At the risk of starting some fireworks on New Year's Day . . . for Christmas my wife bought me a copy of Mark Sullivan's book Fear No Death. I am not here to defend (or indict) Mr. Sullivan's hunting style. I will say this about his writing style though, the level of candor in the book is refreshing. Today's gun and hunting writers have become nothing but extensions of the marketing organizations of the outfitters and manufacturers that they write about. They shill every product they review (while professing to be doing objective product reviews and the like) and the magazines they write for enjoy good ad revenue from the manufacturers, the writers enjoy freebies (or discounts on items) ranging from ammunition to rifles to hunts, and the poor readers suffer from a dribble that is passed off as journalism. Not so with Mr. Sullivan. He calls it the way he sees it (whether you agree with him or not is really not the issue, he simply speaks his mind and lets you decide) and does not hestitate to call out, by name, prominent writers and hunters and take them to task over their statements and positions on hunting dangerous game. I find that level of candor a refreshing change of pace from the standard, bland fare we are most frequently served.

Again, I am not endorsing or condemning his hunting style, I am suggesting that the open and honest way he expresses his views -- in this day and age in our sport of paid spokesmen that pass as writers -- stands in stark contrast.

. . . okay, now everyone can trash me for saying something nice about Mr. Sullivan.

Mjines,
have you also noticed the lack of humor with some of our outdoor publications now days too?? We don't get to read any of the humors thinks that happen on hunt. I guess it's not politically correct to have a sense of humor anymore

Mike: Candor makes a LOT of points with me. Thanks for sharing your thoughts on Sullivan's book. Whatever else he is, he is a hunter with a lot of experience. I'll look for a copy.

Mike, I spoke with Mark last year in PA. at the Eastern Sports and Outdoor Show. Like you said, and I gathered from him,Mark a no BS guy. As a hunter he gets the job done.

Mike

never met him
never read any of his writings
never watched any videos

Therefore I have no opinion on the man

I agree with, you candor is refreshing to see in this world today and definitely causes polarization. It is easier for people to form an opinion and know exactly where they stand.

I better get his book, based upon your reviews

In these days of political correctness, where societal incentives reside on the side of not saying what you mean -- and, therefore, not meaning what you say (we used to call this lying) -- it is indeed refreshing when someone gives you the unvarnished truth as he sees it.

I'd like to see more, not less, Mark Sullivans.

quote:

Today's gun and hunting writers have become nothing but extensions of the marketing organizations of the outfitters and manufacturers that they write about. They shill every product they review (while professing to be doing objective product reviews and the like) and the magazines they write for enjoy good ad revenue from the manufacturers, the writers enjoy freebies (or discounts on items) ranging from ammunition to rifles to hunts, and the poor readers suffer from a dribble that is passed off as journalism.

Mike,

Thank you the above is perfectly stated and the reason I stay away from gun and hunting mags for the most part. All of the current batch of writers are for sale to any bidder not even the highest bidder who plies them with the latest crap they are selling or sends them on a hunt. Any hunt will suffice it seems.

...and at which point I'll use this for a plug for African Hunter magazine. Thanks to Saeed's generocity they are not Beholden to any advertiser- and Ira (the editor) can and say what he likes about both people and products (as his predecessor often did).

I personally dislike mark- I don't like his style- but there are other members of this forum who have similar styles of hunting which go against everything I have learned...however neighter he, nor Ivan nor a few other 'close encounter' specialists have ever shot an animal that the client hadn't previously screwed up on...Mark only kills your animal if you screw it up initially...and dispite my personal likes, basic honesty and truthful personal preferences in writing is hard to come by these days.

As many of you know I scribble for several magazines. Most edit out or even blatantly change the wordig If I make a coment that is critical of an important advertiser...African Hunter is the only magazine I have ever written for that is free from advertiser pressure!

This post will undoubtedly drop my popularity if I happen to have any, but I just saw Boddington on Lion last night and although I liked the content that box of Hornady ammo sitting next to Mr. Boddington in all the talking head segments really bugged me for some reason. I guess I tolerate the blatant sponsor stroking during TAA just to watch the mostly great footage but if I were to buy a DVD I don't really want the advertising.

Sorry if my truthful opinion chaps someone.

Fear No Death was good. His first book Death And Double Rifles is BETTER!!! Read it! The trophy pictures in both books are spectacular!!!!!!!!!

Brett

I'm dying to read his magnum opus, Africa's Black Death on the No Fear of Death Sudden Death Rush to Death by Double Rifle on the Run to Death at My Feet.

But it's apparently going to be published posthumously.

quote:

Originally posted by Michael Robinson:
I'm dying to read his magnum opus, Africa's Black Death on the No Fear of Death Sudden Death Rush to Death by Double Rifle on the Run to Death at My Feet.

But it's apparently going to be published posthumously.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
. . . okay, now everyone can trash me for saying something nice about Mr. Sullivan.

Nope - no trashing from me as I agree with you. I have both books but have only started to read Fear No Death recently. So far, enjoying it thoroughly.

quote:

Originally posted by Will:

quote:

Originally posted by Michael Robinson:
I'm dying to read his magnum opus, Africa's Black Death on the No Fear of Death Sudden Death Rush to Death by Double Rifle on the Run to Death at My Feet.

But it's apparently going to be published posthumously.

Bill,

Don't worry, your books and his are on opposite sides of the book shelf

Not having read the book I can only speculate but how does one recognize candor?

Not to suck up to Holland and Holland or to call Westley Richards crap rifles does not necessarily mean it has been stated without prejudice.

I think Little Mattie said it best in True Grit. "Who knows what is in a man's heart."

If you cannot recognize the difference between someone pandering and avoiding any critical analysis or criticism and someone freely expressing their views, not much I can do to help you appreciate the distinction. I never said that his views were stated without prejudice, I just said that he calls them the way he sees them.

When was the last time you picked up a gun magazine or hunting magazine and read a writer say, this rifle is piece of junk, there are at least three other models comparable in price that are better, or this hunt was a disaster, the food stunk, the company stunk, the area was shot out, etc. They bend over backwards to only talk about the positive, e.g., of all the midget guides I have had the privilege of hunting with, he was certainly the tallest midget of them all.

Touchy today?

Not arguing about most gun articles being of the flavor that "I never met a rifle I didn't like."

Is there a legal definition of candor?

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
When was the last time you picked up a gun magazine or hunting magazine and read a writer say, this rifle is piece of junk, there are at least three other models comparable in price that are better

1992 or there-about: Finn Aagaard in American Rifleman reviewing the Dumoulin Imperial Magnum. This was the only time I have seen a truly negative comment in a rifle review by a gunwriter.

Mr. Sullivan does not make his living as a gunwriter so he has more freedom to speak his mind.

I wonder if his "maverick" image helped to do him in with SCI.

MJ- I'm with you, I could care less who "face" is on whatever...and I find it really humerous, some of the items they tend to endorse!

Shooing sticks have to be the best one so far...seriously, you're going to drag your $250+ to africa with their zebra covers..give me a break! hahah I understand people have to make a living, but who are they fooling, certainly not us!

I've found that the only opinion that really matters when it comes to hunts, gear, etc...is mine. Cause I don't care what it is, someone will eventually have a bad experience. Hell, I've had great trips with and outfitter, and had not such a great trip a year later. It happens.

This forum allows one to gather info about many things involving hunting, but, it doesn't control them...and there's always a possibility of something not working out.

quote:

Originally posted by JBrown:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by MJines:
When was the last time you picked up a gun magazine or hunting magazine and read a writer say, this rifle is piece of junk, there are at least three other models comparable in price that are better

1992 or there-about: Finn Aagaard in American Rifleman reviewing the Dumoulin Imperial Magnum. This was the only time I have seen a truly negative comment in a rifle review by a gunwriter.

Mr. Sullivan does not make his living as a gunwriter so he has more freedom to speak his mind.

I wonder if his "maverick" image helped to do him in with SCI.[/QUOTE]

I must agree that the point mainly being made here is the difference betweeen paid scribes and the independent voicing of experienced opinion. What ever Mr Sullivan may appear to be, SCI has had it's issues as well. On the whole you know where Mr Sullivan stands, not so the SCi of old.

I have both of MS's books. Both are well written, are both brim full of wonderful photos, and are well written with a no BS sort of style.. I've taken both down several times off the shelf after reading them once and given them a re-read.

I would suggest them to anyone who enjoys looking at fine rifles, great trophies and enjoys a good read.

quote:

Originally posted by Scottyboy:
I have both of MS's books. Both are well written, are both brim full of wonderful photos, and are well written with a no BS sort of style.. I've taken both down several times off the shelf after reading them once and given them a re-read.

I would suggest them to anyone who enjoys looking at fine rifles, great trophies and enjoys a good read.

But doesn't he shoot buffalo in the testies with a .22?

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
of all the midget guides I have had the privilege of hunting with, he was certainly the tallest midget of them all.

{In your best announcer voice} "This momment of candor brought to you by Hornarugacon. Use with confidence until we pick up another sponsor."



Brett

Brett, that made me laugh. Spot on.

Scott

Hay Man,
Speaking of Capstick, whatever happened to the "Capstick collection" I sent you a couple years ago?

Steve

Can you imagine if Capstick would have had the opportunity to HUNT with Mark??!! Now THAT would have made for a good DVD.

Hee, hee.

Gary
DRSS
NRA Lifer
DSC

Steve, still have them. I watched a couple and they've sat on the shelf since. I'll make it my New Years resolution to watch the rest of them this weekend and then post my unbiased or maybe slightly unbiased review and forward on to the next AR member unless you want me to send back your way.

Scott

Garby, I think Capstick would piss himself and increase the alcohol consumption.

Scott

quote:

Originally posted by HAY-MAN:
Steve, still have them. I watched a couple and they've sat on the shelf since. I'll make it my New Years resolution to watch the rest of them this weekend and then post my unbiased or maybe slightly unbiased review and forward on to the next AR member unless you want me to send back your way.

Scott

Scott,
Naw, just watch them (as difficult as that may be) and post it up and send em on to the next lucky soul.

Garby, Can you imagine??? PHC and Sullivan.

Steve.....it would be the DVD of the century.

Gary
DRSS
NRA Lifer
DSC

Concerning the "candor" level of the authors of books versus magazine articles, the difference stems mainly from economics. In the case of most books, the dollars generated come from the sales revenue of the books received from the ultimate consumers, the readers. The author can be as candid, or as outrageous, or as truthful, or as untruthful as he wants. As long as his work appeals to a large enough segment of his target audience, he is in business.

The economics of the vast majority of the magazine business are totally different. The sales revenue from subscriptions and news stand sales are minor compared to advertising revenue. The article contents are important to the publisher only to the extent they draw eyeballs to the accompanying advertisements. Essentially the advertiser, not the reader, is king and calls the shots. Placing advertisers in a bad light is one sure route to going out of business. (Similar economics govern the production of most of the hunting shows appearing on TV.)

As hunting consumers, we may bitch and moan about the situation; but the alternative would be to start your own magazine along the lines of Consumers Report where you can be brutally honest while hoping to draw a sufficient reading audience at comparatively stiff subscription rates. Easier said than done, I suspect, considering the niche size of the hunting market

quote:

Originally posted by Ramhunter:
Concerning the "candor" level of the authors of books versus magazine articles, the difference stems mainly from economics. In the case of most books, the dollars generated come from the sales revenue of the books received from the ultimate consumers, the readers. The author can be as candid, or as outrageous, or as truthful, or as untruthful as he wants. As long as his work appeals to a large enough segment of his target audience, he is in business.

The economics of the vast majority of the magazine business are totally different. The sales revenue from subscriptions and news stand sales are minor compared to advertising revenue. The article contents are important to the publisher only to the extent they draw eyeballs to the accompanying advertisements. Essentially the advertiser, not the reader, is king and calls the shots. Placing advertisers in a bad light is one sure route to going out of business. (Similar economics govern the production of most of the hunting shows appearing on TV.)

As hunting consumers, we may bitch and moan about the situation; but the alternative would be to start your own magazine along the lines of Consumers Report where you can be brutally honest while hoping to draw a sufficient reading audience at comparatively stiff subscription rates. Easier said than done, I suspect, considering the niche size of the hunting market

Ramhunter, very astute comments regarding candor and publishing economics. Well written, too. My opinion on the veracity of articles written by magazine writers is you have to consider the writer. Some have pandered blatantly, but some have written both magazine articles and books, both with the same opinion on a given topic or product. Craig Boddington falls into this category, as do others. As long as we readers acknowledge the publishing economics as we read, I believe are able to trust many of the scribes who write for magazines. I do chuckle sometimes when one will damn a product with faint praise. Read between the lines. Most are ethical writers.

Disclaimer: I've not read any of Mark Sullivan's books.

To compare the "candor" of hunting books with that of magazines is really "apples and oranges". Show me a magazine (or newspaper or television news show, etc) who criticize their sponsors. Even if an indiviual writer did so, it would not make it past the Editor (or owner!) This is why the magazine Consumer Reports accepts no advertising.

GE owns MSNBC. Should it be a surprise that scandals associated with GE in the financial meltdown were not covered?

It is in the financial interet of a book author to be dramatic and controversial.

As Sullivan is "on the outs" with much of the hunting community, he doesn't have to worry about goring their oxes (or buffalo?).

What I would interpret as "candor" from Sullivan is if he criticized his clients by name or gave the names of people he currently has to pay off to to get hunting concessions.

I don't think he'll gore his own ox any more than a magazine will gore theirs.

The oxen of others are fair game!

MJines:
Nice to read your comments. I agree 100%. Mark is a man with honor and that should overcome a person's dislike of his style. Honor and honesty are very rare today. Look for an upcoming article in the African Hunter magazine I wrote entitled, "Safari Gone Wrong." It details every cockup of my hunts from PHs to taxidermy companies--accidents to outright lies.

Ganyana:
I appreciate your plug of the African Hunter magazine and how they have not sold their soul to the advertising dollar such as the African Hunting (Sporting) Gazette has done. Just about everything in the AHG reads like paid advertising--from Sporting People to Letters to the Editor. I dropped them two years ago.

It is refreshing to read comments about writers who only write of the positive. The hunt was great, ammo was accurate, the rifle was super, etc., and the list goes on. It is all about the dollar. How often does one read a negative hunt report in SCI? Vehicle reviews in the American Hunter read as if they were written by the auto companies. It would be nice if there was more critical comments about authors who do so. Maybe some would clean up their act.

There is a word for those who write only positive comments or articles to get free stuff (hunts, ammo, rifles, scopes, etc.)--the word is whore.

And that is why the only magazine I subscribe to is the African Hunter.

Cheers all,
Cal

Funny that Cal would mention African Sporting Gazette. I was at Barnes & Noble last night seeing if they had a copy of Mark's new book. They did not. But, while perusing the magazine section, I picked up a copy of African Sporting Gazette. It wasn't long before I put it back in the rack. It looked and read like an over-sized advertising booklet. And the price, $12.95 per copy, was way over the top. I'll stick with African Hunter Magazine.

quote:

Originally posted by Ganyana:
... As many of you know I scribble for several magazines. Most edit out or even blatantly change the wordig If I make a coment that is critical of an important advertiser...African Hunter is the only magazine I have ever written for that is free from advertiser pressure!

I remeber an article in Rifle magazine. In it the writer more or less said: that all the factory big kicking rifles needed to be properly bedded after purchase, because they are not ready to go from the factory. Then there was this big editors note in the middle of the paragraph that basically said:"that may not be true of the new kimber .375 because it is just came out..."

I was like WTF??? What was that all about? Then a light bulb went off in my head, I flipped back through the magazine, and low and behold there was a full page ad for the new Kimber .375 rifle.

Seriously, you will get more journalistic integrity and serious critical assesment of industry products (which advertise in the same magazine) in an issue of PC Gamer than in any American Gun rag. That is the truth, and it is just sad.


.

quote:

How often does one read a negative hunt report in SCI?

I initiated the policy of not publishing negative hunting reports when I directed Safari magazine and other SCI publications from 1983 to 1999, and it seems this policy has continued after I retired.

It had absolutely nothing to do with some of the outfitters receiving complaints being advertisers or convention donors. We certainly would have performed a great service for the club's members if we published reports exposing scoundrels in the industry.

However, in all fairness, we would have had to also publish a response from the accused in the same issue the complaint appeared. This was before the internet and we had neither the time nor the staff to track them down and publish both sides of a controversy.

In the beginning, I had one part-time artist, one secretary and one advertising salesman reporting to me. and the four of us produced a bimonthly magazine and an annual record book, plus all of the printed material the club produced, which was a considerable amount. My staff increased as the publications grew over the years, of course, but we always were one or two people short of what we really needed to perform our tasks well.

To complicate things, certain members were never happy with any of their hunts, no matter how successful or how well organized they might have been. A case in point was a moose hunt I did in the Yukon. Three of us hunted from the same camp, and we all took good trophies. Two of us remember that hunt favorably; the third guy still may be telling everyone who listens that the place was shot out, the outfitter was a crook, his guide was blind, and the food and accommodations were rotten, none of which was true.

I won't go into the legal problems that arise when an editor publishes something that wrongfully damages someone's reputation or business. Truth is the ultimate defense in a libel suit, of course, but it took work to learn the truth and we didn't have the resources.

In defense of the policy of not publishing a negative report, SCI did (and still does) provide its members with copies of all hunting reports that have been filed about an outfitter -- including every negative report. All a member need do is request them.

Bill Quimby

Thanks again Bill for bringing the FACTS to light as is usual with you. Most have no idea what efforts, trials and tribulations goes on behind the scenes. Just easier for some to go on hearsay and speculation I guess?

Larry Sellers
SCI Life Member