Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters My Opinion on Gun Writers Articles for Magazines.

I believe the article they send in should not be edited and should be published just the way received. No Spelling Corrections, No Punctuation Correction , published just the way it was written and spelled. This way it can be read just like the man was sitting there and telling you the story face to face.

And your second wish would be to be hired as a lavishly-paid editor?

I see your point, but if it were true, Elmer Keith would never have published a second article. His hand-written manuscripts were (it is told) almost unintelligible.

In point of fact, most of mine were published exactly that way. I seldom found a change in the printed version, compared to my saved originals. I can't speak for other writers, but that was my experience.

Once in a while, the editor would call me and suggest some minor changes, which I would make. After the changes, the articles ran exactly as I had submitted them.

They usually just call me to see if my name was spelled right...

The only times mine have been changed over the years were to:

1) Make sure certain items fit that particular magazine's style, such as changing 1" to one inch. But after writing a few articles for a certain magazine I do that myself anyway.

2) To shorten it because the editor ran out of space. Usually they'll give me the choice of shortening it myself, but sometimes there's not enough time.

3) Even with spell and grammar-checking programs on computers, mistakes make it through. In fact I believe there are often more typographic and grammatical errors in articles today, especially since the advent of automatic spell-changing. Don't know how many times I've had the word "spitzer" changed to "spritzer" by the effing computer.

Sometimes we have mental lapses, but professional writers try to check stuff before sending it to an editor. I just got an e-mail from an editor yesterday, wondering if I'd made a mistake in which Mauser rifle was first chambered for the 7x57. Turned out I was right, but we both felt better after I checked a couple of top sources in my library. (I also don't depend strictly on Internet sources, or even printed sources, always trying to find at least 2-3 for anything, because both can have typos or just plain errors of fact.)

I don't usually make spelling or grammatical errors. The first is because good spelling is, I firmly believe, mostly genetic, and due to some quirk of memory.

That doesn't make much sense, 'Read just like that man was sitting there and telling you the story face to face'

There are no SPELLING mistakes in conversation.

more than you would believe, when listening to people pronounce the words when speaking

Another factor I didn't mention is good editors (and there are many) also tend to buy articles from writers who don't need much editing, because it makes their job easier. There have been exceptions (Elmer Keith was one), but most aspiring writers don't know as much about shooting and hunting as he did. Plus he was a natural story-teller.Even his typed manuscripts were a mess, but editors put up with turning them into presentable articles because he shot and hunted a lot, and in fact was an almost obsessed experimenter.

But even so, most editors prefer to work with writers who send in ready-to-print copy.

smart editor

An editor would turn MD's "obsessed" into "obsessive" but that's all. Because MD is another extremely good writer, story teller, experimenter, and hunter.

The first 7x57s were the 1892 Spanish Navy contract rifles, weren't they?

I remember reading that ol' Col. Charles Askins would call the editor up and cuss him out if he changed anything but I don't think Charlie liked too many people anyway.

One of my local friends is a retired Army officer who as a young man actually knew and hunted with Askins, and not just in the U.S. but in Africa. His personal opinion is that some editors who disappeared mysteriously probably ran afoul of Askins.

Mule Deer, If it is not out of place, I have a question that I would like to ask if the answer is not offensive to folks..

Askins was one of my early favorites.. I read about everything I could by him.. Including his book Unrepentant Sinner..

His father was probably my third favorite in those days.. Now, Charlie mentioned many times in his articles that his father had no concern for money.. He described him, as the most dead broke gent he ever knew.. and it concerned him not one bit that he had no money..

Since the Col. did not come from a family of old money, he seemed to have a great deal of $ later in life.. Considering the number of big game hunts and safaris he made, I always wondered if how he financed these trips.. I figured maybe he married well.. If it is a question that is out of place.. No problem.. He just was a very fascinating character..

Everybody needs an editor, to protect the writer from himself.

I found that the higher quality and pay a publication was, the less they edited, echoing MD's comment that better publications only take stuff from writers who send them well polished material.

My response to the first post is. "You gotta be kidding!" And I assume the post is in jest. I can hardly stand to suffer through the disjointed meandering stories most people tell. That's why we pay good story tellers.

And he could hold it against them - I believe I remember John Lachuk being singled out.

Marrying "well" worked out for Robert Chatfield-Taylor.

260, I do remember him.. Haven't thought of his work for years..

WyoCoyoteHunter,

I don't really know the details, but aside from his military pay I would guess that Askins Jr. worked harder at other ways of making money. Plus, magazines paid better in the years he was writing than back when his father did, and he was also stationed in a few places around the world where he could go hunting relatively cheaply.

Mule Deer thanks.. He was one interesting character..