Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.89 AVERAGE
3.89 AVERAGE
DNF
Pages read: 32/725
War games and their associated alternate world histories aren't my usual fair, but I was willing to give this one a chance as I like the topics of strategy and politics. I'm 30, small-print pages in and already tired of the book's narrative style, so I'm calling this one quits. The idea of another 700 pages of dry, technical explanations instead of engaging dialogue or even just letting things play out does not sound like a good time to me.
As an example of what I mean, chapter three starts with two Russian military men discussing a planned attack and it goes like this:
Is it standard in this genre to just tell people what's going to happen instead of showing it? Because that's primarily what these first 30 pages seems to be: page after page of the Russian's detailing their war plans. I don't know about you, but I would have rather just seen the war play out and learned about the Russian's strategy by getting to watch the other parties react to it in real time or maybe through spies learning the plans or just anything more engaging than Russians talking with other Russians about a thing that they're going to do, meaning the only source of tension is waiting for the inevitable action to start.
Like I said, this isn't the type of book I usually read, so it may just be an "it's not you, it's me," thing. If this weren't such a long book, I probably would have given it more of a chance because that's really my only issue. The ideas at play were interesting and the writing isn't bad.
Pages read: 32/725
War games and their associated alternate world histories aren't my usual fair, but I was willing to give this one a chance as I like the topics of strategy and politics. I'm 30, small-print pages in and already tired of the book's narrative style, so I'm calling this one quits. The idea of another 700 pages of dry, technical explanations instead of engaging dialogue or even just letting things play out does not sound like a good time to me.
As an example of what I mean, chapter three starts with two Russian military men discussing a planned attack and it goes like this:
"How are we going about it?" Rozhkov asked.
"Red Storm," the Marshal replied simply. Red Storm was the plan for a mechanized attack into West Germany and the Low Countries. Constantly updated for changes in the force structures of both sides, it called for a two- to three-week campaign commencing after a rapid escalation of tension between East and West. Despite this, in accordance with standard Soviet strategic doctrine, it called for strategic surprise as a precondition for success, and the use of conventional weapons only. (page 31)
Is it standard in this genre to just tell people what's going to happen instead of showing it? Because that's primarily what these first 30 pages seems to be: page after page of the Russian's detailing their war plans. I don't know about you, but I would have rather just seen the war play out and learned about the Russian's strategy by getting to watch the other parties react to it in real time or maybe through spies learning the plans or just anything more engaging than Russians talking with other Russians about a thing that they're going to do, meaning the only source of tension is waiting for the inevitable action to start.
Like I said, this isn't the type of book I usually read, so it may just be an "it's not you, it's me," thing. If this weren't such a long book, I probably would have given it more of a chance because that's really my only issue. The ideas at play were interesting and the writing isn't bad.
3.5, I enjoyed it overall but I thought the parts with actual fighting got a bit repetitive, especially on the submarine warfare side. I know that's a big part of the book, but I enjoyed the setup, character-focused, and political parts much more than the fighting. It started off great and finished strong, but I felt a bit of a lull in the middle. But still an interesting look at military strategy and modern warfare that someone who is more into that sort of thing may appreciate.
adventurous
challenging
dark
mysterious
tense
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated
tense
fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
adventurous
informative
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
It turns out that I’m not the Tom Clancy kind of dad.
Content Warnings
Moderate: Sexual assault
tense
fast-paced
This is my first time re-reading this book in approximately 23 years. Back in high school, I was pretty impressed and read it several times.
As an adult, with a lot more reading under my belt (including a B.A. in English), and real-world military experience, as well, let's just say that I came away from Clancy (and Bond)'s book with a completely different impression.
The characters -- completely wooden or outright annoying. Whomever wrote the scenes with Mike Edwards and Vigdis? Might never have talked to a real woman before in their life. The writing itself is lifeless and flat -- for big stretches is reads like a newspaper article most of the time. Not a bad thing sometimes, but for the purposes of this, it made a difficult topic such as war, feel very unauthentic.
Where does Clancy get it right? Pacing. The action starts around 20% of the way into the book after a decent setup, and it doesn't stop until the last 20 or so pages.
Is it worth reading? Eh, if you're a student of writing, this is a good education in plotting and pacing, but try to ignore everything else.
As an adult, with a lot more reading under my belt (including a B.A. in English), and real-world military experience, as well, let's just say that I came away from Clancy (and Bond)'s book with a completely different impression.
The characters -- completely wooden or outright annoying. Whomever wrote the scenes with Mike Edwards and Vigdis? Might never have talked to a real woman before in their life. The writing itself is lifeless and flat -- for big stretches is reads like a newspaper article most of the time. Not a bad thing sometimes, but for the purposes of this, it made a difficult topic such as war, feel very unauthentic.
Where does Clancy get it right? Pacing. The action starts around 20% of the way into the book after a decent setup, and it doesn't stop until the last 20 or so pages.
Is it worth reading? Eh, if you're a student of writing, this is a good education in plotting and pacing, but try to ignore everything else.
adventurous
tense
fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
The book that launched Clancys career (I think?) pretty good. What if the Soviet Union had turned the Cold War hot? Especially centered on Iceland. Eventually the Allies win because ‘murica I guess.