Talk:Tom Clancy

Name purchased by ubisoft

Do not remove that part i have source here: http://www.news.com/8301-13772_3-9899543-52.html?tag=nefd.top —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.15.104 (talk) 08:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Referenced by a website

Referenced by a website: http://www.allaboutsymbian.com/reviews/review2.php?id=116 - Ta bu shi da yu 22:01, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Reference broken

Reference no4 is broken —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.70.32.206 (talk) 23:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Second mention of failed Minnesota Vikings purchase seems redundant

The second mention of his failed attempt to buy the Minnesota Vikings seems redundant and makes the article seem less than professional. If anyone else agrees with me, then let's see what we can do about that. On the other hand, the mention of partial-ownership of the Orioles simply expands upon what is said earlier. Still, if we eliminate the second reference to the Vikings, then the second Orioles mention might seem a little out of place. Thoughts? --Arathon 04:12, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

All titles piped to same names?

Why were all of the titles piped to the exact same names? -- Zoe

Clancy captures 'sound and feel' of late 20th/early 21st century American government affairs

Whatever you think of Mr. Clancy, he does capture the 'sound and feel' of late 20th / early 21st century American government and military affairs in prose in a unique and revealing manner... which, it could be argued, is an important contribution to English literature

buone

I read with pleasure all tom's books, i wonder if clancy were in fact a member of us army or navy or just a writer?

According to http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0002007/bio, for what it's worth:

He has never had any military or government experience

RickK 04:09, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

He wrote "Hunt" while a commercial insurance agent. State Farm, I think.
--Baylink 17:58, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

That is incorrect... he in fact was in the Army Reserve for a number of years. -- Unsigned

Definitely untrue. He was never in the service. Rlove 17:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

---

I must commend this article for being the only one to have the facts straight regarding the Rainbow Six game and novel (i.e., the book was "written to tie-in with the computer game" and not the other way around).

--Furrykef 13:34, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Clancy co-writes book with General Anthony Zini, "Battle Ready"

From: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/21/60minutes/main618896.shtml

Following his retirement from the Marine Corps, the Bush administration thought so highly of Zinni that it appointed him to one of its highest diplomatic posts -- special envoy to the Middle East.

But Zinni broke ranks with the administration over the war in Iraq, and now, in his harshest criticism yet, he says senior officials at the Pentagon are guilty of dereliction of duty -- and that the time has come for heads to roll. Correspondent Steve Kroft reports.

---

“There has been poor strategic thinking in this,” says Zinni. “There has been poor operational planning and execution on the ground. And to think that we are going to ‘stay the course,’ the course is headed over Niagara Falls. I think it's time to change course a little bit, or at least hold somebody responsible for putting you on this course. Because it's been a failure.”

Zinni spent more than 40 years serving his country as a warrior and diplomat, rising from a young lieutenant in Vietnam to four-star general with a reputation for candor.

Now, in a new book about his career, co-written with Tom Clancy, called "Battle Ready," Zinni has handed up a scathing indictment of the Pentagon and its conduct of the war in Iraq.

---

I have removed the NPOV statement "It should be said that his books contain some astonishing false ideas about the functioning of capitalist economies." by 21:33, Jun 1, 2005 193.24.32.36. There is no evidence given to support this statement.

Ppe42 09:38, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)

I wished I'd seen this while I was reading "Mirror...," since that novel has evidence that I don't feel it's worth my time to go back and read through his uninterestingly written prose to find. Kdammers 11:33, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Sources?

To which source is the following attributed? However, the real accuracy of the technical details given in the books is also disputed.
So far as I was aware, Clancy's technical accuracy was just about as much as any civilian without a security clearance was able to achieve. This is especially true in terms of the novels he wrote in the 1980s which featured Soviet equipment. Impi 14:39, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You should ask that about User:David.Monniaux who added that part in revision as of 12:51, 22 Apr 2004. --ZeroOne 18:12, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ok, I've removed it following a lack of any answer from User:David.Monniaux thus far. Impi 13:14, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Not a big TC reader, and the military stuff is outside my ken, but 'Rainbow Six' has a couple of computer-related stinkers.

First one is his treatment of quantum computing. As of 2001 (a year *after* R6 was set), the publicly-known state of the art was a seven-qubit machine whose greatest achievement in codebreaking was being able to factorise the number 15. The gulf between that and being able to break 128-bit encryption this way, quickly (which he has happening in 2000) is a vast one; at this point we're well into the realms of science fiction. (Yeah, the NSA *might* have something better than the systems that are public knowledge, but if they do they're unlikely to have shared that knowledge with TC.)

IIRC, he also suggests that the NSA are using 'quantum computing' on a machine they'd acquired previously. In fact, QC starts with the hardware; it's not just a program you can load into any old supercomputer.

Second one, the kidnap investigation. The moment any competent law-enforcement agency got hold of that email message, they'd have looked at the message headers and tried to trace the message. It takes TC about fifty pages to very reluctantly acknowledge this line of inquiry, and then he handwaves it away with talk of an anonymous remailer (which makes little sense, in the context of that particular computer). I won't say it's *impossible* for things to have happened this way, but it's certainly implausible.

A lot of the biology, both in R6 and in 'Executive Orders', smelled suspect to me, but I'll leave that argument to people who are a little surer of their facts.

IIRC, one of Frederick Forsyth's books ('Icon', or 'Negotiator', maybe?) involved a bad guy who claims to be a CIA agent and ex-Army. Forsyth makes a very pointed comment to the effect of "if he'd done his homework, he'd know the CIA doesn't recruit field agents from the Army", which I took to be a not-very-subtle swipe at Tom Clancy. (Caveat: it's been a while since I read that one, so I may not have the meaning exactly right; even if I do, whether Forsyth's right about that rule is of course another question.) --Calair 04:59, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

IF Forsyth had done HIS homework, he would have known that the proper term is "officer" not "agent". An agent is someone (usually non-US) who works for an officer. This is a common error in the US press as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.77.67 (talk) 21:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Right, nice summary. When I read that line, I took it to be a comment on the technical accuracy of his descriptions of military hardware, which are in general better than just about anybody else. As for the CIA comment, I'm not so sure. I have immense respect for Forsyth, and he does a helluva lot of research, but then again Clancy's somewhat more into the CIA community that Forsyth is, and he has delivered lectures at the CIA before. So I think that one would best remain an open question. As for the quantum computing thing, I agree that is a rather significant oversight, so perhaps a caveat should be included in the article along the lines of noting his accuracy with military equipment, but acknowledging his errors in terms of quantum computing, biology, and kidnap investigation. It does feel somewhat like nitpicking though, to hold authors of fiction accountable for factual inaccuracies in their work. Even so, I wouldn't object to a balanced caveat. I took exception to the comment I removed, because it seemed a sweeping indictment of his knowledge of military hardware and tactics as well. Impi 10:41, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As long as the article's pointing out his strengths, I don't think it's nitpicking to acknowledge weaknesses as well. I've seen people who believe the NSA has QCs that can crack 128-bit solely because Tom Clancy said so (IIRC, one company even called on that claim as a selling point for their own encryption), so a dose of reality may be in order. --Calair 12:13, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

To expand further, he makes use, in BatD, among other places, of the idea that the connect warble of a 56Kbps modem could in fact be a secondary modem channel, moving 56KBps (8 times as fast) data, from a specially prepared modem in a laptop (which is barely plausible) to a random modem at a random ISP somewhere, which is completely impossible. This is not the only place he proves that he needs a tech editor as desperately as he needs a regular editor. -- Baylink 02:49, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry too much about his technical accuracy, he can't even manage social skills. For example, the boys go to a pub 1) Everyone who drinks beer drinks Guinness. This is unlikely but just about possible I suppose

2) The pub is called the "Brown Stallion". That's a very odd name for a Pommy pub. 3) Guinness is described as having a "thin" head. I'd hate to see a thicker head! 4) The clincher. Somebody had a few drinks and then ... settles the bill! No way, it's strictly pay as you go in the UK (and Oz). Greglocock 03:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

He has lectured at CIA, so I doubt he's too far off. As far as I can tell he knows everything a civilian can know with no clearence, and probably a tad more. Supra guy 07:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Homophobic

An anon removed "homophobic" from the description of Clancy's beliefs. I'm just wondering if it should be there or not. I don't really know anything about Clancy myself.

Unless it can be substantiated, it should not be there. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:06, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Some of his books features a gay Congressman, who is actually a friend of Ryan's, though they're not "close" friends. However The Cardinal of the Kremlin did feature a treacherous American lesbian informer for the KGB.

Clancy's plots and characters can be termed pro-heterosexual. It's an open question whether all criticism of homosexuality (or unbalanced homosexual individuals is "homophobic"). That word is something like the word "cult" - whose meaning depends on who's using it. --Uncle Ed 14:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I personally feel that the word homophobic, like anti-semitic, should only be used in some very narrow ways. If a person dissaproves of homosexuality, does that neccessarily make him homophobic? What if he has no problem with homosexuality he only thinks marriage is between a man and woman? Another word needs to be used, because homophobic implies the person has an irrational fear that is pathological. (As with all other phobias.) THe word itself is NPOV since it was coined specifically for political discourse as a spin word. Perhaps, "he dissaproves of the homosexual lifestyle." 88.154.158.42 16:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I personally disapprove of homosexuality, but I am certainly not homophobic. To call someone homophobic simply because they dissaprove is like saying you are racist if you dislike Japanese cars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.210.165.31 (talk) 02:01, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

The Congressman cited above is Al Trend, one of the two members of the Intelligence Oversight Committee that Ryan has to deal with. He is described as a very liberal gay congressman from Massachussetts (ironically, the other one, Fellows, is a conservative Mormon from Arizona). Despite this, he and Ryan are shown to have a great deal of respect for one another, and work well together. I think Ryan, as a conservative Catholic, probably disapproves of homosexuality but understands that he shouldn't judge people based on their sexual orientation alone. 147.9.201.180 (talk) 19:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Political Views

Clancy's novels, especially the Jack Ryan series (like a lot of techno-political spy thrillers) seem to underscore his faith in - or support of - the Executive branch of gov't versus the Legislative branch. (see also Homophobic topic above). Non-presidential elected officials such as Senators tend to be portrayed as either incompetent bumblers who get in the way, can't be trusted, etc etc or are somehow too effette to be trustworthy; whereas Ryan and others working for the President are portrayed as heroes saving us all from ___________ ....
This is a good indicator of Clancy's political inclinations, for whatever its worth...Engr105th 00:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Other political views I've picked up from reading his books;

- Virulent anti-communism. Even since the end of the Cold War, he's written at least three novels that centered around Marxist bad guys (Rainbow Six, The Bear and the Dragon, Red Rabbit), plus a fictional Vietnam War rematch in "Fighter Wing." And most of his books featured long sections that would criticize or deconstruct communism.

- General support for organized religion, at least the three monotheistic ones. See The Sum of All Fears, Executive Orders and even Teeth of the Tiger. His contempt for terrorism is expressed many times in his novel, but he has been a defender of Islam since day one, something he made clear after 9/11 (see section below).

- Economic protectionism, expressed several times in his novels. (His novels introduce a fictional "Trade Reform Act" which would allow the U.S. to copy the import-export laws of a foreign nation and apply those laws to imports from that very nation to the U.S). He also seems somewhat more pro-worker than you might expect from a clear-cut conservative.

- Proponent of the flat tax (see Executive Orders). He defends it not only by saying that it's fairer, but also that 1) the current tax system is too complicated for anyone to understand, which is fundamentally bad for democracy, and 2) since fat cats have written loopholes all over the current system, the "progressive" nature of that system is a lie.

- Anti-nuclear theme, surprisingly. Not the 1980s unilateral-withdrawal peacenik type of anti-nuclearism, but he does mention several times that he considers the concept of "MAD" unstable and insane, and in his novels shows a world in which the U.S. and Russia eliminate their ICBMs and [SLBM]]s and draw down their arsenals.

- As for the alleged homophobia, that was based on one incident in "Cardinal of the Kremlin," in which Jack Ryan insults a gay congressman for his sexuality. It's later revealed that the incident was staged so the KGB would think Ryan was having trouble with his superiors, and Ryan and the same Congressman are shown working together again in several novels, where they've developed a mutual respect. Safe to assume Clancy's not actually a "God hate fags" nut. 147.9.230.117 (talk) 23:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Chronology: Red Rabbit / Patriot Games

I don't agree with the series chronology. I would change it to:

• 1st Red Rabbit
• 2nd Patriot Games

Why?

• Assassination of the Pope was 1981.
• In the plot of Patriot Games the Royal Highness' drive in their car together with their baby boy. Since most people think it is Charles and Diana, the boy must be William. He was born 1982. So, Red Rabbit must have been before Patriot Games

--Eddie2 13:03, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

--The series chronology is correct. Red Rabbit happens AFTER Patriot Games. Tom Clancy has completely screwed up the timeline of these books, and this has led to some confusion. The events of Red Rabbit do indeed occur in 1981, but reference is made to the events of Patriot Games as having happened in the past. There is also reference to the Falklands War some time in the past, but that happened in 1982. Patriot Games is clearly set AFTER 1981, because of Prince William. Patriot Games also refers to the Falklands War. It also mentions an Irish character having escaped from Long Kesh prison about 15 months before at the early stages of the book. The Long Kesh breakout occured in April 1981. This jumbled timescale also manages to alter the one for The Hunt for Red October. Red October specifically stated that Ryan had lived in England for a year. Which realistically would mean Red October should be set in 1982. Oh dear...

A Short Critical Dissertaion

"Whatever you think of Mr. Clancy, he does capture the 'sound and feel' of late 20th / early 21st century American government and military affairs in prose in a unique and revealing manner... which, it could be argued, is an important contribution to English literature."

Possibly, from a certain point of view. However, I think in time his books will be mainly looked upon in the same manner as we now percieve Kipling's pro-Empire works and poems. The underlying assumption in all of his books is that American exceptionalism is both correct and good. This belief, which is merely an updated version of The White Man's Burden, allows him to both disreguard and deginerate contrary yet valid cultures and beliefs; one example that springs to mind is his really offensive depiction of a Native American religious ceremony in The Sum of All Fears. He also appears to have a streak of misogyny as quite a number of male charecters in his book mouth sexist, and sometimes grossly insulting, remarks about women. In fairness this could be simply Clancy giveing the actual charecters point of view, but it is nonetheless jarring. Against this must be set his frequent depiction of strong (if idealised) women. And by and large he is a very uncritical proponent of American policy. Sure, there are American bad guys in his books, but they always get their just desserts in the end, which validates the American way. Real life is never so neat. But the main problem I have with Clancy's books is that he seems to forget he is (supposed to be) writing fiction. The feeling I get from reading his books (and I have read them all) is that this is the way the world should and will be. He suffers from a fundamental lack of imagination in that he cannot concieve of a world where the USA is not the world's ultimate good guy or the indespensible nation. All his work depends of this worldview, and its implications, being sustained. He is a good, dynamic storyteller, but almost more than that an uncritical probagandast for an USA according to his views. Fergananim

I think I disagree about the 'dated' feel. I feel we have just lived through the tenure of a President who revived Exceptionalism, for better or worse. The other point is I don't see any balance being given to the author's right to tune writing style for sales potential. All of the criticisms of style feel like they mesh with the "Old School" pro-military reader. This is why writers occasionally do "off-branded" experimental works to show their range while knowing that the sales will be weaker. TaoPhoenix (talk) 22:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with this point. While in certain fields Clancy is brilliant and sees no equal, he comes out as a sexist and racist person in others. For example you can see in any number of his books the sexist plots that he keeps on producing, in Without Remorse, there is a certain scene in which Kelly is jogging in the park and sees kids playing with their mothers, and fantasizes that this is how things should be, with the fathers at work and the mothers taking care of the little ones; also his racial ideas are quite disturbing in places, especially if we consider the Netforce series, in the beginning of one of the books (I think it was Night Games or something), he depicts a scene with a "Special" Indian unit attacking a Pakistani train with a nuclear bomb. The sub plot, complete with highly generic Indian names, a laughable description of the unit (apparently all members are injected with poison before going on a mission and some of them have been shifted to the unit for murdering senior officers) and the fact that an Indian unit is attacking Pakistan, all make for a slightly comical effect. I do not know if that was Clancy's original intention but he does achieve it marvellously. And one more thing, as an Indian I would like to add that we may have our differences with Pakistan and we may have our porblems on the border but we do have one of the best armies of the world, our armies have proved themselves over and over again in serious operations against inhuman odds, they are not something to be made fun of.

Yes, it is completely out of line that he should feature Indians with Indian names attacking Pakistan. Indians are all named Samuel and there has never been a case of India and Pakistan attacking each other. The generic names are certainly proof of Mr. CLancy's hatred for Indians, considering he uses creative western names like, Jack. This is clearly "racist," as Indians do in fact belong to a different race from Tom Clancy. 88.154.158.42 16:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Tom Clancy does not write the Netforce series, Steve Perry does.--Hasty5o 06:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, netforce books do list Clancy as an author, but if you are correct and Clancy does not author the books then my points are invalid. Anyway,as for the other post, I was dissappointed by that book written by Clancy because of the fact that I have always thought Clancy showed a very deep understanding of millitary or strategic issues, I wrote that in my post (if you bothered to read it, it is one of the very first lines). Now when I read this little prologue, it sounded like something straight out of a B grade hollywood flick, I mean a guy who knows so much about armies and politics will be expected to show a little depth in his fiction, not just write about some unit that is made of convicts; whereas, when he is writing about the NATO block or the Soviet block, he shows a marked talent for writing stuff close to reality. Of course it is probably the case that the book was written for western audiences only, who may not notice the difference as much as an Asian (and it also may be true that what I percieve close to reality in terms of the cold war may be far from the truth), but still, I expected more insight from him. And one more thing, the names really are mind numbingly generic, and equally irritating. Might have expected that from Tarantino in one of his spoofs, not from Clancy. And the sarcasm needs a lot of work, Avi or Yael or whoever you are,88.154.158.42. -- Treason of isengard 08:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

NetForce is not really Clancy as pointed out. One of his projects that he gave his name to for financial reasons, not really sure how much oversight he really gives it so it's probably unfair to cite that as an example. So unless you can point to other evidence of racism--which is pretty hard to do in my opinion anyway based on an author's fictional description of characters in a stoy--I don't see it. And while I agree he is clearly pro-American and his political views are well known, is it fair to say he is a propagandist (sp?)? Take for example another thriller writer Matthew Reilly (Australian) who uses americans as bad guys in some of his books (see the interview at the end of 7 Deadly Wonders where he talks about this). Does that make him anti-american? Or an australian propagandist? No, it's fiction, authors should be able to uses characters and nations however they want to tell their story. My question is, if you didn't grow up during the cold war, do you find his cold war books as good (Red Storm Rising, Hunt for Red October, etc)? 65.15.120.250 15:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, after reading several more of Clancy's novels, and other authors as well, I agree, I was perhaps off the mark in calling him racist. He does use generalizations occasionally, but what writer doesn't, and in hindsight I would not expect him to go researching Indian nomenclature to write a short prologue. To answer your question, I have not read Red Storm Rising, but I did read Cardinal of the Kremlin, and I found it very interesting. The fact that I was not born during the cold war does not really make a difference, at least for me. Treason of isengard (talk) 08:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

added link to Brecher's "Tom Clancy is not One of Us"

Some might argue this link doesn't belong on Clancy's page. I think it does, and that since Clancy is famous and people's reactions to him are both relevant in their own right and bolster his own relevance as well. I created a section in the external links called Literary and Other Criticsim, which I think should be expanded to show both positive and negative reviews of his works, fansite, etc. Dsol 14:52, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I certainly concur, and I believe this is the proper approach.
--Baylink 18:03, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. Reading Brecher's diatribe reveals no legitimate criticism of Clancy's literary works, or in fact any criticism of his work at all. Instead, it's just an insulting essay written on the basis of invented attributes, and aside from being profoundly unfair, it has no place in this article and I'm removing it. While the idea of a Literary and Other Criticism section is a good one, it should include only legitimate criticism rather than the ad hominem rantings of people like Brecher. Impi 11:19, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Is Brecher's article ad hominem? Absolutely. Is it POV? Completely. Insulting? Quite. Obviously the material in there is not the stuff of a wikipedia article. But that does not mean it cannot be cited. The claim that it is not legitimate is vague and meaningless; there is no "legitimacy" criteria for wikipedia sources.

Rather, the real question is, does it add anything to the article? I would say absolutely, yes. It is not literary cricticism, but then this article is not "The Literary Works of Tom Clancy," but rather just "Tom Clancy." The way that people react to him, including his writing, life, and public persona (e.g. the use of his name in "Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six") is 100% relevant. While opinions like Brecher's are a without doubt a minority, I don't think he's so "fringe" as to be irrelevant (consider the eXile's online circulation in the hundreds of thousands). Therefore, I think that solely based on these merits the link should go in. Also, however, information about Clancy not appearing in his wikipedia article nor in any of the other sources appears in the article, such the affair before his divorce. Some might argue that the more detailed speculation in Brecher's article is unverified or even verifiably untrue, but I think it's quite clear when Brecher lapses into parody, and when he doesn't.

Of course I understand how jarring the link is compared to the rest of the article. Therefore while I'm putting it back in, I would add my vote to a consensus for keeping it out if both the info about his divorce and the fact that some people react to him quite adversely are both put in and well sourced. Dsol 17:06, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

The striving for NPOV with regard to Wikipedia's articles extends to quoted sources and external links as well. Other Wikipedia articles on notable people do not feature such ad hominem attacks as sources or links, especially not those as personally insulting as Brecher's diatribe. Your attempt to justify the addition based on the eXile's circulation is also meaningless, as there are many vitriolic essays written about people such as Presidents Clinton and Bush, which have a far higher readership base than the eXile, yet we don't link to those sites on the respective Wikipedia articles. As for leaving it in as a source for "the fact that some people react to him quite adversely" - that's ludicrous. EVERY notable figure has people who hate him or her, you do not need to add a link such as this for that fact to be known.

Fact is, Wikipedia's policy of NPOV and no ad hominem attacks extends to all elements of the article, including added links. To keep this link on the page would violate both of those principles. In addition, Brecher's article actually adds nothing to the Wikipedia page that cannot be expressed by the addition of a short (and NPOV) biography section. Impi 18:14, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok you make some good points, and I'm willing to leave the Brecher link out. I don't think it's disqualified based purely on POV grounds (since its POV can be aknowledged and distancd from an NPOV article), but I think you're right that it ultimately doesn't add enough to the article to justify its presence. I think I may try to add some more information, both about Clancy's personal life and the reception of his work/persona as a whole to the article. I'll try to find some more NPOV sources with which to do this. Dsol 08:29, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

All but one...

Is the claim "All but one of Clancy's novels feature Jack Ryan and/or John Clarke" still true? Kenguest 05:16, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

IMO, all of them "feature" one of the two except ToTT, in which both of them are off-stage.
--Baylink 02:25, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

You're forgetting about Red Storm Rising which features none of his regular characters, as it takes place in an alternate timeline. DLeone

While ToTT may not directly feature Ryan or Clark, it is still set in the "Ryanverse". The only book not set in this world is RSR. Rlove 02:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

TotT = Last Ryan Novel?

Is there a source for this? Does it mean that TotT is the last novel to feature Jack Ryan Sr (understandable, post divorce) or does it mean that there is to be no further Jack Ryan of any generation? This needs clarification.

TotT had Ryan's son if I remember correctly. One can only assume this will become more common, and replace his father as the dominant character. -- Ubergenius 17:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Clancy as defender of Islam!? Is this really true?

"Tom Clancy was an early, and to many, surprising defender of Islam after the WTC terror attacks, when he was one of the first experts interviewed on CNN on the day of 9/11." Any sources/links for this? Is he still saying this? Looking at his depictions of Muslims in "The Teeth of the Tiger" makes you doubt this statement.

Well, I do remember him being interviewed on CNN and making that statement. He was also very critical of the news media (and by extension CNN) during that same interview. The fact he said that on CNN is citeable and fact, that he writes something that may contradict that statement in ToT is pure POV. It's just a fictional book, afterall; not a social sciences textbook. Shadowrun 20:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

TotT does NOT have any negative statements towards Isam, but rather presents Islamic RADICALS (militant fundamentalists) in a negative light. Islamic Radicals != Islam. Just like Christian Radicals != Christians, Jewish Radicals != Judaism, etc. Clancy defended ISLAM as a faith, he did not defend the Islamic Radicals that committed the acts of terrorism in New York, which is obviously completely indefensable. While this next statement is entirely opinion, I believe his motivation was to have people realize that Islam != terrorism, so American Muslims wouldn't be persecuted in the coming months/years. -- Ubergenius 17:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

This is something he wrote on http://www.clancyfaq.com/TCPosts.htm, one of his websites;

"Islam is *not* a religion of maniacs. All one must do it to read the Koran to grasp this. But as Christianity can be warped out of all recognition by some people (e.g., the Ku Klux Klan in America, the PIRA and UVF in Northern Ireland), so Islam can be twisted (actually, used for political purposes) by some of its less careful members. Press coverage of Islam doesn't help, but the press of late doesn't seem to treat *any* religion with much respect."

This view is expressed at various points in The Sum of All Fears, Executive Orders and Teeth of the Tiger. Clancy seems to view religion in general as a positive force in society, and differentiates between the religion as a whole and the groups within it that see it as nothing but a team identity and a cover for their political ends. It's not unreasonable considering that the Bush administration has officially adopted the exact same position, and that Clancy generally fits within the neoconservative Reagan-Bush subset of conservatism. 147.9.201.180 (talk) 19:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Edited to Include the Net Force Explorers

88.110.71.141 09:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC) I just edited the page to include a link to his, "Net Force Explorers" series.

Huang individal

Is all the detail about some-one, whose identity and name seem to be in question really approriate material for this article? I don't think so. Kdammers 11:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Series Chronology (Ryanverse)

Starting with one of the more recent edits, (cur) (last) 11:41, 2 April 2006 199.38.51.134 (→Jack Ryan universe), the series chronology for Ryanverse doesn't seem to be right. It's simply in the order the books were released, not in the order that they appear chronologically in the storyline. Has anyone else noticed this? Yep. Just noticed...whoever did that is a complete fool, somebody with the knowledge should really fix that up, it used to be okay.. Omer Zach 07:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

"Plot chronology" is asinine! Clancy expects readers to be familiar with information in the previously published books, especially in Without Remorse. The order that makes sense is the order in which they were published, but I'm sure some loons own this subsection and would revert a reasonable fix. 68.89.149.2 (talk) 22:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Was Tom Clancy a US Agent ?

Was he a agent in some "Alphabet Agency" ? Martial Law 22:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC) :)

• No. Clancy has stated on several occasions that he has never been a spook or any sort of thing. He uses public information to get intel for his stories. Rockhound 23:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• Also, military and intelligence folk tell him things. There are lots of conservatives employed by the US gov't who are looking for a champion. --Uncle Ed 15:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Agent? Yes. If by "Agent" you mean "Insurance Agent" :-) --Purpleslog (talk) 16:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Where's the Summer 2006 Book?

Amazon.com shows an untitled book with a 31 May 2006 (yesterday) release date, while other outlets (Barnes & Nobel) show later 2006/2007 dates. News? Links? Rumors?

People need to bear in mind that these web re-sellers get advance information from publishers that it is their "intention" to be publishing a title from a particular author at a particular time. Whether this comes to anything is down to minor things like has the author finished one yet. George R R Martin was slated as having a book due to nearing 2 year. David Rohl has had a book on Amazon.co.uk for approx 5 years with little sign of in appearing yet. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Series Chronology (Ryanverse)

Someone has once again changed it back to being in a chronological order based upon publication. Am I the only one who gets what is trying to be done here, that the books weren't published in the order that they happen within the book?!

Re(Ryan Verse): What is trying to be done here? I really did not get the point. By series chronology do you mean that the years in the brackets are the ones pertaining to the book and not the book publication?? Or the books are to be read in the order they were previously... If so someone should make that clear, chronology does mean that we have to arrange the items in ascending or descending by date. The header can be something like Reading Order or something else. --[ Huntscorpio 10:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC) ]

I'd like reverse the publication order and series chronologies of the 12 Ryan/Clark Universe stories:

1. Publication order - just list title and year published
2. Series chronology - list title and summary

Any objections? If not, I'll go ahead and make the change. --Uncle Ed 14:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind which comes first, Series chronology, or Publication order as long as each starts oldest first and proceeds to the newest. i.e. normal ascending chronological sequence.

What I'm planning is to put the "short list" of 12 books in ascending chronological sequence, from 'Red October' to 'Teeth of the Tiger', like this:

• The Hunt for Red October (1984)
• Patriot Games (1987)
• The Cardinal of the Kremlin (1988)
• Clear and Present Danger (1989)
• The Sum of All Fears (1991)
• Without Remorse (1993) *
• Debt of Honor (1994)
• Executive Orders (1996)
• Rainbow Six (1998) *
• Red Rabbit (2002)
• The Bear and the Dragon (2000)
• The Teeth of the Tiger (2003)

Then I'll put the Ryan/Clark series chronology in "fictional time order" like this:

• Without Remorse (1993)

  Chronologically the first book featuring (John Kelly /) John Clark, detailing Clark's life before the CIA. Set during the Vietnam War, tells about the past of John Kelly, how he assumed the Clark mantle, and tells how Clark became a CIA agent. Jack Ryan's father (Emmett Ryan) has a key role; Jack Ryan has a tiny cameo; lots of detail about heroin abuse.

• Patriot Games (1987)

  Ryan saves the Prince of Wales from terrorists, who go after Ryan and his family. The 1992 movie stars Harrison Ford as Ryan, and has a fictional lord instead of the Prince of Wales. (John Clark later tells Jack Ryan in "Executive Orders" that he was on the helicopter that had to turn back when attacking the terrorist camps in northern Africa)

• Red Rabbit (2002)

  Back when he was a humble CIA analyst, Ryan aids in the defection of a Soviet officer who knows of a plan to assassinate the Pope.

• The Hunt for Red October (1984)

  Clancy's first novel. Jack Ryan assists in the defection of a respected Soviet naval captain, along with the most advanced missile sub of the Soviet fleet. Movie (1990) stars Alec Baldwin as Ryan and Sean Connery as Captain Ramius.

• The Cardinal of the Kremlin (1988)

  First appearance of John Clark and Sergey Golovko. Secret anti-satellite lasers (SDI), high-stakes diplomacy, spies and computer geeks.

• Clear and Present Danger (1989)

  Drug war in Colombia. Ryan and Clark finally meet; first appearance of 'Ding' Chavez. Movie (1994) stars Harrison Ford as Ryan and Willem Dafoe as Clark.

• The Sum of All Fears (1991)

  Israel loses a nuclear weapon, which terrorists use to foment war between US and Soviets, which is averted by Ryan in a cliffhanger. The 2002 movie stars Ben Affleck as Ryan, Liev Schreiber as Clark and changes the identity and motivation of the terrorists.

• Debt of Honor (1994)

  Ryan as a Presidential advisor, John Clark and Domingo Chavez as agents with Russian cover, help win a military and economic war with a nuclear-armed Japan. Golovko makes a cameo here.

• Executive Orders (1996)

  Sequel to Debt of Honor. Ryan, propelled into presidency as a result of events in Debt of Honor, survives press hazing, assassination attempts and biological warfare -- Clark and Ding trace the virus to a Middle Eastern madman, and the US military goes to work.* Rainbow Six (1998)

  Released to tie in with the computer game of the same name. John Clark leads an elite anti-terrorist unit and averts worldwide genocide attempt by terrorists who are motivated by radical environmentalism. (Jack Ryan is mentioned, but does not appear.)

• The Bear and the Dragon (2000)

  War between Russia and China. Ryan recognizes the independence of Taiwan and the US Air Force helps Russia defeat Chinese invasion. (Note: Like many such writers, Clancy's knowledge of China is lacking compared to his knowledge of the old Soviet Union, with many resulting weaknesses.)

• The Teeth of the Tiger (2003)

  Features the rise of Jack Ryan's son, Jack Ryan Jr, as an intelligence analyst, and then a field consultant, for The Campus, an off-the-books intelligence agency with the freedom to discreetly assassinate individuals "who threaten national security", following the retirement of Jack Sr. from the Presidency.

Note: This is the latest book of the Jack Ryan series by Tom Clancy, introducing his son and his two nephews as heirs to his spook-legacy.

I would put the two non-Ryan-Clark books in an "other" section:

• Red Storm Rising (1986)

  War between NATO and USSR. The basis of the submarine combat game of the same name, this is one of two Clancy novels to date not set in his Ryaniverse. He co-wrote it with Larry Bond.

• SSN (1996)

  Follows the missions of USS Cheyenne in a future war with China precipitated by their invasion of the disputed Spratly Islands. Also not a Ryaniverse book, SSN is actually a loosely connected collection of 'scenario' chapters in support of the eponymous computer game.

How does this sound? --Uncle Ed 15:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Red Storm Rising, not a Jack Ryan novel

I hold before me something rather bizzare. I hold a copy of Red Storm Rising, that says on the front, beneath Tom Clancy, "A Jack Ryan Novel." How can this be true when, as the article states, Red Storm Rising doesn't take place in the Ryanverse? Could it be a mistake that was made in a batch or something, or does that one paragraph discussion a man named Jack Ryan has in it classify it as a Jack Ryan Novel? LWF 02:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a mistake. I've read the entire novel several times, and therefore know it does not contain any references to Jack Ryan or the universe associated with him.

Just out of curiousity, do you think my copy might be worth something because of the mistake? Or are they all that way? --LWF 01:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Might be worth something. My version, a reprint of the Berkley edition from August 1987, does not have the line "A Jack Ryan Novel" on the cover. --Edward Sandstig 09:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

It's only the relatively recent reprints (circa 2003, I believe) that would have them; Berkley reprinted all of Clancy's novels except SSN with a new unified cover design and new cover art, and Red Storm Rising slipped through the cracks. Oddly enough, The Teeth of the Tiger (and maybe even Red Rabbit came out after the redesign, and yet used the older cover design for both hardcover and paperback editions. ATimson 03:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I see the image of the reprint on Amazon [[1]] still shows the incorrect "A Jack Ryan Novel" tag. But the copy I purchased at Barnes & Noble a little over year ago doesn't have that caption. Probably when they created the standard cover for the reprints of the books they just did a lazy copy and paste job with the template, just changed the titles and colors, and shipped the books out without paying attention. On another note, Without Remorse does give Jack Ryan a passing mention and features his dad, though the reprint of that does not list it as "A Jack Ryan Novel", so they were paying attention then. Whatever. Jdkkp (talk) 21:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Popularity of games

I find the use of the phrase 'all games bearing the Tom Clancy name were very successful' incorrect. Two games by Red Storm Entertainment bearing the Clancy name - 'Politika' and 'ruthless.com' - were not hits, and are next to impossible to find information or copies of nowadays (shame because Ruthless.com is a fine game IMO). I've changed it to 'Most' for now - if someone could provide sales figures or similar evidence that these games were popular (I would be very surprised), that would be interesting. 62.232.224.2 09:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

More about Clancy games

In the early 90s there was a Cardinal of the Kremlin computer game. It wasn't particularly successful, but I do remember playing it.

Also, Clancy and Larry Bond played out scenarios from Hunt For Red October and Red Storm Rising using Bond's naval miniatures wargame, Harpoon while Clancy was writing those novels. This is mentioned in the designer notes of 1st edition Harpoon. Either in the boxed set of the game itself or in an expansion there were a couple of Clancy-based scenarios. There was a scenario based on a modified version of the climactic Hunt For Red October battle, and there was at least one scenario taken from Red Storm Rising.

I no longer have 1st edition Harpoon, and I don't know if the latest (4th edition) mentions the Clancy connection. Someone with the game should add this. Agoodall 02:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Attempted to join US Navy?

Is it true, as the Grolier 2000 encyclopedia (CD edition) claims, that Clancy attempted to join the US Navy but was rejected due to poor eyesight? Walton monarchist89 10:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I heard that on askmen.com Supra guy 07:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Order of Ryan Series

I think the list of Jack Ryan books should be listed in order of publication. It's nice to know the chronological order of the Ryan story in the fictional universe, however Clancy's intention is to have the books read in order of publication, otherwise he would have published the books in a different order. Jackryan 16:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Tom_Clancy#By_publication_date seems to be by publication date. Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 10:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, talk about longevity!

According to the article, Tom Clancy was born April 12, 1347, and is still living.

I'd love to isolate his longevity genes, and have insertional (permanent) updating of my DNA performed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.197.15.132 (talk) 16:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Get a blog, people

Wow... Look at this "discussion" page.

Before you post here... read the top of the page.

If you don't have something to add to the article, DON'T POST HERE. Go get a blog.

There's people trying to make an encyclopedia here, go take your opinions somewhere else

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not

Jdkkp (talk) 19:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

where was he born?

it says in the box at the top that he was born in baltimore county, but under biography that he was born in calvert county. i know he currently resides in calvert county (I live in the area and he is by far the most famous thing in the region). i think someone who knows where he was born should change the article to make the two match. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.17.164 (talk) 01:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Summary clarification

In the bibliography in publishing order, Red Storm Rising says "this is not a member of the Ryan genre (although the protagonist of the story has many similarities with Jack Ryan)" Who is the "protagonist" referring to, considering the multitude of characters in this story. I assume it's either McCafferty, Toland, Morris, or Edwards. Could we clear this up? Gitrplaya4u (talk) 01:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

bibliography

The introduction to this section is marred: It consists (almost) entirely of filming of books. This bias toward film over paper is inappropriate in a section called BIBLIO-GRAPHY. Kdammers (talk) 01:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Tom Clancy's...

His works always have his name infront of it. I skimmed through the article and did a few ctrl+f searches but couldnt find a reason for this. So why exactly does he feel the need to put his name infront of everything that he creates? (Tom clancy's splintercell, rainbow six, etc.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.210.64.214 (talk) 13:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

"His works" don't have his name in the title: other people wrote those books. Book publishers do it to put a famous name on books written by little-known authors. 65.170.234.10 (talk) 04:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Picture

Could we have a picture please?121.218.180.80 (talk) 00:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Missing Op-Center Books

There are at least 2 missing Op Center books. Line of Control (2001) and Mission of Honor (2002) Both written by Jeff Rovin and Steve Pieczenik under the Clancy name. I am pretty sure there are others but these 2 jump out at me because I have read them. Also, should Net Force and Op-Center be under different headings? I have never read a Net Force book and only a few of the Op-Centers, but I was under the impression that they are set in different universes?

Reversion to remove vandalism

I just removed some vandalism from the page. I don't think I destroyed any legit edits, but you might want to check. 69.65.247.47 (talk) 02:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

9/11 Section Discussion

As it was, this section described the terrorist attack that concludes Debt of Honor and begins Executive Orders far too vaguely. With such little detail, it seemed to bear greater resemblence to the attacks of 9/11 than it should, (there's no mention of the completely different motivations behind the attacks, for example) plus it contains one statement is just plain wrong - it wasn't a US Jet Liner that was used in the fictional attack, it was Japanese. I'm cleaning up the section to be a little more clear on the matter, hope nobody minds.129.171.233.78 (talk) 04:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

There, added some data that will hopefully highlight the differences between the 9/11 attacks and the one that takes place in Debt of Honor. It's important to note these differences, because the attacks were, in my opinion, actually quite different. Yes, in both cases they were perpetrated with passenger aircraft, but Sato acted out of rash, reactionary rage at the loss of his two sons - it's likely that, had he not had immediate access to an aircraft, he wouldn't have done anything at all. This is completely different from the 9/11 attacks, which were planned and executed by determined extremists who had worked for months to prepare for the move. Also, the fact that Sato used an empty plane (and displayed significant regret as he killed his copilot) shows that he wasn't just looking to kill as many people as possible - he had a specific target in the American government, who he directly blamed for the loss of his children. This makes his action quite different from that comitted by the 9/11 hijackers. Of course, this is all just my opinion, so I've only put facts given by the book into the article. This is just my explanation for why they should be there.

On that note, I went ahead and deleted this paragraph: "In 1977 the motion picture Black Sunday (a veiled reference to the infamous Palestinian terrorist group Black September) dramatized a similar terrorist attack against the United States using a hovering blimp to attack a crowded football stadium."

Because really, does anyone think there's any real connection here? Furthermore, does that matter? The section is about 9/11 and Clancy, not 9/11 and fiction in general. If it's not directly pertaining to either of those topics, it shouldn't be in this section. Maybe this is something that could go on the Debt of Honor or Executive Orders pages, but it's out of place here. On that note - I really don't think there's any connection anyway. A blimp is hardly the same as a jet passenger liner, the target isn't in any way government related, and the group that the attackers are based on aren't particularly well related to Al Qaeda or Clancy's Sato. 129.171.233.78 (talk) 04:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Replies:

To user:129.171.233.78:

First I want to appoigize for having posted this on your Talk page earlier this evening. I could not find your Wiki-email link. I didn't discover this Discussion page until just now. I'm a Newby. Feel free to remove it (if you read this instead).

Anyway, from you post above, I can tell that you are a reasonable, polite person (what a relief) who I can negociate with concerning these changes.

Before I start, I would like to state that I am personally dis-satisfied with the quality of the source of an online transcript that I discovered and am forced to quote from in the piece. This is a transcript of the September 21st, 2001 O'Reilly Factor interview with Tom Clancy. I saw the interview live and the online transcript that I googled matches what I remember. The problem is that the web-page is titled "Tom Clancy: RAPIST CLINTON/CARTER/CHURCH GUTTED THE CIA" (Oh dear!). I checked the Fox News and O'Reilly Factor sites for a better source, but they gave no hint of how to get transcripts. Is it only NPR that does that?

IF ANYONE has a better source for a transcript of the September 21st, 2001 O'Reilly Factor interview with Tom Clancy, PLEASE contact me.

I understand your reasoning for removing the paragraph about the Black Sunday movie. As I explain below, you are correct in assuming that it was irrelevent in the context in which you discovered it. But what about the other three paragraphs that the other young guy ripped out of my piece? I don't think that that is right, do you? Shouldn't that have been discussed first? I feel violated.

No connection between the movie Black Sunday and 9/11? No simularity between the Palistinian terrorist group Black September and Al Qaeda? IMHO, Black September was just Al Qaeda-lite. Remember the slaughter at the Olympic games? The huge headlines, the terror? No connection between a deadly blimp explosion in a stadium and TC's Sum of all Fears? You might want to re-think that statement.

Regarding your statement that:

because the attacks were, in my opinion, actually quite different

Should I not have stated "just such an attack"? Terrorist attacks a U.S. Government building by crashing a big aircraft loaded with exploding fuel into it. Sound familiar? Talking Pentagon here, not World Trade Center. And the fourth 9/11 aircraft was headed for Washington, D.C too.

I don't mind you editing and pointing out the differencies - that is a very balanced-coverage, journalism 101 thing to do. I just don't think that the differences matter because the article is not blaming Tom Clancy for anything.

Anyway, here is what I posted on your Talk page in standard business letter format:

I am writing regarding your recent edit of my description of Tom Clancy's brief rise in notoriety after the 9/11 attacks, and because I believe that we are both fans of Mr. Clancy's work.

I wrote:

In his 1994 novel Debt of Honor, Clancy writes of an attack on the U.S. Capitol building by a Japanese terrorist - a catastrophy that, through succession, promotes protagonist Jack Ryan to the U.S. Presidency. Seven years later, in reality, "Islamic" terrorists launch just such an attack against major U.S. targets using the same weapon - U.S. [sic] jet airliners.

You re-edited my statement, adding more details which I perceive to be in defense of Mr. Clancy. I find this ironic, since the original purpose of my adding the "9/11" section was not to accuse or attack Mr. Clancy. I wrote it to document:

1. The fact that Mr. Clancy was indeed involved in a controversy involving his novel during 9/11.

2. To explore the underlying question of that controversy -

  "why didn't authorities prevent the attack after it had been previously dramatized in popular fiction?"

3. To suggest that the press suddenly and vindictively lost interest in Mr. Clancy once he started criticizing the news media.

Why doesn't my "9/11" section convey any defense of Mr. Clancy now? Because it has gradually been re-edited to the point that the original thesis is un-recognizable.

I believe if you had had the opportunity to read the original then you would have settled for simply changing the term "U.S. jet airliners" to just "jet airliners". "Debt of Honor has an empty plane, 9/11 had four planes loaded with passengers. "Debt of Honor" was a Japanese airliner and 9/11 was U.S. jet airliners. To me it doesn't matter - it is the same horrific concept of terror. "Debt of Honor" is just "9/11-light". Mr. Clancy was not responsible for it, but he did write about it.

You also deleted my reference to the movie "Black Sunday", stating that it was irrelevent. It was irrelevent when you read the article, because the entire section had previously been gutted by another editor, leaving the "irrelevent" paragraph without context. Here is the original "9/11" section circa May 5th, 2009:

The 9/11 Attack

In his 1994 novel "Debt of Honor", Clancy writes of an attack on the U.S. Capitol building by Japanese terrorists - a catastrophy that, through succession, promotes protagonist Jack Ryan to the U.S. Presidency. Seven years later, in reality, "Islamic" terrorists launch just such an attack against major U.S. targets using the same weapon - U.S. [sic] jet airliners.

Clancy's prophetic plot is not lost on the news media. On the tense afternoon of September 11th, 2001, Mr. Clancy is interviewed by Judy Woodruff on CNN[8]. Among other observations during this interview, Mr. Clancy criticises the news media's treatment of the U.S. intelligence community. Mr. Clancy appeared again on that fateful day, this time on PBS's Charlie Rose [9], where he debated Vice-Presidential candidate Senator John Edwards. News media interest in Clancy and his novel then seemed to evaporate, until his September 21, 2001, O'Reilly Factor interview on Fox News.

In 1977 the motion picture "Black Sunday" (a veiled reference to the infamous Palestinian terrorist group Black September) dramatized a similar terrorist attack against the United States using a hovering blimp to attack a crowded football stadium.

Freedom of speech and creative expression in Western society bears the inherent risk that enemies of that society may use this uncontrolled knowledge against it. In another quote from his The O'Reilly Factor interview, regarding the publication of his "Debt of Honor" Mr. Clancy states:

"Bill, that's the price you pay for living in a free society, as we have today. If you want to go be like the Soviet Union, where it was illegal, for example, to take a photograph of a train station, just -- you know, you can restrict our civil liberties that far, but you end up being like the Soviet Union was, and that was a failure."

So while it is likely that many enemies of Western society were educated in the West or have heavy exposure to Western popular culture [reference to the biography of Kim Jong-il], it is unproven whether the publication of Mr. Clancy's novel "Debt of Honor" or news media coverage of the U.S. Intelligence community contributed to the the success of the 9/11 attacks.

Other Tom Clancy novels involve plots with terrorists triggering a nuclear device at the Super Bowl in Colorado Sum of All Fears (1991) and teams of armed terrorists assaulting crowded U.S. shopping malls with automatic weaponsTeeth of the Tiger (2003).

The paragraph regarding "Black Sunday" was a clear example of where other writers like Thomas Harris (Black September 1975) had made similar "suggestions" before Tom Clancy had even started writing. So, even if popular fiction writers have given "ideas" to terrorists, Clancy was certainly not the first one. In an academic, reasoned way, I was defending Mr. Clancy.

"But who suggested that Clancy was providing a guide-map for terrorists in the first place?" you may ask. The press was not interviewing him on 9/11 because they suspected that he was a prophet or a villian. Underlying the sudden controversy surrounding Clancy and his "Debt of Honor" was the lingering question "Did the novel or ones like it show how it could be done?". And who was brave enough to ask the question? Bill O'Reilly:

It is so close to what really happened. And my question in my mind was, if Tom Clancy can write about this and put forth a very plausible scenario, and I know all the intelligence guys in the United States read your books, why weren't they more -- why wasn't there more urgency to make it more difficult to do what happened?

The sub-text here is - If Clancy and other fiction writers warned the good guys, didn't they also advise the bad guys too? Clancy's sensible answer to O'Reilly's question is quoted above.

I do not want to re-edit your work without consulting you first. I am going to try to negociate with the other editor to restore my work to some semblance of its former meaning.

I also wrote/edited another section later in the TC article:

Debt of Honor (1994) In this prophetic novel, a secret cabal of extreme nationalists gains control of Japan (having acquired some nuclear weapons), and start a war with the U.S. Ryan, now National Security Advisor, and Clark and Chavez, agents in Japan, help win the war. The Vice President resigns in a scandal, and the President appoints Ryan to replace him. A vengeful, die-hard Japanese airline pilot then crashes a jetliner into the U.S. Capital during a joint session of Congress attended by most senior U.S. government leaders, including the President. Ryan thus becomes the new President through succession.

This embodies many of the additional plot details that you thought were missing.

Vosperdw (talk) 09:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

To User: User:Kakashi-sensei (a.k.a. Patrick Michael Murphy) Mr. Murphy;

You heavily edited my new "9/11" section of Tom Clancy's bio on 22:22, 13 May 2009. In your editorial label you stated "The entire assertion of this section is completely ridiculous. No one has ever asserted that Clancy's novel had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks."

This was wrong of you because:

1.You made this change uni-laterally, without the customary discussion of the changes here on the TC:Talk/Discussion page.

2. The statement ""The entire assertion of this section is completely ridiculous." is an intemperate, emotional out-burst that is inappropriate in academic circles.

3. The statement "No one has ever asserted that Clancy's novel had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks." is a sweeping generality.

You could have instead stated "I am not aware of anyone ever suggesting that Clancy's novel had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks.", which would be correct since, according to your Talk page, you were about 10 or 11 years old on 9/11/2001.

The "assertion" of my writing was:

1. That multiple media entities sought out Mr. Clancy to interview him about 9/11.

2. That there was an interest in Debt of Honor because of the very valid question: "why didn't authorities prevent the attack after it had been previously dramatized in popular fiction?"

And that question, or one similar to it was asked by Bill O'Reilly in his interview of Tom Clancy (quoted above). O'Reilly's question implied that Tom Clancy's novel should have alerted authorities about the terrorist threat of airplane attacks. But if previous works of fiction (like Black Sunday) "should" have have warned authorities then isn't it natural to ask the question "Did they also instruct terrorists?".

And I came out on Clancy's side when I state that "it is unproven whether the publication of Mr. Clancy's novel "Debt of Honor" ... contributed to the the success of the 9/11 attacks.". Why didn't I say "I believe that Debt of Honor had nothing to do with the success of the 9/11 attacks."? Because I don't know that Osama Ben-Laden or one of his minions did not read Debt of Honor or watch the movie Black Sunday. In academic articles, especially in biographies, you do not state your beliefs, just the facts.

I am going to propose a re-write of my section below. A re-write that hopefully will satisfy all three interested parties.

If you fail to comment here within two weeks, I am going to go ahead and publish my new version. If you uni-laterally change it again then I will have to report the behavior to the Wikipedia editorial reviewers.

Vosperdw (talk) 21:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

A Proposed Compromise text:

The 9/11 Attack and Debt of Honor

In his 1994 novel Debt of Honor, Tom Clancy writes of an attack on the U.S. Capitol building by Japanese terrorists - a catastrophy that, through succession, promotes protagonist Jack Ryan to the U.S. Presidency. Seven years later, in reality, "Islamic" terrorists launch a similar attack against a major government headquarters building in the U.S. Capital (the Pentagon), using the same weapon - a jet airliner.

Clancy's prophetic plot is not lost on the news media. On the tense afternoon of September 11th, 2001, Mr. Clancy is interviewed by Judy Woodruff on CNN . Among other observations during this interview, Mr. Clancy criticises the new media's past treatment of the U.S. intelligence community. Mr. Clancy appeared again on that fateful day, this time on PBS's Charlie Rose , where he debated Vice-Presidential candidate Senator John Edwards. News media interest in Clancy and his novel then seemed to evaporate, until he was interviewed again on the Fox News's The O'Reilly Factor on September 21, 2001,.

But why was the press interested in Clancy and his Debt of Honor? Perhaps they were seeking an answer to the question "Why weren't U.S. authorities better prepared to prevent 9/11, when similar fictional scenerios were so well known?". Hadn't we been given a preemptive warning?

Freedom of speech and creative expression in Western society bears the inherent risk that enemies of that society may use this uncontrolled knowledge against it. In 1977 the motion picture Black Sunday (a veiled reference to the infamous Palestinian terrorist group Black September) dramatized a similar terrorist attack against the United States using a hovering blimp (packed with anti-personel explosives) to attack a crowded football stadium. Thus Black Sunday author Thomas Harris proposed viable methods of arial terrorist attack long before Tom Clancy became an author. So it seems unlikely that the media wanted to blame Clancy and his novel for 9/11.

But the preemptive warning question is asked during the O'Reilly Factor interview:

O'Reilly: It is so close to what really happened. And my question in my mind was, if Tom Clancy can write about this and put forth a very plausible scenario, and I know all the intelligence guys in the United States read your books, why weren't they more -- why wasn't there more urgency to make it more difficult to do what happened?

Clancy: Bill, that's the price you pay for living in a free society, as we have today. If you want to go be like the Soviet Union, where it was illegal, for example, to take a photograph of a train station, just -- you know, you can restrict our civil liberties that far, but you end up being like the Soviet Union was, and that was a failure.

If popular fiction could have alerted authorities then could works of fiction like Debt of Honor not have also instructed terrorists in techniques to attack Western society? It is likely that many enemies of Western society were educated in the West or have heavy exposure to Western popular culture .

It is unproven that either popular fiction or news media coverage of the U.S. Intelligence community significantly contributed to the success of the 9/11 attacks. No one knows if Osama ben-Laden or his minions have watched Black Sunday or read Debt of Honor. It should be pointed out that there are a number of differeneces between the attack outlined in Debt of Honor and the actual 9/11 attack:

1. In the novel the terrorist Sato acted out of rash, reactionary rage at the loss of his two sons, while the 9/11 attacks were planned and executed by determined extremists who had worked for months to prepare for the attacks.

2. Sato used an empty plane and displayed significant regret as he killed his copilot.

3. 9/11 was larger and bloodier.

Other Tom Clancy novels involve plots with terrorists triggering a nuclear device at the Super Bowl in Colorado Sum of All Fears (1991) and teams of armed terrorists assaulting crowded U.S. shopping malls with automatic weapons Teeth of the Tiger (2003). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vosperdw (talk • contribs) 00:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Religion?

In Jack Ryan (Tom Clancy), Ryan is said to be a roman Catholic. Clancy's religious affiliation is also roman Catholic [2]. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 15:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)