Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!military From: terryr@ogicse.ogc.edu (Terry Rooker) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: Tom Clancy Message-ID: <12256@cbnews.ATT.COM> Date: 13 Dec 89 04:27:08 GMT References: <12095@cbnews.ATT.COM> <12144@cbnews.ATT.COM> <12166@cbnews.ATT.COM> Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM Organization: Oregon Graduate Institute (formerly OGC), Beaverton, OR Lines: 53 Approved: military@att.att.com From: terryr@ogicse.ogc.edu (Terry Rooker) In article <12166@cbnews.ATT.COM> jim@eda.com (Jim Budler) writes: > > >} In article <12095@cbnews.ATT.COM> willner@cfa203.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) writes: > >} >From: willner@cfa203.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) >} >Fans of Tom Clancy should read the article by Scott Shuger in the >} >November issue of the _Washington Monthly_. Mr. Shuger's main point is >} >that Clancy writes about how weapons are _supposed_ to work and how >} >they are _intended_ to be used, but that these bear very little >} >relation to the reality of actual combat. > >Hey, come on it's fiction, it's supposed to be fiction.... > >Come on! Clancy is a GOOD *fiction* writer. He has managed to aquire a >very good degree of technical *background* for his stories. As a >writer he twists that background as he needs it to fit his desired >story, not to fit any reality. > I won't discuss the issue of whether he is a good writer. The comments about the technical validity of the Clancy novels are important. I don't know which people believe it but I have seen Clancy paraded out as a military expert. This is somewhat disturbing because early on Clancy admited knowing next to nothing about modern warfare. I doubt he has learned that much in the few years since HRO. Does he believe what other's are saying about his books? I have never heard of any validation of the material in his books. I was told by an intel officer friend that his book had been submitted for review. The Navy told him they would have to either approve or disapprove the entire book. After all telling him which parts to remove would tell him what parts were *true* and which parts were speculation not near the mark. The impression I got was that there were some sensitive details contained in the book, but most of it bordered on the speculative side. Clancy (and probably his publisher) is to be commended for creating the attitude that he is very knowledgeable on the subject of his books. He garnered enough information from social contacts to lend creditability to his first books, and they were well received. Since at least *some* people consider him an expert, and use his books as references, it is valid to discuss the technical validity of those books. He can't have it both ways; use the books as a claim to some expertise, and then hide behind the claim of FICTION to discount any technical errors. Terry Rooker terryr@cse.ogi.edu