Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters "Gun Writer" Backgrounds

I'll never forget Ed Matunas's comment when I told him that I'd like for him to send me articles on guns other than shotguns (and on handloading for other kinds of guns). I'd "hired" him mainly to replace a shotgun writer who'd quit in a huff because I wouldn't use stuff that he was selling to other magazines, and Ed had assumed that all that I wanted from him was shotgun stuff.

"Why don't you ever send me anything on rifles or handguns?"

"You mean I can?"

"Absolutely! And I wish you would."

"Oh, that opens-up whole new worlds!"

'Deed it does.

... and that's why I hope that writers whose other Editors pigeon-hole 'em will send me their other stuff for Smokelore.

One heart-breaking regret that lingers from those days is my failure to get my pal Bill Jordan to send me articles that his Editor wouldn't let him do for their magazine. Bill had absolutely no hobby interest in handguns, which had a plethora of unpleasant memories for him, but he loved hunting big game, varmints, and birds with rifles and shotguns. Too bad that his Editor's narrow vision (which wouldn't let him write about those interests) and his death have lost the rest of us so much good Jordan material.

Just to be clear, assigned stuff is one thing, but a talented writer who actually has something to say is something else.

There might be a few here who fit that category. I hope they cooperate, Ken.

t

I'm working on the talented part...But you hit it on the nose and that's why I'm not writing much as of late. The handgun magazines have some decent writers who have the subject covered pretty well. I found myself writing just to be writing and that's how quality drops.

I love shotguns and rifles...Be nice to write about them from time to time.

KG
Good for you. I hope you come up with something soon.

Then there's the guys who sit around thinking "How can I rewrite that article I already sold to sell it to someone else?"

t

Some people (like Ken Howell) have a good documented background; they have published and edited well respected magazines & books. There are some writers who have written many words and gotten things published and we really do not know who they are. I would sure like to know their backgrounds.

Thinkng further about the "backgrounds issue, I want to include some thoughts on Elmer Keith. I am reading his 1936 book on guns annd loads for big game and have come to several conclusions:
1. His knowledge came from experience.
2. His opinions were valid in 1936 when bullets were not as good as today and he "needed" a .375 H&H to penetrate the long end of an elk.
3. His formal education was limited, but he wrote very well.
4. I do not know how I would react to someone's resume that listed his occupation as Idaho Cowboy.

djs,
Actually, his editors wrote very well.
RS

Thanks for picture. Have heard of it (them), but first time ever saw photo!

Judging from his letters (I have a stack of 'em), he wrote essentially what you saw printed. The struggle for his editors was putting the broken words together, separating the jammed-together words, and removing the extraneous symbols and numbers that his near-misses on the keyboard had inserted where they didn't belong.

So m$et h&ingli*k#e th*is � only I'm exaggerating quite a bit. His mistakes left a lot more there that was a lot easier to read than my exaggerated example implies. If I could lay my hands on my treasured pack of Elmer Keith letters, I'd type a line or two here, exactly as he wrote 'em, so you could see for yourself.

I never saw any of his raw magazine copy, but my guess is that it was no worse and was probably better than what he allowed to go out the door in personal letters.

... addendum ...

The average Campfire member would have absolutely no trouble reading Elmer's raw copy, and some would holler "arrogant" at anybody who dared to suggest how it could be cleaned-up. Like not writing "your" for you're, for example.

We were lucky enough to have Bill join us at the ranch for the opening weekend of whitetail season for almost the last twenty years of his life. KenH probably has a lot more Bill stories than I, but here are a pair of my favorites regarding handguns.

For many years Bill brought a 454 Casull along. He'd usually find some shooter anxious to try a cylinder full. Bill would just cheer them on and grin. Finally Bill showed up without the Casull. When asked why, he deadpanned, "I finally sent that gun back. It hurt to shoot it. Maybe they can send it to someone with more experience than I have."

As KenH said, Bill was hindered by the fact that he was known for expertise with a handgun. His own observations were to the effect of "Yeah, I'm known for using a handgun, but there is nothing you can do with a handgun that you can't do better with a rifle or shotgun. A handgun is just like the pair of slip-joint pliers in a farmer's pocket. It's not the best tool for the job, but it's what you have with you when something goes wrong. Just figgured I'd better learn how to use it."

We really miss Bill in that big rocking chair by the stove. He was one of the truly fine gentlemen of this world.

KenO

Ken,

I was hoping that you would weigh in on this subject.

As I said, EK's editors wrote very well. And they most certainly earned their salaries.

RS

P.S. For those who haven't sorted it out yet, the translation of Ken's writing example is "Something like this." Thank heavens for editors!

Ken Oehler,

I believe Clint Smith is a bit like that in regard to pistols. He is known for Thunder Ranch and pistol shooting but IIRC he once wrote that a pistol is a poor choice for a gun fight and really only good enough to fight your way to a rifle. (I am paraphrasing). Of course he pointed out that if he knew he was gonna run into a gunfight - he would just stay home. Sensible advice IMO.

I think Mr. Smith probably knows a whole ton about rifles and such, just that he got pigeon holed like others.

To all the writers here --- Thanks for sharing your backgrounds. I enjoy them and they help me understand the articles that much better.

Amen... I've seen some unedited tomes by Kieth.

"A handgun is just like the pair of slip-joint pliers in a farmer's pocket. It's not the best tool for the job, but it's what you have with you when something goes wrong."
I love to hear stuff like that from people who are "in the know", it makes me feel better about my thought process!

Thanks to all of you for sharing a touch of your more personal sides, it kind of puts the face with the name...

Pat

Actually, having served as both writer and editor, I can sympathize with editors who prefer to use RELIABLE writers for many articles, when some other writer who supposedly specializes in another area might do a better job. You (the editorial "you") might or might not get a better article.

I remember seeing an article in OUTDOOR LIFE many years ago about catching Rocky Mountain whitefish in the winter. It was done by a long-time staff writer, who did an OK job, and a good+ job on the photos. But I had proposed such an article a few months before to the same magazine, and knew I could do better. So I was a little peeved.

Many years later I realized that I could have done the writing better, but not the photos, and the magazine was trying to keep its regular writers busy.

That is how you become a regular writer for magazines: You provide at least "B" papers all the time, and "A" papers as often as possible. Eventually, if you do this long enough, ALL your articles are accepted.

When I was an editor, like Ken, I did like to give go-aheads to people for things outside their "normal." Often an extraordinary article resulted--and sometimes not.

John

Thank you, gentlemen -

This has been very educational and entertaining. Some of your personal stories make us feel we're sitting around the fire while you and old friends banter about.

Please continue with any ancedotes or tidbits you care to further share. Let's hope the other writers do as well.

RS
Why is it important to you whether EK could type or had perfect command of the written word. I can assure you he knew how to talk quite well and, unlike some, knew what he was talking about (in the context of his time as a qualifier so we don't have to get the garbage started again).
t

I have an article from Craig Bottington mentioning how at the end of what E.K. considered a sentence,or paragraph Elmer would leave a bunch of ", ( ) ? ect ect. for Craig to fill in!

Still, after all these years, just the mention of Elmer's name never fails to inspire the statesmen of Lilliput.