OK, so I finished this a while back, and despite it appealing to a lot of my interests, I honestly found it pretty meh.

I really enjoyed the realistic military/tactical aspect of it all, as that part is right up my alley, but… I did not care about the characters, the plot seemed hollow, and it seems like some things that could have been explored further were simply ignored.

For example, in the beginning these guys blow up a refinery. There are vague descriptions as to why, but after this it is practically not mentioned again. Whatever movement they were part of apparently disappears, and there are no repercussions for their home oblast.

The only thing this book has going for it, in my opinion, is that military nerds like me enjoy the detailed writing about the different types of hardware involved in the book.

So, since I am by no means a literary connoseur, I’m curious about what others think of this one.

  • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    Good is relative. Finnegan’s Wake is a masterpiece, and it’s also deliberately obscure to the point you either need an education matching Joyce’s or a reading companion.

    Is that good?

    Is it bad if it is not approachable? Is it good if it is?

    Red Storm Rising is one of the best modern military fictions according to a lot of fans of the genre, but that’s doesn’t mean you have to like it. I’ve got some straight up gunporn series I read when I’m in a mood for reading about automatic shotguns firing explosive shells into vampires, but I wouldn’t call them good at anything but that and objectifying women.

  • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    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.

  • DarkNightoftheSoul@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    2 days ago

    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.

  • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    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!

  • Zonetrooper@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    2 days ago

    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.

  • DontMakeMoreBabies@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    2 days ago

    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.

    • jrubal1462@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 days ago

      Similar to my experience. I enjoyed reading but hated the process of finishing a book, finding a new, one, and getting started again. T. Clancy books were my go-to because they were interesting enough and WAAAY longer than they had to be so I could just keep on reading.

      • DontMakeMoreBabies@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        I specifically remember liking Rainbow Six around the same time and I liked his books until he started tag teaming with other authors which was probably around 2000?

        Based on that I imagine his books from 1986-2000 are “similar” enough.

        • SomeAmateur@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 days ago

          The old school Rainbow Six games were my gateway drug to the book.

          The plot is essentially “what if tree huggers went batshit and weaponized a virus” so take that for what you will but the training and operations in that book were facinating to me. I saw it as world building for one of my favorite games of the time

  • socsa@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    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

  • mlfh@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    2 days ago

    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.

  • boatswain@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    2 days ago

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

  • Curious Canid@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 days ago

    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.

  • ℍ𝕂-𝟞𝟝@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    Yeah, lol no it isn’t, the whole submarine plot has been forced into it because Clancy can’t not write about submarines.

  • Adderbox76@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    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.