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

Here's a very long thread about Charles Askins, Jr. you might find illuminating.

http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/4589158/1

Jim thanks a lot.. It was a great read..

To answer the OP's statement, in an ancient past life I edited copy for a newspaper. If what I was taught about copy editing is correct, most readers won't get much past the third spelling or grammar error before losing interest. It destroys the credibility of both the writer and the publisher.

A good example is the "The Blaze" published online by Glen Beck's organization. For one I can't stand the pop ups but I quit reading it when I couldn't get through an article without finding numerous spelling and grammar errors. Hard to take someone seriously who won't spend the time to proof read.

The same applies to posts on forums. I won't read a post in all caps or lacking capitalization and punctuation. I can forgive a few spelling or grammar errors but if they start to look like laziness on the part of the poster, I'm done reading.

Yes, it is frequently claimed that Elmer's writing required excessive editing, but I wonder just how much of that is actually true? Does that mean Elmer couldn't write?

Lets consider the facts. Elmer took only six months of high school, then attended a business college for two years. In his mid-twenties, he started his writing career as an untrained typist using two fingers, a manual typewriter with no correction fluid, and a coal oil lamp. (At the 1924 Camp Perry matches, a well-meaning sergeant offered to let Keith dictate his story about some police matches while the sergeant, an excellent typist, typed it out. Keith politely declined, explaining that his two-finger hunt-and-peck method was sufficient to keep up with his slow writing pace. So, yes, he did type his stories from the very beginning.)

Certainly, there would be lots of typing errors, as would be expected under those circumstances. Does that necessarily mean that he couldn't write and needed an editor just to make his drafts "intelligible?"

I have eight of Elmer's 10 books, and although he wasn't perfect he is one of my all-time favorite writers. I also have a couple of books written about Elmer, including "Letters from Elmer Keith" by Timothy J. Mullin, a 50-year compilation of Keith's letters to a wide variety of people.

Most intriguing are the first three in the book--handwritten letters from Elmer to a Capt. Shank of Fort Sumpter, New York, in the spring of 1924. The letters are photocopied in the book from the originals, and the quality of the copying is very good.

Elmer wrote them while living on a cow ranch in Winston, Montana. He obviously wrote them with a fountain pen, probably on whatever paper was handy. They are each multiple pages in length, and they are very enlightening.

First, there are no misspellings. At times there are some fragmented sentences reminiscent of a telegraph message, but they sound almost conversational in context, and they actually read just fine. Keith's penmanship is not exactly beautiful, but honestly it's a lot neater than mine. There is one instance where he incorrectly uses "to" when he means to say "too." A few times he abbreviates using initials (e.g. p.g. stock for pistol grip stock.) There might be a few instances of inappropriate capitalization (it's hard to tell with cursive writing), but no glaring grammatical errors. He essentially writes like he talks--a Westerner from the 1920's.

These letters were written when Keith was 25 years old, and just about to begin writing professionally. There is nothing whatsoever about them that is "unintelligible" as some critics have claimed about his manuscripts. Their tone is very conversational, and the words flow across the page very naturally. The intended audience was a fellow gun buff; it was obviously not intended for national publication. And this was how Elmer Keith wrote before he became Elmer Keith.

A couple of other things that stand out:

1. Keith was a real rifle looney. The letters ultimately depict a transaction between Keith and Capt. Shank. Elmer had advertised four Sharps rifles for sale, but by the time Shank contacted him, two were sold. Eventually, Keith trades three Sharps rifles to Shank for one 1922 Springfield NRA sporter and a bunch of .30-06 match ammo. Elmer's knowledge of the care and feeding of the blackpowder Sharps is both extensive and obvious. He describes them as being very accurate but requiring "patience" and a lot of "old maid fussing." He is getting rid of a few Sharps rifles because he has too many and is about to move to Idaho.

2. Keith might have been a little bit isolated and lonely on the ranch, and liked to talk, even to a relative stranger who had similar interests. While describing the guns and their loads that are the subject of the trade, Keith also mentions by way of conversation other guns he still owns, the fact that he has to drive his team seven miles to Winston to ship a package or get his mail, and that his cows keep him very busy on the ranch.

3. Keith was really honest as a gun trader. By the time the trade culminates, Keith has decided to break one of his own Sharps rifles down and rebuild it later so that Capt. Shank's rifle can have better wood, as Elmer clearly wants him to be pleased with the rifle. As Elmer describes it, it was a 30" .45-70-420 that would make 1.5" ten-shot groups with his paper-patched loads. Also, Keith expresses his belief that his three Sharps rifles are probably worth more than Shank's one Springfield, and that if Shank agrees, Keith would accept boot in the form of some Western International Match .30-06 ammo. It is clear from the letters that Elmer was getting geared up for match shooting at Camp Perry later that summer.

I've never been tasked with editing any of Elmer's writing. However, I have had the opportunity to read several pieces of his correspondence photocopied from the originals, and there is nothing in the quality of writing of which I would be ashamed. I think his reputation of needing heavy editing is attributable partly to being a bad typist and partly to myth. In later years Keith would personally reply to 250 to 300 letters from his readers per month, without a secretary, so perhaps some of his mistakes were also attributable to being in a hurry. Anyway, if you read the guy's own unaltered stuff, it's really hard not to like him, even more so not to admire and respect him.

gaperry-
Thank you for the time, effort, literacy, and knowledge you put into your post.
--Bob

gaperry59,

You're right, Elmer's typing was the big problem. I've been told this by more than one editor who worked with his stuff. The head editor usually handed the copy-editing to one of the junior guys in the office, so there are some people still around who did edit Elmer.

Among other things, he often hit the "i" key when he should have hit the "o" when typing the word shot. This rather frequent typo simply had to be searched out carefully and changed.

I'd enjoy being a gunwriter. In fact, I think I wanna be one. Wonder if the editors would let me use "wanna"?

Don't give up your day job. Really.

I forget where I read this, and don't know if it is indeed true or not, but the story goes that a new editor wrote Elmer Keith and suggested he use more commas. The next manuscript Elmer sent the editor had about three lines of commas at the very end with the note, "this should be enough...put them where you want them." True or not, I like that story!

I also heard that someone put an ad in a nationally read periodical for a typewriter that Elmer Keith was selling, being described as "like new with the "I" worn out"...

Now, Dats phunny!

My buddy Bob knew Elmer. Late in the game, Elmer handed Bob a rough draft of an article. Bob could not make heads or tails of it, and told Elmer so. Elmer thanked him, and said that was his thought too, but wanted a second opinion.

In regards to the original opinion, I've been writing for print and performance since I was little kid. An editor is a necessary part of the process. It is not that rough draft comes out more conversational. It comes out more jumbled and confused. It may make great sense to you, but your eye is always lying to you. What's on the paper may be complete drivel, or may have a serious hole in it. I have KYHillChick read most of the things I write, before final submission to the editor. I'm pretty good at writing fast clean copy, but she frequently picks up real howlers.

I wrote a novel online years ago as an experiment, and invited some of the campers here to read it as it was coming out. Yikes.

It also helps to read things out loud, even if it is just to yourself. A lot of stuff that looks great on paper comes out really tortured as it passes your lips. If I can't speak it, I can't expect others to read it.

I tried to read Keith's "Hell I was there" a few years ago. It was written exactly as he spoke, as a long interview. I could not get past a few pages. It was simply not readable.

As a writer, not much of what I hand in is ever changed. Not only do editors change very little, they almost always express appreciation that my copy is clean and tight.

As an editor, I see some pretty raw writing from writers who know what they're talking about, but can't communicate clearly. If their writing was published that way, hardly anyone would understand them and no one would read it to the end. Ambiguities, redundancies, outright repetition, unclear grammar, and much more -- if writers' work was published as submitted, writers would often look stupid. It's possible to write something and have it say exactly the opposite of what you intend.

I've even had one editor tell me he'd like to hire me to pre-edit articles because he gets articles that are essentially an 8-hour editing job and he doesn't have time for it. Problem is they don't have the budget to hire extra outside help.

Writing and editing -- neither one is easy.

Steve.

Steve Sorensen, is that you?

Try Sixguns.

That book is one of the biggest POS I've ever had the displeasure of reading.

We're all different of course but I don't know how anybody can consider that good writing.



Travis

Hi, Max. You doing OK?

Steve.

One of Askins' "other ways" of making money was (allegedly) raking in commissions from outfitters and safari operators on the business he sent their way (or booked himself), or plugged in his magazine articles.

I've read "Hell I Was There" at least a hundred times in the last 25 years. It's not that the writing is that good, it's that the story is that fascinating. And I pick up something new each time I read it. But I can agree it's an acquired taste.

JOC was a great writer, and I've got several of his books. My first copy of "The Complete Book of Rifles and Shotguns" literally fell apart.

However, for pure writing ability, try Skeeter Skelton, such as for example "The Golden Spurs of Dobe Grant." For a border country lawman, that dude had serious writing talent.