Re: Drivel - not so much, at least not dry.
| August 04, 2026 09:59AM |
He's still new at his craft. Young writers, including the best of them early in their careers, tend to overwrite.
Deadlines have a way of making a writer who is trying his best push the limits, sometimes stepping into areas where an overnight and fresh look in the morning would hone, perfect, or eliminate something that was almost right the night before. And he knows when he sees it in print the following day: he let one slip here, missed the mark there.
I'll give Lambkins a pass when he overwrites because what he writes when he's staying within himself or not pressured by a deadline is so, so, valuable and worth reading.
If I were his editor I might simply encourage him, "Bite off smaller chunks, Eric. Chew them well. Save the banquet for when you have longer to sit at the table."
His atention to detail and how he expresses it in describing the Thicker Kicker goes beyond the usual, " Mevis looked good in practice, making his kicks consistently." Not much wrong with that sort of reporting but it doesn't describe Mevis' process, nor does it allude at first to the solitary nature of it and then say at the end for a final impression that stays with the reader, that he practices alone.
That observation, made as the final statement, captures something about kicking that most reports do not. It's like the stinger that wraps up a great guitar solo, as opposed to the solo where the guitarist just stops playing.
His word choices and ordered descriptions of Smith and Daniels give this reader, anyway, visual images attached to evaluative reporage. When I have opportunity to watch them, I'll have Lambkins' lens to view them through and can more accurately anticipate what I am about to see than if I simply gawked, knowing only that the guy did well.
I'll be looking for Smith's feet and his burst when he fires the afterburners. I'll be looking for how he uses his speed, and every cut, and juke through the route before he takes off.
I'll be looking for CJ to elevate when he has to, super-sticky hands and tenacious fighting for every ball where he's covered tight. And I'll be looking for Stafford, when the time comes, to trust him to make those catches - in clutch time.
How Lambkins wrote about them gives me my first glimpse.
I wonder what some writers are seeing, either bnecause they don't tell me or aren't seeing it. With Lambkins I have no doubts. And his vision sharpens mine.
(P. S. Did you see what I did there, in that last paragraph?
)
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/04/2026 10:22AM by mtramfan.
Deadlines have a way of making a writer who is trying his best push the limits, sometimes stepping into areas where an overnight and fresh look in the morning would hone, perfect, or eliminate something that was almost right the night before. And he knows when he sees it in print the following day: he let one slip here, missed the mark there.
I'll give Lambkins a pass when he overwrites because what he writes when he's staying within himself or not pressured by a deadline is so, so, valuable and worth reading.
If I were his editor I might simply encourage him, "Bite off smaller chunks, Eric. Chew them well. Save the banquet for when you have longer to sit at the table."
His atention to detail and how he expresses it in describing the Thicker Kicker goes beyond the usual, " Mevis looked good in practice, making his kicks consistently." Not much wrong with that sort of reporting but it doesn't describe Mevis' process, nor does it allude at first to the solitary nature of it and then say at the end for a final impression that stays with the reader, that he practices alone.
That observation, made as the final statement, captures something about kicking that most reports do not. It's like the stinger that wraps up a great guitar solo, as opposed to the solo where the guitarist just stops playing.
His word choices and ordered descriptions of Smith and Daniels give this reader, anyway, visual images attached to evaluative reporage. When I have opportunity to watch them, I'll have Lambkins' lens to view them through and can more accurately anticipate what I am about to see than if I simply gawked, knowing only that the guy did well.
I'll be looking for Smith's feet and his burst when he fires the afterburners. I'll be looking for how he uses his speed, and every cut, and juke through the route before he takes off.
I'll be looking for CJ to elevate when he has to, super-sticky hands and tenacious fighting for every ball where he's covered tight. And I'll be looking for Stafford, when the time comes, to trust him to make those catches - in clutch time.
How Lambkins wrote about them gives me my first glimpse.
I wonder what some writers are seeing, either bnecause they don't tell me or aren't seeing it. With Lambkins I have no doubts. And his vision sharpens mine.
(P. S. Did you see what I did there, in that last paragraph?
)Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/04/2026 10:22AM by mtramfan.
