I received Jack O'Connor's - The Last Book - for Christmas and just finished reading it. I had last read articles by him in the early 1970's just before he died. I read him in those years for gun info - what to shoot with, how to do it, etc.

This book was a disappointment to me. It is 75% ancedotes about being a writer, his opinions of other writers, editors, magazine owners, gun makers, and how hard it is to make an honest living as a writer. I understand that he lived in different times than today - but the bulk of the writing seemed (note I say 'seemed") to be directed at people in his business that did not measure up to his standards. There are several pages devoted to knocking Elmer Keith and his passion for big bores. He even spent a chapter on his views of artists and illustrators.

He took a veiled shot at Capstick, not by naming him, but by asserting that "a writer you know with a British accent" did not do all he said he did in his books. I have no real knowledge of Capstick other than his books, so I have no point of reference.

Overall, I thought that he took a couple of cheap shots at guys that he did not need to take.

I am not sure what I expected from this book, but had not expected it to be a parting shot at the industry he helped create.

All in all, I was disappointed in this book and do not recommend it. My only caveat is that I have not recently read anything he wrote about guns/sheep/Africa or other topics.

I have great admiration for the man and his no nonsense approach to life. However, if I were writing my "Last Book" - I would have tried to put onto paper what was truly important to me and to speak from the heart about people that were important to me.

This book was not as bad as Jose Canseco's tell-all book on baseball, but it was headed in that direction.

Agree - Disagree???

I read the book and have read similar stuff written by Elmer at the end of his career that was pretty negative about Jack. I don't know if disappointed is the term I would use but rather some insight into Jack letting his final feelings out. There was real issues between the writers of the 50-70's. Also I think about the age Jack was at. I like all of Jack's books, as well as Elmer's and Warren Page and many others. And my life in shooting and hunting has validated them all preety much as being right, big vs small bore, they both work and well and I like them both so I own both. It is great to be able to like all sides of an arguement and sometimes go one way and sometimes the other.

Kward,
Thanks for the insight. I have not read anything of Keith's but have liked some of the excerpts I have read. I remember many years ago reading that the .375 H&H was the best all-around gun for North America. I thought he was nuts until I read his logic. I have a .375 and like it, just like I like the .300 win mag and the .280.

It is interesting to read about the various old timers and their ideas. Thanks

Is there anything good by or about oconner.I have heard from many people that oconner was very unfriendly and loved to charge to sign books.Elmer Keith on the other hand probally never charged to sign a book and let people call him at his house.He also wrote back as many people as possible.If you want to read a good book Read Hell I was There by Elmer Keith.All of his books are good.I like Keiths rifles for Large Game,Shotguns,Sixguns,Big Game hunting,Guns And ammo For Large game,Safari,Keith An auto Biography ,Sixgun Cartridges and Loads,Big Game Rifles and cartridges and both Gun notes.
I have seven of Oconners books and the make good targets,toilet paper and fiorestarters.The only decient one is Sheep and Sheep Hunting.Old 270 was a cranky old bastard who didnt like Elmers straight shooting and using guns besides the 270 for everything.

I thought O'Connor's "The Last Book" was his best, but that may be because I've made my living as an outdoor writer/editor/publisher for the past 40 years and knew many of the people he talked about. He was absolutely correct about them being motivated by free this and that. What he doesn't say is that he also was guilty of using his fame and notoriety to attract others to host his own hunting. I never met him but I agree that he probably was a cranky fellow filled with the importance of himself.

Bill Quimby

having visited with both men at their homes, I can tell you with assurance that Elmer Keith would have given you the shirt off of his back for the asking, probably without being asked if he saw you needed it. Jack O'Connor was so tight he squeaked when he walked. You've heard of guys that still have the first dollar they ever made? It was rumored that Jack married his first fifty-cent piece. He was jealous of anybody that got more fan mail than he did, although he seldom answered it unless there was a buck to be made. He told John Buhmiller once that he had never yet paid an outfitter a dime, and that having him for a client was worth his being paid...all that free publicity. He sucked up to the late Shah of Iran's brother, that's where all those expensive sheep hunts all over asia and the NA continent got funded. I never met anyone who lived in Lewiston who had a kind word to say about him. Jack was in it for Jack, start to finish based on what Idahoans who knew him have told me.

Rich

Jack O’Connor is mentioned multiple times in my “Royal Quest, the Hunting Saga of HIH Prince Abdorreza of Iran†(Safari Press 2004).

It is true that the Prince arranged several hunts in Iran for his pals O’Connor, Herb Klein and Elgin Gates. In return, the three Americans working with the U.S. State Department and a couple of state fish and game commissions arranged a marathon hunting trip for Abdorreza that can never be matched on this continent.

In two well-organized months in 1960, Abdorreza flew to Alaska, Wyoming, Texas, Nevada and British Columbia and shot all four types of North American wild sheep, two types of moose, plus elk, white-tailed deer, mule deer, barren ground and mountain caribou, pronghorn antelope, black bear, grizzly bear, and mountain goat, and all were trophy class animals.

Collecting just one specimen of each in just two months would have been a feat in itself, but the Prince shot TWO of each -- one for his private trophy room in Tehran, and another for the Iranian National Museum.

Other than India, where “everyone†was hunting tiger in those days, I am unaware that O’Connor hunted anywhere else in Asia except Iran. Although I am not a student of O'Connor's hunting feats, I can say that in all my interviews with Abdorreza at his home in Florida, the Prince never mentioned opening doors for O’Connor in other Asian countries or elsewhere.

Bill Quimby

In the last year or so, I have read quite a few of O'connors books. I found them to be well written and easy to read. Infomrative. He did not seem snotty or stuck on himself like many of the writers of today.

I have not read "The Last Book" but from how you describe what he tried to cover, I would expect that many professional writers do similar things towards the end of their career. Having read many of his others, I may just have to hunt this one up also.

thanks

Hiker,
Not trying to tell you what to do, but you may be wasting your money on that "Last" book. It was a big disappointment.

I read Jack o'Connor "Last Book" about the same time that I met a real invetigative journalist who had brought down the government of Canada with a single story. That made a real impression on me.

So by comparison the O'Connor book full of interoffice politics made me realized what a petty business the gun writing business is in the grand scheme of things.

Even so Jack O'Connor was a professor of journalism and he wrote excellent narrative. No gun writer working today can do that.

Ruark and Hemingway had much livlier copy because they both worked for newspapers and knew how to use quotes.

Technicaly there are better gun writers today than all three of the above ever were.

But they get paid peanuts to move product so nobody spends the time to work on the manuscripts. And they have to sell their souls to advertisers to stay alive.


VBR,



Ted Gorsline

Hey Ted.

I spent 27 years working as a reporter, columnist, editor, and editorial board member of a large daily newspaper and can tell you that every reporter who does his job is an "investigative journalist."

You are absolutely correct about the perception "real journalists" have about those of us who specialized in writing about hunting and fishing.

I wouldn't classify Ruark and Hemingway as "gun writers," though.

BillQ

You are right about Ruark and Hemingway not being gun writers. Its true. They could write about anything and do it well.

But I must say my impression of most journalists, in Canada at least, is that they are puff writers. They write alot of "he said, she said" stuff.

They dig up the right talking heads and do the work but they don't get to the heart of an issue. They offer up many opinions, all equally weighted, that you leave as confused as when you began reading their stuff.

I don't even think of Bob Woodward as a real investigative journalist. He had the right job at the right time so that when deep throat came to the paper with his stuff Woodward was the guy to give it to. But it was a leak.

But every once in a while you get someone who is really smart and has the ability to dig this stuff up without having to rely on leaks.

I know this guy who found and photographed an American teamster leader and gangster named Hal Banks before either the FBI or the RCMP (both of whom were looking for him) found him.

He also discovered that a Stasi agent named Gerda Munsinger was sleeping with Pierre Sevingy, Canada's Minister of Defence when no one else except East German intelligence even knew it was going on. That story brought down the government of John Diefenbaker.

He figured that out by sitting in the back of movie theatres for 20 years cross examing Igor Gouzenko, the Russian cypher clerk who defected and started the cold war. He just worked out who was who and what they were doing. It wasn't leaked to him.

He also did all the usual stuff. He covered the middle East for three years, he was 20 feet from Bobby Kennedy when he was shot (for giving phantom fighters to Israel), covered the civil rights movement (there were no such protests in Texas), the Viet Nam war, including Ben Hai River, for six months, but these things just goes with the territory.

The real ones are are not common. I have only met this one guy in my life. They are just really smart people. Another one was probably Seymour Hirsch who wrote for the New York Times but was always a freelancer because he was just too scary for his editors to deal with.

VBR,


Ted Gorsline

Your reporter friend must be something.

However, it is a reporter's job to do "he said," "she said" stuff -- without offering his/her opinion.

Opinions should come only from columnists and editorial writers.

Dear Bill,

His name is Bob Reguly. He won three national newspaper awards in Canada and he still writes the odd piece for the Globe and Mail. He is an old man now but he was a diamond in the coal bin of Canadian journalism.

A reporter's job is to report and not editorialize. You are right there. A good reporter is far more valuable than an editorial writer or a columnist.

Columnists are the vultures of the news business picking over the bones of dead stories. They just react to the news and thus require no travel expenses nor enormous telephone bills and so they are a cheap way to fill the space between ads. That's why tabloids use them so much.


VBR,


Ted Gorsline

Hi Ted:

The value of people in newspapering is measured by the paychecks they take home. Top ad people make more money than most everyone. Columnists, editors and editorial writers make more money than reporters.

This is because columnists and editorial people are more important to a newspaper's individuality and because they develop loyal readership.
(Jack O'Connor was a columnist, not a reporter.) Good editors are like good managers of any business: they get the most from their people, work within budgets and set standards of professionalism.

I've held all the positions above (except ad salesman), won a few regional and national press awards, and helped shape legislation and get rid of a couple of wayward bureaucrats along the way. In addition to accolades I also got a couple of serious death threats. Problem is, reporting is an entry level position.

If I didn't want to advance (make more money) I would have remained a reporter as many of my peers did. Some are still working past age 65, grousing because they can't afford to retire.

Bill Quimby

Good points Bill and true. Especially in regards to the way the money is allocated in order of importance to make the paper work.

But personally I get rivited by the buzz that accompanies a good breaking news story. I remember where I was the day that John Kennedy was shot. Most people do.

I like Reading Jack O'Connor but I don't remember where I was when I read any of his stuff or any other columnist anyhwere else in the world ever.

VBR,


Ted Gorsline

Addenda - In a way we are talking apples and oranges. My friend Bob was a newpaper reporter and Jack O'Connor was as you say a magazine columnist. Different kinds of media.

VBR,

Ted Gorsline

Ted:

Different media, same principle. O'Connor's column had a loyal following and contributed to his employer's bottom line, as do all successful newspaper and broadcast columnists.

The most exciting breaking news stories usually do not become news because of enterprising reporters. They happen and they get covered because a system is in place to report them.

Everyone remembers where they were when they first heard of such things as Pearl Harbor's attack, John Kennedy's assassination, man walking on the moon, and 9/11. But how many of us remember the names of the reporters who reported these newsworthy events first?

In a whole lot of cases, it is an unsung editor who under deadlines made the assignments, decided how big to "play" the story, and got it in print or on the air who is the real hero, and not the reporter who got the byline.

Bill Quimby

What you say is true. Most hard news stories just happen and have a life of their own. Nobody remembers the byline and it probably doesn't matter. The unsung editor watching the wire services makes sure the Tsumnami gets space.

But a good investigative jourmalist, and they are rare as hen's teeth, don't wait to be overtaken by events and they take much greater risk than any PH with a wounded lion.

Bob Reguly's story about a Stasi agent named Gerda Munsinger sleeping with Canada's Minister of Defence, Pierre Sevigny, would not have appeared in print had he not dug it up. The government of John Dieffenbaker would likely have survived. What you have is a single reporter changing the history of a nation.

That impressed the hell out of me and in the ranking of journalist put columnists like O'Connor, good writers though they may be, where they belong - at the back of the bus.

A couple of things I would like to know is, "Where did Lee Kai Shing get his money?" and , "did Ronald Reagan sink the Russian nuclear submarine fleet"? Won't get any answers waiting for the press release.

VBR,


Ted Gorsline

Jim Corbett (???? -1955)
Ernest Hemingway (1899-1961)
Robert Ruark (1915-1965)
Jack O’Connor (1902-1978)
Russell Annabel (???? -1979)
Elmer Keith (1899-1984)
Peter Capstick (1940-1996)

Hi Ted:

“investigative†(I hate that word) reporters have certainly made important contributions, but outdoor writers/authors must have some redeeming qualities, too. How many reporters are still being widely read ten to fifty-one years after their deaths?

This is my last salvo. I think we can agree that we disagree on who should sit where on our buses.

Bill Quimby

Incidentally, I hadn’t realized it until I went looking for his birth/death years, but O’Connor not only taught journalism in Arizona but he also worked as a reporter for Texas newspapers and the Associated Press.

Dear Bill,

That's true. William Shakespeare wasn't an investigative reporter.

VBR,

Ted Gorsline

quote:

Originally posted by dogcat:
I received Jack O'Connor's - The Last Book - 75% ancedotes about being a writer, his opinions of other writers, editors, magazine owners, gun makers, and how hard it is to make an honest living as a writer.

but the bulk of the writing seemed (note I say 'seemed") to be directed at people in his business that did not measure up to his standards.

Overall, I thought that he took a couple of cheap shots at guys that he did not need to take.

However, if I were writing my "Last Book" - I would have tried to put onto paper what was truly important to me and to speak from the heart about people that were important to me.

Perhaps he did...........................

Ted & Bill,

Thanks for the interesting read.



Daryl