Tom clancy of 1980s : criticism

Khanzeer

Banned
Admittedly I have read only a handful of his books based on this my major criticism of him is his depiction of russians, at times overestimating their capabilities and at times severely underestimating them.Feels like his views are based too much on propaganda stereotypes.
Is this because in the 80s that was the common perception of Soviets? But S.Zaloga also writes in the same era and his depiction of Soviets is much more balanced.
Please share your critique of Clancys works from the 80s
 
at times overestimating their capabilities and at times severely underestimating them.Feels like his views are based too much on propaganda stereotypes.
of Soviets? But S.Zaloga also writes in the same era and his depiction of Soviets is much more balanced.

That's basically the tightrope conservatives had to walk during the Cold War: you want the Soviets to be strong enough to say that they're a threat, but not so strong that people start thinking "Oh, so you mean their system actually does a good job in some areas?"

CAVEAT: I've never read Clancy's books, only seen one or two movies based on them(I'm guessing Hollywood didn't have to do much dumbing-down, but I'm open to correction on the quality of his work).
 
I read them in period. Neither his Russians nor his Americans are realistic. Spy novels/War novels are like soap operas in the sense that they rely on stereotypes to economize on narrative. Every Clancy caracter is instantly familiar to readers because we've meet the type in hundreds of books and therefore the books can just pile up action without overworking the readers with caracter build up and system's description.
 
That's basically the tightrope conservatives had to walk during the Cold War: you want the Soviets to be strong enough to say that they're a threat, but not so strong that people start thinking "Oh, so you mean their system actually does a good job in some areas?"

CAVEAT: I've never read Clancy's books, only seen one or two movies based on them(I'm guessing Hollywood didn't have to do much dumbing-down, but I'm open to correction on the quality of his work).
The books main trump card was that they used multiple converging POV that always tied up neatly in a big finale. The films are mostly single POV linear narratives and loose a lot of what made the books readable.
 
I read them in period. Neither his Russians nor his Americans are realistic. Spy novels/War novels are like soap operas in the sense that they rely on stereotypes to economize on narrative. Every Clancy caracter is instantly familiar to readers because we've meet the type in hundreds of books and therefore the books can just pile up action without overworking the readers with caracter build up and system's description.
His villains are all like Boris and Natasha Badenov from the Rocky and Bullwinkle cartoons.

 

Khanzeer

Banned
The books main trump card was that they used multiple converging POV that always tied up neatly in a big finale. The films are mostly single POV linear narratives and loose a lot of what made the books readable.
That's my other issue with his work too [ thinking of RSR here] , nothing ties up neatly even in a small scale war let alone a world war.
Involving so many fronts , and continents
 
That's my other issue with his work too [ thinking of RSR here] , nothing ties up neatly even in a small scale war let alone a world war.
Involving so many fronts , and continents

It meets all the requirements of any well told story, even if the story isn't 'good' which is subjective. Characters, Buildup, Conflict, Finale.

Yeah but most people see it as such
Esp since there was no ww3 to compare it to reality.

I've never met anyone who treats the Clancy'verse as an AAR.
 

Khanzeer

Banned
It meets all the requirements of any well told story, even if the story isn't 'good' which is subjective. Characters, Buildup, Conflict, Finale.



I've never met anyone who treats the Clancy'verse as an AAR.
Again that's subjective too, content is sometimes far more entertaining than the format
 
That's my other issue with his work too [ thinking of RSR here] , nothing ties up neatly even in a small scale war let alone a world war.
Involving so many fronts , and continents
From a plausibility POV, no it doesn't. From a narrative POV, it all fits neatly like a cheap Ikea closet.
 
Hunt for Red October (1984)
Red Storm Rising (1986)
Patriot Games (1987)
The Cardinal of the Kremlin (1988)
Clear and Present Danger (1989)

Really only the first 2 on the list deal with Russian capabilities. In Cardinal they have an anti ICBM laser. Maybe overstated, who knows.

Red October gives the Soviets a submarine drive system. In the book it is a system that propels the water with huge magnetic fields. Scientifically possible, but beyond abilities to make magnetic fields that strong. In the movie it seems to be propellers inside the tube. This is possible, but would still make noise. Most subs today use propulsors of some type. This cuts down on blade tip cavitation.

Red Storm was supposed to be a Naval War in the North Atlantic. Larry Bond co wrote a lot of it and they used his game Harpoon to game it out.

IMHO Red October and Red Storm captured the submarine part amazingly well. Sure there were parts of RO that were over the top, but the capabilities were close.

RSR was spot on with the sub vs sub fights. Alphas were much louder in real life. The Soviet Navy sucked in the 1980s. Victor IIIs were ok, but the other boats were so loud. Their surface Navy was just targets waiting to be sunk.

Was the land part accurate? Who knows. IMHO the thing nobody talks about is the quality of the troops. NATO had a great set of professional Armies, who would have been fighting for their right to exist. Soviets were a bunch of 2 year conscripts who were not fighting for Mother Russia against the barbaric Nazis.

F-117 would have probably been a huge surprise. Giving NATO time to field their Armies was an idiotic mistake. In the end though they are just books. Would RSR have sold many copies if the Soviets destroyed NATO in 2 weeks? If the Soviets were so inept that they couldn’t even find the English Channel?
 
Hunt for Red October (1984)
Red Storm Rising (1986)
Patriot Games (1987)
The Cardinal of the Kremlin (1988)
Clear and Present Danger (1989)

Really only the first 2 on the list deal with Russian capabilities. In Cardinal they have an anti ICBM laser. Maybe overstated, who knows.

Red October gives the Soviets a submarine drive system. In the book it is a system that propels the water with huge magnetic fields. Scientifically possible, but beyond abilities to make magnetic fields that strong. In the movie it seems to be propellers inside the tube. This is possible, but would still make noise. Most subs today use propulsors of some type. This cuts down on blade tip cavitation.

Red Storm was supposed to be a Naval War in the North Atlantic. Larry Bond co wrote a lot of it and they used his game Harpoon to game it out.

IMHO Red October and Red Storm captured the submarine part amazingly well. Sure there were parts of RO that were over the top, but the capabilities were close.

RSR was spot on with the sub vs sub fights. Alphas were much louder in real life. The Soviet Navy sucked in the 1980s. Victor IIIs were ok, but the other boats were so loud. Their surface Navy was just targets waiting to be sunk.

Was the land part accurate? Who knows. IMHO the thing nobody talks about is the quality of the troops. NATO had a great set of professional Armies, who would have been fighting for their right to exist. Soviets were a bunch of 2 year conscripts who were not fighting for Mother Russia against the barbaric Nazis.

F-117 would have probably been a huge surprise. Giving NATO time to field their Armies was an idiotic mistake. In the end though they are just books. Would RSR have sold many copies if the Soviets destroyed NATO in 2 weeks? If the Soviets were so inept that they couldn’t even find the English Channel?
RSR is mostly a small units/single warships WW3 story in Europe. The scenario is idiotic and the "big picture" view barely present or coherent. TC is good with platoon level action or one Vs one warship action. Anything bigger and he's lost. But he keeps the pace fast and jumps from place to place in "longest day" editing style making the book a fun, if sometimes silly, read. Call it a guilty plesure for people who like military history.
 
If Clancy ever wrote erotica... Smh
It would be 600 pages of a man and a woman starting in different continents. We would see him buying condoms and the shop clerk would explain the various types in detail. There would be a whole chapter of the woman buying underwear with lots of brand and model references. They would hook up in the last chapter and the sex would be very predictable and conventional.
 
Read many of his novels & am in agreement with the others here. I was struck by weak character development. Only one had any teal effort at that, focused on the origins of the chapter Clark in the early 1970s. Not a premium effort but better than his others.
 
Only read the first two. IMHO only the barely acknowledged work of Larry Bond made these readable.

Bond's done a number of novels himself which are worth the time to read...
 
Top