SportsJones: Could you briefly describe the new book, The Majors?

John Feinstein: I was trying to do two things. One, give readers a sense of the uniqueness of each major, because they are all so different. Augusta is about the golf course and the traditions – some good, some not so good. The U.S. Open is about being the toughest test in golf because of the way they set the courses up. The British Open is all about tradition and the home of golf, and links golf courses. And the PGA is sort of a combination U.S. Open/Masters wannabe that has never really figured out what its identity is and, as a result, its identity is that it doesn’t have a distinct identity.

Beyond that I wanted to give the reader a sense of how the players approach the majors and what the majors are like – what it’s like to win them, what it’s like to contend in them, what it’s like to lose them, what it’s like to try to qualify for one, and what they mean to the players. I use a group of players ranging from stars to non-stars, much as I did in A Good Walk Spoiled, to tell their stories and explain what the majors mean that way.

I think when they read this book people will be surprised at some of what they learn not only about the tournaments, but about some of the players, specifically guys like David Duval and Fred Couples and Justin Leonard and John Daly – players whom I didn’t focus on in A Good Walk Spoiled.

SportsJones: You followed players in a similar manner in A Good Walk Spoiled, but just now you were speaking of the character of each tournament. Did you do more historical research for this book than you did for A Good Walk Spoiled?

Feinstein: Not that much more. I did go back and try and get a sense of how the British Open started back in 1860 and some of its history and compare it with the histories of the U.S. Open and the PGA and the Masters. But those books have been done. There have been histories done of golf, of the majors, of individual majors. So I used the history more as a jumping off point to explain what determines what the championships have evolved to today.

SportsJones: What was the biggest challenge in writing this book?

Feinstein: As has always been the case with the kinds of books I write, taking a great deal of information and trying to put one story line to what is essentially twelve or thirteen or fourteen different story lines. And try and make it all work together, weave in the life and times of Brad Faxon with the life and times of Fred Couples and David Duval and Phil Mickelson and Justin Leonard and Mark O’Meara around each of these tournaments as they’re being played.

SportsJones: So, you have the elements of the individual players – their lives and times, as you say – and you also develop the uniqueness of each major.

Feinstein: Yes, exactly. The book is divided very simply into four sections, one on each major, and in each section I explain what each of them is about and then kind of bring the players into them and explain what the players are trying to do as they approach them.

SportsJones: You made a comment earlier, with respect to the Masters, about some traditions not being good. In A Good Walk Spoiled, you discuss the members of Augusta National and call them "The Men of the Masters." Again, some elements in your portrait of them are unflattering – exclusionary membership practices and successful moves to pressure CBS to remove certain irreverent announcers from the telecast. Did you receive much feedback from these "Men of the Masters" after A Good Walk Spoiled hit the bookstands?

Feinstein: Well, somebody made a very interesting comment to me because, as part of this book, I had asked to get access to some of the generally off-limits places at Augusta: the champions' locker room, the Crow’s Nest where the amateurs sleep during the week, some of the cabins to see what they look like from the inside.

And somebody who works at Augusta, during the course of giving me this tour said that the only request he had from the members was that I not refer to them in this book as "The Men of the Masters." And I said, you know, frankly that’s no problem because I don’t like to repeat myself, but am I correct in assuming that it was not well-received around here, that particular phrase? And he said – this guy who works at Augusta – just kind of raised his eyebrows and said that would probably be a good guess on my part.

So in this book, I call them "The Lords of Augusta."

SportsJones: Any guess on whether they'll take that more favorably?

Feinstein: [Laughing] Time will tell. I think I have a better understanding of what they’re trying to do and who they think they are than I did in A Good Walk Spoiled. I looked at Augusta and its history and the people who are there currently in more detail this time than I did in that book. That doesn’t mean that I agree with everything they do, but I do think I understand them better, and I think also that I have a better understanding of some of the myths that have grown up around Augusta that aren’t true. Like, for example, that they’re money grabbers. Because the fact is, and I point this out in the book, they make a lot of money on the Masters, but if they wanted to they could probably make three or four times as much.

SportsJones: They pulled two announcers from CBS for comments deemed disrespectful to the Masters. Were you concerned that they would try to take away your press pass?

Feinstein: No, I don’t think they’ve ever done that with writers. Frankly, they don’t think any of us are important enough to bother with that.

SportsJones: Earlier you said that the PGA Championship is trying to find an identity. When you paint these types of pictures, as with "The Men of the Masters" and now with the PGA, are you conscious of the politics involved – do you want to be on the good sides of certain people in positions of power?

Feinstein: I’ve just been around too long to really worry about that sort of thing. I’ve had people in positions of power who haven’t liked me many times in the past. And what I always try to do with people, whether they’re in positions of power or not in positions of power, is to be fair and tell the truth. And if in doing that I offend someone, then life goes on. But I really don’t sit there and go, hmm, if I write this, maybe someone who runs the PGA or the USGA or the Masters or whatever isn’t going to like me anymore. That’s really not my concern. My concern is telling the story fairly and accurately for the reader.

SportsJones: After having finished writing The Majors, does one of the tournaments stand out as your favorite?

Feinstein: The British Open has always been my favorite. I think it’s the best run. It’s the most enjoyable because of the uniqueness of the links courses. The crowds are the most knowledgeable. The players love being over there, in terms of the golf. They complain about some of the logistics, the hotels and the showers and things like that. But, to me the British Open is the greatest championship.