Tom clancy of 1980s : criticism

His later books were even worse (either because of likely use of ghostwriters, or that Mr. Clancy didn't feel like doing research on non Soviet militaries and post Cold War geopolitics (or both)).
 

SsgtC

Banned
His later books were even worse (either because of likely use of ghostwriters, or that Mr. Clancy didn't feel like doing research on non Soviet militaries and post Cold War geopolitics (or both)).
AIUI, pretty much all his later stuff was either Ghostwriters or done with a "Co-Author" who wrote 90-95% of the book
 
AIUI, pretty much all his later stuff was either Ghostwriters or done with a "Co-Author" who wrote 90-95% of the book
Wish he paid his ghostwriters enough to do basic research (i.e. the Iranians and Iraqis do not use T-80s, no Chinese tank uses the 115mm gun, there are no such things as PLA shock armies in 2000)
 
Hunt for Red October (1984)
Red Storm Rising (1986)
Patriot Games (1987)
The Cardinal of the Kremlin (1988)
Clear and Present Danger (1989)

I found the 1st 2-3 books good and (more or less) well balanced, politics and character personalities aside. After that he enters a spiral in which the heroes win pretty much because " 'merica frak yeah", disregarding any pretense of balance...

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.

Which ones? Afaik, at the time of those novels, every NATO country except the US and UK had conscript armies, backed by professional senior officers and NCOs.
 
I tried reading CARDINAL OF THE KREMLIN which I picked up out of the freebee bin, after suffering through about 30 pages it went back in there.

Saw him when he appeared on a Celebrity episode of JEOPARDY, he was a complete maroon. Yet he got to eat at the White House and got a personal tour of the carrier AMERICA while I couldn't come and help my paint group on the same ship as I couldn't get a damn Security Clearance due to the Walker disaster...
 
Honesty, I like Clancy, but BECAUSE it is somewhat unrealistic. RSR is one of my favorite books, mainly because it refuses to focus on the bigger picture of events, and gives us the close ups of the characters in action, with the action itself being quite realistic. The character building is sub par I admit, but is just a fun read. Same goes for The Hunt for the Red October and Cardinal in the Kremlin, except they have 2 very good characters in them (Ramius and the War Hero guy whose name escapes me.)
 
To me, Clancy is one of those writers who doesn't pass the "if their books had been published a year later and written by someone else, would they still be as successful?" test. I've never thought of his earlier (pre-1991) work as anything but decent at best with obvious flaws, and his later stuff is just really, really, really bad.
 

Khanzeer

Banned
So why this ENORMOUS popularity? Frankly a lot of pieces written on this very forum are head and shoulders above his works.
Why does clancy have the status of a john Lennon in military fiction ?
 
Why does clancy have the status of a john Lennon in military fiction ?

Timing and luck. I'd say Clancy was able to tap into the national zeitgeist of the 1980s in an effective way (and that's a talent unto itself), and that's what kept him going.

This means you have to consider the context-Red Storm Rising was meant for a general audience who isn't history/military nerds in a time when Tomahawks, stealth aircraft and Abrams tanks were these new and novel things. So it'll look weaker and more inaccurate to people who are more knowledgeable and have decades of hindsight, and it has far less of a "wow" factor for people growing up in a post-Gulf War world where these things are ubiquitous and normal.

Plus he had at least some writing talent-it's not like Clancy, especially early Clancy, was William W. Johnstone or some of the later "Carrier" novel writers.
 
Timing and luck. I'd say Clancy was able to tap into the national zeitgeist of the 1980s in an effective way (and that's a talent unto itself), and that's what kept him going.

This means you have to consider the context-Red Storm Rising was meant for a general audience who isn't history/military nerds in a time when Tomahawks, stealth aircraft and Abrams tanks were these new and novel things. So it'll look weaker and more inaccurate to people who are more knowledgeable and have decades of hindsight, and it has far less of a "wow" factor for people growing up in a post-Gulf War world where these things are ubiquitous and normal.

Plus he had at least some writing talent-it's not like Clancy, especially early Clancy, was William W. Johnstone or some of the later "Carrier" novel writers.
Yes

Plus I think it's fair to say that Clancy did not paint the Soviets as evil. Opponents, and ones serving a bad cause. But mostly honourable in their own way. Exceptions for some KGB or GRU personnel but not all. Nor were they idiots or their doctrine useless. Flawed yes but a good commander could still get good results

That made the early books more realistic and less propaganda.
 

WILDGEESE

Gone Fishin'
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

I've only read RSR . . . the others have been movie adaptions and although I did thoroughly enjoy some questions did pop into my head.

With regards to RSR I found the book a bit too Naval orientated . . . it could've done with more action in theater with regards to Central Europe with ground and air forces.

Would it have been so easy for the Soviets to take Iceland?

What baffled me though is why didn't NATO forces land in the Faroes and attack AVMF long range aircraft (Bear, Badger and Backfire's) from there using the Nimitz's F-14's instead of Scotland?

Why didn't the Soviets land in the Faroes's as another string in their bow thus putting more pressure on NATO convoys by launching AVMF aircraft from there?

Why didn't the US Pacific Forces go on the offensive in the East attacking Soviet defenses and tying Soviet Forces up in the East?

And above all . . . what would've happened to other countries around the world without having the US policeman around? . . . . wouldn't North Korea try it on?, wouldn't the Arabs settle a few scores with Israel?, even Argentina would be encouraged to have another pop at the Falklands as the RN's forces are tied up in the North Atlantic.

This could've ended up with a greater novel (more pages) or even splitting the novel into two possibly three books.

Regards filers.
 
I've only read RSR . . . the others have been movie adaptions and although I did thoroughly enjoy some questions did pop into my head.

Would it have been so easy for the Soviets to take Iceland?

Assuming the premises of the book, I think so. Even Germany in WWII could do, I think, with a surprise assault using false flag cargo ships. The problem would be keeping it, in the face of enemy air & sea superiority.

What baffled me though is why didn't NATO forces land in the Faroes and attack AVMF long range aircraft (Bear, Badger and Backfire's) from there using the Nimitz's F-14's instead of Scotland?

Why didn't the Soviets land in the Faroes's as another string in their bow thus putting more pressure on NATO convoys by launching AVMF aircraft from there?

How and where? Afaik, there's one airport in the Faroes, with one runway. Not enough to support the dozens of aircraft required, not to mention the need for support and supply infrastruture. For the soviets this would be agravated with the need to airlift an assault & ocupation force, and maintain it.

Why didn't the US Pacific Forces go on the offensive in the East attacking Soviet defenses and tying Soviet Forces up in the East?

Cause the book is Europe-centric. ;)

And above all . . . what would've happened to other countries around the world without having the US policeman around? . . . . wouldn't North Korea try it on?, wouldn't the Arabs settle a few scores with Israel?, even Argentina would be encouraged to have another pop at the Falklands as the RN's forces are tied up in the North Atlantic.

This could've ended up with a greater novel (more pages) or even splitting the novel into two possibly three books.

You're right on "more books"; you have stuff for 4-5, what with imediate consequences and future ones. For example, I doubt even North Korea could just shout "banzai" and gogogo; and, at the first shot in Europe, South Korea would be sure to go into high alert. Argentina would certainly eyeball the Falklands but, at this time (1986) it was still mid-post Falklands mess, with it's navy and air force wrecked. Even a diminished Falklands garrison would be enough. The rest of South & Central America, most of which at time was a dictator of same kind? Now, that would be a mess. Left wing movements are sure to be emboldoned to attack right wing governements, who would in turn feel they had their hands free (and the backs to the wall...) to press down harder...

Arabs vs Israel? Again, the issue of preparation. Israel is still trying to get out of Lebanon, so it's armed forces are in high(er than usuall, that is) alert. Syria has an itchy trigger finger, but the airforce still has the Bekaa valley in mind. And, now with full control of the Golan Heights, Israel has an advantage over the area, As for Egypt, not only it has (apparently) calmed down, at this time it's very much on alert because of Lybia (re: post 1977 war tensions). King Hussein was trying to keep Jordan out of the overall conflict, barelly "showing up" for the Yom Kippur war; there's evidence he did it only to save face, to keep the status quo with other arabs. Saudi Arabia and the gulf states don't matter, and Iran / Iraq are at each other's throats.

My guess is that Clancy just wanted the classic "WWIII starts in Europe) scenario and roll with it. He clearly knew how messy the whole thing would be, so he kept it simple(ish), going for the whole "short victorious war launched by side A" story that always works so well...
 
I found the 1st 2-3 books good and (more or less) well balanced, politics and character personalities aside. After that he enters a spiral in which the heroes win pretty much because " 'merica frak yeah", disregarding any pretense of balance...



Which ones? Afaik, at the time of those novels, every NATO country except the US and UK had conscript armies, backed by professional senior officers and NCOs.

You are correct. I was thinking only about the US and UK.

RSR was just meant to be about a naval war in the North Atlantic. Needed a war in Europe to get that.

IMHO he was successful because nobody had written stuff like that before. US submarine operations were never talked about. People didn’t, and still don’t, know what went on underwater all over the planet. The US Navy gave him instant respectability by freaking out over his knowledge. As mentioned above this was years ago. Many people now have watched Gulf War I and II on tv. That wasn’t going on in the 1980s.
 

WILDGEESE

Gone Fishin'
Assuming the premises of the book, I think so. Even Germany in WWII could do, I think, with a surprise assault using false flag cargo ships. The problem would be keeping it, in the face of enemy air & sea superiority.

Germany in WWII?

You might find that it's a bit different dropping off a few troops by U-Boat to monitor the weather than actually invading the place then controlling it!

ow and where? Afaik, the

Well . . . I presuming the US Navy's professional crews can easily deploy then operate a mere two Sqns (24) F-14's from the 5,700 ft runway at Valgar Airport considering they've trained to operate these aircraft off a cramped 1,000 ft metal box in the middle of the ocean!

Cause the book is Europe-centric. ;)

Ignoring your obvious sarcasm . . . . I was actually referring to the part in the novel where the US close the Panama Canal to traffic allowing their US Pacific Navy forces entrance to bolster the Atlantic convoy protection. If the US forces moved out of the Pacific it would encourage China against Taiwan, North Korea against South Korea. It would make better sense to leave them where they are as a deterrent and also attack Soviet forces in the Pacific Coast forcing the tie up of Soviet forces. Hell . . . you could even encourage Japan to help by getting them to try and retake the Kuril Islands
 
Top