Sitting here at my desk looking up at the shelves above, John Hunter's book "Hunter" stood out for some reason. As I thought back over some of the discussions here concerning the various African "personalities" we only know from their writings over the last hundred years or so, I began wondering how the writers of our time will be viewed by the next generations. With the overwhelmingly higher numbers of hunters traveling to Africa today and the corresponding number of PH's, outfitters, and other "experts" in the game over the last twenty years, will they be reveered as we do those of the late 1800's & early 1900's? Will the gripes and rumors (as often seen here) taint their legacies? Will the internet and video lessen the quality of the experience as compared to colorful writing and one's own imagination filling in the spaces? Will the shear numbers lessen the over-all impact?

What do you think, will our grandchildren get as much thrill from reading Boddington as we have from Ruark? Scary huh?

oupa,

I am sitting looking at my bookshelf as I type this. There is Ruark (4), Capstick (2), Hemingway (2), Pierres (1), Roosevelt (1), of course Selous (1), Cooper (2), OConner (2), and the recent books from African Hunter. There also happen to be a couple of Boddington's books. They set seperately from the others mentioned. They do that for a reason. Boddington is a very knowledgeable and technically proficient writer, but he does not carry me away to a far away land and pull emotion out of me when I read his work. I also own one hunting video, "On Safari, Hunting Adventure on the Golden Age of Africa with Robert Ruark." I hope that future generations are exposed to the "greats" as they were and develop an appreciation for those of today. But will todays writers thrill the way the old-timers did? Not likely.

I enjoy Boddington's Africa writings. That said, I think the difference is that he is more of a reporter while the "old guys" were storytellers.

The new guys write about guns and not hunting. The old guys wrote about hunting and not guns.

Since more people buy rifles for Africa than actually hunt there, which came first? People buying the rifles because of the books or the opposite?

quote:

Originally posted by DC300:
I enjoy Boddington's Africa writings. That said, I think the difference is that he is more of a reporter while the "old guys" were storytellers.

The operative word being "STORY" !

I think the QUOTE above is true! As to the two being knowledge of the writer, neither type can be considered the unfettered truth, so do we really know those old writers? OR......... Do we know what they DREAMED up to tell us?

I believe the writers of today,like Boddington, and others are more believable because there is a lack of self promotion in their writing. Today, it is too easy to find the truth, where the old guys were writing to readers who would most likely never see Africa at all, and didn't know anyone who had seen Africa! Like the ones that killed 240,000 elephants,and 6,000,000 buffalo, and never fired a shot that didn't put one down! Today if a writer started beating his own drum,like that, he'd have 10,000 letters in his mail box,the first day, because most of us know what is likely, and what isn't.

The story tellers books are as much fiction, as fact, in most cases. However, those are the ones we take as the truth, and constantly quote when makeing a point.

Most of the old writers were admittedly poachers, and law breakers, that today would be run into a Tanzania jail,or put down, by other hunters for their arrant ways, but like Jesse James, the old guys have become heros over time.

The story tellers, told only the good, and none of the bad they did, but imbelished their stories of dareing-do, that placed them in the best light! But a story is always more interesting to read, than a fact based narrative. When we read the story tellers pros, we can follow his camp fire smoke right up to Heaven, because what they write is what we dream, and both are, most times, phantasy, nothing more!

BUT, DAMN! do we love to read the old guys stuff!

There are writers who hunt and there are hunters who write, it's easy to tell the difference nowadays... with a classic education as was had in early times, even hunters who wrote, wrote well. Hunter, Dyell, Corbett...

Nowadays were are consumed with whiat caliber, what bullet, what range, what did it cost, how do I do it, so that is what we get;very meanial writing at best. Although I have not read everything out there, most of it today follows a form pattern of a guy sitting at the desk with a pen in one hand and a dictionary and thesaurus in the other thinking of ways to describe the rising or setting sun with ten-dollar words in a way that hasnt been done before or that could be done with 50-cent words, Or how mean a buffalo looked just before he killed him. Verbosity replaces intrigue and action because there often isnt any so we get mush. That's the expamded asnwer to the question, the short answer is absolutely not.

_Baxter

quote:

Originally posted by MacD37:

quote:

Originally posted by DC300:
I enjoy Boddington's Africa writings. That said, I think the difference is that he is more of a reporter while the "old guys" were storytellers.

The operative word being "STORY" !

I think the QUOTE above is true! As to the two being knowledge of the writer, neither type can be considered the unfettered truth, so do we really know those old writers? OR......... Do we know what they DREAMED up to tell us?

I believe the writers of today,like Boddington, and others are more believable because there is a lack of self promotion in their writing. Today, it is too easy to find the truth, where the old guys were writing to readers who would most likely never see Africa at all, and didn't know anyone who had seen Africa! Like the ones that killed 240,000 elephants,and 6,000,000 buffalo, and never fired a shot that didn't put one down! Today if a writer started beating his own drum,like that, he'd have 10,000 letters in his mail box,the first day, because most of us know what is likely, and what isn't.

The story tellers books are as much fiction, as fact, in most cases. However, those are the ones we take as the truth, and constantly quote when makeing a point.

Most of the old writers were admittedly poachers, and law breakers, that today would be run into a Tanzania jail,or put down, by other hunters for their arrant ways, but like Jesse James, the old guys have become heros over time.

The story tellers, told only the good, and none of the bad they did, but imbelished their stories of dareing-do, that placed them in the best light! But a story is always more interesting to read, than a fact based narrative. When we read the story tellers pros, we can follow his camp fire smoke right up to Heaven, because what they write is what we dream, and both are, most times, phantasy, nothing more!

BUT, DAMN! do we love to read the old guys stuff!

I tend to agree with the you about the old guys "adding to the story" but the funny thing is while reading the book "The Lions of Tsavo" by Bruce D. Patterson (no relation to John), he uses several of John Hunters books as references. This work is based on his scientific research and has been put into laymans language to make it more readable by the general public. I was really surprised to see how many of the "old guys" are quoted or used to validate his findings.

There can only be one first in anything, and we usually remember the first best. If that makes sense. The reason those guys were so great is the same as the reason John Wayne, Clint Eastwood, and others like them are great. They arrived first with the most/best. The new guys are great but we compare the new to those that came before. We don't compare the old guys to the new.

There is more to it than simply telling aa good story. Alexander Lake and Peter Capstick told good stories. I think books like Brian Herne's "White Hunters" will stand the test of time.

quote:

Originally posted by 458Win:
There is more to it than simply telling aa good story. Alexander Lake and Peter Capstick told good stories. I think books like Brian Herne's "White Hunters" will stand the test of time.

They will all stand the test of time! The ones that are new today, will be around a long time,IMO!
By the way Phil when are you going to write a book? You ought to have enough stories, and pictures from your Alaska guideing to do a real interesting book!

Where are the hunter/philosophers writing good books today? The fishing genre is still producing great literature every year.

- stu

I just finished Bill Stewart's book. For me at least -- good stories and some good gun data as well.

Phil -- I'll second the idea of a book by you.

One of the things that got me thinking along this rather philosophical line after spying that old book standing out among many for unknown reasons yesterday, was the difference in "styles" as noted by several above. It is the same "stylistic" difference, which makes Magnum so much more readable than virtually any American hunting magazine. I'm not sure if it's the difference in education, urbanization or merely evolution. There IS a difference though. I'm attracted by the use of verbage that while being proper leaves one with the feeling he is being addressed personally. I do not particularly care for slangy, sloppy, "bubba'd" writing intended to sound "homey." Neither do I want to read a "hunting story" that is more a treaty on ballistics or a sales pitch for one product or another. I have a great interest in ballistics but one is entertainment while the other is education. While inseperable - at least in gun hunting - one can bog the other down if the writer is not careful.

Didn't mean this to focus on Boddington, merely mentioned him as the most obvious of today's scribes. My personal favorite current African writer (today!) is Brian Marsh.

Now on those "old books"... Unquestionably, they took tremendous liberties. Something easily done due to the few among their readers ever likely to know. There just weren't that many people going to Africa. I think this snowballed as readers began to expect certian things and the writers - or at least editors - sought to provide them. African writings aren't alone in this.

"Where are the hunter/philosophers writing good books today? The fishing genre is still producing great literature every year." Is this an unfortunate result of hunting's non-politically correct status while fishing still retains some acceptability among general audiances? The effect being that hunting writers write to hunters, while fishing wirters simply write? In that "classic era" hunting was widely accepted by the general public. Today only those predisposed to it bother to read such material.

Thanks for the vote of confidence but I'm still busy living new stories and don't have time to sit down and write up the old ones. One of these days, if I'm lucky enough to live that long I may give it a try.

Some of the contemporary books on African hunting that will become classics are being written by professional and amateur hunters whose names are not as well-known as any of the authors mentioned above.

Check the catalogs of Safari Press, Rowland Ward and Trophy Room Books.

Incidentally, isn't posting this thread under "African Hunting" instead of "Books and Videos" what Saeed asked us not to do recently?

Bill Quimby

"...Incidentally, isn't posting this thread under "African Hunting" instead of "Books and Videos" what Saeed asked us not to do recently?"

Absolutely correct Mr. Quimby. My mistake and I invite the mods to move or remove it with my apologies.

I would guess some of the historical books might have a bit of fiction in them to make the stories more saleable. Eg good adventure yarns. Similar to Capstick's books from today.

As a writer of "adventure stories" Capstick would probably rank up there from today.

A lot of books written as non-fiction have a lot of fiction. For example most people believe Karen Blixen's books such as "Out of Africa" and "Shadows on the Grass" are 100% true but some of the stories are just that, stories. Some of the persons in her auto-biographical accounts did not exist. This is not my opinion but by another author whom examined Blixen's letters she sent and which were sent to her. Doesn't mean she wasn't an excellent author and "story-teller" beyond par.

One of the greatest writers about hunting in my opinion is Corbett and he was questioned very heavily about the truth of some of his stories about hunting Maneaters in India. His books were written in Africa many years after he left India. He answered the critics that the stories were 100% true. Cutting down the tall poppy syndrome perhaps by the critics? Irrespective of whether they are 100% accurate or not, they are the most exciting hunting accounts written in my opinion.

I agree about Capstick. he is an awesome story teller.....bullshit or not.
Boddington is just a hunt reporter,as well as a walking advertisment for various products.You can't ever look at the guy without seeing a logo for sure-fire etc.
Also, I wish he would stop using the word "wonderful" so much!! It appears in everyone of his articals...get a thesaurus for Christ's sake!! I do read Craigs articals, and have alot of respect for the guy's experience as well as his knowledge, I just don't care for his style of writing.

quote:

Originally posted by Wolfgar:
I agree about Capstick. he is an awesome story teller.....bullshit or not.
Boddington is just a hunt reporter,as well as a walking advertisment for various products.You can't ever look at the guy without seeing a logo for sure-fire etc.
Also, I wish he would stop using the word "wonderful" so much!! It appears in everyone of his articals...get a thesaurus for Christ's sake!! I do read Craigs articals, and have alot of respect for the guy's experience as well as his knowledge, I just don't care for his style of writing.

It's hard to find good, honest writing about hunting or guns/ammo.

Yesterday's writers had the chance to totally emerse themselves in hunting - they walked the walk before they talked the talk.

Today's writers will perhaps only get the chance of a periodic immersion into the subject. Not to sound condescending, because there are many good writers out there today, but it is almost the difference between a life's story and how one spends their summer vacation.

I think Mac's right about some of yesterday's writers doing a hefty amount of self promoting. But many writers today are affected by something far worse - product promotion. The trips they go on and write about are underwritten by firearms and ammumition manufacturers, flashlight makers (blinding dangerous game???), and so on. Their ability to be totally honest and frank is compromised, unless they want to kiss their meal ticket goodbye.

The other observation I have is that yesterday's writers mostly focused on hunting in one area with some general limitation on the game hunted. We have writers today that write about all kinds of game everywhere in the world plus doing books on travel, marksmanship, and outdoor gear as well.

One of these days I fully expect today's writers to go NASCAR, having their safari jackets covered with manufacturer logos.

There is such a thing as over exposure, and there are a few writers out there today that have past that point.

To me, yesterdays writers had the opportunity to be masters of their trade, versus the jacks of all trades and masters of none we tend to see today in many modern writers. Some of these guys are pumping out two or more books a year, when guys like Hunter, Selous, Taylor and their peers maybe did 5 to 10 books over a lifetime.

I guess I'll take the story teller with a lifetime of experience on the subject versus the weekend warrior pumping out dozens of technical manuals on all subjects. That's the stuff campfires are all about.

This being my first post on these forums, I rather wanted to mention my own thoughts on this subject in a way to distinguish between my own and those of another. As if I had something individual to say, if you will. However, in the interest of space concerns and my resident femalien getting upset if I take too much longer on the keyboard tonight (heheh)--not to mention that it simply sums up my feelings on the subject quite well--I have to completely agree with the words above from Jim Manion. More can always be said on any given topic, but he has hit the nail on the head, IMO.

As for being new...Howdy, Y'all. :-)

Jim,
Excellent thoughts, and I wish that I could have said it the way that you did!!

I couldn't agree more on the idea of today's mainstream writers being heavily influenced by their sponsors. However in a hundred years will their readers know that? Will this aspect of their writing be remembered or will some nimrod in 2106 think the "_ _ mm super duper, short, fat, incredibly fast, bonded bullet, magnum" really is the greatest thing to ever happen to hunting?

The only real thing Ruark and Capstick could do better than Craig is consume the booze. I agree the former were better story tellers but as hunters they could not carry Craigs rifle! Personally for an "old time" writer I would rather read William York.

I think that Craig Boddington is without a doubt the most experienced hunting author today and in particular African hunting. I don't find his stories dry or uninformative but maybe what we find in Craig's stories are a truthful account of the hunt. All of us that have been to Africa know that most animals are taken without charges or days of suspense. If that is the way the hunt for a particular kudu or buffalo goes then I had rather have the truth than have CB make up a lot of B.S. to make the story more exciting.
The other thing about CB is that, of the current African hunting writers, he is one of the most knowledgable about rifles, calibers, ballistics and terminal bullet performance.

Craig unquestionably has more experience hunting and using firearms across Africa and worldwide than any author of yesteryear or today.

More power to him if he has reached celebrity status along the way and can make a buck or two through personal appearances and endorsements.

To earn a decent living as an outdoor writer today one must sell many millions of words.

One or two books or a couple dozen or so magazine articles won't do it.

Bill Quimby

Craig is a good writer and knowledgeable about his hunting and shooting .

He is one that can help us hunters and shooters continue what we love to do of hunting and shooting in that way he can bring the knowledge out to people here and there.

I think the classics will always stand apart because of hunters of yesteryear had so many more opportunities to hunt, both in quantity of animals taken and hunting areas.

For example, Roosevelt (1909) and Hemingway (1935) hunted British East Africa, and wrote about it. No one writing today can do this. Was it the best place to hunt? I don't know, but there is a romantic flair to it, and lots of tradition surrounding it.

The "natives", as these two giants called them, were still, by in large, living as they had for centuries before white hunters arrived. We, and writers of this era, will never experience this. We won't have safaris with 100 porters along, as Roosevelt did, nor will anyone writing today be able to carry us off with him on horseback from dawn til dusk, blasting away at everything that moves.

As for quantities of game, look at Roosevelt's bag for his hunt:

TR:

Lion-9, Elephant-8, rhino (black & white) 13, hippo-7, zebra-15, Grevy's zebra-7, giraffe-7, buffalo-6, eland-6, oryx-10, and tons of smaller animals.

Kermit:

Lion-8, leopard-3, cheetah-7, elephant-3, rhino (black and white)-7, hippo-1, zebra-9, giraffe-2, buffalo-4, eland-4, sable-3

When will anyone ever be able to do this again, to write about it after experiencing it.

Hemingway's Green Hills of Africa is the best ever, I think. I also like Marsh and some of Capstick's pieces on the great/famous hunters of old.

404 not to get into a p*ssing contest, but look how long TR was on safari. If one could spend the same amount of time today I am sure their total bag would be greater and there are people that could afford a safari of that lenght. Well except for the Grevy's.

Like I said before, I've liked Boddington, disliked him, and then come back around to having a lot of respect for him. I would read him, or Tony Russ on a subject before I would pick up a book by the other authors mentioned. I may get the opportunity once to do what they've done many times. I want their secrets. I want my hunt to be memorable, not a botched screw-up because I didn't have a clue.

I don't care to be spirited back 150 years and hear about sunsets, cigars, scotch, and man-eaters that no longer exist. I read those books as a kid and enjoyed them, particularly the pictures, and the stories of man-eaters, but I learned virtually nothing from those books about how to hunt those critters. (A "man-eater" now is an animal that has been hemmed in by civilization and has no place to go except through or to some village. I'm on their side. Rather than try to kill them we should tell them to keep eating.)

Also back in the day on a quota that would have an unimaginable list of available game to be shot would be "one bushman". Did those greats of yesteryear object to these abuses, and the poaching, etc., or did they just participate. They are not my heros or role models, they are just remnants of times long gone, nothing more.

I can hunt sheep like Russ, and buffalo like Boddington ... because of them. If I was to hunt with them I would be like a kid; quiet, with my ears wide open. That's the way I read their books. I can't put them down because I know they are going to make my next hunt a success if I'll just pay attention.

NITROX,
i'm in total agreement with you on Corbett. And as for the truthfulness of his stories, in some of his books and also in some books written about him, there are copies official correspondence and documentation of his maneater hunting.FWIW

NitroX

I think you will find that most of Corbetts books were written when he was still in India. He started writing in the 20's, or sooner.

I think that only My India and Treetops were written after he left for Kenya in 1947.

As for Authors, give me a good story over a recitation of a hunt any day. I'm sick of reading about someone's not unique and very ordinary hunts.

Safari Press is to release "Wanderings of an Elephant Hunter" by Bell in audio book next year.

While I have the book(s)I can't wait for the audio book, because hearing a good story told is told well, is far superior to reading it.

As Dennis Finch-Hatton said, good stories were meant to be told, not written.

Most of yesterday's writers wrote as much lies as the writers of today do.

Trouble was not many people had a chance to question them.

I have a library of several hundred books. Some are written in the early 1800s, and probably most of the hunting books found on Africa today.

One can questions a lot of what is writen, as it certainly does not make sense.

Two of the most loved writers of the past, Elmer Keith and Jack O'Connor, would have been facing endless questions of what they had written as fact - some of which we know cannot be true.

Nowadays, with the Internet, everyone has got an opinion, and whether it is valid or not, is stated so many times some people begin to believe it as fact.

The most factual books on African hunting are probably those written before WWI.

Saeed, Although you will probably be accused of blasphemy by saying so I think you are probably correct about many of the old writers.
I have books and magazines with a number of photos where Jack O'Conner is shown with animals purportadly killed by him with one rifle and then the same animal is shown with Elenor and a different rifle. One elk even shows the same guide in both photos.
There is no reason to think that human egos have changed over the years.

I think it's darn near impossible to compare the writers of yesteryear to the current crop of ourdoor writers.

As stated by many here, many of the old timers hunted when Africa was a mere dream for the average hunter and was reserved ground for the rich and famous. They wrote for an audience that in all reality would never step foot in Africa and thus they became story tellers for their readers. Safaris were at least month long adventures, air travel was still exotic, and commuincations across the world was almost non-exsistant.

Todays writers are producing material for a different group of readers. Hunters travel to far flung destinations, information is readily available to typing a few key strokes on the computer, and world wide communication is readily available.

Todays writers are speaking to sportsmen who have done that, or people looking to do it, and want the ABC's of doing such an adventure.

I do think the writers of old were better writers because many of them wrote non-hunting novels and were newspaper men before the began to write hunting prose.

I agree with several comments that many of todays outdoor writers have become so entwined with the industry that it has become almost impossible to get objective reviews about trips, lodges, and gear.

One thing a little different about Hemmingway and Ruark than almost all of the others mentioned in the thread were that they were professional writers who hunted, not gun writers, or hunters who happened to write a book.

Whoops, just saw Hutty mentioned that in the post above.

I suspect there are hundreds of thousands of young boys out there who have never heard of O'Connor, Hemingway, Ruark, Selous etc. who will read Boddington's articles and books in awe and dream of the day they also can hunt on the six continents as he has. By the time these boys are middle aged, Boddington's stuff will be the "classics of yesterday."

billrquimby has pretty much summed up my take on this as well. I suppose "classics" are what you make of them viewed in the context of your own times.