Looking back at the heyday of “Outdoor writers” of books and magazine articles.
The 1950s, 60s and 1970s were the peak of the writer as the respected subject matter expert in firearms, ammo, ballistics and hunting.
Now looking back they were average hunters at best and most BS’d there way through articles and books.
Because the average Nimrod back then had one pump shotgun and one deer rifle. And no experience to question the “expert” writers.
Now we see examples within this very forum of expertise that would put many of those famous writer’s expertise to the shame.
There are however a few real experts still around.
Wayne VanZwoll is a pretty knowledgeable rifle and hunting writer.
Ruark was average at both. But not many knew any difference in his time to call BS.
We all have opinions on Capstick.
Who is on your list of an outdoor writer as a true expert and who is a salesperson.
A critical difference with today...
Talking about this specific era, I see a critical difference between those adventure books writers and magazine articles or technical books writers, and most of internet writers.
Adventure book writers wrote mostly personal recollections of theirs and others' adventures, and provided personal opinions, but for the best of them they had enough real experience to provide sound, generally supported opinions.
Magazine articles or technical books writers could not and would not be published in those sadly gone days, unless they provided solid fact-based reports and analysis.
Great names were already offered:
Mike Venturino Michael MacIntosh Ross Seyfried Finn Aagaard.
Graig Boddington, Terry Wieland
Jeff Cooper, Elmer Keith, Dave Petzal
I would personally add folks like Bob Milek, Rick Jamison, John Wooter as perhaps the quintessential models of magazine writers
who actually made the effort to learn what they did not know, test at the bench and in the field what they were talking about, abstained from hyperboles, stuck to the fact, etc.
And we should not forget the incredibly important role owners and editors plaid when selecting who and what would be published in the pages they supervised.
What this all provided was what is sadly missing today: peer review. You simply could not in those days publish rubbish and retain credibility...
THIS is the critical difference with today.
I miss that...
You could actually genuinely give credence to their word and rely on the knowledge and experience they shared.
Who can you rely on today in the world of internet where everyone is an expert and no peer review applies?
Of course, along hundreds of posts,
if you know enough about the subject matter already, you can sort out the real folks from the posers and pretenders, but how can folks new to the issue tell the difference?
As to the current fashionable disdain for the most successful writers, be they from the 1950's, 1970's, or today (each will place their favorite target along that time line), I cannot help but smile at the thought that they actually and demonstrably hunted Africa long and hard - a lot more than any of their critics ever will; collected a lot of DG - a lot more than any of their critics ever will; knew based in personal experience game, rifles, safari - a lot more than any of their critics ever will; and made tons of money writing about it - which none of their critics ever will...
And that may be part of the issue. I certainly know a few folks in Africa, or elsewhere, who would gladly exchange their virtuous ... and anonymous position, for all the failings ... and success they see in a few others...
