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..

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.

I must have missed the fascinating portion of his tales.

And I freely admit to thinking JOC is just as overrated as EK when it came to writing.





Travis

PrimeBeef,

That wouldn't surprise me. I've known writers who have demanded a percentage of the hunts outfitters book as the result of their magazine articles.

Nothing surprises me about Charles Askins, Jr.. I suspect he was also involved in some Clay Harvey-type shenanigans, as well. But on a much greater scale, and for a much longer period of time.

Some other writers pulled "Clays" long before Mr. Harvey came along.

That reminds of a writer from years ago named Al Raychard that wrote for the Maine Sportsman.
He had written a guide book about Maine ponds and trout fishing, so one day I took a jaunt up to a pond he described as pristine with a good population of native brook trout and plenty of public camping at the put-in site.
The pond, as it turned out was what we used to call a frog pond, full of lily pads, and not deep enough to support any trout population. The "public camping" as it turned out belonged to a local logger, who was getting tired of people camping there because of Raychard's article in his guide book. Turned out, that local logger had a friend that had gone on a moose hunt that Raychard had promoted that was complete absurdity.
I managed to reach ol' Raychard by phone when I got home, and he explained that he certainly could not be expected to actually visit all the ponds he had written up in his guide book, but it certainly had looked good on the topo map, and besides, how in hell was he supposed to know who owned the land.

Royce

Yes, indeed. Some of them (unlike Mr. Harvey) were very well-known and highly regarded.

I haven't read an article in a long time so maybe thing's have changed. The problem I had was I could read the first few line's and know where to article was going. When Jim Carmichael took over for jack O'Conner, his still was great but then he got back to the same ole same ole. Jim was a great story teller as was John Jobson! Been a long time since I've read a good story, seem's the currant crop is interested more in details that have little to do with the story itself. Article's on cartridge's like the 30-06 I quit reading a long long time ago, there's only so many ways to talk about cartridges like that. Russel Anabell was in a league of his own, great story teller. Of course it's been a long time so maybe things have changed.

Guess I'm the exception, since I thought "Hell, I was there" was a pretty good read. Of course, at the time I read it first, I was just a kid and was used to listening to the old-timers tell tales so it was just like that. I really do enjoy reading JOC. He had a unique style that is unseen today in most writers since he easily wove in the technical details along with the actual hunting stories. When he wrote more technical stories, usually about rifles or cartridges, he would always bring real world examples (stories) into play where he or one of his friends actually used the rifle or cartridge to do something. And usually with a witty retort to the folks who he knew would disagree with him. A little humor and dry wit is what I enjoy most in JOC's writing.

Most of the material in Hell I Was There Was first published by Winchester Press as Keith, An Autobiography with a copyright date of 1974. I got my copy through the Outdoor Life Book Club about 1975. The day I received my copy, I was still reading on it in the wee hours of the morning. I simply couldn't put it down. It was not that the writing was so spectacular, but rather it was the story he was telling that was captivating, at least to me it was. However, regardless of what I thought about the book, I'm told that Elmer really hated it. Later he was persuaded to dictate the story into a tape recorder rather than trying to type it. It was published with a copyright of 1979 by Petersen Publishing Company under the new title from the recorded tapes. Perhaps that explains why a couple of respondents here complained about it sounding like Keith was talking. He was! While I can't say that I really knew Elmer, I did spend an enjoyable hour or so with him in 1979. He came across to me as being a proud old cowboy, which is exactly what he was, big hat and all. Personally, I liked the original version best, but I have both in my library. While I enjoyed Elmer's stories, my real hero was Jack O'Connor. I had nowhere near the experience of either Keith or O'Connor, and still don't for that matter. However, the experience that I have had has been far more in line with O'Connor's writings that it has Keith's. Alas, I never met O'Connor. By the time I got going in my writing career, Jack had mostly quit traveling and stayed mostly at home. Judging from a lot of comments I've read about the man, perhaps I was lucky that I didn't, but I doubt that. I've spoken with quite a number of people that knew O'Connor very well and while all of them agree that he was not the most social of personalities, and could get ornery at times, he was by no means the azz that he is often portrayed as being. I long ago adopted the philosophy to believe nothing that I hear or read, and only about half of what I see with my own two eyes -- that philosophy has served me well. TT

Most people today just don't understand people like Elmer today, nor the situations or conditions he wrote about and lived through. He was a "Man's man," and that's very out of style today, where we're all supposed to hold hands and sing "Cum bay yah." And the conditions and circumstances under which he and O'Connor hunted were vastly different, so it's really no surprise that they came to differ so sharply in their opinions about what applied best to their respective circumstances and goals. Elmer often HAD to take quick shots if he was to EAT. O'Connor seemed to always have the option of waiting for a better shot. Thus, the two had widely divergent NEEDS, and made their respective recommendations accordingly.

As in the immediately preceeding post, I seldom take what I hear all that seriously, but it appears O'Connor may have had a problem with alcohol, or maybe that when he drank, he could become a bit of a problem, but for all the wonderful stories he gave me, I'll forever be grateful. He was a great writer, whatever faults he may have had. I'll always be grateful for them both, and if it was a choice of whose articles to read, I'd probably go with O'Connor, but I have a notion, just based on what I know from their attitudes in their writing, that I'd probably enjoy hunting with Elmer a bit more than with Jack, though I suspect I'd enjoy both very much.

People don't have to be "perfect" or without flaws for them to be worthy of our respect and appreciation, and the good info that both provided will always be invaluable to ANY real sportsman and hunter. That's my view, anyway, and I'll let the matter of either's flaws be between them and God. Just seems to be the only way to glean the best from all concerned.

To a nine year old kid who got the big three magazines, albeit a month late, from a neighbor who passed them on when the new issues came out, O'Connor, Page, Jobson, and Brown wrote stories that were absolutely enthralling. Then an uncle gave me a subscription to Guns and Ammo when I was 12, and I started reading Keith. Didn't have to agree with everything they wrote to be very glad for the material to read!
I came from a reading family...books, magazines, you name it. I'll read the label on a food container if it's the only thing around when I'm eating lunch. Not everyone enjoys, or craves, reading. I think those who enjoy it less are more apt to be critical and selective of who and what they read.
But for me, both the old writers and the new allow me to be involved in my hobby when work and time of year keep me in an office.

I knew Keith on a casual basis, certainly not as an everyday friend but over the years we had some interesting conversations. He came from a hard background, he was never much of a success when it came to having very much money, even at his peak I doubt that he ever made very much. I enjoyed visiting with him but never cared for his writing at all. Probably the thing that turned me off most about his writing is that when something went wrong it was most always someone else's fault. It seemed to me that he was a little too quick to point the blame at someone else for what he considered injustices in life. In visiting I never had that feeling but in reading his books it was always there.

As far as the feud between him and O'Connor I think it was more of a jealousy on Keith's part. O'Connor even mentions it in his book The Last Book Confessions Of A Gun Editor, which is a great book, one of my favorite reads I highly recommend it, if you can find a copy of it.

They both had experience that the newer crop of writers will never had, they lived in days that are past and we will never see again. Most writers now go on a 2 to 5 day canned hunt and come back with articles to pimp whatever products were supplied to them. The only reason for so many gunwriters now is that there are already too many used car salesmen and lawyers in the world so they took up writing instead.

drover

A lot of Old Jack's books are actually collections of articles and the flow suffers a bit I think. Still well worth reading, of course.

Didn't see it mentioned, but Stephen Hunter's "Pale Horse Coming" features thinly disguised versions of Jack, Elmer, Askins, and Ed McGivern assembled into a team by Earl Swagger to break the inmates out of a slave-labor prison camp in the deep South. It's a decent read for gun cranks and the Askins clone comes across pretty much like people seem to think he was. I'm surprised no one has made a movie out of it.

This morning, while trying desperately to type a reply on a thread, it finally dawned on me that Elmer must have been using an iPad.

Gun writers articles in Magazines are not the place to go if you want to dig deep and really learn.

The Campfire Is!!!!

The majority of hunters don't know this and for good reason.

It keeps our beloved John Barness actively imployed.

Shod

Many years back when HBO was kind of a cable type affair there was a commercial that sadly I forget on what. It showed people rafting down some nasty white water somewhere and later them in a camp. Here is this obviously short guy chopping wood with this huge hat. Damn me if it wasn't Elmer Keith and the film must have been a record of him rafting with Cap. Guleke. Tried to find out where a copy of that film was if if copies could be had on DVD, but no such luck. Then one day, HBO shut down their system and signed on to what we now call cable. Still would give a couple of eye teeth to see that film in it's entirety and would come close to killing to get a copy. I wonder how many here even knew Elmer was a movie star.
Paul B.