Author Topic: I sure am glad I never read Elmer Keith before starting... (Read 1192 times)

Questor · « **on:** June 06, 2005, 04:00:29 AM »

I'm glad I never read Elmer Keith before starting to reload. I'd have been too scared to do it. It seems like he had so many dangerous experiences with it that it's a wonder he kept with it. As far as I can tell he still had all ten fingers and both eyes when he died, but it's really a wonder.

I've been reading volume 1 of his Gun Notes compendium published by Safari Press. It's a fun read, but after a while you realize that he was indeed playing with fire.

ricciardelli · « **Reply #1 on:** June 06, 2005, 06:00:37 AM »

Whenever you read Keith, Capstick, Ackley, or any of the other "greats", make sure you have a good supply of both salt and tequilla nearby.

And believe less than 1/2...

Questor · « **Reply #2 on:** June 06, 2005, 08:50:01 AM »

I haven't read Ackley, but I've read the others and I really don't expect them to be more than vaguely factual. I like them because they are fun to read. Keith got as much mileage from the 44spl/44mag, the 333/334/338, and #3 shot as Capstick got from lions, buffalo, and leopard.

I daresay I prefer that style to the tepid marketing hogwash we get from most of the writers today.

The great thing about Keith and Capstick are that they both understood they were in the entertainment business, and they did their work accordingly.

Dusty Miller · « **Reply #3 on:** June 06, 2005, 10:21:38 AM »

I've read every Capstick book I could get me hands on then passed them on to a nephew. He's the guy who introduced me to the notion of "bonded Kentucky drain opener" (ie, rotgut whiskey!). He had a great wit.

ButlerFord45 · « **Reply #4 on:** June 06, 2005, 12:05:39 PM »

??
""bonded Kentucky drain opener" (ie, rotgut whiskey!). "

??

No such animal, Kentucky's worst is still better than most other best efforts.

Questor · « **Reply #5 on:** June 06, 2005, 12:18:34 PM »

I believe that, as Capstick wrote it, it was intended to be a complement. His client had the presence of mind to bring some bourbon along for the denoument of a stressful event. For this Captick was grateful. I always suspected that Capstick was an alcoholic, judging by the large number of references to booze in his writing. Maybe he was just addressing a generational audience for whom mutual consumption of alcohol was a more significant ritual than it is today.

jh45gun · « **Reply #6 on:** June 06, 2005, 03:59:17 PM »

Quote from: Questor

I believe that, as Capstick wrote it, it was intended to be a complement. His client had the presence of mind to bring some bourbon along for the denoument of a stressful event. For this Captick was grateful. I always suspected that Capstick was an alcoholic, judging by the large number of references to booze in his writing. Maybe he was just addressing a generational audience for whom mutual consumption of alcohol was a more significant ritual than it is today.

I think if you look and not that hard you will find most great writers and not some so great had drinking or drug problems. I suppose a few belts made the prose run more smoothly!

Questor · « **Reply #7 on:** June 07, 2005, 01:51:13 AM »

Writing takes about as much concentration and attention to detail as shooting. Anything that messes with clarity and precision of thought is bad, bad, bad. Drink is best at the end of the day's work, after all else is done.

jh45gun · « **Reply #8 on:** June 07, 2005, 08:35:09 AM »

That may be true but take a look at some of the really great writers they were all drunks. Poe was a known drunk and drug addict. I am not going to bother to look up any to satisfy this thread but the info is out there a lot of known good writers could not stay off the sauce.

Questor · « **Reply #9 on:** June 07, 2005, 08:53:17 AM »

I agree with you. What I don't understand is what their process was. Did they write first, and then get hammered? Or did they get hammered and then write while under the influence? It's not that important, but since the topic came up, I'm curious.

Elwood · « **Reply #10 on:** June 07, 2005, 09:52:31 AM »

I am glad to hear that I am not the only one who thinks that Elmer Keith kissed the blarney stone.
I always enjoyed reading him but remained doubtfull about the events.

Elwood

jh45gun · « **Reply #11 on:** June 07, 2005, 10:30:59 AM »

Probably a bit of both I would think that a few under the belt got the creative juices flowing.

I know I am very creative when loaded.

Sourmash = Ambrosia in a bottle~

zrifleman · « **Reply #12 on:** June 13, 2005, 09:02:48 PM »

In defense of Keith he provided more info than many other so called gun writers. When needed an answer to a question about buiding a particular rifle--I wrote to him and he wrote back with the correct answer. Many times I kept his articles for reference simply because no one else provided the details like he did. Did he stretch the truth??? Probably so. Like so many others-the older I get, the more I believe.

1911crazy · « **Reply #13 on:** June 13, 2005, 10:54:16 PM »

I don't think without Elmer Keith reloading and handguning wouldn't be what it is today he sure made a contribution. I don't think he will ever be matched. BigBill

mikedb · « **Reply #14 on:** June 14, 2005, 02:39:52 AM »

Quote from: jh45gun

Quote from: Questor
I believe that, as Capstick wrote it, it was intended to be a complement. His client had the presence of mind to bring some bourbon along for the denoument of a stressful event. For this Captick was grateful. I always suspected that Capstick was an alcoholic, judging by the large number of references to booze in his writing. Maybe he was just addressing a generational audience for whom mutual consumption of alcohol was a more significant ritual than it is today.

I think if you look and not that hard you will find most great writers and not some so great had drinking or drug problems. I suppose a few belts made the prose run more smoothly!

you can add Hemingway to the list of heavy ddrinkers and of course Hunter Thompson. I remember in my college days I read Fear and Loathing in LV. It gave me a buzz just reading it.!!!

Lone Star · « **Reply #15 on:** June 14, 2005, 03:51:03 AM »

Quote

In defense of Keith he provided more info than many other so called gun writers....

Very true, particularly when he wrote for American Rifleman. By the time he wrote for G&A he was getting pretty "senior" and sometimes let his rep get in the way of some answers, but with competition from O'Connor and Page he was still in good company. He did suffer from his rep, for example insisting for decades that the .30-06 was not suitable for game larger than small deer. His reliance on the famous "minimum .35 caliber, 250-grain bullet" was a relict of the poor bullets available in the '40s, '50s and '60s; today's smaller-caliber rifles kill just fine with their higher velocities and much better bullets.

Did he really shoot that running deer at 600 yards with a short barreled .44 Mag? I don't know, nor do I care; it is part of the picturesque lore of the sport, and deserves to be remembered. So does Keith - right or wrong he is an unforgettable part of the history of the shooting sports.

Questor · « **Reply #16 on:** June 14, 2005, 03:55:40 AM »

Warren Page had a lot of good ideas, but I could never understand his writing. He wrote almost entirely in slang and the language was practically incomprehensible.

victorcharlie · « **Reply #17 on:** June 14, 2005, 12:14:20 PM »

Quote

""bonded Kentucky drain opener" (ie, rotgut whiskey!). "
??

No such animal, Kentucky's worst is still better than most other best efforts.
_________________
Butler Ford

Yep!

DirtyHarry · « **Reply #18 on:** June 15, 2005, 10:23:03 PM »

Quote from: ButlerFord45

??
""bonded Kentucky drain opener" (ie, rotgut whiskey!). "
??

No such animal, Kentucky's worst is still better than most other best efforts.

I also subscribe to that notion..........

sharps4590 · « **Reply #19 on:** June 26, 2005, 09:36:08 AM »

You can add Ruark to the list of alcoholic writers, but then Hemmingway was his idol. Milek was fond of his hooch and O'Conner and Skelton made liberal reference to it. I also believe the latter 3 were quite good at what they did. Writing about guns, shooting and reloading.

John Taylor could be added to the list also, but his claim to fame is really only one book, a really good one.

Keith, he is incomparable. In their writing, O'Conner was fine cognac, brandy, overstuffed leather chairs and leather bound books, Keith was rawhide, barbed wire, mean horses and big rifles. I love nad miss them both.

Vic