Month: October 2024

I am not sure why I picked this book up so soon after buying it and thought it would be a quick read. Perhaps because the collection of the complete works of Shakespeare which I have been ignoring on my chairside table starts with his comedies which are rather quick reads. But this book is a history play and one about a monarch with whom I was not familiar. So it was a little slow going, made a little slower by the fact that the characters call each other by their first name sometimes instead of their titles, which are the names that precede their dialog. So it was a bit of a Russian novel in that regard: Oh, Edmund is Kent and vice versa. That sort of thing.

So the plot of the play is that the King, Edward II, wants his pal Gaveston who was apparently elevated from less-than-noble status, and the real nobles think he’s a frivolous wastrel spending all the king’s money (which he gets from them) and diverting the king’s attention from kingly things. So he, Gaveston, is exiled, recalled, exiled again, recalled again, and then civil war breaks out. The king suspects his queen is having an affair with a Mortimer, while she pleads her innocence–come on, who outside of fiction dallies with someone named “Mortimer”? Crikey, I am having BBS flashbacks because one of the people in St. Louis signed himself as Mortimer, but I doubt that he read this play or history. Although it was the 1980s. People were better schooled then. Perhaps he had. But that’s neither here nor there. The nobles do not like Gaveston, so eventually they send him away and recall him, kill him, and then depose the king, placing his son on the throne–to Mortimer’s ultimate ill luck.

The play covers a long actual timespan in history, condensing it into five acts and adding a number of speeches on how much the king likes Gaveston (turned into many, many fine papers about latent homosexuality), the relationship of the king to the titled nobility, and whatnot.

But it lacks a little something compared to Shakespeare. Nothing is really stirring nor memorable except for the easy win of the they’re gay! for English majors in the past. I guess the Wiki says that it’s been staged even in recent past, probably again not so much for the monarch versus aristocracy themes.

I have Marlowe’s Doctor Faustus, which I read in 2020, better.

You might be asking, “Brian J., why did you pick up a book on golf?” You know, I’m asking myself the same question; after all, I have played maybe seven or eight holes of golf in my life (when Iron Maiden Dave and I hit the local park’s nine-hole course, we abandoned the game far later than the other two guys who wanted to join us to make us a foursome abandoned us). I suspect my thinking was this: I saw Razor Girl by the author which I purchased this summer and thought I should read this book before I read the novel. A “how can you eat your pudding if you don’t eat your meat?” sort of thing. So I picked this book up and worked my way through it with some other books in the interim (which should tell you what I thought of it).

The schtick of it is that Carl Hiaasen, who played a little golf in high school and college with his old man, decides to pick up the sticks (as I’ve picked up the lingo) again in his middle age. Which is about the same age as I am now (so I am pleased to think I am not old). So I guess the theme might be the struggle to recapture one’s youthful glory or or man versus himself in trying to improve on a skill game (at a certain age). But I think the book is poorly executed.

Most of it is a diary of the first 577 days of his return to golf; numbered days (not all 577, just ones where he did golf things) give a paragraph or a couple of paragraphs of his golf experience for the day which might be playing a round or buying some new golf product he purchased and maybe tried. These little italicized bits are leavened with longer internally coherent pieces about other rounds of golf he’s played or the golf academy he attended or lessons he might have had. These longer pieces seem internally coherent, as I said, and I cannot help but wonder if they were individual columns or essays placed elsewhere, and they’re unrelated to one another. Case in point: One such essay talks about Hiaasen attending Leadbetter Academy for a day-long seminar, and then a later chapter mentiones playing on a course beside the Leadbetter Academy in Florida without mentioning he’d attended it–explaining it as though this was the first time the reader heard about it. Then, I guess the book feels the need to build to a finish which is bifurcated: Hiaasen plays in a tournament, and Hiaasen completes the book. No fooling; a couple of times whether he would finish the book is questioned and whether he could gut it out after getting discouraged.

So a bit slapped together, and one guesses that the draw is that it’s a Hiaasen golf book. Of course, since it’s a 21st century Hiassen book, it certainly slaps around the boogeyman of the day, George W. Bush. If it was written in the present day, undoubtedly it would be even meaner in its asides about the devil Trump. As it stands, Trump is mentioned on page 129, but only in reference to his rumored 300-yard drives which the author, about the same age, cannot match. A new edition, not that anyone would bother, would not be so laudatory.

So I was not impressed, but I’m not exactly the target audience, which is a golfer who would read anything about the sport and maybe relate to some of the author’s experiences. The title page and dust jacket do not indicate whether one should consider this a humor book or a sports book, but you should consider it the latter.