Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Clancy chapter on retaking hijacked airliner

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by marshall3, Aug 18, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. marshall3

    marshall3 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2004
    Messages:
    326
    Location:
    Signal Mountain, TN
  2. WayneConrad

    WayneConrad Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2005
    Messages:
    2,128
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    I used to enjoy Clancy, but not so much lately. Either I've changed, or he's changed, or both. In his latest... The Teeth of the Tiger, I think... he has a policeman murder a suspect and his boss pats him on the back for it. The rest of the book continues along those lines, with government operating outside of the law.

    It turned my stomach.

    I ought to go back and reread Rainbow Six to answer the question of whether it's me who changed or Mr. Clancy. I remember enjoying it, and especially the character of Mr. Clark.
     
  3. JohnBT

    JohnBT Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    13,233
    Location:
    Richmond, Virginia
    "it is really unrealistic"

    Why? It's perfectly good fiction. And anyway, they are the best at what they do...that's the point of the book.

    John
     
  4. Jeff White

    Jeff White Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    19,628
    Location:
    Alma Illinois
    Moving to General Gun Discussions........Jeff
     
  5. buzz_knox

    buzz_knox Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    4,849
    If memory serves, it was an FBI agent who had discovered the body of a raped/murdered little girl, and whose killer was in the next room. The agent knocked over a table to get the guy to jump and, when the murderer stood with the bloody knife in his hand, the agent shot him. Honestly, I couldn't get too upset over that scene. If you liked the character of Clark, I don't understand why you would be as he did much "worse" (torturing someone via a decompression chamber).

    I'm not sure if Clancy has changed, or if he's just allowing someone else to ghostwrite his work these days. It might be he's running out of ideas. Teeth of the Tiger was a good diversion while driving but I couldn't get through the book except via audio tape.
     
  6. WayneConrad

    WayneConrad Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2005
    Messages:
    2,128
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    I had forgotten that scene. Yeah, I'm probably the one that changed, because I think I'd react differently to that scene now than I did when I first read it.
     
  7. Control Group

    Control Group Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2005
    Messages:
    558
    Location:
    Milwaukee, WI, Uniform Districts of America
    Clancy's a victim of his own success. The scope he's needed to take on in order to try and outdo previous books really became a problem for him between Debt Of Honor and Executive Orders.

    WARNING: spoilers for Debt Of Honor, Executive Orders, and Rainbow Six may be contained in the below.

    By the end of Debt, he had to write in an incredibly forced plot in order to cram Jack into the oval office, because there wasn't anywhere else for Jack to go beyond where he was. EO was, at best, meandering, because (IMHO) Clancy was sort of at loose ends for what to do that he could reasonably make Jack central to fixing. By Rainbow Six, the focus had shifted completely away from Ryan, but the plot was ludicrous. I mean, I'm as anti-environmentalist as anyone, and moreso than most, but come on. A bunch of environmentalists hatch a plot to kill everyone on the planet?!? That's out of bounds for "realistic" fiction; it's crossing into SF, comic book, or, at best, James Bond movie. But where did Clancy have to go after he nuked the Superbowl and had the entire US economic structure collapse? What could he have done to outdo himself?

    I admit, however, that I haven't read Red Rabbit, The Bear and the Dragon, or Teeth Of the Tiger, so it's possible he's brought it back around since R6 (which did spawn some great video games, so I can't knock it too much ;) ). But, as far as I'm concerned, he peaked with Clear and Present Danger. Part of that, of course, is it's the last one which you could pretend to believe actually happened. Sum Of All Fears is a good book, but you obviously can't convince yourself it happened - I'm pretty sure I would have noticed if the Vikings made the Superbowl.
     
  8. dasmi

    dasmi Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2005
    Messages:
    2,781
    Location:
    Colorado Springs, CO
    My favorites are Red Storm Rising and The Hunt For Red October. Nothing a good naval warfare book.
     
  9. Zundfolge

    Zundfolge Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    10,755
    Location:
    Colorado Springs
    Great thing about that scene is that its the opening scene in the book ... real good start to a fun read (no, not realistic, but so what ... its mind candy, not a textbook...its no less realistic then Unintended Concequences and that was a fun read as well).


    Rainbow Six is one of my favorite "mind candy" reads ... if nothing else because of how it skewers the environmental movement and shows them for the rabid anti-human communists they really are ... plus I love how it ends :evil:
     
  10. buzz_knox

    buzz_knox Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    4,849
    Well, it's not that outlandish. There are groups calling for the extinction of humanity through complete birth control, calling for a return to "Gaia" by the elimination of technology, etc. There are billionaires who have the "social concsience" and resources to fund research, and an airborne and weaponized Ebola would be a devastating item. Granted, all those things coming together would be too unlikely to have much of a chance in the real world. But in a novel, it's not so out of touch with reality as a Bond movie. Science fiction, sure. But science fiction is defined as fiction based on foreseeable science. This certainly wasn't science fantasy.
     
  11. dasmi

    dasmi Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2005
    Messages:
    2,781
    Location:
    Colorado Springs, CO
  12. Control Group

    Control Group Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2005
    Messages:
    558
    Location:
    Milwaukee, WI, Uniform Districts of America
    Fair enough - in my opinion, the plot for the book is well outside the bounds of believability. Not because of bad science, but because I have a difficult time accepting that characters so completely out of touch with reality can simultaneously be grounded enough to put together an effective plot, while simultaneously being insane enough to go through with it. But that's just a matter of opinion and personal taste.

    Even aside from that, though, if I grant that it's legitimate science fiction, it's still a downturn for Clancy. Not because I've got anything against SF. I read SF and fantasy almost exclusively, and will gladly engage in lively debate as to why Donaldson's Gap series is legitimate literature on par with Melville, or Weber's Harrington is just as quality as Forester's Hornblower. But Clancy isn't an SF writer, he's a realistic fiction writer. It's what I expect from him, it's what I like about many of his books, and it's what he's good at.

    R6 dropped the ball on that count. I simply couldn't buy into it actually happening, because my suspension of disbelief is more limited in his genre than it is in SF. Or at least, it's different. As an SF author whose identity I forget once commented: "readers will accept the impossible, but not the improbable."
     
  13. Control Group

    Control Group Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2005
    Messages:
    558
    Location:
    Milwaukee, WI, Uniform Districts of America
    Well, that's...interesting, certainly. And a group I was unaware of.

    However, there's a really significant difference between advocating people voluntarily not reproducing and actively trying to kill everyone.

    The former is a bit strange, but not irrational. The latter is psychopathic, for lack of a stronger word. And it's psychopathic to a degree which I have never encountered, either in the news or in history. I won't say it doesn't exist, but even if it does, it's so far outside my personal experience that I can't suspend disbelief enough to accept it.
     
  14. buzz_knox

    buzz_knox Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    4,849
    That's because you see them as insane. They aren't, at least not in the functional sense. They are highly dedicated to their objective and willing to go to any end to achieve it. In all honesty, if you start from the basic principle that man is a virus on this earth and is killing the planet, then their decision and actions take on a very high degree of rationality.

    I would also submit that Clancy's work, at least the technothrillers, constitute science fiction in the true sense of the word. Hunt for Red October and the Cardinal in the Kremlin depict technology that was considered feasible at the time and the action derived in large part from the effects (or potential effects) of said technology on social structures and how people dealt with those effects.
     
  15. Zundfolge

    Zundfolge Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    10,755
    Location:
    Colorado Springs
    Ask your average German Jew in 1938 if he believes such a plot is possible ... oh wait ... you can't ... they're dead.

    (apologies for the Godwin)
     
  16. buzz_knox

    buzz_knox Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    4,849
    Sure. But contrary to your position, the former are actually the irrational ones. They waste energy and time better spent in solving the problems by advocating a solution that is impossible. The latter have seen the same problem and taken a proactive solution.

    In your eyes, it's a high degree of psychopathic behavior. In reality, it's no different in concept than the ethnic cleansing so prevalent in the 20th Century. The scale is different, but only because the "group" (those who don't think as they do) is different. If Hitler had developed a virus that only killed Semites, or the Japanese had developed a "whites only" version of the plague, do you think it would have been deployed? I don't doubt for a moment that it would have.
     
  17. Control Group

    Control Group Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2005
    Messages:
    558
    Location:
    Milwaukee, WI, Uniform Districts of America
    Point taken. I'm willing to accept that, in fact, this could happen. I still don't buy into it in the context of the book. This may be a flaw on my part, but the activity, motivation, and mental state of the group are so far outside of personal experience that I simply can't take them seriously. At the very least, I find reading about them completely uninteresting, because I have no understanding of how they think, so I simply can't treat them as living characters. To me, they're just caricatures. The terrorists in SoAF, and the Japanese in DoH, I understood. Disagreed with, but I understood. The lunatics in R6 weren't even human, to me.

    In the strictest sense of the term, you're right. In the more ambiguous sense of the term, as it relates to categorization of fiction, I think it's fairly clear that Clancy was bending every effort towards writing modern fiction that was completely believable.
     
  18. Control Group

    Control Group Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2005
    Messages:
    558
    Location:
    Milwaukee, WI, Uniform Districts of America
    A couple of responses: first, there's a difference between genocide directed at a specific group of people and genocide of everyone. The former, unfortunately, has plenty of historical precedent. The latter does not.

    Second, bear in mind that, prior to 9/11, had someone written a book that depended on a couple dozen terrorists taking over four airplanes, simultaneously, using nothing but box cutters, then successfully driving them into both WTC towers, then the Pentagon, I would have scoffed. The acts of 9/11 were possible, but would not have seemed reasonable until they actually happened. By the same token, I'm going to scoff at any book predicated upon Elvis still being alive, our faking the moon landing, or that the CIA was behind 9/11. All these things are possible, but unreasonable.

    Third, and most importantly, I'm willing to accept everyone's arguments here that the plot was reasonable, it could happen, these people really exist, there really is a billionaire willing and able to fund such a thing, whatever. It's not going to change the fact that I didn't like it, and that, in the context it was presented, I found it absurd. I even re-read the book a year or so ago to see if my opinion had changed in light of 9/11, and it hadn't.

    I'm willing to grant that I, as a reader, am deficient in this regard, and that I shouldn't find it absurd. But I do.
     
  19. Control Group

    Control Group Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2005
    Messages:
    558
    Location:
    Milwaukee, WI, Uniform Districts of America
    Only for a system of rationality which holds the planet and every species on it as independently and inherently more valuable than the totality of human life.

    This does not meet the common standard for rationality. Which does not, of course, invalidate the logic of it, or mean that no one subscribes to it. It does mean that it's too far outside the behavior of any people I have ever encountered or learned of that it is impossible for me to accept in the context provided.

    A difference in degree so vast as to be a difference in kind.

    Of course it would have been. There is historical precedent within my knowledge of individuals and groups making every possible effort to wipe out specific subsets of mankind. There is no such precedent for trying to wipe out everyone. This is why I can accept the former as a believable plot device, and not the latter.
     
  20. buzz_knox

    buzz_knox Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    4,849
    The reason you can accept one and not the other is based on your own preconceived idea of what is appropriate or not, just like your own notion of rationality. We all do the same thing. But that does not mean that someone is insane (i.e. believing in something contrary to all existing evidence and without any factual support).

    You've accepted that the Japanese would have wiped out all whites if possible and necessary for their dreams of conquest, correct? They believed that all non-Japanese were inferior to them. If they had an opportunity to wipe out all such inferior competition, do you think they would have taken it? Their actions towards said "inferiors" indicates the answer is yes.

    Would this be evil? Absolutely. Insane? No. Irrational? Only to the inferiors. If you see your destiny as ruling the world and the "scum" won't let you, then might not you pursue the goal of eliminating the scum and replacing them with your own docile subclasses?

    It wasn't everyone. It was everyone who disagreed with them, or for whom they had no use. (They specifically mentioned insuring allowing non-cult members with valuable skills would survive. The most assuredly insane part of the plan was the expectation that these survivors would come to understand the necessity of the act.) That brings it back within historical precedent. History is replete with examples of exterminating entire cultures who stood in the way of conquest. And said extermination often took the form of killing anyone and everything.
     
  21. Waitone

    Waitone Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    5,406
    Location:
    The Land of Broccoli and Fingernails
    Clancey does a service in reminding us dangerous people exist. They are well-educated, some are wealthy, and they twist lots of power knobs and push levers. We here on the THR would think of people who want to exterminate most if not all of the human population as sick at a minimum. The real world has people just like that walking around loose. Front men for some of the more radical enviro groups state on the record that they think the optimal number of humans on the earth is 300 million. They loath the human race and consider it to be of greater danger than the virus or germ. I might quibble with Clancey's set up but I have no doubt of the existence of the people he describes.

    Google up "wildlands project" or "deep ecology" and enjoy.
     
  22. Control Group

    Control Group Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2005
    Messages:
    558
    Location:
    Milwaukee, WI, Uniform Districts of America
    I am using the term "insane" in a far less restrictive sense, meaning "significantly outside the bounds of normal thought." Which, of course, raises the question of defining "normal," but since we're talking in the context of whether a modern American (myself) accepts the activity presented in a work of fiction, I think it's safe to use the definition of "normal" as being "within two standard deviations of the population's mean belief system." Similarly, I consider Hirohito, Hitler, and Stalin to have been insane.

    This definition of insane is certain dependent on point of view, of course. Perhaps another term would be more appropriate. None comes immediately to mind, but I'll be happy to use one if one is presented.

    In any event:

    Again, I will freely admit that the deficiency is mine rather than Clancy's. I am willing to concede that these people exist, and that we live under the threat of being wiped out by a sane and rational billionaire bent on killing two or three people for every dollar he's worth. Personally, I suspect Rupert Murdoch.
     
  23. buzz_knox

    buzz_knox Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    4,849
    I think Ted Turner is a more likely culprit. However, if we are talking conversion of people into Borg drones, Bill Gates would be the first suspect.
     
  24. Waitone

    Waitone Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    5,406
    Location:
    The Land of Broccoli and Fingernails
    Ted Turner was who I had in mind when I made my comments.
     
  25. bogie

    bogie Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    9,569
    Location:
    St. Louis, in the Don't Show Me state
    Regarding a post further up...

    "Anti-environmentalist as anyone"

    Hi there. I'm pro-environmentalist. The environment is a good thing. What I don't like are the whack jobs who seem to think that the life of a research mouse is worth more than a building full of human researchers. Those guys scare me.

    There's a big difference betweeen "environmentalists" and the whack jobs who are hiding behind that term.

    Guys, let's lose the binary thought patterns - it just plays into their hands. Now, if you _confuse_ 'em, you have a chance of persuading them. Oleg's web site is a perfect example.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page