Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters LIke or dislike gun writters

I know what it's like to be terminally "turned off" by a writer. Fifty-several years ago, I was an ardent adherent of hunting writer J. Bought his books. Had boxes of magazines with his articles.

Went to a showing of his movies of a leopard hunt. Left before it was over, no longer a fan.

With the camera running, he gut-shot the leopard that was stalking the goat that he had tethered as bait, "just to see what it'd do," he said. He chortled as the leopard savaged the goat.

Fortunately, I hadn't eaten recently enough to vomit.

I can, and do, like or dislike various writers writing. As for the writers themselves. I have had the good fortune to meet a some writers over the years, to include a few who are campfire members. All have been nice folks...very nice folks. I guess it'd be safe to say that I basically like every gun writer, that I've met, since none have done anything whatsoever, that would cause me to dislike them. No point in disliking someone, for no good reason.

Jeff

Opinions!

There are many foundations for people's opinions of others � including others whom they've never met.

When self-trained Philadelphian Al Cocozza made it big and adopted the masculine version of his mother's maiden name (Maria Lanza) as a stage name, he was a top public favorite � with the notable exception of a vociferous young voice student in Dad's church, who discounted him as abominably crude, with "a lot to learn." (Wonder what ever became of her?)

Interestingly, opera greats Luciano Pavarotti, Pl�cido Domingo, Leo Nucci, and Jos� Carreras acknowledged him as a great tenor who'd been an inspiration to them.

Back when I was eighteen an old Chief Petty Officer told us youngsters this pearl of wisdom. "Opinions are like azzholes, everybody has one and they all stink".

I remember that quote whenever I read the pontifications from some gun writers, and of their critics. I don't earn a living writing and I won't begrudge someone who can. Just my opinion...

idahoguy101

there are some men and women who can write and there are others that simply collect words and put them down. Bubba might never know the difference as he peruses the latest copy of SWAT magazine, but some of us do.

Ken - your reference to Mario Lanza was interesting. As an adult I've never been much of an opera fan. But, seeeing his name, I can remember back in the '50's seeing his movies on Saturday afternoons and enjoying them all. I guess they are what is referred to as "light opera". Every so often I will still watch them when one is on late night TV.

Jim

Ken,

I'm laughing so hard, I think I woke up the family. You, Sir, are a very funny man. Thanks for the above posts.

I know one gunwriter who sings and plays a guitar as well as he writes - actually there are probably plenty of writers who sing and play the guitar as well as they write - but JB is actually good at all of them.

Over the years, I have come to look forward to reading some writers more than others. Some writers could be very interesting, regardless of the topic, and I would usually read their articles even if it was about a subject that didn't interest me. Even if I wasn't interested in the subject, the writing style was always interesting.

Jack O'Connor was one of those. Elmer Keith was another. Jim Corbett is another. I always thought Warren Page was very informative, but I didn't care for his writing style. I always read his articles, for the content, but not for entertainment.

One writer that I never cared for, I won't mention his name, but his initials are Charles Askins, Jr. I never met him, never wanted to meet him, and read very few of his articles, and later didn't even bother to pause when I saw an article with his byline.

Maybe he had something that I was not aware of, but I never understood why magazines paid him to write the stuff he did. He always held a grudge against Jack O'Conner, but it was Outdoor Life who gave Askins, Senior's job to Jack. Jack never took Askins job. Outdoor Life gave it to him, because, in my opinion, Jack was the better writer.

Others, even if it is a subject I am interested in, the writer is so boring that I quit partway through the article.

One type of writing that I don't care for is when the title is how to do something or what works and what doesn't, and after I finish the article, I still don't know how to do it or what works or not.

In my opinion, some of the worst writers on the planet are those who write text books for schools and colleges. Text books are the most boring, uninteresting, and least informative books of any that I have ever read. I guess that is why I spent most of my time in class rooms day dreaming instead of trying to learn something.

My 1985 poll of readers' reading preferences comprised two typed pages with both multiple-choice questions and "finish the sentence" questions. I got a life-time supply of chuckles from the respondents who wrote, as one did, I do not think that a quality gun-and-hunting magazine should include "articles on any subject by Colonel Askins."

(Some respondents expressed the same sentiment about Charlie in other "finish the sentence" questions.)

The first few sentences of Mr. Atkinson's initial post beginning this thread express most of the real issue. Far too many posts about gunwriters and their writing seem to be gratuitious opinions based on emotional reactions rather than rational/analytical responses to something a writer has written. These posts add virtually nothing to our knowledge, except what the poster's opinion may be. Many directly state or intimate a judgment about the writer's character or worth as a human being rather than providing alternative information or evidence contradicting assertions or conclusions in his writing or providing an intelligent critique of his writing style.

Having never met or acquired personal knowledge of any of the current or deceased gun scribes I have never formed an opinion on them as human beings. I do form opinions about what they've written - about whether I found it informative and useful, and whether I enjoyed their writing style. I generally keep these opinions to myself, except to compliment or express appreciation to the writer. Otherwise I generally consider that my opinions (as contrasted with information I may possess) are of interest and use only to me.

There are several reasons I read gunwriters and these are the same reasons I read anything. The primary reason is to obtain information, to learn something from someone who has more experience and knowledge on a subject or who has acquired more skill in a particular area than I have. Some articles I find more informative and useful than others. But I don't rule out reading new work by a writer whose previous work I have not found informative or interesting. The next one may be a gem. I won't know if I don't read it.

Some writers seem more interested in, or at least tend to write more about, aspects of the shooting sports and hunting that interest me than others. Like most people I tend to gravitate toward subjects that interest me and toward writers who cover those subjects. But I try to keep an open mind so I don't miss learning something from other writers or about other subjects - it's part of what keeps life interesting and I've learned a hell of a lot from unexpected people and experiences.

All that said I find too much of what is written to be formulaic. Generally, the fault is not with the writer but with the structure of the publishing industry and how money flows into and within it. Some of the fault seems to lie with the tastes of the broad readership - or the fault is with my tastes which are different from the broad readership.

Magazines publish what will make money and that seems, to me at least, to center around the hottest new product and, reasonably enough, what will keep their subscribership up. While I am interested in new things there is, it seems to me, very little useful analysis of new products. Articles about new products too often tend to be mere descriptions and rehashing of advertising copy incorporated into a general story line of how and why the author came in contact with the product, e.g. "I was invited to X location along with others where we were treated wonderfully by great outfitter Y to test Z" or something similar. I read these in hopes of real information but most generally am disappointed.

Publishers are not going to publish articles that say new products from important (or potential) advertisers are of no or little value or that point out in detail their flaws and failings. Descriptive articles wrapped in a story line are more acceptable in today's publishing industry. Writers may start with in-depth analysis (though I doubt many have time for such analyses and most have probably learned that there's no point because it won't get published anyway) but editors will have to alter it to fit into the publication's alloted space, style, focus and publisher's policy. My disappointment with any of that provides me with no basis for forming an opinion about or publicly critiquing the character, judgment, knowledge or experience of any writer involved. And, who would (or should) care what my opinion might be?

To me the American Rifleman once was a great publication. At the time it was not driven by mass market appeal and forces and was not primarily a political organ it published useful, thoughtful, complicated and technical articles of real interest and use to readers. When the American Rifleman became more of a political organ Rifle and Handloader seemed to fill that niche for me. They were, years ago, publications outside the mainstream that routinely published truly informative, often technically oriented, and sometimes complicated articles that could really help readers, expand their perspectives, and prompt reader thought, experimentation and sometimes generate reader-written articles. Unfortunately these publications seem to have, either voluntarily or through market pressure, joined the ranks of the "popular" gun magazines and the value of the content diminished to the lower standard. There are, I think, a few current publications targeted to specific interests (varmint hunting and small caliber firearms) with limited circulation that attempt to do this today. The internet may in the future fill some of this gap but for the most part money drives the mainstream and I'm just learning to deal with it. I'm not part of the target demographic for most things anyway so my opinion matters little to anyone making decisions about these things.

I long for the good old days but don't fault today's generation of writers. I'm sure it's a tough business and tough time to be trying to write new, interesting, useful articles. More power to those who try. Sometimes they'll miss. Sometimes they'll hit the mark. But at least they've got the stones to putt themselves and their work out there where the rest of us can, in our infinite wisdom, judge them.

Sorry for the long and boring post. The subject just piqued my interest this time around. Back to lurking and learning from others.

It is a great topic, Ray! One thing we all need to keep in perspective is that not all readers of these magazines have the experience level of most members here.

There is a real necessity to write "starter" articles to get the young and new shooting/hunting enthusiast pointed in a sensible direction from the start. Thus, we have "The Venerable and Versatile 30-06" columns. To many they have real value, and in that, they have value to us "old timers", as they create a new well-informed crop of like-minded enthusiasts to swell our ranks.

AK Chessie, It's true that the magazines have changed over the years but I think that astute (older?) readers have as well. It's not as easy to find interesting and informative articles because we have learned and developed along the way. Infomercials and articles geared for newcomers hold no value and even articles we once might have found informative are now passe.
I suggest it is time we begin to pass the information we have gathered on to younger shooters and hunters - and I propose that those of you who can string two sentances together submitt free-lance articles to magazines like Rifle & Handloader in order that they might become the magazine we all remember - for a new generation.

For me,one of the most distressing things the NRA ever did was giving Askins,jr. a posiiton on the Rifleman..This was after the awareness of his propensity for "blackmailing" the industry for free or highly subsidized merchandise was widespread.. the sorriest example of a "gunwriter" or just a human..idabull

Can't say I dislike any of them, nor can I reason that much of it is worthless. There is generally something to be learned from most of it - what you choose to do with it is another matter. I try to read much of the older stuff as I wasn't around when many of the greats were still practicing their craft.

I can say that I generally prefer the pragmatic approach, and certainly don't need to read some transparent article about an Echol's Legend because someone likely saved a couple grand on it in exchange for the write-up.

I hunt and shoot in the real world, (more hunt than shoot) therefore I'm drawn to guys that are real world hunters first and fit it around the practicum of rifles. Likely why I'm partial to the guy here that hunts the big bears in AK as well as the guy here that sports a sense of humor and has a wife that uses a NULA with a kick-@ss paint job. <grin>

But Phil, that'd take thought and work, and it's so much easier to just fume and spew!

I can only add that Phil/.458 cheats at being gun writer. He does this by living half the year inside a wildlife refuge on the Alaska Peninsula, in an area that has more brown bears per square mile than any place in Alaska, along with other wild Alaskan critters such as moose, ptarmigan and salmon. He gets to shoot and hunt with a variety of rifles every year in the rain and wind and sometimes snow, unlike some gun writers who have gone on a bear hunt. This sort of cheating should be against the rules.

These bash-the-writers threads always remind me of a comment that's often heard in Washington � that the town is full of people who could run the government better, but they're all too busy cutting hair and driving cabs.

He should at least be handicapped by being forced to take along some semi-retired midwesterner on the less strenuous of his adventures. If necessary, I could probably come up with a candidate for the position of s-rm.

Just don't make me take any semi-retired gunwriters