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.


Tommy_Naccarato

Re:Jeff Silverman's Feature Interview is posted
« Reply #25 on: June 30, 2003, 12:26:02 AM »
I just went to upload photos for GCGC and then I realized I had packed away my camera the night before and didn't take any--I really do regret that right now.

Darwin's take on GCGC is an interesting one, and I like your take on it--that it may have been from a bit of National pride, for God, Queen and Country. But I have to tell youthat GCGC is a pretty amazing place with tons of architecture, and I have to say that while it doesn't play anything like Carnoustie, it certainly had me thinking of it while out there. Mostly because of the views of the golf course on  the later holes. It has that real cool linksy feeling.

I would also surmize that the un-natural shaping of some of the trench bunkering and like may have had something to do with the critique. While it is certainly great stuff for us today, back then, it may have had too much of a geometric feel that didn't sit well on the pallet of the most engaging Brits.



T_MacWood

Re:Jeff Silverman's Feature Interview is posted
« Reply #26 on: June 30, 2003, 06:57:16 AM »
Of GCGC Darwin said: "there is not a hole there that thrills one in recollection"; and that it gives him "the feeling that it is a silk purse made out of a sow's ear"; and that "as a test of golf it doesn't stand quite so well as Brookline".

Definitely critical, but not severely so--I have read worse. Travis however was very disturbed and reprinted exerts of Darwin's comments in his magazine and responded to them. Travis's take was that Darwin saw the course under benign conditions--no wind--and that took away from one of the main interests of the course. He ended by stating Darwin should "enlarge his horizon. He should not dogmatically damn a course on a week's acquaintance. As well attempt to judge the game of any golfer by witnessing the play one shot."

I think the last sentence might be traced back to Travis's upset victory at Sandwich. Following Travis's death from reading Darwin it was obvious it was a devastating blow to the British psyche--twently years later he still wrote about it as if it were a fluke. He evidently was sinking putts from everywhere and anywhere. Following his win there was a run on his famous putter which was eventually outlawed--Darwin bought one. Darwin did not personally like Travis, he described him as having a dourness, he didn't call him unfriendly, but that was clearly what he thought, he described it as an unresponsiveness.

I wonder if the relative flatness of GCGC--in comparison to Brookline--was also a factor
« Last Edit: June 30, 2003, 06:58:53 AM by Tom MacWood »

ChipOat

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Jeff Silverman's Feature Interview is posted
« Reply #27 on: June 30, 2003, 09:15:14 AM »
Tommy:

As "most passionate poster", you were (and still are) the best choice as GCA's "poster person" (sorry for the pun).

Besides, where on earth would SI ever have taken a picture of me?

Wish I had known you were coming East; would have figured out a way to have dinner or something; you spent a week within 5-50 miles of where I live.  We could have talked about bunkers, you know.

Agman

Re:Jeff Silverman's Feature Interview is posted
« Reply #28 on: June 30, 2003, 12:27:47 PM »
OK, by popular demand of The Emperor, the Orson Welles story follows, given in the long version the way Tommy first heard it. May an eternal case of the shanks be visited upon me if what follows isn't gospel.

From 1979-1982, I wrote a column at the Los Angeles Herald Examiner called Page 2, that, not surprisingly, ran on the second page of the paper. Though I could write about anything that either interested or pissed me off that day, what I mostly wrote about was Hollywood, because, back then -- and I know this is hard to believe given today's saturation -- nobody else was. At least twice a week, and always on Friday, I'd eat lunch at a restaurant in West Hollywood called Ma Maison. The place was amazing, the modern incarnation of the old studio canteen; everyone would be there, especially on Friday -- stars, directors, producers, studio chiefs. (It was the one place I knew I could find everyone who hadn't returned my phone calls all week.) And the food was tremendous, one of the first LA  outposts of what would be known as nouvelle cuisine. Wolfgang Puck, who's since become a dynasty, was the lunch chef. The other truly salient bit of background here is the declasse decor. The main dining room, a patio really, was a canvas tent attached to a much smaller indoor dining area beside the bar. Tourists who could get a lunch reservation -- and few could because the restaurant's phone number was unlisted -- would eat in that indoor Siberia, where they couldn't even get a peak at the swells on the patio. The only celeb they'd ever see who wasn't rushing to the loo in the back was the only one who'd eat inside. Orson Welles had a corner table there ever day by the bar because Gods can sit wherever they damned please.  He never -- EVER -- stepped foot on the patio. I don't think he appreciated the odor.

Ma Maison's proprieter, a publicity chaser named Patrick Terrail, was a great friend of Welles's.  One day I asked him to introduce me to Welles -- few intimidated me, then, and Welles was one of the few. He turned out to be anything but intimidating, and I'd regularly stop by to say hello. He was a great story-teller, obviously, and disdainful of all the posing and posturing in the other room. (But he did love the food, and was not about to deprive himself.)

Anyway, the Herald was a Hearst newspaper, (and Citizen Hearst, as everyone knows, was the not very appreciative model for Citizen Kane; indeed, Hearst, no stranger to Hollywood, tried to destroy Welles and the movie). Through my tenure at the HerEx, various Hearsts were regularly thrown our way to cut their newspaper teeth in LA, including Grandson Will Hearst (III), later editor of the SF Examiner, who was our news editor, and his cousin, The Chief's granddaughter Gina, sister of SLA Sister Tanya (aka Patty Hearst), who worked on the op-ed page. Gina was terrific, a real gamer with no airs at all, and for her last day at the paper before leaving for a job in the magazine division in NY, I offered to take her and a few  mutual friends to lunch anywhere she wanted. Since it was a Friday, she wanted Ma Maison. Our table for six was toward the front of the tumult, and when we sat down, Gina sat with her back to the door so she could watch the Friday celeb table-hopping in all its g(l)ory. She could see  the hubub around her on the patio, but she couldn't see arrivals and departures. Naturally, Orson Welles eventually walked in, and proceeded directly to his niche near the bar. Gina hadn't seen a thing.

But I had, and wasn't about to let a moment like this one simply pass by. I excused myself,  walked into the other dining room, and briefly sat down with Orson. I told him I just wanted him to know that we were having a goodbye lunch in the other room with the granddaughter of an old, uh, pal of his. Is she a good kid, Welles wanted to know. I told him she was terrific. He took a quick look across the divide and asked which one she was. I pointed her out. He nodded. That Welles sparkle lit up.

About 20 minutes later, all eyes -- except Gina's -- turned to the patio entrance because Orson Welles, who never crossed this threshold, was lumbering into the room. Gina, in the middle of a story, was oblivious to the earthquake rumbling closer. Deftly, Welles slipped behind her, and bent down until his lips were inches from her left ear. Then  whispered the most immortal two syllables in all of celluloid:

                            "Rosebud"


Gina jumped, turned  and saw this mastadon with a completely stern face standing over her.  She just stared...until Welles howled out a laugh they could probably hear on Catalina. He threw his arms out, picked Gina up off her seat, pulled her into his great girth and embraced her, thus burying  the Hearst-Citizen Kane feud forever.

Now, if you've held on this far, you're probably asking, what does this all have to do with golf? Why hasn't Ran erased this as off topic? Easy. Instead of carpet, the Ma Maison patio was covered with the exact same fake green stuff they use to make artificial putting surfaces. Unlike on the golf course, nothing in that room was very real.

js

Scott_Burroughs

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Jeff Silverman's Feature Interview is posted
« Reply #29 on: June 30, 2003, 12:40:09 PM »
Classic!

Between this and the Baskin Robbins thread, who says we aren't diverse here?

Now I'm curious what you think of "Celebrities Uncensored" on E! network, which I think is the 'Jackass' of Hollywood scoop reporting.

Andy_Lipschultz

Re:Jeff Silverman's Feature Interview is posted
« Reply #30 on: June 30, 2003, 01:56:32 PM »
Jeff:

And as I recall (I worked as in intern right up the block at a music pub. firm during this time),Welles never paid to eat there. At least that's what I heard.

Also, have you heard the bootleg of Orson doing the radio commercial for snow peas? Right up there with the Tommy Lasorda tape (after Dave Kingman hit 3 HRs).

Tommy_Naccarato

Re:Jeff Silverman's Feature Interview is posted
« Reply #31 on: June 30, 2003, 03:53:46 PM »
Chip,
From the beginning, I have not understood the point of me being in the limelight for Golf Club Atlas. I do love this site, you guys are all like family to me no matter how much we agree or disagree. I know that for sure. When Jeff came to me and asked if I would mind that he base the story for SI off of me, I sort of backed-off. I had already had my name in the limelight with Jeff Wallach's Links article, and felt that too much would take away from Ran Morrissett, Geoff Shackelford, Gil Hanse and Jim Wagner--the true heroes of the story at large. I even went so far as to stop golfing and seek Ran and Geoff S. out for advice on the Rustic Canyon links.

Once I finally got to read Jeff's excellent article; and to further develop a great friendship with him, recognize his talent for the writing game, I fully understood why. He is such a good story teller in person, and he values things like chance meetings with unique people like Orson Welles that eventually lead to similar friendships such as ours, and it was then I really knew I had met a similar kindrid spirit, for which I am enternally greatful.

And it is unfortunate I didn't have more time to meet you and Gene and many others on the trip. Eight days was just not enough! So, I'll have to come back for more!:) I have a place to stay :) and Jet Blue is usually only $252.00 round trip from Long Beach, plus, I have to still find that pefect piece of New York Cheese Cake--only after I lose some weight!

Dan Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Jeff Silverman's Feature Interview is posted
« Reply #32 on: June 30, 2003, 04:16:24 PM »
Agman --

Great "interview." Thanks.

Two questions -- the first of the most minuscule importance; the second, perhaps less so:

(1) You make repeated references to "Bernardo." Was Mr. Darwin widely known as "Bernardo"?

(2) I don't believe in numerical rankings (other than rankings of Baskin-Robbins ice-cream flavors) -- but ratings are something else again.

     Quite obviously, Darwin is a 3* (in Michelin/Goodale terms) golf writer -- a guy you'd go way out of the way to read.

     Which other golf writers deserve 3*?

     Or a Doak 10, if you prefer.
"There's no money in doing less." -- Joe Hancock, 11/25/2010
"Rankings are silly and subjective..." -- Tom Doak, 3/12/2016

Agman

Re:Jeff Silverman's Feature Interview is posted
« Reply #33 on: June 30, 2003, 05:25:09 PM »
The Toms (M and N)

Thanks for your takes on Garden City. Any other theories out there?




TEPaul

Re:Jeff Silverman's Feature Interview is posted
« Reply #34 on: June 30, 2003, 08:01:45 PM »
JeffS:

Man, the Orson/Gina story is fabulous. We don't have to talk about architecture all the time--and certainly not when stories like that can be told!

Agman

Re:Jeff Silverman's Feature Interview is posted
« Reply #35 on: June 30, 2003, 11:22:44 PM »
Scott --

I've not only never watched it, I've never heard of it. When I left Hollywood for Wyeth Country, PA, two things happened: I found I was a flyover person, and I found I had a life. (Flyover people are people that people who live in NY and LA flyover when they fly back and forth to do business, thus they -- I mean we -- don't really exist.) I find the movies these days don't pay much attention to me (i.e. a middle-aged guy who could care less about car chases, flatulence, Drew Barrymore  and anything that has Keanu Reeves in it), so I don't pay much attention to them and all the self-serving, overfed hype that surrounds them. Besides, I'd rather play golf -- or watch the Phillies.

Andy --

Speaking of overfed, I think you're right about Welles's dining on the arm at Ma Maison. I also know that when Welles was sick, Patrick Terrail used to bring food from the restaurant over to him.

Dan --

First question: Bernardo was what friends called him, and I'd like to think that to read Darwin is to befriend him. (Are those violins in the background? Nice f/x, though a little sappy.)

Second question: I think the 10s on the Doak scale of golf writers are probably rarer than the 10s on the Doak scale of courses. Darwin's it; that he was so good so often for so long is astounding. No other writer who's written primarily on golf compares. The only other writer who's tapped the same vein with the same literary quality -- though certainly not the same quantity -- to my mind is Updike. Herbert Warren Wind did extraordinary work, and I  love lots of Dan Jenkins (and  wouldn't dare criticize him because, as he likes to remind me, back in my  Herald days his daughter was my intern in the pre-Clintononian sense of the word). I also quite liked Bud Shrake's novel "Billy Boy" -- it's the first  mystical golf novel since "Golf in the Kingdom" not to get all choked up on its own self-importance. Some of Tillinghast's essays were fun. Hutchinson was wonderful, as was Balfour, but, again, writing about golf was their avocation, not their job. Same thing with Wodehouse. Longhurst and Dobereiner were worthy, but so is Rafael Palmiero, and while Palmiero deserves the placque they'll hang for him in Cooperstown, he's no Babe Ruth.  It's a big mountain. Lots get to base camp. Only Darwin stands on top, and he made it on his own oxygen.

Anybody else have thoughts on this one?


A_Clay_Man

Re:Jeff Silverman's Feature Interview is posted
« Reply #36 on: July 01, 2003, 12:15:25 AM »
Perhaps not in anywhere the same league, I did so much enjoy Reilly's Missing Links and while farceical, he really captured those characters and the overall point showed real enlightenment.

ForkaB

Re:Jeff Silverman's Feature Interview is posted
« Reply #37 on: July 01, 2003, 07:10:08 AM »
Darwin is both incomparable, and a * or two above any other golf writer.  This is because, above all, he is a writer, and the fact that golf is what he chooses to write about almost irrelevant once you are immersed in his words.  The writings of the various pretenders (e.g. Wind, Haultain, Tillinghast, Jenkins, Behr, Murphy, O'Reilley, etc.) are constricted by their lack of ambition and/or ability.  They write either about the simple facts of golf (e.g. Wind), or about golf as a metaphor for life (e.g. Haultain).  Darwin writes about life, using golf as just one of many possible metaphors, and sprinkling his thoughts with enough interesting facts to bring the metaphors to life.

Modificatory PS--yeah, I know it's Reilly............
« Last Edit: July 01, 2003, 07:21:14 AM by Rich Goodale »

Agman

Re:Jeff Silverman's Feature Interview is posted
« Reply #38 on: July 01, 2003, 05:55:44 PM »
Rich --

    You neatly stuffed into a nutshell what I droned around the bush trying to say: Darwin was indeed a writer first who used golf as a prism to refract human nature through. The others on my list, good as they are, write about golf. Except Updike. Like Darwin, he's a writer first, and golf is a vehicle he uses to root around in the human condition, not an end in itself. Their artistry elevates the game, and the game elevates their artistry. You can't say that about the others, or at least I can't.

Anybody else have thoughts out there on this? Anybody have any favorite Darwin pieces they want to talk about, or any other favorite golf writing? I'd love to hear.

ForkaB

Re:Jeff Silverman's Feature Interview is posted
« Reply #39 on: July 02, 2003, 05:48:44 AM »
Jeff

I agree with you about Updike, although I find the Rabbit Angstrom pieces on golf to be a bit too subordinate to the "plot."  Probably appropriate for what he was trying to do in these more serious works, but frustrating to the gormless golf afficionado......

The best thing about Updike is that he used to (before getting tapped to join Myopia) play at my old sumemr course, Candlewood in Ipswich, Mass.  2200 yards of barren fairways, blind shots and omnipresent green flies.  Site of the greatest golf shot I ever "played" when I was standing on the 3rd green watching my 9-year old brother trying to hit a pitch, seeing him blade it straight at me at 150mph, catching it with my glove hand and then dropping the pelota in the hole.  Ah, memories.......

T_MacWood

Re:Jeff Silverman's Feature Interview is posted
« Reply #40 on: July 02, 2003, 07:30:07 AM »
I'm not sure I understand when a writer is a 'writer' and when he is not. My take is that they are all writers, some are simply better communicators, or more observant and descriptive, or choose more interesting topics and are simply more entertaining. I guess I don't understand the technical side of writing....where Darwin may seperate himself. I do know that for me Darwin elevates himself for all the reasons I stated above.

I've never gotten the impression Darwin set off to write about life and golf just happened to be his vehicle. He strikes me as some one who was fascinated by the game and nearly every aspect of the game....and I do not use fascinated lightly. He was interested in the great championships and champions, the great golf courses--near and far, the interesting personalities, golf architecture--its psychology and artistry, he loved travel-Europe and the US, he enjoyed simplying playing the game with his friends and was fond of uncovering their idiosyncracies (as well as his own), the odd characteristics that we all see in our friends and ourselves.

In my mind he was a golf writer first. I'm not sure how you produce so much on single subject for so many years and not be considered anything but a golf writer...just better than the others before and since.

I've never cared for Updike's golf writing (I have to admit I haven't read much of it), I'm not sure why.  Maybe because he does write about the 'human condition' and less about golf. I prefer Darwin mainly because he doesn't deliberately flout his insite into the 'human condition', his readers are all golfers, we are already familiar with the human condition.

I don't have to think too hard when I read Darwin, but I do have to think. And he was such a wealth of information, I always come way learning something new, which is the main reason I read.
« Last Edit: July 02, 2003, 07:34:01 AM by Tom MacWood »

T_MacWood

Re:Jeff Silverman's Feature Interview is posted
« Reply #41 on: July 02, 2003, 08:46:49 AM »
Jeff
Some of my favorite Darwin articles are his obituaries. Like his golf course reviews he covers both the strengths and weaknesses. You come away feeling you have an honest insite into that person's personality.

Dan
Other writers I enjoy are H.Hutchinson...I haven't read his books from the 1890's, but I really enjoyed his autobiography - 'Fifty years of Golf'. He also wrote about nearly every subject under the sun...I would estimate 40 or 50 books all together. I believe MacKenzie is an underrated writer--brutally honest and often entertaining (although his first book is a little dry). I also like Wind and Pat Ward-Thomas.

BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Jeff Silverman's Feature Interview is posted
« Reply #42 on: July 02, 2003, 09:01:51 AM »
Jeff -

I'll disagree a little with you and Rich. I think Updike's collection of golf pieces is the best thing in the literature of golf. That's not surprising. Updike may have been the the best American writer of his generation. We are blessed that he thought golf worth writing about at all. Anything he did was bound to be remarkable.

Darwin, however, is not far behind. Though he was not one of the great writers of his generation (For starters, Darwin was a contemporary of James Joyce. That's a pretty tough comparison. And Joyce wasn't the only great writer in that generation.) Darwin was also saddled with journalistic duties - part of his job was to report tournament results. But he also viewed golf with a novelist's eye. He saw golf as a human activity that can be as revelatory of things human as any other human activity.

Both Updike and Darwin brought that novelistic perspective to their golf writing. (As Rich noted, there really isn't anyone in third place.) But I've always felt that Updike was more comfortable swimming in those waters. I just wish he had written more.

Again, I look forward to your collection of Darwin pieces.

Bob


 
« Last Edit: July 02, 2003, 10:17:20 AM by BCrosby »

Norbert P

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Jeff Silverman's Feature Interview is posted
« Reply #43 on: July 02, 2003, 02:25:34 PM »
  Darwin was incomparable, save maybe H.V. Morton, but he didn't write about golf - pity.  Darwin's style of writing is from another time, when attention spans were actual spans, not skips and jumps.  When I read Darwin, I drift not from boredom, but from wanting to be where he is speaking of.  
 
  Bobby Jones was a terrific writer.  He transcended being just a golfer and brought a higher sophistication and appreciation to the game, its playing fields and simple codes of honor through gentlemanly thoughts and direct philosophies.  

  Stephen Potter wrote some funny and clever stuff but it became a little schtickish.

  I wonder what Steinbeck could do with a golf story?  Would he characterize it as elitism that runs from humanitarian responsibilities?

 Vonnegut?  Might he dub it the one true righteous meaning of life?   Escapism as pure involvement of the arts?

 L. Ron Hubbard?  The ruin of mankind?

 Steven Hawking?  The collapsing of a universe by not limiting the distance of the golf ball?

Jon Krakauer?  The life and death struggle of the ego?

George Orwell?  The perfect game gone awry via encyclopedic rules?

Damn, I just want Calvin and Hobbes back.







 
"Golf is only meant to be a small part of one’s life, centering around health, relaxation and having fun with friends/family." R"C"M

Agman

Re:Jeff Silverman's Feature Interview is posted
« Reply #44 on: July 02, 2003, 06:01:17 PM »
Tom --

Glad you mentioned Pat Ward-Thomas. What a yeoman's job he did stepping from the Guardian into Darwin's oversized shoes at Country Life. While I quite like his collection "The Lay of the Land" -- it's filled with superb golf writing -- there are parts of his autobiography, "Not Only Golf" that are dazzling. I picked it up because I wanted to hear his version of how he created a golf course in a German prison camp (the same camp that became the Billy Wilder classic "Stalag 17," by the way) after his plane was shot down in World War II. (Wind refers to it in passing in his "Lay of the Land" intro. Trust me, this is not the kind of story you can just refer to in passing. Like a genie, once it's out of the bottle, you can't stuff it back in until you've use it.) Ward-Thomas's writing about camp life is terrific, and the way he integrates golf into both the experience and his recollection of it is dazzling. I was so enamored of it I included the chapter in "The Greatest Golf Stories Ever Told."

Back to Darwin for a minute. As a writer, Darwin may have made golf his primary subject, but had he just written about golf courses,  reported matches and  profiled the Vardons and Braids, he would have been a great golf writer -- like Wind is a great golf writer -- but that's where he'd have remained pigonholed. That he could write "The Links of Eiderdown" or "The Black Flag" or "Card and Pencil Golf" or so many of his meditative travel pieces -- golf pieces all, but so much more -- distingushes him and sets him apart, and his very longevity allowed him to write so many of those essays. We're all interested in golf on this site; to truly appreciate Darwin, look look at some of his other writing. Read his introduction to  "Reciepts and Relishes: Being a Vade Mecum for the Epicure in the British Isles." He was about 70 when he wrote it and it's so full of joy and pride. He even makes Bosworth Jumbels sound appetizing. Also, the old lawyer in him loved crime stories. (He was a Sherlock Holmes whiz.) Check out "Elizabeth Canning and the Gipsies," his thrilling retelling of a case that gripped England in 1753. All of us who love golf and love language are pretty lucky he loved writing about golf so much.

js


George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Jeff Silverman's Feature Interview is posted
« Reply #45 on: July 02, 2003, 06:19:58 PM »
Jeff -

I am truly enjoying your back & forth with everyone here and I love your Orson Welles story (even if it does make me feel inadequate about my own writing skills), but -

please don't tell me you liked Golf in the Kingdom.

That book has sparked many a lively debate on this site.

 :)

Anyway, I'm off to Borders to find the Bud Shrake book. Someday I hope to actually read all the books that this site has prompted me to buy.
« Last Edit: July 02, 2003, 06:21:41 PM by George Pazin »
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Agman

Re:Jeff Silverman's Feature Interview is posted
« Reply #46 on: July 02, 2003, 08:03:52 PM »
George --

I'm glad you're getting "Billy Boy." (If you can't find it at Borders, it's available on Amazon.) And don't put it on the bottom of your pile. It's a short book and a quick read, and there's an architectural thread that runs through it that I think will entertain a lot of folks on this site. It's the story of a young caddie at  Colonial Country Club and one of the main characters is John Bredemus, a pretty interesting and out-there guy. Hogan plays a part in the tale, as well. It's quite charming. Shrake, of course, was a mainstay at SI in the '60s and '70s, and his piece on the Professional Gamblers Invitational golf tournament in Las Vegas is a classic. His other novels are historical novels about Texas except for "Limo," a rollicking send up of the TV biz that he wrote with running mate Dan Jenkins.

As for "Golf in the Kingdom," what I especially like about it is that some 30 years after the fact it still elicits hackles and  hosannas, and tell me another golf novel -- good or bad -- that does that. ("Dead Solid Perfect" maybe?) Love it or hate it, it remains the cornerstone of the golf and mysticism genre, so I, for one, can't just dismiss it. Also, Mike Murphy is a truly fascinating individual, and an absolute blast to talk to.

js

T_MacWood

Re:Jeff Silverman's Feature Interview is posted
« Reply #47 on: July 02, 2003, 09:28:36 PM »
Jeff
I agree with you that it was Darwin's ability to fuse his observations on life and the human condition, or whatever you want to call it, into his golf writing is what elevates him (among other things). But my impression is it wasn't a conscious effort. As opposed to Updike, where it seems to be a conscious goal, and one can get the impression that Updike is writing down to us--probably not deliberately (or it could be just my own short coming). I never get that impression with Darwin.

It seems to me his ability to incorporate his observation on life was just a natural off shoot of his personality. I get the impression that Darwin naturally found people interesting--and as you've pointed out he was also extremely observant and inquisitive. From my experience people who are interested in other people often have lots of friends and Darwin seemed to have tons of friends--a who's who of golf. But his greatest friend was always his reader.

Thanks for the recommendations; you get a little taste of his non-golf writing in his autobiography. Hutchinson was the same way, I've enjoyed his writing on other subjects. Interestingly Darwin said that was one of Hutchinson short comings, he was interested in too many subjects...instead of focusing on a few.

Agman

Re:Jeff Silverman's Feature Interview is posted
« Reply #48 on: July 03, 2003, 08:45:08 AM »
Rich --

Though I personally like Updike's golf essays better than the golf he wove through the "Rabbit" books, it's hard to top these two sentences from "Rabbit at Rest": "When you stand up on the first tee it is there, it comes back from wherever it lives during the rest of your life, endless possibility, the possibility of a flawless round, a round without a speck of bad in it, without a missed two-footer or a flying right elbow, without a pushed wood or pulled iron; the first fairway is in fron of you, palm trees on the left and water on the right, flat as a pcture. All you have to do is take a simple pure swing and puncture the picture  in the middle with a ball that shrinks in a second to the size of a needle prick, a tiny tunnel in the absolute." Every time I step onto a first tee, I think of that. Maybe that's why I flub so many. I'm off in the ether, thinking about eneless possibility and needle pricks instead of keeping my club head straight at impact.

js

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Jeff Silverman's Feature Interview is posted
« Reply #49 on: July 03, 2003, 10:35:44 AM »
Jeff -

I certainly can't dispute the impact the book has had on golf & golfers - the many debates on this site alone show it stokes the fires of passion quite admirably among many. I just thought it was a little too hokey for me (plus I was trying to get a rise out of Huckaby :)).

Got Billy Boy last night - picked up Greatest Golf Stories Ever Told, too, based on the POW camp golf story you mentioned. Will report back after the weekend.
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04