A question via an analogy

[Peter Pallotta]

I was thinking of Melville's Moby Dick, and the opening line: "Call me Ishmael". And I thought that when Melville wrote that, he had every reason to expect that it would impact his readers in a certain way, that they would understand and in some sense 'react' to those specific words, and that this understanding and reaction would colour their reading of the entire book in a significant way - i.e. in a way that Melville must've intended, since a writer very carefully considers the first line of his book.

In this case, and given that it was written in a time when most folks had at least a passing knowledge of the sacred texts, Melville would've expected that his readers would think:  "Ishmael - Abraham's first son, but not via his marriage to Sarah (that son would be Isaac) but instead via Hagar; a fiery, troubled, trouble-making child who as a teenager was banished along with his mother by an angry Sarah out into the harsh desert, where he would live a hard (but long) life."

I thik it's safe to say that Melville hoped and was pretty sure that his readers would make all these connections right away, and that this connection would deepen and enrich their reading. But when we read Mody Dick today, I think few of us get any of that -- I certainly didn't as a young university student, and I imagine that I was pretty average in that regard. I can't even imagine now what I had "lost" and "didn't appreciate" then at my first reading, or how much deeper and more satisfying it would've been if I knew what Melville had expected his readers to know.

So: what cues and 'opening lines' do architects use, and use with the same expectations that Melville had? What do they expect us to know, and how do they think this knowledge will deepen/enrich our playing experience? Most importantly, do you think a architect can (as Melville had with me) assume too much knowledge on the part of his audience?

Peter

[Jim_Kennedy]

The first line of the 'book' begins at the driveway and ends at the clubhouse, then the story can begin.    

[Adam Clayman]

Peter, Interesting and thought provoking. Ty.

Immediate thoughts are... The canvas is but the medium for the sport. So, Perhaps the superintendent has more to try to tell us, than the architect, on the opening salvo. 2) Only two examples jump out at me as examples where the GCA may have put this much thought into their opener.. Devries Greywalls and Dye's Pinon Hills. Mike's is a lot more impactful, in retrospect. While Ken's appears more foreshadowing.

[Tom_Doak]

Only two examples jump out at me as examples where the GCA may have put this much thought into their opener.. Devries Greywalls and Dye's Pinon Hills. Mike's is a lot more impactful, in retrospect. While Ken's appears more foreshadowing.

Adam:

Why did you pick those two courses as examples?  Surely lots of architects have thought hard about lots of their opening holes.

The one where I probably thought the most, in terms of the context Peter describes, is Old Macdonald.  In that case, we certainly could anticipate a lot of first-time golfers would have specific expectations about the Macdonald style and how we would employ it, and what sort of hole made for a good opener considering all of that, and the location where the first hole had to be.

On other courses, I'm not sure that golfers have such specific expectations or context, and I'm not sure that I want them to.  Pacific Dunes' opener was an off-beat choice for a dunes / links / seaside course, but it does set the tone by being quite short and yet not easily discerned or played.

[Adam Clayman]

Tom, I picked those two because I felt they fit into the context, as I understood Peter's analogy.

In Dye's case, I know he thought through that design, and the original 1st was an introduction to the remainder, much moreso than just a handshake. In Mike's case, while it may have been serendipitous, (I don't know I've never asked him) his roller coaster opener made a bigger statement only after the finisher.

I didn't mean to imply Architects don't think hard about their openers, I just don't know if they think as hard about it as Melville might have. Again, Only in the context of Peter's premise. 

I'll give it more thought, later. Have to run and get golfing, again.

[RJ_Daley]

The way I take Peter's comment and question is to suggest that Melville had a specific biblical reference with a specific set of characteristics and life experiences that the author 'assumed' that the readers would recognize about the legend and lore of Ishmael.  What the biblical context and meaniing of Ishmael has to do with the Story of "Moby Dick" I don't know if I ever understood whilst covering it in a Lit. course so many years ago.  Maybe I did hear it discussed, but I sure can't remember. 

But as Peter says, he didn't immediately recognize the reference significance to the biblical story, so that was lost on him in his first reading.  Was it Peter's under awareness to the lore of Ishmael in that biblical context or Melville's over estimation readers would get that obscure reference.  I don't know.

But, with setting some fist hole context should an architect, or are there examples that would relate in this arcane of a manner to Peter's example.  Again, I don't think an archie can assume a first time golfer seeing a first hole for the first time might actually get any purposefully designed feature that would protend a theme of a legend or lore or tradition genre. 

Tom Doak's example of Old MacDonald (while I never saw it) suggests it was one place he had something of a foretelling of what is to come and in what architectural context.  That particular situation was to set a style or genre while not duplicating template holes actual design and construction too closely.  Correct me if that is wrong.  So, Tom and the collaborative team of MacDonald experts including George Bahto and B Klein apparently knowing the genre were able to create an opening hole to present the flavor of a MacDonald tribute without a replica.  That assumes that the first time golfer there understands and would recognise the genre style or flavor of MacDonald from their own familiariity of playing them and study.  For most general population golfers I suspect that may be a far reach, just as expecting a new reader of "Moby Dick" would get the Ishmael thing. 

The other thing is context of place, and the architects own style or intent.  Adam's reference to Greywalls opener sets that stage is a good reference in my view.  But so do many others if they use the land as the land presents in its natural surrounds, and doesn't fight the land, and sets the level of golf challenges as they will unfold as you go through the journey.  I think any decent architect tries for that standard of handshake opener.  I don't think an archie would intentionally try to deceive the golfer by presenting an opening hole that totally does not portend or suggest what is to follow.  I could be wrong.  I can't think of any startling examples however. 

Maybe Des Muirhead may have delved deep into some obscure, mythological sort of reference to design an opener with deep meaning. 

[Matthew Petersen]

It's an interesting question. A "handshake", even vanilla opener can be easily forgiven or looked past, I think. A great first hole can make a statement that lingers; a bad first hole can leave a bad taste in the mouth the rest of the day.

To wait, in Austin last week I played River Place CC, a course generally panned here when mentioned at all, and I don't necessarily disagree. It's a tight and very severe property. Still, I think most of the holes work. The course plays wider than it looks, is short enough to be playable, etc. The problem is that the worst hole on the property is the first and the worst stretch overall is 1-3. 2 and 3 aren't terrible holes but they're squeezed a bit more than most and altogether just create a very forced feeling that I think wouldn't linger quite so much if they were somewhere else in the routing, even 10-12.

The first plays straight down a steep hillside. Basically the only tee option is to hit an iron, let it tumble down the hill to a flattish spot, to then hit a mid/short iron again steeply downhill over a deep ravine, to a green protected by the ravine short and right. It's the kind of disjointed, force your hand hole that's best to be avoided if at all possible, but at minimum would be a lot less troublesome if it wasn't the first hole of the day. I think if this hole were #10, it would feel more like the anomaly on a course where they otherwise didn't do too bad a job given the extreme challenge. Instead, it makes you feel like the course is over the top from your first swing, and the feeling never quite goes away, even though most of the rest of the front nine is not really all that extreme.

[Peter Pallotta]

Thanks much, gents. RJ - you had my intentions pegged just right. I'm still thinking about my own question, but a fanciful thought just occured to me:

Imagine if a modern architect had a sign on the first tee of his new course that read "Call me Alastair Mackenzie".

I assume he'd be wanting to prepare the golfer for what's coming, to give the golfer some extra insight (by just using those four words) into what the architect means to convey over the next 18 holes - to both create and enrichen the golfer's expecations and experience for the design to come. 

But what if, like me when I first read "Call me Ishmael" the golfer's only reaction is "Huh? What? That's kind of cool - okay, who's teeing off?"

A wasted opportunity? Something the architect coulkd've done differently and/or better? Or is just the way of all flesh - you give your best and it falls on deaf ears?

[Tom_Doak]

Thanks much, gents. RJ - you had my intentions pegged just right. I'm still thinking about my own question, but a fanciful thought just occured to me:

Imagine if a modern architect had a sign on the first tee of his new course that read "Call me Alastair Mackenzie".

I assume he'd be wanting to prepare the golfer for what's coming, to give the golfer some extra insight (by just using those four words) into what the architect means to convey over the next 18 holes - to both create and enrichen the golfer's expecations and experience for the design to come. 

But what if, like me when I first read "Call me Ishmael" the golfer's only reaction is "Huh? What? That's kind of cool - okay, who's teeing off?"

A wasted opportunity? Something the architect coulkd've done differently and/or better? Or is just the way of all flesh - you give your best and it falls on deaf ears?

Peter:

That's exactly the scenario for Old Macdonald.

We understood that many people who would play the course are unfamiliar with Macdonald's work.  Of those, many don't care at all about his template holes and just want to enjoy their game, and that's fine ... God knows not everyone who reads Melville is able to understand everything he's trying to say. 

However, the people who ARE familiar with Macdonald's work are put on notice right away what we've tried to do with the golf course.  And, perhaps some of the people who aren't familiar with his work will be intrigued enough to find out more.  That's all we could hope for.

I am not sure how the same scenario would apply to most of my other courses, though.  They don't have "themes" in quite the same way that a great book does.

[Bill_McBride]

I just want to say how happy I am that we have Peter to dramatically elevate the intellectualism of the discourse on this oft challenged website.  I need to (1) read up on Ishmael and (2) read Moby Dick again.   Hell, I thought the guy was just named Ishmael!

[Peter Pallotta]

Ha ha - thanks Bill, and that's a perfect response ie "Hell, I just thought the guy's name was Ishmael". Me too -- which is why as the years pass and I keep coming back to the genius of that opening line -- the bastard and wayward son of a (soon to be) father of a nation cast off not into the hot dry desert but upon an endless ocean of waves only to serve as a slave to a mad megalomaniac convinced that his destiny was to destroy not a fish but Evil incarnate -- I think to myself "well, it would've been a genius line if I'd known what the hell Melville was talking about!!

Peter

[Jason Thurman]

Black Creek just outside of Chattanooga fits.

It's a course intended as a modern update on the MacRaynor template philosophy. In kind, it opens with a medium-length par four that, while not modeled on one of the most well-known templates, nonetheless features sharply engineered shaping in a pair of staggered fairway bunkers and a double-plateau green. Additionally, the course is located just a short drive from Lookout Mountain Golf Club, a well-regarded course from late in Raynor's career which underwent a notable renovation not long before Black Creek opened and features one of the best double-plateau greens in the Raynor catalog on its 17th hole. It's safe to say that architect Brian Silva, who did both the design at Black Creek and the renovation at Lookout Mountain, expected at least some of the golfers who played Black Creek to have also seen Lookout Mountain. The expectation that an observant first time player would stand on the tee at Black Creek's first, see the sharply engineered bunkers in the landing zone and the characteristic double plateau green, and make a connection with the presentation of Lookout Mountain up the road or the MacRaynor philosophy in general is not an outlandish one.

[RJ_Daley]

Peter, as a first hole warning, what say you if a sign above the tee read:

“Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch’intrate“

Now that would portend one hell of a course, and one devil of an architect!

[Colin Macqueen]

Yes Bill.

I absolutely second your thoughts in regards to this Peter Pallotta. I get the impression that, in general, he just has a whale of a time keeping us on our toes and ensuring that we do not shuffle off this mortal coil without having had some literary education.

I knew it was considered a fine opening sentence but never had its significance explained!  Just accepted at face value, no insights from me!

Long may he reign!

Cheers Colin

[Jerry Kluger]

I was fortunate to recently play Yeamans Hall and the opening hole is certainly an opening statement from which the player either has a positive or negative outlook concerning the rest of his round.  It is perhaps the most contoured and sectioned opening green I have ever seen.  (I wonder if it influenced TD with the opening green at Stone Eagle.)  I was playing in a 3 day tournament and the reaction of my fellow competitors with respect to that green was an absolute love it or hate it but none of them simply said it was ok and the reaction didn't necessarily correlate with how they played the hole.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Really interesting subject Peter. Does it further your analogy to know that Mony Dick was a hideous commercial flop, so severe it destroyed Melville's reputation, up to then very big, among his readership and spelled the end of his career as a commercially successful writer? In fact, if I recall correctly it nearly bankrupted him, crushed his muse and eventually drove him from writing altogether.

I think it does. Also, I would like to share that on occasion I have played golf courses golf courses when a cold polar wind blew through, and in some of those occasions I was an insular Manhatto, and so Because I was cold, huddled, and stupid, I can't tell you anything about the opening holes in those courses.

Helpfully,

[Peter Pallotta]

Mark - I did indeed know how poorly Moby Dick did commercially, because I remember that it led Melville to becoming a clerk/civil servant for the rest of his days, which to this day (and to this clerk) is remarkable. If I remember correctly, his huge reading public was sorely disappointed by the fact that Melvile hadn't provided instead a 3rd book to follow "Typee" and its sequel (forgotten the name).  Which I guess would be like the architect who had a big hit with "Call me Alaistar Mackenzie" opened his next course with "Call me Trent Jones".
Peter

[Mark Bourgeois]

Or the opposite right? From Call me Trent...to call me Alister. 

[Adam Clayman]

Tom, Recognizing a golf course's soul, is not that unusual amongst layman. They may not realize why they feel strongly about a place, but they do.

On other courses, I'm not sure that golfers have such specific expectations or context, and I'm not sure that I want them to

Could you elaborate on what you meant by 'such specific expectations', and why you don't want them to?