Fisher Times-Post-Dispatch-Courier

Perhaps now I think I like this strange little game called golf.  Not that I have game, yet.

 See, for a while now I have made a weekly trip to the driving ranges to develop my swing.  Disgustingly frustrating, as it turns out.  I have had a decent iron shot, but no consistency there.  I can drive a ball with the long stick harder into the ground than just about anyone else.  Worst of all, switching between the two, I go from a decent iron shot to NO ability off the tee with a driver, to NO ability with the irons.  I had all but sworn off ever hitting with a driver again.

So I started blaming the technology.  Old wooden drivers.  Sure there’s family sentimentality involved there, but my swing was putting plenty of wear and tear on those.  So I dropped into a used golf supply store and got an oversized metal driver for cheap.  I was feeling good, even, because they let me hit a few balls with it into a net to get a feel for the club.  It made a good sound, so I thought I had found the solution.

What I found, apparently, was a way to hit balls even harder into the ground.  No good at all.  On the verge of swearing off golf altogether - can’t play the game if you can’t even hit the ball.  Can’t have game without swing.

So now I think I am every golf pro’s worst nightmare.  I went online and found some hints and tips and suggestions, and put them to use.  End result - I go through a 2 minute checklist of things when setting up.  Any time I try to eliminate the checklist ends in disaster, but when I slow down and concentrate, I can actually drive the ball.  It even works on my irons!  Most exciting of all, out of every 6 or 7 drives, one is dead straight.  Otherwise I’ve got a nasty fade (we’re talking 50 or 60 yards right of center, here), but my straight shots are falling 200-225 yards with dead range balls.  I even smacked a 250 yard drive towards the end of my day last week.

So am I bragging?  Sure, I’m starting to develop a swing.  Next step is consistency off the tee and with the irons.  Then I have to develop a game - that is, hitting the ball where I want it, not just as far as it’ll go.  That takes touch, which is really the key to all this.  Good luck doing that. 

The 3rd Part of Henry VI - also called Richard Duke of York - is certainly my favorite of the plays so far.  It is bloody, it is violent, and most of the characters die.  Richard Duke of York is slain at the end of the first part, and Henry VI is slaughtered at the end.  King Henry is a very weak monarch, who promises the throne to Richard and his issue upon Henry’s death.  Thus the Queen is the majority driver for the action, fighting to defend her son Edward’s succession rights.  War is fought, France’s help is sought, a princess is promised to King Edward, son of Richard Duke of York, who insults France by marrying an English woman in the interim.  Dukes switch sides, more war is fought, Henry returns to the throne, Dukes switch back, and Henry and his Queen are finally defeated and Henry killed.

Shakespeare returns to this line of plays later, telling the story of the hunchbacked, evil son of Richard Duke of York - Richard Duke of Glouchester - who has unfettered ambition to the throne.  In 3 Henry VI, Richard has a long soliloquy in which he accounts for all the people who stand between him in the line of succession, then vowing to cut a bloody swath in his pursuit of that end.  The later history plays recount his fulfillment of this vow.

Now up?  Shakespeare’s first tragedy, Titus Andronicus.  Many experts debate the validity of ascribing this play to Shakespeare, largely because Titus is so ridiculously violent and base.  There is cannibalism, rape, murder, mutilation, and other atrocities.  Mmmm.  Can’t wait.