|
|
Post by dukecrunchybagel on Apr 14, 2008 14:40:18 GMT -5
Lark wanted to know what I though about Clancy's work, having listed Red Storm Rising as one of my favorite books.
I'm with a distinct minority that believe Clancy's only good books were his first two, The Hunt for Red October, and Red Storm Rising. IMHO, Clancy is great action/war writer, and whenever those themes pop up in his later stuff, the pace definitely improves and the story line starts working. Unfortunately, beginning with his third, Patriot Games, Clancy started believing he could a) write convincing and meanginful characters (he can't) and b) he knows a good espionage story when he sees one (he doesn't - frankly his spy stuff is just plan dull).
Of the later stuff, I'll agree with you that Clear and Present Danger is probably the best, but Without Remorse left me empty, the Mr. Clark character is just not interesting enough to make the novel worthwhile.
Just for a comparison, in Red Storm Rising, the war started around p. 150 if I recall. In the Bear and the Dragon, I don't think a single shot was fired until well into the six hundreds.
Clancy was so good at first, (see Boston for a rock & roll reference) there was really nowhere left for him to go, and like most authors who let there success get to them, he tended to get much more long-winded, and a lot less interesting as time went on.
|
|
|
|
Post by powerofcincy on Apr 14, 2008 14:42:28 GMT -5
And what does this have to do with the Reds....? Or baseball....? Or sports in general...?
Gotta be careful not to let this turn into ESPN....
|
|
|
|
Post by The Duke on Apr 14, 2008 14:43:21 GMT -5
Lark needs to start a purely off topic section like there is one for Trivia and Over/Under. That way it can be kept tidy and still have the off topic banter that some enjoy.
|
|
|
|
Post by powerofcincy on Apr 14, 2008 14:44:03 GMT -5
Yep. Def.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lark11 on Apr 14, 2008 16:12:14 GMT -5
Lark wanted to know what I though about Clancy's work, having listed Red Storm Rising as one of my favorite books. I'm with a distinct minority that believe Clancy's only good books were his first two, The Hunt for Red October, and Red Storm Rising. IMHO, Clancy is great action/war writer, and whenever those themes pop up in his later stuff, the pace definitely improves and the story line starts working. Unfortunately, beginning with his third, Patriot Games, Clancy started believing he could a) write convincing and meanginful characters (he can't) and b) he knows a good espionage story when he sees one (he doesn't - frankly his spy stuff is just plan dull). Of the later stuff, I'll agree with you that Clear and Present Danger is probably the best, but Without Remorse left me empty, the Mr. Clark character is just not interesting enough to make the novel worthwhile. Just for a comparison, in Red Storm Rising, the war started around p. 150 if I recall. In the Bear and the Dragon, I don't think a single shot was fired until well into the six hundreds. Clancy was so good at first, (see Boston for a rock & roll reference) there was really nowhere left for him to go, and like most authors who let there success get to them, he tended to get much more long-winded, and a lot less interesting as time went on. Interesting. I couldn't even finish the Bear and the Dragon. It was really unimpressive. I tend to agree. The farther he got away from the military side of things, the lower the quality of the writing. The final straw for me was his foray into politics. Once he "promoted" Jack Ryan to President, Clancy seemed to start pushing a political agenda. Jack Ryan was the type of character who was appealing because he would forgo the red tape and political B.S. in order to do what was right. He was the no nonsense type, so when the law deviated from what was morally right, he always acted on what was morally right. People could identify with him and his motives. Of course, when he became a politician, he became part of the system and it didn't work as well. Not to mention, Clancy pushing what was clearly his own political views through his main character was a bit insulting. Also, working against him was the end of the Cold War. He had to work hard to find "new" enemies for the United States after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Some of his plots got a bit outlandish, which I supposed was inevitable. Still, I do think Clear and Present was his best book. At least, that's the one I enjoyed the most. The U.S. using covert military action in the "War on Drugs" was interesting on a number of different levels. All in all, I think that was his best effort, though Red Storm and Red October were both solid as well. |
|
|
|
Post by dukecrunchybagel on Apr 14, 2008 17:57:54 GMT -5
The Jack Ryan myopia became Clancy's undoing. In the end, the no-nonsense do-what's-right character is a very difficult one to do right -- it usually gets done way too cliched, which is exactly how Jack Ryan developed. For one thing, that type of character tends to view everything in black and white, instead of the shades of grey that actually exist; secondly, the cliche with that type of character is that not only does he always do what's right, but by golly, in the end, whatever he does ends up being 100% right, unlike all the lunkheads the hero wades his way through in the book. Rarely, does the do-what's-right cliche charcter ever follow his belief and end up being wrong.
Clancy's novels really don't need broad characters any more than Mission Impossible (the TV series) ever really needed to come up with a Jim Phelps that did anything more than lead missions. If you're telling an action story, you're character don't have to broadly advanced, they need merely be consistent and believable. Clancy best nailed this in Red Storm Rising, where the well-told action and entirely believable political scenario was played out. The characters (Toland, Morris, Sergetov, etc.) were one-dimensional, but they were consistant and the actions they took within their plot line were enitrely reasonable. (In fact, I would make a case that Ed Morris, raked with guilt over the loss of his frigate, might have been the best drawn character Clancy ever imagined.)
Having characters push politics is nothing new, really, but some of Clancy's political ideas are just ludicrous -- the worst being his middle east peace coming by letting the Vatican become the soverign power over Jerusalem.
The net result was that Clancy's books became longer and more set in their ways without adding anything else of value.
JK Rowling had a similar situation; here books got much longer too, but at least some of the time, the extra detail was fascinating. Clancy's extra detail generally wasn't.
It was Clancy's lack of vision that prevented him from breaking out of his mold after the Cold War ended, as certainly there are still plenty of world conflicts he could have explored.
BTW, I barely made it through the Bear and the Dragon and resolved that was the last $10 I would bother spending on a Clancy product.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lark11 on Apr 14, 2008 22:38:46 GMT -5
The Jack Ryan myopia became Clancy's undoing. In the end, the no-nonsense do-what's-right character is a very difficult one to do right -- it usually gets done way too cliched, which is exactly how Jack Ryan developed. For one thing, that type of character tends to view everything in black and white, instead of the shades of grey that actually exist; secondly, the cliche with that type of character is that not only does he always do what's right, but by golly, in the end, whatever he does ends up being 100% right, unlike all the lunkheads the hero wades his way through in the book. Rarely, does the do-what's-right cliche charcter ever follow his belief and end up being wrong. Clancy's novels really don't need broad characters any more than Mission Impossible (the TV series) ever really needed to come up with a Jim Phelps that did anything more than lead missions. If you're telling an action story, you're character don't have to broadly advanced, they need merely be consistent and believable. Clancy best nailed this in Red Storm Rising, where the well-told action and entirely believable political scenario was played out. The characters (Toland, Morris, Sergetov, etc.) were one-dimensional, but they were consistant and the actions they took within their plot line were enitrely reasonable. (In fact, I would make a case that Ed Morris, raked with guilt over the loss of his frigate, might have been the best drawn character Clancy ever imagined.) Having characters push politics is nothing new, really, but some of Clancy's political ideas are just ludicrous -- the worst being his middle east peace coming by letting the Vatican become the soverign power over Jerusalem. The net result was that Clancy's books became longer and more set in their ways without adding anything else of value. JK Rowling had a similar situation; here books got much longer too, but at least some of the time, the extra detail was fascinating. Clancy's extra detail generally wasn't. It was Clancy's lack of vision that prevented him from breaking out of his mold after the Cold War ended, as certainly there are still plenty of world conflicts he could have explored. BTW, I barely made it through the Bear and the Dragon and resolved that was the last $10 I would bother spending on a Clancy product. lol I'm sure most don't care about this thread, but I'm certainly enjoying kicking around some Tom Clancy discussion. And, since we are on the Off Topic board, I don't feel guilty about it.  I bought the hardcover Bear and the Dragon on the bargain rack for a song, but I haven't picked up another either. Even at the bargain rate, it just wasn't worth it. Back in the days of my youth, I would really look forward to the next Clancy and it would only take me a couple days to get through it. But, over time, my reading tastes changed and Clancy's abilities diminished. I certainly agree about his political ideas. They certainly don't comport with mine own, but it was so crystal clear that Ryan was made into a mouthpiece for Clancy's views that it became rather absurd. Though, I suppose Ryan has always been slightly based on Clancy, or maybe just who Clancy wanted to be. Again, I thought Clear and Present was a nice plot not based on the Cold War. But, I think he really started to go off track with the Japanese plot in Debt of Honor and I didn't like the Sum of All Fears. At some point, I came to enjoy his non-fiction much more than his fictional works. I'm still not sure how much he declined and how much I outgrew him, but either way I just don't enjoy anything he does much anymore. But, it was fun while it lasted. |
|
|
|
Post by dukecrunchybagel on Apr 15, 2008 13:38:25 GMT -5
Yeah, it's fun to kick around non-baseball ideas with the guys. Heck, at this point we've known each other for more what, five years or so?
Perhaps, Clancy is not really diffrent that Crichton or King, who both have grown formulaic as all heck. The difference might be in the target readership. Clancy readers are really a pretty demanding group, by and large. The problem is that success tends to limit your creative ability; what is different might not sell like the tried and true.
For me, it was always a case that I'll forgive many faults if the basic story is pretty good. Hence, among the classics, I love Steinbeck and Twain, but find Hemmingway just excruciating (with the exception of the Old Man & the Sea). As long as Clancy's story were still decent, I'd put in the time to muddle through them, but Debt of Honor was the last one that had any decent story to it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lark11 on Apr 15, 2008 18:22:54 GMT -5
Yeah, it's fun to kick around non-baseball ideas with the guys. Heck, at this point we've known each other for more what, five years or so? Perhaps, Clancy is not really diffrent that Crichton or King, who both have grown formulaic as all heck. The difference might be in the target readership. Clancy readers are really a pretty demanding group, by and large. The problem is that success tends to limit your creative ability; what is different might not sell like the tried and true. For me, it was always a case that I'll forgive many faults if the basic story is pretty good. Hence, among the classics, I love Steinbeck and Twain, but find Hemmingway just excruciating (with the exception of the Old Man & the Sea). As long as Clancy's story were still decent, I'd put in the time to muddle through them, but Debt of Honor was the last one that had any decent story to it. Yeah, I suppose it has been about that long. Time certainly flies. You mentioned Crichton, which is interesting because I've also lost interest in both him and John Grisham. I suppose, to a certain extent they are all victims of their own success. For the most part, their success is formula driven, which just isn't very sustainable. They had a good run and cranked out some good books, but each seems to have exhausted the formula that brought them success. Fortunately, there is never a shortage of good books, but it's too bad that these guys can't get back on track and crank out some better books. |
|
|
|
Post by dukecrunchybagel on Apr 15, 2008 18:56:44 GMT -5
I never got into Grisham.
It's a heck of dilemma for the Kings, Crichtons, Grishams, and Clancys of the world. We live in a world where the formual sells, and creativity is not really a good thing (witness the whole Star Trek franchise). As a result, they are limited in what they actually produce. It's a restriction the Steinbecks & Hemmingways didn't have.
Still, I wish they'd use all that capital they've built up to take a chance every now and then. Chances are fifty years now, we won't be learning about Tom Clancy or Michael Crichton, but we will still be learning about John Steinbeck and Mark Twain.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lark11 on Apr 15, 2008 23:16:09 GMT -5
I never got into Grisham. It's a heck of dilemma for the Kings, Crichtons, Grishams, and Clancys of the world. We live in a world where the formual sells, and creativity is not really a good thing (witness the whole Star Trek franchise). As a result, they are limited in what they actually produce. It's a restriction the Steinbecks & Hemmingways didn't have. Still, I wish they'd use all that capital they've built up to take a chance every now and then. Chances are fifty years now, we won't be learning about Tom Clancy or Michael Crichton, but we will still be learning about John Steinbeck and Mark Twain. True, the CSI franchise is another example of the formula. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy CSI: Miami quite a bit, but it's the same formula as the other CSI shows. As for the authors, it's an interesting phenomena. I'm not sure if that's the type of career they wanted or if they just stuck with what worked to make a big pile of cash. Maybe the popular fiction writers are happy with the formula and the multiple New York Times bestsellers, but, of course, there are countless authors out there who don't follow the formula. Ultimately, their body of work may be better, but they also are unlikely to match the sales of the popular fiction writers. It's an interesting trade off: creativity and originality vs. commercial success and gobs of money. I suppose it's the same in all aspects of entertainment. Being new and different is risky, while churning out more of what has a proven track record of success is safer and easier. I suppose that's what happens when profits drive the entertainment business. That's part of why reality television has exploded, because it's much cheaper and easier to produce. I don't think it's a stretch to say that network execs care more about revenue than the quality and creativity of the shows they put out. |
|
|
|
Post by dukecrunchybagel on Apr 16, 2008 11:37:10 GMT -5
I think part of the dileman for Clancy was that he started off on top with The Hunt for Red October. That's rare. (Crichton also started on top with Andromeda Stream). If you start on top, where do you go from there?
I think part of what I liked about Red Storm Rising, espcially given how Clancy's faired over the years, is that it was his only novel that was truly different from the rest, particularly without Jack Ryan (who was never an interesting character IMHO). The whole timbre and style was different focusing on grand strategy, politics, and world events while still focusing on the individuals characters. Herman Wouk also managed that balance real well.
Most of the rest of the books, tended to be too myopic (with Cardinal of the Kremlin being less so than the rest) focusing only on Clancy's heros, Ryan, Clark, etc., and those guys were never as interesting as the very briefly sketched (but very human) character in RSR.
Clancy's curse may be that Patriot Games, which I found a truly dreadful offering, was so darn successful. He then got stuck in the Ryan formula, and he has yet to emerge from it.
Maybe Clancy needs to team with Larry Bond again.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lark11 on Apr 17, 2008 22:36:53 GMT -5
I think part of the dileman for Clancy was that he started off on top with The Hunt for Red October. That's rare. (Crichton also started on top with Andromeda Stream). If you start on top, where do you go from there? I think part of what I liked about Red Storm Rising, espcially given how Clancy's faired over the years, is that it was his only novel that was truly different from the rest, particularly without Jack Ryan (who was never an interesting character IMHO). The whole timbre and style was different focusing on grand strategy, politics, and world events while still focusing on the individuals characters. Herman Wouk also managed that balance real well. Most of the rest of the books, tended to be too myopic (with Cardinal of the Kremlin being less so than the rest) focusing only on Clancy's heros, Ryan, Clark, etc., and those guys were never as interesting as the very briefly sketched (but very human) character in RSR. Clancy's curse may be that Patriot Games, which I found a truly dreadful offering, was so darn successful. He then got stuck in the Ryan formula, and he has yet to emerge from it. Maybe Clancy needs to team with Larry Bond again. I suppose having President Reagan hyping Hunt for Red October gave him notoriety and left him with no where to go but down. To be honest, I actually like the idea of a series and reoccurring characters. That's part of why I like some of the books better than Red Storm Rising. It's enjoyable to check in with familiar characters as each new book comes out. The Patrick O'Brian Aubrey and Maturin series is one of my all time favorites, but the difference is that that is not based on a formula. It has unique plots for each book and a great deal of character development, as the story arc follows the course of their lives. Unlike the Clancy format, this prevents each successive book from getting stale. I also think Clancy divided his focus too much. He started branching out into the Op-Center books, which were much more superficial than his other books and really didn't do much for his reputation. The overall quality of his work just became too watered down. Given that his work was already in decline, the Op-Center books just seemed to speed the process along. |
|
|
|
Post by dukecrunchybagel on Apr 22, 2008 15:57:46 GMT -5
Hmmm, how much effort did Clancy put into the Op Center books? I got the impression, that he was more or less editor-in-chief of the series, which, at least in theory, should have left him with plenty of time to work on his own stuff.
I think I read the first one and found it horrid and never touched the series again.
I never read any of his factual books; I probably should at some point -- it seems the sort of thing he'd do well.
|
|
