Tom Clancy

[Pvt. Pukepail]

Good writing?  Maybe not.  More interesting?  Damn skippy.  As for it being 'revisionist history' as you put it, I don't think either of us has any authority to say whether the events took place as they did or did not.  It's McNab's word versus the word of the other guys who gave their accounts.  Unless YOU were there personally, I don't think you have much to say on that topic.

The point I'm trying to make about Clancy is that his purely fiction books, books which he writes to sell and make money (as opposed to tell a story.  And lets be real here, he doesn't write to tell the story, he writes to make money) are not as interesting as books that are made to tell a story, whether that story be completely factual, or simply based around factual events.  Anyway, your free to read the hack if you want.  But you can't convince me (nor vice versa I know) that Clancy's books are better than any of the other books I mentioned.

But you define revisionist history like Bravo 2-0 as good writing?  I suppose as fiction goes, it beats Mac Bolan....barely.

 

[Kat Stevens]

"It's McNab's word versus the word of the other guys who gave their accounts.  Unless YOU were there personally, I don't think you have much to say on that topic."


No, I wasn't there.  However I have seen numerous interviews with men who served with McNab in the desert, and they unanimously say the same thing:  He screwed the pooch on the whole op from the word jump. 

 

[Pvt. Pukepail]

No, I wasn't there.  However I have seen numerous interviews with men who served with McNab in the desert, and they unanimously say the same thing:  He screwed the pooch on the whole op from the word jump. 

That much I agree with- But the fact that the operation was a shit sandwich from the get-go, and that McNabb may have written himself in a much better light (as he did, I have absolutely no doubt), has no bearing on my opinion of the legitimacy of the story.  The operation happened, and likely much of what was described in the book occurred (albeit modified for greater dramatic effect I'm sure).  And as far as I'm concerned, a story like that has way more weight, than a story written by some dude who sits in an office all day whose never been in actual combat, has never served with a combat outfit (even an auxilary outfit!) and has likely never had his life threatened.

 

[Kat Stevens]

So now we're going to move this into the realm of "been there, done that, must be better qualified to comment on it"?  By the way, I don't disagree with your assessment of Clancy's stuff, anything after Clear and Present Danger was utter bloated keyboard diarrhea.

 

[Pvt. Pukepail]

So now we're going to move this into the realm of "been there, done that, must be better qualified to comment on it"?

No, not necessarily, but I think it's safe to assume that those who HAVE been there and have done that are better qualified to make an opinion on something.  Like, would you trust somebody who has watched every episode of CSI, CSI: Miami and CSI: New York to do a forensic investigation at a crime scene, or would you rather trust the trained Forensic pathologist who has been educated to do that job, and has done that job many times before? 

Same with literature I think.

 

[Kat Stevens]

Okay, I give, you have all the answers...


"Same with literature I think"

Why?  I enjoy Stephen King's books. They'll never win a Nobel Prize for literature, but they're a decent way to kill a rainy Saturday afternoon.  As far as I know, he's never battled aliens, vampires, subterranean cannibalistic clowns, or been on an epic journey through space/time/reality with a six shooter on his hip. Doesn't mean he can't write about it.  Clancy's strength is his ability to spew technojargon and factoids until they obscure the story.  McNab was too busy telling everyone how he was the savior of the SAS, in order to cover his own inadequacy to tell an accurate and honest story... Too much typing, my brain is empty now, nap time.

 

[Pvt. Pukepail]

Sure, they can write about that kinda stuff- but say for example that someone out there really DID fight aliens and vampires and stuff (and could confirm it of course!) and wrote a book about it, I would wager that his story would be more interesting than King's fiction.  Because it'd be a true story.  This is all my opinion though, just how I feel about it.

I just find stories based on fact are more interesting, because you read it you're thinking to yourself "This is so amazing, it actually happened!" whereas with pure fiction, you know none of that happened, that nobody was really there and doing that.  It's like a tease.

But I mean, I won't take away the entertainment merit that Clancy books have.  I just don't find em that interesting because none of it is real...it's just a bunch of words.

 

[Kat Stevens]

Given, but McNab's book has been clobbered by nearly anyone with more than a passing familiarity with the events in question as a gross overstatement of his wonderfulness to skew the tale in his favour.  Historical fiction at best, and if I'm going to read that, Master and Commander and Sharpe are waaaay higher on my list than McNab.

 

[3rd Herd]

I stay away from his Spec Ops stuff but I have enjoyed most of his other books. Red Storm rising is "most likely" based on war scenario's/plans in the early 1980's. Several other author's have done the same and most of these books have had good recommendations from site members. Ralph Peter's Red Army and Kenneth Macksey's First Clash are two of this genre. As for Andy McNab his version of the events in Bravo Two Zero were examined by some British academics, a documentary was produced and aired and brought some serious questions to light about the actual events.
my two cents

 

[armyvern]

I just find stories based on fact are more interesting, because you read it you're thinking to yourself "This is so amazing, it actually happened!" whereas with pure fiction, you know none of that happened, that nobody was really there and doing that.  It's like a tease.

But I mean, I won't take away the entertainment merit that Clancy books have.  I just don't find em that interesting because none of it is real...it's just a bunch of words.

And with these statements above, your definition of the word "hack" and thus your rationalization falls into...let's say... "a million little pieces." (Do not excuse the pun).

Clancy writes for entertainment value...as advertised via "fiction."

McNab has been thouroughly rebuked by all others who were with him....yet he wrote, promoted and endorsed his Bravo 2 Zero work as "non-fiction" to make himself some bucks while the getting was good. Who's the hack?

B2Z was good....fiction by a hack and that's it.

 

[Pvt. Pukepail]

I don't think McNabb falls into the category of hack, given he doesn't mass produce literature like Clancy.  He wrote ONE book, Clancy writes like what?  A dozen a year?  That's a true hack.  The guy is RICH from writing books dude---that is the epitome of a hack.  McNabb wrote a story, fiction or otherwise, ONE story about his supposed involvement with the mission in Iraq.  So sure, you could argue that the man was looking to make a buck off of the book, fine, but insinuating that he is somehow a hack to the level of Clancy is just inane.
 
Look, events may have been skewed in B2Z to make McNabb look like some kind of hero, but the fact remains that the mission did happen.  Maybe not a hundred percent accurately portrayed in the book, but the fact that it did happen means the story is at least based on factual events.  That's WAAAAAY more than I can say for any Clancy TOTAL fiction.  The only thing in those books that are remotely factual is the fact that the stories are based on Earth.  So I don't think it's fair to say B2Z is total fiction...semi-fiction, sure.  Not total fiction though.

 

[Kat Stevens]

Hemmingway got WAY rich by putting words on paper.  By your definition, a hack.  Chaucer, Shakespear, RL Stevenson, Oscar Wylde, AC Doyle, Victor Hugo, all hacks, it would seem.  Who knew?

 

[armyvern]

I don't think McNabb falls into the category of hack, given he doesn't mass produce literature like Clancy.  He wrote ONE book, Clancy writes like what?  A dozen a year?  That's a true hack.  The guy is RICH from writing books dude---that is the epitome of a hack.  McNabb wrote a story, fiction or otherwise, ONE story about his supposed involvement with the mission in Iraq.  So sure, you could argue that the man was looking to make a buck off of the book, fine, but insinuating that he is somehow a hack to the level of Clancy is just inane.

Holy crap...for such a McNab enthusiast you'd be interested in visiting this site to see the numerous ONE books he has in print:

http://www.tesco.com/books/browse.aspx?N=4294554208

I say again who's the hack? He made his name and his bucks (albeit as thoroughly debunked "non-fiction") with B2Z...and now carries on to this day. He's a hack...but I never said he was stupid.
 

 

[Pvt. Pukepail]

Holy crap...for such a McNab enthusiast you'd be interested in visiting this site to see the numerous ONE books he has in print:

http://www.tesco.com/books/browse.aspx?N=4294554208

I say again who's the hack? He made his name and his bucks (albeit as thoroughly debunked "non-fiction") with B2Z...and now carries on to this day. He's a hack...but I never said he was stupid.
 

CHK-CHK! (shotgun cocks-point barrel at self)
Okay I'm an idiot.  He is a hack! 

Welly then...I'm actually not that huge a McNabb fan, B2Z is the only book I've read, and was aware that he wrote so...but uh...yeah.  So, how 'bout them Yankees?

 

[Journeyman]

OWNED!!    ;D

Say g'night ArmyVern. Your work here is done

 

[Pvt. Pukepail]

Wow, not enough people to kill in Afghanistan so you gotta do your killin' here now huh?  Good stuff...

Of course, none of that changes the fact that Clancy is still the king of hacks.  The whole point of my original arguement.

So I win...nyah! 

 

[armyvern]

OWNED!!    ;D

Say g'night ArmyVern. Your work here is done

Yes Sir!!

Ohhh!! I can go to bed now...After all I gotta go to work in 4 hours....

 

[Shamrock]

Doesn't Clancy use a lot of ghostwriters for his newer books?

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Wow, not enough people to kill in Afghanistan so you gotta do your killin' here now huh?  Good stuff...

Of course, none of that changes the fact that Clancy is still the king of hacks.  The whole point of my original arguement.

So I win...nyah! 

congrats for that ignorant comment you are on Verbal

PM inbound

 

[Pvt. Pukepail]

That was actually meant as a joke, I wasn't being serious there.  But I do apologize, it was in bad taste.