My second favourite crazy conspiracy theory is that Tom Clancy didn’t really exist and that he was the front man for the CIA’s public relations office. Red Storm especially leads this as the whole novel reads like someone took a high level war game and tried to make a novelisation out of it.

I think it was mostly meant as military nerd porn.

Like, the guys who blow up the refinery are only important in asmuch as they create the need for a conflict with the West. Some oppressed group pulls off something wild but doesn’t have the men/material to do anything major afterwards (which is how a lot of terrorism goes.)

I once chose to read a Tom Clancy book over the summer for a book report in the following semester (I enjoyed those Rainbow Six games from the 90’s, so the books would probably be cool too right?). I stood up there in class and was like “I’m gonna be honest, I couldn’t bring myself to read more than half of this.” And the teacher was like, “I don’t blame you.”

I recall liking it, but I read it in like the 5th grade so my standards were low (before that I’d been reading my mom’s terrible ‘caterer turned detective’ novels).

I enjoyed Clancy for a long time after that but at this point I aim more towards militaristic speculative fiction.

It’s not a great classical literature, for sure. The characters are almost entirely flat and forgettable, and even the handful that do grow (the young Soviet commander, the US destroyer captain) barely do so. Their experiences never almost never inform their later actions.

But among the techno-thriller/war-simulator genre, I found it more compelling than several more recent attempts (Ghost Fleet, Nuclear War: A Scenario, etc). Many of those seem to go out of their way to bend the plot to produce the author’s intended point, and while RSR wasn’t exactly innocent in that regard, I found it far less guilty than others - largely because Clancy was holding to the known or theorized-near-future capabilities.

Where I actually find it fascinating is how, in retrospect, we can see the biases of the era influencing how Clancy makes certain predictions:

• The Soviets place immense importance on taking Iceland to permit a “second Battle of the Atlantic” against US carrier groups. In retrospect, we know the Soviet Navy had no interest in this and intended to act as a cordon around northern Europe; specifically the Soviet SSBN bastions.

• While Clancy did loosely predict the nature, role, and value of Stealth aircraft, the design and air-to-air role he describes them in is actually too advanced for the 1980s setting. Essentially, Clancy bought the rumors, which were wrong.

• Land attack helicopters with ATGMs play relatively little role in the ground fighting. This was because the current generation (namely the AH-64) had just been introduced; their full capabilities and impact were not yet publicly available.

These mistakes, although understandable, provide an interesting insight into what the American defense establishment was thinking about in the early 80s.

I mean, it’s Tom Clancy. It’s a fun read, like Dan Brown or Brandon Sanderson, but it’s not literature or anything.

Instead of reading Clancy read Matthew Reilly. I suggest you start with Ice Station. It’s got everything you need, French Baddies, Spaceships, Hovercraft, and even killer Killer whales!

Have also read it, I found most of it quite forgettable. Maybe when it was written ('86) it seemed much more connected to a real world possibility so early readers filled in the gaps with real life happenings / politicians etc. I was reading it in the early 2000’s when you had Hillary Clinton presenting Russia with a “reset” button and it almost seemed like we might be on the same side. Maybe that undermined it a bit?

I also didn’t find its handing of nuclear threat particularly convincing.

I’ve not thought about it for years, but perhaps these happenings in Ukraine have shown the whole dynamic wasn’t (isn’t) as implausible as I thought.

Yes, you have pretty much perfectly described why most Tom Clancy books have pretty niche appeal. The literary value is all in the well researched military nerd stuff, and weirdly plausible hypothetical geopolitics

The thing I remember most about this book is the heroic American Mary Sue rescuing an Icelandic damsel in distress from a traumatic sexual assault by Soviet soldiers, and then immediately afterwards she falls in love with him and they have sex in a hot spring or something. Standard conservative male military-nerd wish-fulfillment pulp fantasy written by a guy whose main protagonists are all thinly-veiled self-insertions.

That said, as a fellow nerd, I love it when Clancy tells me all the little details about a submarine, and it’s a fun read. But I wouldn’t call it good.

Relax: Calm down, chill bro.

you’ll be pleased to know yours is a very reasonable opinion to have and you’re right for having it, too.

Similarly related, I remember reading The Hunt for Red October and enjoying it. But I can’t decide if I actually enjoyed it, or if I’m transposing a memory from my enjoyment of the film to my enjoyment of the book. I’m afraid to re-read it and find out, because I haven’t been a fan of much else that he’s written so I suspect I know the answer.

I don’t think it is generally considered a good book, but I’m sure it depends on who you ask. I thought it had some interesting ideas, but was pretty weak overall.

I couldn’t finish it because it was both so over the top American (I’m not American so it feels different) but also because at times it was weirdly boring.

I read it in my 20s and liked it well enough. It isn’t great literature but it was a fun read.

I read it again in the last few years, I’m now in my fifties, and I had to skip the Iceland parts with the Air Force Lieutenant and the woman. My god, Clancy must have been an insufferable misogynist.

Someone should rewrite the book and remove or change that part.