Let me ask the other side of the question � how much have readers and their basic attitudes changed in the last fifty-several years?
The readers whom I used to know before I became a gun writer viewed the writers whose work we read a great deal differently � as fellow hunters and shooters like ourselves with something interesting to tell us about. We respected those old writers and learned much from them even though their different orientations moved them at different speeds in a variety of directions different from our own.
Differences in taste and choice weren't cardinal sins. Nowadays, it seems that many readers � the most vocal if not typical readers � demand that writers agree with their (readers') own preferences, biases, and opinions or else they (writers) are somehow despicable, traitors, liars, etc.
We old-time readers didn't read the magazines and books with our animosity lurking so near the surface. We weren't so readily distrustful or eagerly judgemental. We had our favorites but didn't loathe or despise those with different tastes and interests. We didn't demand that the writers of those days voice our own prejudices to be worthy of our regard and respect.
We didn't assume that our own experiences and conclusions formed a body of infallible standards that writers rattled or shook at their own risk. We weren't judgemental know-it-all-alreadies who were loaded, primed, and cocked with hair triggers set to cut loose the wraths of Heaven on writers who dared to speak or believe something else.
One result was that we grew. So did our knowledge. So did our range of interests. So did our satisfaction. So did our pleasure. And (I suspect) so did our judgement.
