Column feedback appreciated

Bcrew -

Thanks for posting. It's always a pleasure to have new voices here.

A couple of general thoughts this morning, the first being on the nature of criticism itself. While Mr. Lum's first comment was rather abrupt, perhaps even impolite, it was telling - and thereby constructive.

It might have been more charitable to say: "I know you're trying to set the scene, but there's a lot of throat clearing in the first seven or eight sentences of your piece." His point would remain the same.

As you move forward in this work, you'll develop a thicker skin - thus, when confronted with a comment like "I stopped reading," you'll ask "Why?," rather than lash out. Trust me, as you progress, you'll hear much worse. If writing doesn't break your heart, then the readers will, and it's a condition we all suffer.

That said, I think what all the previous comments about the piece have pointed toward is this: the piece is unfocused. Readers are reluctant to follow a writer around while the writer tries to figure out what the story is. This begins as a story about a date with the your girlfriend, then becomes a story about your first visit to Fenway, then becomes a game story about a pitchers' duel.

Being a writer means having to make choices. And many of the choices you make must be made before you ever sit down to write. Some must be made on the fly. In your case, you went to do one thing and another thing arose - the game story. Rather than try to combine these elements, next time try to separate them. Save the story of your first visit to Fenway for another column, and write instead the story of what it was like to sit in the stands and watch this incredible pitching duel.

Also, as a practical matter, when you introduce a character by name, as you did with Cassandra, you telegraph to the reader that she's important to the piece. Never name a character who isn't central to the story you're about to tell. It confuses the reader.

A last thought, too, about brevity. Reread this:

I looked up at this great 90-year-old structure and it's like gazing at Mount Rushmore, the Taj Mahal and the Statue of Liberty all in one. Fenway Park is a cathedral for all those that worship the game of baseball. It is the holiest of shrines for the sports fan. I imagine you could get the same feeling going to Wrigley Field or the old Boston Garden.

You're using four sentences - each one moderately weak - to make a point. As an exercise, try to convey the same thought in one sentence. Which metaphors do you keep? Which do you throw away? How do you convey the same impression with more power and fewer words? Give it a try if you have time.

Thanks again for sharing your work with us.