27 March 2001, 08:30
McCrayDis-honorable mention goes to most of the young "writers" flailing away at the keyboards at Hunting and G&A. Its always a mistake to let the interns write stories instead of the grown-ups. 
Dis-honorable mention goes to most of the young "writers" flailing away at the keyboards at Hunting and G&A. Its always a mistake to let the interns write stories instead of the grown-ups.
I respectfully disagree with Mac's pick since I consider Wayne, a good gun writer.
BB
------------------
Brooks Carmichael
There is a need to distinguish between a writer whose style we don't like, whose viewpoints we don't like, and whose personality we don't like.
I do not like many of Wayne Van Zwoll's viewpoints. He and I do not see eye-to-eye on many things. Yet, he is quite experienced and shows what appears to me to be an attractive humility in his prose. I would happily share a campfire with him, even though I disagree doggedly with many of his views. The campfire discussions would be worth the cost of admission.
The late Col. Charles Askins' patriotic & shooting accomplishments are beyond denial. Honorable service in the U.S. Army and the Border Patrol. By all accounts he was an excellent target & field shot. He was also a hunter of great experience. Having said all that, I don't think I've ever read a writer whose work was laced with a more arrogant attitude. The title of his book, "Unrepentant Sinner", is indicative of the attitude his work projected. Bill Jordan was a man of similar accomplishments but a much better attitude.
I have disagreed with some of Col. Boddington's perspectives. For instance, he likes .308 caliber and larger bores for long range work on deer, and I see no problem with the 6.5, .270, and 7mm cartridges with appropriate bullets. He is one of the most experienced hunters writing today. If he writes of many expensive hunts that you and I can only dream of, that's what his editors want him to do. I will probably never hunt the 3-legged blue-bellied sheep of Cucamongistan, but doing it and writing about it sells magazines, and that's precisely what all 'zine editors want. The rank of full-bird colonel is an accomplishment, be it in reserves or active duty, and I see no problem with him adding it to his byline.
Stan Trzoniec's photography is excellent but I do not care for his writing style, nor that of Clair Rees.
My favorite was the late Finn Aagard. It will be awhile before we see his equal. I like John Barsness and am learning to appreciate Brian Pearce.
BigIron
While Seyfied's style is a bit verbose, he knows his stuff and has "been there, done it." Same for Boddington, except his style is the exact opposite of Seyfrieds... paint drying quality. I like Wayne VanZwoll... like Seyfried and Boddington, he's been there, done it and is a darn sight more readable than either of them.
------------------
Ray Atkinson
As to Craig Boddington. I have read his material since the 70's. If I am correct he used to be active duty who decided to go reserves. He does get dry at time but I don't think he is any worse than if I tried to write a story of my experiences. My own writing style would be more like, Went hunting, saw a deer, killed it.
As far as the graciousness of gun writers, we probably don�t know the half of it. Every now and then I rent a table at a gun show to try to clean out the closet and sell a gun or two (to make room for more). Seems like sitting behind a table is an implied invitation for every Tom, Dick and Harry to bend your ear ceaselessly about THEIR rifle, THEIR loads, what THEY did fifty years ago. Try to hold a two way conversation and you find out right quick that they (95% of them) don�t want to hear anything but the sound of THEIR voices telling you about THEIR experiences and opinions. I can only imagine these poor gun writers being descended upon at every banquet by a torrent of folks wanting to tell the famous person all about THEMSELVES. Sitting and listening for even ten minutes is polite, doing it for the twentieth person in a row is graciousness with a capital G. I can see why JOC was deemed an old curmudgeon in his later years and can�t say as I blame him any.
FWIW, the only writer I�ve met is Brian Pearson. Seen John Taffin at the Boise shows occasionally but never really chatted with him. Brian is a big, tall fellow and a decent guy judging from the total 8 minutes of discourse I�ve had with him.
Also, like WyoJoe says, try writing something about anything and let twenty people read it and tell you what they think about your writing. I figure the first requirement for a successful gun writer is not so much gun knowledge or writing skill but just a thick skin.
Ross Seyfried is a gentleman of the first order and NOONE has any more hunting experience or knowledge of guns than he has.
Craig Boddington has probably hunted and shot as much game as any American todate. Craigs a pretty humble guy..
Charlie Askins, what you see is what you get and he went around the horn several times and was not in the least consumed with himself, he just didn't give a hoot what outhers thought about him...He was a stright shooter....
there are others that are as counterfiet as a wooden nickle, but I'll wait and tell them to their face and I have on several ocassions...
------------------
Ray Atkinson
------------------
[This message has been edited by Bill (edited 03-28-2001).]
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Garnett:
Pleasing the readership is only a means by which they sell space to advertisers. It must be a nerve-wracking tightrope.
I think that as group, gunwriters deserve more credit and more respect than some of the posts in this thread seem to imply.
-- Doc [/B]
Please, spare me the wet hanky.
If one writes for a living and prostitutes his integrity to advertisers, he is not worth my valuable time to read his garbage.
The great writer cherishes the trust of his readers. His audience is not the advertisers.
Gun and hunting writing is especially seductive to the would-be prostitute. The temptation of freebies galore seem to make many men willing to set a price on their intergrity.
This is not about opinions. Diverse and controversial opinions make for interesting reading.
The mark of the great gun, hunting and outdoor writers is that their opinions are truly based on their experience and love for the sport, and they did not sell out, regardless of where they hunted, what kind of arms they used, or what their socio-economic status and means were.
Many of us have earned titles of one sort or another in various fields of endeavor, and are justifiably proud of them. To preface one's name with that title is entirely appropriate in the field in which it was earned. It makes the statement that one is deserving of honor and recognition.
However, in this day and age, unless you are the President of the United States or a member of royalty, it is generally considered quite boorish to use one's title outside its context. Beyond a certain naive age, most of us do not lay down alms merely because of a title earned in some other discipline.
Yes, I understand that military officers have the right to use their title. But that tradition is holdover from a long-past era of social order. No one is begrudging them the use of their rank if they are commenting on a military or foreign affairs topic. It rings hollow, however, and cheapens its status through use in other contexts.
Someone, somewhere, sometime apparently decided that the title "Colonel" was a sure-fire way to lend instant credibilty to anything from fried chicken to guns and hunting. Why this is so defies rational explanation.
Surveying the field of such personalities, it appears that several Colonels have made their way through the shooting field over the years. The more poignant observer might remark that among gun writers, this title was also a rather good indicator to the reader of some other, less desirable traits.
Nonetheless, our esteemed Colonels are not the only ones to fall victim to this syndrome. Several doctors and lawyers are also hanging their monikers in their bylines. No Indian Chiefs have been sighted yet.
One character has advertised his shooting school under the title of "Dr." Is he a Doctor of Shooting? Or perhaps this is a one-stop shooting and medical clinic?
Would we have the same respect for the the man if every article and book he wrote was authored by "Professor Jack O'Connor?"
Regardless, I must side with those that take exception to the unabashed hawking of credentials without context. The practice, while perhaps not quite shameful, is at the very least laughable.
------------------
"If you can keep your head about you when all others are loosing theirs and blaiming it on you..."
A Willowed Field??? Now thats right up there with Col., Welcome aboard and mind your bad manners over here, were all friends....
------------------
Ray Atkinson
A lot of the faults we see with writers is that often we look for things in the wrong place or writers don't use an appropriate style. Hemingway and Ruark focused more on characters than implements. They developed their stories more into literature than how to articles. I enjoy that sort of work greatly. However, Capstick is the only writer I know that could deep interesting characters and useful "how-to" information.
That said, I for one don't care much for Jeff Cooper.
[This message has been edited by Jim in Idaho (edited 03-28-2001).]
Willow, the "doctor" you speak of was a chiropractor before he became a shooting instructor/shooting school operator. What that does for shooting, I don't know, but I do know that after a long weekend on their feet, his students often ask him (jokingly) to perform an "adjustment" (he no longer practices).
quote:
Originally posted by Atkinson:A Willowed Field??? Now thats right up there with Col., Welcome aboard and mind your bad manners over here, were all friends....
[/B]
"Bad manners?"
I have read these chat forums frequently and have generally refrained from making a comment based on atmosphere I observed. The above quote is an example of why.
Since when, in a polite debate, is it "bad manners" to present an argument and comment on the topic? Only in a world where the inhabitants are lacking in either a sense of humor or a sense of perspective other than their own.
The post topic asked a question, and begged the naming of names. I declined to name any names, but instead pointed out some of the attributes of the great writer, not merely the writer earning a buck at whatever cost. I also pointed out some of the absurdities attendant to writing and selling oneself.
If this is somehow bad manners, I suggest those that feel this way limit their reading to the back of a cereal box, so as not to be offended by any wiff of controversy, or the necessity to think.
We pick out own pen names here. I teach my children not to poke fun at another's name. However, many children who cannot respond intelligently to an argument like to make fun of the messenger's name.
But of course that isn't bad manners.
------------------
Ray Atkinson
Daryl
Anyone want to comment on Layne Simpson?
Can it be due to different tastes between Scandinavians and Americans?
Have a nice weekend
Mads
In my observation anyone who can not figure that out should not be in print period. No I don't want to get the "long range" thing started again. What irritates me most about dumb people or those who prostitute themselves to sell products is the legions of "innocent" readers that don't know any better and take someones bad advice and loose an animal or two on a very expensive hunt due to some statement a writter made that was just plain wrong. Yes we ALL make mistakes but those who do this for profit and with no regard for their fellow hunter are a festering sore on our sport. Yes I will give you an example. My last African hunt was to Zimbabwe, I shared the camp with a retired school superintendent from a major southern city. He was shooting a very nice Steyr 30-06 with a Kahles (astrological 3X20something with 50MM objective lens) great quality but not what he needed for lowveld hunting where my average shot was 75-90 yards. It was a matter of getting the bullet through the brush to the target. Not being able to see at a distance. Great scope wrong application. He was also loaded with 150 grain Sierra bullets. I'm not kicking the '06,rifle,scope,bullet. But that combination is what some "gun writter" wrote as best all around for Africa. We all know that's a relative term. Yes for duiker, Impala etc. But NOT Zebra, Kudu, Eland, Waterbuck etc. which is what he wanted to hunt. Very bad statement for an "authority" to make without explaination or qualification. To say the least the guy killed four animals and lost three-that we know of. Maybe my whole sore spot is with irresponsible journalism. Good Shooting "Z"
Biggest reason he gets my vote:
His seemingly unwavering stance that only a 30 cailber can do the trick. Now, I love the 30-06, but I have seen the 6.5 Swede do a nice job...and also its semi-new ballistic twin, the 260 Remington. This is an annoying opinion, that he is entitled to of course, but I think he does "the young hunter a disservice" by making him "accept more recoil than he might be ready to handle.
If the 460 WBY is the first cartridge you ever fire, you may never choose to take a second shot. If your 90 pounds and all bones, at age 12, a 30-06 might do the same to you. I like new blood coming into hunting, not being scared away by a gun writer who has a love affair with a 30.
------------------
Live Free! Madison, Jefferson and all the boys paid for it, and so did our very own fathers.