I couldn't sleep tonight so I grabbed a copy of the Old Man + THe Boy. I've only read it maybe 1000 times but I find it comforting literature. Long story short I just reread the last 2 chapters, "Terrapin Stew Costs 10 bucks a pint" +" But not on opening day." Not comforting as the "Old Man's" demise was anything but cheerful but it was well written + the feelings were apparent. As the old saying goes that the author that can bring laughter or tears to your eyes whether in abject sorrow or humor in the same sentence is one to be watched carefully. We need not watch Bob now since he's been dead since 1965.

Just finished Old Man and the Boy, myself last night and think of how much we've missed with the Old Days. Have read everything he wrote and some conglomerations printed after he died. Started reading him when I got One for the road, and I didn't know it was loaded, from the library at Johns Hopkins, in the late 60s. Proceeded from there. I seem to miss out on things, just because ignorant at the time. I was in England when John "Pondoro" Taylor there, would have loved to have met him. But wasn't aware of the book Pondoro till later and he gone. Glad to see others interested in these writers. Too many today, not interested. Just got two people, who were around at the time interested in RRs books. They had never heard of them. Asked thme what planet they had lived on.

I had a copy of The Old Man and The Boy and The Old Man's Boy Grows Older from Safari Press. I gave it away and now have four young grandsons to read to. I'll need to find another copy of both one of these days.

It is hard to beat Ruark.

Tom

Tom, they have them on Amazon.

I gave both of my sons copies of "The Old Man and The Boy" when they were were about 12 years old. One of the boys is dead now, but I know they both read and re read that book many times. Myself, I have not read it a thousand times...maybe a hundred. .

Only a figure of speech my friend.TRUE classic literature that should be shared.

NC I knew you were going all Texas on us, as was I, but I bet I have read that book a dozen times. Has anyone read anything comparable written in the last 20 or 30 years? I think not.

I agree. I have read a lot of books over the last several decades + they were mostly good in their own rite but nothing in the same category as Bob's works.

My dad's side of the family is kin to
Robert Ruark .His books are awesome
I bought up a ton of them from a friend that
Had a book store and he knew Robert Ruark in the late
1950s and early 60s .Ruark had a warehouse
That had a ton of his books that he sold when he came
To Atlanta for book promotions to sell his books .I
Got almost all of them when my friends book store was about to close. He had some signed ones but wouldn't sell
Them at the time. Those are awesome books. I got English setters because of the Old man and the boy .My friend that had the book stord said Robert would come by and see him every time he was in Atlanta or see him when he was near .He knew his books were awesome and when he found out that he had died he bought the storage warehouse full of books then I got them from him .

What a find + great story as well!

I had to buy all of them there was an ice storm and he was closed two weeks .I wish I had bought all his hunting books at that time .That book store closed two years ago I really miss it . That area because so dangerous that you had to carry two pistols to go there. Now there are no book stores at all around like that .The other book store I went to was even better but it closed too .I got part of a set of scribners Teddy Roosevelt book there were 26 in the set I think .I got all the hunting ones wish I had bought the whole set .I never see any Ruark books except on line any more .Everyone should read Uhur it's what will happen in this country one day sooner than you think !

I find a lot of the academic members of the Cult of Hemingway are disdainful of Ruark.

I hated Honey Badger. However, I am loving the Old Man and the Boy.

I also enjoy the Use Enough Gun assortment.

When I finish Old Man and the Boy, I am going to start Elmer Keith, but after that I am going to read Something of Value.

Most people I know who have read Honey Badger hate it. I have a special regard for it mostly because I’ve studied Ruark for 20 years.

Well, he was still kinda bitter over his divorce from Virginia. Josh, you will love "Something Of Value". I like UHURU too but I think SOV is a bit better IMO. I bought a 1st edition Uhuru at DSC about 18 years ago or so.

I read Uhuru in high school and the teacher let me do a report on it.

Grew up in the Northern Rockies, didn't know anyone who had been to Africa. I went at 30. To Namibia, so far my only safari. Need to go back, it has been 15 years.

I have the biography of Ruark.

TWALL, there's a place called Addallbooks, and will open to out of print, etc books. go there and put in Robert Ruark and what book you looking for. Amazon and some other places have them too, but might be a bit more expensive.

Thanks a lot, tysue! I'm a 1st edition addict + signed even more so. I didn't need to hear your enabling remarks about easy access to my drug ; of choice!

Something of Value is, I think, my favorite novel.

It is a great one that I have read several times + am thinking of reading again. It Is that good.

The first one I got was Horn of the hunter. His best work IMO.

Use enough gun I really liked.

I loved the old man and the boy and liked the old man's boy grows older.

Something of Value and Uhuru were good.

Poor no more was adequate.

Honey badger was pretty hard to get through.

I think The old man and the boy is probably the one that nonhunters will find the most entertaining.


As to Hemingway, I think he was a much better writer, especially from a technical side. All of his stuff was better than Honey Badger, IMO. (admitting that I've read maybe 8-9 Hemingway books, so not all of it.) The thing is that Ruark at his best was much more enjoyable than Hemingway- to me, he was a better storyteller, if not as good a writer. On subjects he liked, Ruark was the better one to read.

The big thing there is that the English Lit types love Hemingway for his initiation of the minimalist style he wrote in, and its role in modern literature. These people, at least in my experience have forgotten to read for the fun of it- everything is meant to be read as a literary exercise to them.

I read.

A lot.

The stuff I read for work is often interesting as far as the importance of it; but it is like watching paint dry for enjoyment. I often skip parts of it.

The stuff I read for fun I expect to be fun.

While Mark Twain's introduction note of Huck Finn was intended to be satire, I wish more english lit types would be treated by his dictum. The "analysis" of literature has turned more kids off from reading than anything else in the realm of education.

Pretty fair comments. Ruark's writing was largely consistent and predictable, which makes it easily digestible (read enjoyable). Hemingway was definitely more of a writer's writer and was trying to do more than just tell a story.

Both can be repetitive and verbose. At his best Hemingway was a friggin genius, but because he was trying to 'go out where no one could help him,' he often failed as often as he succeeded at what he was trying to do. Ruark was just churning stuff out because that's how he made a living. Ruark's charm is that if it didn't happen to him, it didn't happen, and if it did happen to him, it was the first time in history it ever happened. Both are completely untrue, but Ruark's way of seeing things through fresh eyes is what kept him relevant - until he had done and written about so many things that he ran out of 'new' things.


I like them both - i have studied Ruark for over two decades. He's very interesting character - and not as deep/complicated as Hemingway. We wore himself on his sleeve, for all to see. And I think (for a while, at least) he would have been a lot more fun around a campfire.

Hemingway was a writer , Ruark was a story teller. Its hard to be both to everyone at once

crbutler, I enjoyed "Horn Of The Hunter" as well although I wouldn't consider it my favorite. I gave my old copy to my preacher + bought one of the new ones from Safari Press that was signed by Selby. As to his minimalist style there is the old story about him + F. Scott sitting around + seeing who could write the shortest story. Hemingway wrote, "For sale, baby shoes, never worn."

Best line in Horn of the Hunter was when Ginny was sitting by the fire reading a book and Bob and Harry came dragging in looking a bit worse for the wear. She simply said, "Buffalo again. Idiots." or something of the sort.

Some women just don't understand that you have to hurt to be happy in a manly quest.

I liked the blown leopard hunt where Harry Selby basically comes out of a nap to cuss the live stock and pushers that come through.

quote:

Originally posted by muzza:
Hemingway was a writer , Ruark was a story teller. Its hard to be both to everyone at once

Agree, but Ruark is easier to read. I have read most of Heminway's books and find them dark and depressing. He was good obviously but does not appeal to me. Much like Tolstoy.

quote:

Originally posted by dogcat:

quote:

Originally posted by muzza:
Hemingway was a writer , Ruark was a story teller. Its hard to be both to everyone at once

Agree, but Ruark is easier to read. I have read most of Heminway's books and find them dark and depressing. He was good obviously but does not appeal to me. Much like Tolstoy.

Funny, I love Hemingway and Tolstoy, and Turgenev, and I’m trying(!) to like Dostoyevsky - not there yet.

I remember in "Peanuts" in the 60s that Linus said that he read "The Brothers Karamazov" in one day. He said it was easy; he just skipped over the names + it went very fast.

quote:

Originally posted by NormanConquest:
I remember in "Peanuts" in the 60s that Linus said that he read "The Brothers Karamazov" in one day. He said it was easy; he just skipped over the names + it went very fast.

Now THAT is funny, and true. I usually simplify the names to a familiar one when I read Russian writers.

quote:

Originally posted by dogcat:

quote:

Originally posted by muzza:
Hemingway was a writer , Ruark was a story teller. Its hard to be both to everyone at once

Agree, but Ruark is easier to read. I have read most of Heminway's books and find them dark and depressing. He was good obviously but does not appeal to me. Much like Tolstoy.

I do not care for Hemingway either.

Ruark is funny, I want to be entertained. I have zero need to be depressed.

I love them both but I know what you mean. The old quip about "Why did the chicken cross the road?" Hemingway: To die alone, in the rain.

I think it is obvious base on lit theory and critic that in his own time the Hemingway felt the need to bring great themes to his work. That is why his short stories are better reads. Hemingway is not trying to be too scholarly.

The reason I love the first Act of Islands in the Stream is it is written in a more happier part of his life when he was more concerned with story telling and not lit. critic/theory. The heart breaking conclusion is even more shattering to the reader and the theme of temporal and pastoral even more powerful.

One of Hemmingway’s friendly associates on Bimini lost a young child which is where he got the idea to end the first act.

Ruark felt this pressure less. Some writings on his last elephant safari indicate a complex measure of himself to Hemingway. Ruark felt he was the better more accomplished hunter. I can’t help but infer he felt he was a better writer.

Somehow Ruark more often than not let whatever great themes whatever they may be develop naturally. Hemingway instated on them because he wanted to elevate his pursuits, his interest, his strifes to scholarly acceptance not just commercial.

The only thing to date I have read of Ruark that I do not like is Honey Badger. NormanConquest told me he wrote during a divorce. Life and Art are sometimes unable to be viewed by outsiders. The best cannot always make it revealing or consumable.

True LHEYM, he wrote it during his divorce from Virginia + he was in a bitter mood, no doubt. Remember that Islands in the Stream was finished by others as he only left the basic plot lines. No, Hem. wasn't interested in sophistication, it came to him naturally, in another form called writing the truth. As he said when writing, Write about what you know + do it soon after the event.

Thank you NormanConquest. I bow to your knowledge.

I have read that To Have and Have Not was motivated by the intelligencia demurrers for something socially responsible. Some Critics killed The Green Hills of Africa for being out of touch with the Great Depression. I have read second hand material the Hemingway blamed these reviews for The Green Hills limited success.

I like the whole of Islands in the Stream. Makes one appreciate The Old Man and the Sea more. I just love the first act. As soon as may gets here I am going to re-read the whole book.

When you reread "For whom the Bells Toll," notice that the 1st + last sentence in the book is almost identical.

Well, he was out of touch with the great depression when he married Pauline Pfieffer just as he was out of touch with prohibition by moving to Paris. Both smart moves at the time. As to have + have not, he never really liked the book + said it would never make a decent movie. Well, hooray for Hollywood + their habit of totally rewriting something, then add Bogart + a gorgeous woman named Bacall in her film debut + the rest is history. BTW, when she gives her 1st appearance + looks up under her hair seductively, she was actual shy in that scene. It came out different though + for the best.

William Faulkner wrote the screen play for To Have and Have Not.


The studio specifically sought to reset and emulate Casablanca.

I have not read such, but always thought Hemingway hated Faulkner basically rewrote his work.

Ruark has Something of Value made into a film. I saw it. I give it a C.

Did Ruark have any other titles presented in film?

I believe Ruark was working on a screenplay for "The Well at Das raga" but I can't remember if that was his or someone else's original story.

There is also another Africa movies called "Robert Ruark's Africa" which is different than Africa Adventure. I've never seen it though - it was done in 1962.

With today's new technology I would like to see "Something Of Value" remade w/o Rock + Sydney. No offense to the latter but only to the former. It is a great story but I think that most folks these days are either unaware or careless of the Mau-Mau uprising. I will give you even odds that now after the recent movie 1917 that this one could turn out to be a fantastic story as well. We shall see