Ever since middle school, I have loved Tom Clancy's novels. Within 3 years I had read every one of this books to the time. His writing style is something I enjoy immensely. His books are well written and complex in nature, but the complexity is often overshadowed. My favorite books of his are the trilogy formed by Debt of Honor, Executive Orders, and Bear and the Dragon. However, only two of his books have ever been turned into movies mostly faithful to the books. Hunt For Red October and Patriot Games. Clear and Present Danger was pretty unfaithful, and Sum of All Fears is an embarrassment as far as adapting the novel. Now, Hollywood is taking it even further and taking Jack Ryan and turning him into some sort of American James Bond. I've only seen one of the trailers and it seems to me that the film is so far divorced from the concept of who the Jack Ryan character is, that I cannot see myself ever watching the movie twice. Any other Clancy fans on here want to weigh in?
Clancy was the first author I ever read outside of high school. My first novel was Cardinal of the Kremlin and I'm not sure why they didn't try to make that a movie. That one would have been pretty easy to be faithful to the book. The second I read was Red Storm Rising, which took a few days of devoted reading to get through all 1000+ pages. His books are well written but I haven't read his latest. I like when a book becomes a movie if they keep it fairly true, but the Bourne series is another they stray too much on for my tastes. I love the movies by themselves, but I hate knowing the story and then watch it unfold in a different way. Clancy and Ludlum are both very gifted writers with great imaginations. I just don't see Jack Ryan as a superhero. That was supposed to be John Clark's role, but the books getting held up to make sure they were de-classified kind of threw that out of whack if memory serves me correctly.
Without Remorse is my favorite, especially the chapter where he hits the guy with the bang stick and obliterates him. Awesome. John Clark is simply a bad ass. I was a huge fan of Clancy's but when he got to the point where Jack Ryan became president it kind of jumped the shark for me.
Clark's badassery was on display throughout that entire book. Using the decompression chamber? I couldn't help but laugh at the sheer sadism of the Clark character. Yeah, it seems a bit over-the-top, but as dangerous as Clark is, and what the other character did, I don't blame Clark at all. If you haven't read Debt of Honor, you should. There's a part in that book that heralds directly to Without Remorse. It's a pretty neat scene. Then again, I'm a visual reader, I don't "read" books, I can almost watch a book as if it's a movie. To me, that's when it got interesting. I loved Executive Orders. It showed a different and, to me, more sinister side of Ryan. Clark should have always been the brawn, with Ryan as the brains. I could only imagine what HfRO and PG would be like if Clark was in those books alongside Ryan. CoTK definitely should be a movie, I don't mind if it's adapted to modern times as long as it retains the original feel of the book. It was honestly one of my least favorite books of his up until I read the climax which redeemed it. I can't say that there's a least-favorite book of his. RSR is a classic too. I believe it's on the reading list of at least one of the service academies, which shows that Clancy's writing isn't that far off the mark of realism. Which books have you read of his? Yeah, it seems that way with a lot of books. I've read the whole Harry Potter series but I have only seen the first three movies. I'm waiting for my boyfriend to finish the book series before doing the rest of the films as a marathon with him. I don't have much hope for the Goblet of Fire movie. Exactly. Make Clark the overt badass. Hell, WIllem Dafoe played Clark perfectly in the adaptation of CaPD. I think it is pretty awesome that his books were that realistic that they had to be vetted by the government. Speaks to the quality of his works.
An ex security person once said to me. "If Tom Clancy wasn't a novelist he'd be in prison for giving away government secrets". In 'Hunt for Red October" in one scene, they apparently use spook speak. When I asked what did they say, I was told, the standard answer to questions like this. "If I told you I would have to shoot you". I like Tom Clancy books and movies. I perceive that sometimes they do get closer to the actual truth than some in power would like us to see.
When asked how he knew all the secret stuff he seemed to Clancy's answer was "I make it up". Most people are surprised to know that just about all of our military weapons and tactics are public record, easily accessible to any competent researcher and anyone familiar enough with them can usually figure out the basics of the rest. It's the details of just how fast and, particularly, just exactly how an F35 flies so swiftly that are limited to a very few. It's general operation and capabilities are common knowledge throughout the world, and we want them to be. Clancy's main talent, according to one reviewer was that, "He can write about an Abrams M-1 tank with the same, detail, affection and poetry that Flaubert used for Madame Bovary"
I think I m mostly right in thinking that good fiction writers use a well founded vein of truth to make the foundation of their story. For example Ian Fleming of James Bond fame was a real MI 5 spy. John Grisham trained as a lawyer and has written some superb novels. Tom Clancy writes some good stories, which I sincerely believe are based on an original fact then embellished into fiction. How much is true and how much is fiction, only the writer will ever know in his/ her lifetime.
