Opinion of Tom Clancy

[Enduro]

I feel like his novels represent a more compassionate side of republicanism and American exceptionalism at a less authoritarian and war mongering ideal. Conservatism as what it used to be, and what it should be.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Clancy had some interesting ideas and a much better "technical" eye than most novelists do--he managed to make accurate educated guesses about a lot of fairly hush-hush military minutiae, which is remarkable--but he drifted sharply right in the 90s and 2000s and his writing suffered as a result. Compare Clear and Present Danger to any of his last few books and the former starts to look downright woke.

I think he was manifestly not "a great author" but that's okay; not everyone has to be. He had a clear worldview, style, narrative preoccupations, and themes, which is more than plenty of "great authors" can say.

[Cassius]

I have soft spot for him because he was my father’s favourite author and I avidly consumed his canon as a teenager, but as Nathan says the books aren’t really ‘great literature’ (I reread Debt of Honor, probably one of my favourites as a teenager and the dialogue was pretty… clunky). I’d divide the Clancy canon in partes tres, it would be something like:

Hunt for the Red October and Red Storm Rising: Both very good books which probably come the closest to being ‘classics’ that I’d recommend anybody read if they get the chance.

Cardinal of the Kremlin through to Bear and the Dragon: Less good, but still entertaining, although the expression of Clancy’s right wing politics becomes much more evident, particularly in and post Sum of All Fears, which will be off putting to many. The scenarios are always interesting.

Then you get to everything post Bear and the Dragon and here I think Clancy really starts to run out of ideas, begins regurgitating material and the quality of the writing (never his strongest suit) drops off further. This period was also when he began pimping out his name to other writers and I don’t think these books are worth reading at all - I think in the “Tom Clancy” novels written post his death there are the idea of Russia invading Eastern Europe (prescient I suppose in hindsight) is regurgitated about five or six times in various unrealistic scenarios, all while the good Dr Ryan (hooray) faces off against TEd Kennedy Kealty (boo hiss) in about their 27th rematch in a Presidential election (because nobody else runs for President in the Ryanverse except for these two).

There’s a lot that’s annoying about the books - in addition to the often crappy dialogue Clancy has this annoying reverse-Sorkin habit of making all of the ‘good’ characters impossibly good, not just morally but also intellectually - we’re pretty regularly treated to characters who seem to have found the time to earn a JD, an MD, a PHD in political science and 7,084 other degrees with a distinguished career in the Marines, service in the CIA and the presidency of the Yale University Gilbert and Sullivan society. But, you know, for the most part I find them a comforting read.

[Enduro]

Clancy had some interesting ideas and a much better "technical" eye than most novelists do--he managed to make accurate educated guesses about a lot of fairly hush-hush military minutiae, which is remarkable--but he drifted sharply right in the 90s and 2000s and his writing suffered as a result. Compare Clear and Present Danger to any of his last few books and the former starts to look downright woke.

I think he was manifestly not "a great author" but that's okay; not everyone has to be. He had a clear worldview, style, narrative preoccupations, and themes, which is more than plenty of "great authors" can say.

The technicality of his novels remain unmatched. A lot of his characters do seem to match to closely to the Ryans or the exact opposite.

[Enduro]

I have soft spot for him because he was my father’s favourite author and I avidly consumed his canon as a teenager, but as Nathan says the books aren’t really ‘great literature’ (I reread Debt of Honor, probably one of my favourites as a teenager and the dialogue was pretty… clunky). I’d divide the Clancy canon in partes tres, it would be something like:

Hunt for the Red October and Red Storm Rising: Both very good books which probably come the closest to being ‘classics’ that I’d recommend anybody read if they get the chance.

Cardinal of the Kremlin through to Bear and the Dragon: Less good, but still entertaining, although the expression of Clancy’s right wing politics becomes much more evident, particularly in and post Sum of All Fears, which will be off putting to many. The scenarios are always interesting.

Then you get to everything post Bear and the Dragon and here I think Clancy really starts to run out of ideas, begins regurgitating material and the quality of the writing (never his strongest suit) drops off further. This period was also when he began pimping out his name to other writers and I don’t think these books are worth reading at all - I think in the “Tom Clancy” novels written post his death there are the idea of Russia invading Eastern Europe (prescient I suppose in hindsight) is regurgitated about five or six times in various unrealistic scenarios, all while the good Dr Ryan (hooray) faces off against TEd Kennedy Kealty (boo hiss) in about their 27th rematch in a Presidential election (because nobody else runs for President in the Ryanverse except for these two).

There’s a lot that’s annoying about the books - in addition to the often crappy dialogue Clancy has this annoying reverse-Sorkin habit of making all of the ‘good’ characters impossibly good, not just morally but also intellectually - we’re pretty regularly treated to characters who seem to have found the time to earn a JD, an MD, a PHD in political science and 7,084 other degrees with a distinguished career in the Marines, service in the CIA and the presidency of the Yale University Gilbert and Sullivan society. But, you know, for the most part I find them a comforting read.

I agree with you that once other writers started to get involved with his novels, and especially after his death, was when the ideas started to get stale. However, I find that his dialogue isn't as bad as say Robert Ludlum's own writing. I've been slowly reading through the Bourne trilogy, and the dialogue is very inconsistent. When talking about the spy stuff, it's at its most engrossing, but none of the characters seem to be able to carry a realistic conversation about anything else.

[Aurelius]

Wrote some very good books such as Red October. Also wrote (and/or licensed his name to) a tremendous amount of airport schlock. FF because of his early output.

[Enduro]

Wrote some very good books such as Red October. Also wrote (and/or licensed his name to) a tremendous amount of airport schlock. FF because of his early output.

Such is the life of a popular author; his characters continue to be written after death, and his name is printed on stories he couldn’t have written. Of course the "written by committee" era of his series are not gonna be as creative or well written as his first novels.