 Issue of The New Yorker
« Reply #28 on: March 21, 2011, 04:08:48 PM »


There are great writers of various sorts. Some write simply; some don't. I wouldn't trust any writing expert who didn't acknowledge as much.


I'm going to join you and Peter P at camp.A bad writer can't write succintly enough.But,for me at least,a good writer can digress almost as much as he wants.It's as though the writing itself begins to trump the subject material.When a good writer gets in the zone,I like to go along for the ride--wherever it goes.

Rick Shefchik

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The August 4, 1951 Issue of The New Yorker
« Reply #29 on: March 21, 2011, 04:12:02 PM »
I'm currently reading "The Egyptologist" by Arthur Phillips -- Harvard guy from Minneapolis, by the way. He's a phenomenally gifted writer, the kind who pisses you off because he has talent rather than just ability. But it was a 50-50 proposition that I'd finish the book, until I'd waded through enough of his brilliant asides, drawn-out digressions and superfluous but elegantly handled detail to become thoroughly hooked on the plot.

I'm going to finish it because I really want to know how it ends, and how much he's been naratively toying with me. He has dreamed up a wonderfully twisted, original plot, but almost buried it with his own brilliance, like putting too many sequins on a little black dress. I like little black dresses.    
"Golf is 20 percent mechanics and technique. The other 80 percent is philosophy, humor, tragedy, romance, melodrama, companionship, camaraderie, cussedness and conversation." - Grantland Rice

Dan Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The August 4, 1951 Issue of The New Yorker
« Reply #30 on: March 21, 2011, 04:14:54 PM »
He has dreamed up a wonderfully twisted, original plot, but almost buried it with his own brilliance, like putting too many sequins on a little black dress. I like little black dresses.    

Good simile, Rick. Hardest thing to pull off, IMO.

Of course, the key words are "too many."

Sequins can be nice, too -- as I'm sure you'd agree.

God and the Devil are both in the details.
"There's no money in doing less." -- Joe Hancock, 11/25/2010
"Rankings are silly and subjective..." -- Tom Doak, 3/12/2016

David Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The August 4, 1951 Issue of The New Yorker
« Reply #31 on: March 21, 2011, 04:20:01 PM »
Question for the writers.  Has anyone approached McFarland ( http://www.mcfarlandpub.com/ ) about publishing a golf book?  They publish a ton of sports books, especially on baseball ( http://www.mcfarlandpub.com/searches/browse_all_categories2.php?cat=Sport+%26+Leisure%2FBaseball ). 

I don't know if they are the place to go to publish a folio style book because their retail cost is pretty expensive.
"Whatever in creation exists without my knowledge exists without my consent." - Judge Holden, Blood Meridian.

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The August 4, 1951 Issue of The New Yorker
« Reply #32 on: March 21, 2011, 04:43:15 PM »
There is an argument to be made that the essay is the greatest form of literature or so I have been told.  If this case can be made then it seems almost obligatory that a writer be allowed, encouraged even, to drift if it be with purpose.  Darwin did this wonderfully and yet seems to bring the reader back to the point just before he asks WTF?  There is nobody quite like Darwin.

I am not quite sure why Dickinson never achieved true fame in golf circles, but he was just as good a writer as Darwin even if I find myself Googling his songs, quotes etc. perhaps a bit too much.  That though can be attributed to generational differences not only in style, but in choice of quotable material.  I know I have stated many a time that the best writers do it without photos etc, but Dickinson's drawings are charmingly funny yet ever so accurate in the meanings they convey.  I can't think of A Round of Courses without pairing the text and drawings.

Ciao   
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Dan Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The August 4, 1951 Issue of The New Yorker
« Reply #33 on: March 21, 2011, 04:57:44 PM »
Our times....

Just coincidentally, this is today's most-e-mailed story at nyt.com: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/20/opinion/20selsberg.html?ref=homepage&src=me&pagewanted=print

It's too long, with too many adverbs and too little Kalamazoo.

I'll send it back for revisions.
"There's no money in doing less." -- Joe Hancock, 11/25/2010
"Rankings are silly and subjective..." -- Tom Doak, 3/12/2016

Jim Nugent

Re: The August 4, 1951 Issue of The New Yorker
« Reply #34 on: March 21, 2011, 05:24:15 PM »
Just to clarify: I'm not for short essays or copy.  Tell your story with as much copy as you need.  That could mean hundreds or thousands of pages, if it's fascinating. 

Peter Pallotta

Re: The August 4, 1951 Issue of The New Yorker
« Reply #35 on: March 21, 2011, 05:55:50 PM »
Yes, DFW was a wonderful talent. And Darwin too: as Sean says, he seemed able to intuit exactly when his audience would start wondering WTF? about one of his digressions and always veer back to the main subject/theme just in the nick of time (while leaving us to realize -- a page or two later -- that the digression wasn't in fact a digression at all, but an enrichment and a deepening of the essay as a whole).  As in gca, it's the WHOLE that really matters, not the individual elements/techniques or even the individual holes/sentences/words. (To borrow from a previous thread, the HEART takes it all in, as a piece; while it's the HEAD that insists on breaking up the finished work to be able to judge it and rank it and compare it; but, as an old saying goes, it is the foolish man who breaks apart that which he loves in order to find out how it works.)  That's the thing, isn't it, with writers like Darwin: as in gca, there is for writers a little something called TALENT -- and said talent makes all rules and guidelines and conventional wisdom superfluous (or at least, it leaves discussion-board posters like me to discuss and debate those rules and conventional wisdom).   The thing is, no one can really describe or manufacture talent; it just IS.  And the products that talent produces simply WORKS, as a whole; it serves its purpose. I think that's why I wish I had been a good golfer and tried to make it on Tour: there, talent is QUANTIFIABLE, your SCORE being clear cut and obvious; and there is no editor or publisher or critic who can deny or diminish the talent in your eyes.

Dan - thanks for the kind hearted and gentle critque of my last post.  (That "I wonder how many of our fellow GCAers -- even those who've been reading this thread -- gave up on your paragraph about halfway through it" was very well done!)
« Last Edit: March 21, 2011, 05:59:59 PM by PPallotta »

Ian Andrew

Re: The August 4, 1951 Issue of The New Yorker
« Reply #36 on: March 21, 2011, 06:24:12 PM »
Ian Andrew will also be interested to know that Jones told Wind for the piece that one of the things he had done for Thompson was the routing plan for Capilano, which has been lauded here as a great example of Thompson's routing talent.

I hate to get in the way of a good story.... but the three posts below contradict his version.

The clubs view:

In July 1932, Taylor had a business meeting in New York’s legendary Waldorf-Astoria Hotel with Stanley G. Thompson of Thompson-Jones and Co. Golf and Landscape Architects with offices in Toronto and Rochester, New York. They had met briefly in Manhattan the previous summer, and although he had not yet seen the site, Thompson had agreed to take on the job of designing a golf course on the rugged mountainside. With spectacular mountain courses at Jasper and Banff already on his list of credentials, the Canadian-born Thompson was considered to be one of North America’s premier golf architects, and Taylor wanted nothing less for his British Properties’ showpiece. For the next four years, while the course was under construction, Taylor and Thompson would hold occasional meetings in New York, with decisions made there and relayed back to British Pacific Properties’ Resident Manager John Anderson and Course Superintendent Stan Conway.

Taylor had hired J. F. Dawson, of Olmsted Brothers, Landscape Architects of Brookline, Mass., to work with Thompson, another move that underscored Taylor’s penchant for hiring nothing but the best. Olmsted Brothers was the first company ever to register as “Landscape Architects,” justifying their craft by designing the layout of New York’s Central Park and also the grounds of the White House.

 In February of 1932, Thompson visited the West Vancouver site and put his course design on paper while Conway had his crew at work on the awesome task of turning a mountain wilderness into a golf course nestled in one of the world’s most beautiful settings. Photos taken at the time pictured the crude swath being laboriously hacked through great piles of stumps and shattered rock. The flat rock promontory that still showed the scars of the fire that had destroyed Hadden Hall was left untouched for the moment, awaiting the construction of the clubhouse.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2011, 06:54:14 PM by Ian Andrew »

Ian Andrew

Re: The August 4, 1951 Issue of The New Yorker
« Reply #37 on: March 21, 2011, 06:41:15 PM »


(Shown above) clockwise from top left: J.T. Watson, Landscape Architect; Stanley Thompson, Course Architect; John Anderson, Property Manager; A. J. T. Taylor, BPP Director; and Stan Conway, Engineer.

The 15th hole during the time mentioned


The 10th green
« Last Edit: March 21, 2011, 06:44:34 PM by Ian Andrew »

Ian Andrew

Re: The August 4, 1951 Issue of The New Yorker
« Reply #38 on: March 21, 2011, 06:50:20 PM »
Jones told Wind for the piece that one of the things he had done for Thompson was the routing plan for Capilano

This comes from my notes from the correspondence and records
It's a bit out of order but you"ll follow the gist.

Stanley Thompson sent a January 2nd, 1936 telegraph to John Anderson discussing his visit to Capilano, “Expect arrive Vancouver fifteenth instant spending several weeks west coast stop. ………”He obviously spent three weeks working on the construction and seeding of the course. I think each trip was likely of this duration due to the travel time and the limited number of visits he made.

His fees were $732 per visit “including all traveling expenses.” Each visit require four nights on a train in either direction. So three weeks actually meant 12-13 days on site. An interesting note was from those fees had commissions he received from the purchase of goods for the course (like grass seed) deducted from the total. He was not handsomely paid for Capilano and in fact had to send a letter in September 24th, 1938 still trying to collect $253.75 for the last payment.

In a letter on March 9th 1936 he states, “….I am coming to Vancouver in the end of March and I will spend three or four weeks during seeding time to supervising same and flashing the bunkers and greens. This will put the course beyond the tampering stage as regards to the architecture." Again it is clear that Thompson has from 12 to 18 days on site on this visit.

We know Stanley Thompson went to West Vancouver in the spring of 1933 to inspect the site “and had his course design on paper.” Clearing began immediately under the direction of Stan Conway (they first cleared centerlines and worked out), so we can assume this trip began construction. When we look at the pay days we discover there is no record of him being paid in 1933, but he was paid in April 20th 1932. I personally think this is an error in the book Hathstauwk since he first met Taylor at the Waldorf Astoria in July of 1932. The pay date should read April 20th, 1933. This was obviously the visit to the site that produced the routing of the course. He submitted construction plans in June of 1933 (this did include irrigation drawings - clearly referred to in another letter).

Using the notes for pay, his next visit came on October 24th 1934. The clearing at Capilano was absolutely brutal and I would bet that little actual course construction began until 1936. The site had to be cleared of massive trees (some of the stumps can still be seen and are 6-8 feet across. The site was also full of rock outcrops and strewn with boulders too. Just cleaning up after clearing must have been the bulk of the work judging by the photos.

His next visit was November 9th, 1935, followed quickly by a visit on January 31st, 1936. He was fully the golf course construction and was supervising the green contours and bunker shaping on these trips. He wrote 12 pages of Finishing Notes on February 4th, 1936 that outlined all the work he wanted completed on each hole to finish the golf course. Much to my chagrin, he included a great deal of suggestion on planting and even produced an extensive planting plan for the course. Play began in the late summer of 1936.

Near as I can tell Stanley only visited the site 4 times, once to route the course, once to supervise clearing and twice during the golf course construction. He spent about two weeks on average on the property for an estimated total of 60 days.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2011, 06:55:34 PM by Ian Andrew »

Dan Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The August 4, 1951 Issue of The New Yorker
« Reply #39 on: March 21, 2011, 08:06:19 PM »
I wish I had been a good golfer and tried to make it on Tour: there, talent is QUANTIFIABLE, your SCORE being clear cut and obvious; and there is no editor or publisher or critic who can deny or diminish the talent in your eyes.

Aside from all of the other, obvious superiorities of golf, that is one reason I was so pleased when my daughter chose golf over basketball as the place to apply her head and her heart.

No oblivious coaches valueing style over substance!
"There's no money in doing less." -- Joe Hancock, 11/25/2010
"Rankings are silly and subjective..." -- Tom Doak, 3/12/2016

astavrides

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The August 4, 1951 Issue of The New Yorker
« Reply #40 on: March 22, 2011, 03:07:45 AM »
Soil issues for Marine Park can probably be explained by a five letter word--MAFIA.  This was built in the kingdom of the mib.   The budget for the course probably never included all the payoffs that would have been involved in doing business in this neighborhood.  Ferry Piont is being built in a much less mafia controlled area--any guess on how much money has been siphoned off by the mob?

I  only played marine park once, but I found the front 9 to be as close to a flat, featureless field with 9 flags in the ground as any course I've played.  The back was slightly more interesting.  I'm guessing either there were budget issues and/or it has changed quite a bit since it was built.

Colin Macqueen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The August 4, 1951 Issue of The New Yorker
« Reply #41 on: March 22, 2011, 04:37:41 AM »
Gentlemen,

"Hmmmm. I wonder how many of our fellow GCAers -- even those who've been reading this thread -- gave up on your paragraph about halfway through it ... because it was too dense, too wordy, too much effort!" says Dan Kelly.

Not a snowball's chance in hell of this lad giving up on a sentence by Peter P. Peter, you're an incurable romantic but a man after my own heart. I think I am a golf tragic but I just thrive on good golf writing and this thread is the tops. I guess I am even more tragic in this regard!
I am intrigued by the insiders comments that the general populace is to some extent being fed pap by editors and that short is better; that is certainly my impression. The Guardian Weekly used to have good golf writers like David Davies in the 1980s who wrote pithy pieces. In hindsight that period may well have heralded the demise of really good golf writing. I just find myself wallowing in the HWW, Darwin, Longhurst and Wodehouse style of writing.

Anyway I am thoroughly enjoying this thread so thanks very much!

Cheers colin
"Golf, thou art a gentle sprite, I owe thee much"
The Hielander

Rick Shefchik

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The August 4, 1951 Issue of The New Yorker
« Reply #42 on: March 22, 2011, 10:15:52 AM »
Soil issues for Marine Park can probably be explained by a five letter word--MAFIA.  This was built in the kingdom of the mib.   The budget for the course probably never included all the payoffs that would have been involved in doing business in this neighborhood.  Ferry Piont is being built in a much less mafia controlled area--any guess on how much money has been siphoned off by the mob?

I  only played marine park once, but I found the front 9 to be as close to a flat, featureless field with 9 flags in the ground as any course I've played.  The back was slightly more interesting.  I'm guessing either there were budget issues and/or it has changed quite a bit since it was built.

The Marine park story reminds me of a Robert Trent Jones course I played on Madeline Island in Wisconsin back in 1970, just a month or so after I'd played Hazeltine for the first time. It was the same summer that Hazeltine had hosted the Open, and I was amazed by how big, brawny, sharply defined and beautifully conditioned Hazeltine was. Like the course or not, it was easy to see that it had been built for major championship play. The Madeline Island course was my second RTJ, and in a way it was a miniature Hazeltine, though as a resort-type course, it had a couple of shared fairways. But the tees were long, as Jones liked to make them, and the greens had all the contour and penal bunkering that I remembered from Hazeltine. And the course conditioning was immaculate.

Fast forward thirty years. I played Madeline Island again after it had gone through several owners, and had been closed for a while. The beautiful, tough, sporty little course that I remembered was a featureless dirt pile. It was in the same place, and still had the same elevation changes, but all other attributes I remembered from the original course were gone. It's amazing what neglect and lack of budget can do to a golf course.
"Golf is 20 percent mechanics and technique. The other 80 percent is philosophy, humor, tragedy, romance, melodrama, companionship, camaraderie, cussedness and conversation." - Grantland Rice

Ian Andrew

Re: The August 4, 1951 Issue of The New Yorker
« Reply #43 on: March 22, 2011, 06:28:25 PM »
I was suprised that I did not get a single comment on the Capilano routing rebutal.

I've found many examples of tall tales from architects in this era.
The Thompson interviews from this period are particularly hillarious, but as his step daughter said he was a story teller by nature.

David Lott

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The August 4, 1951 Issue of The New Yorker
« Reply #44 on: March 22, 2011, 06:38:00 PM »
Blame Hemingway for the short sentences.
David Lott

Andy Stamm

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The August 4, 1951 Issue of The New Yorker
« Reply #45 on: March 22, 2011, 06:50:48 PM »
Can someone post the title of the article? I'd like to read it, and I need the title to submit a loan request.

Thanks.

Dan Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The August 4, 1951 Issue of The New Yorker
« Reply #46 on: March 22, 2011, 07:23:58 PM »
Can someone post the title of the article? I'd like to read it, and I need the title to submit a loan request.

Thanks.

"Linksland and Meadowland"
"There's no money in doing less." -- Joe Hancock, 11/25/2010
"Rankings are silly and subjective..." -- Tom Doak, 3/12/2016

Peter Pallotta

Re: The August 4, 1951 Issue of The New Yorker
« Reply #47 on: March 22, 2011, 08:50:39 PM »
I was suprised that I did not get a single comment on the Capilano routing rebutal.

I've found many examples of tall tales from architects in this era.
The Thompson interviews from this period are particularly hillarious, but as his step daughter said he was a story teller by nature.

It deserved better, Ian, than to get buried in a lot of rambling. Probably like most readers, I found it very interesting and thought it deserved it's own thread...and then didn't get around to starting one.

I think I will now.

Peter

Bruce Leland

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The August 4, 1951 Issue of The New Yorker
« Reply #48 on: March 22, 2011, 09:27:51 PM »
semi off topic or not....one of the more interesting threads I have read on GCA in a while. btw, huge fan of HWW and his rambling prose.
"The mystique of Muirfield lingers on. So does the memory of Carnoustie's foreboding. So does the scenic wonder of Turnberry and the haunting incredibility of Prestwick, and the pleasant deception of Troon. But put them altogether and St. Andrew's can play their low ball for atmosphere." Dan Jenkins

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The August 4, 1951 Issue of The New Yorker
« Reply #49 on: March 22, 2011, 10:12:52 PM »
I was suprised that I did not get a single comment on the Capilano routing rebutal.

I've found many examples of tall tales from architects in this era.
The Thompson interviews from this period are particularly hillarious, but as his step daughter said he was a story teller by nature.

Ian, I will be reading my Capilano history soon, as soon as I recover from the redeye home. Never again!