Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Tom Clancy’

Spy Novel TV

Posted in Quotes, Reviews, Series (TV or Streaming) Review, TV Series, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on July 17, 2023| Leave a Comment »

“Jack Ryan”  —  (Seasons 1 – 4) (2018, 2019, 2022, and 2023)
Today’s review is for the four season / 30 episode Amazon Prime video series “Jack Ryan” starring:  John Krasinski as Dr. Jack Ryan (main character / hero / CIA analyst), Wendell Pierce as James Greer (Jack’s senior agent / friend), Abbie Cornish as Dr. Cathy Mueller (Jack’s love interest), Michael Kelly as Mike November (a recurring role / field agent who can do a little of everything) and Michael Peña as Domingo Chavez (a former Navy SEAL and a senior CIA operative).  The series is an action / drama / spy thriller which (to my mind) tries to impress everyone with the need for and effectiveness of the Central Intelligence Agency.  There have been numerous public relations shows (movies and TV) for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) over the decades and this series tries to do positive PR for the CIA.  It mostly succeeds.
There are (to date) four seasons:
Season 1 (eight episodes):  Islamic terrorists want to release nerve gas to kill the President and several members of the Cabinet.  Curiously, the goal doesn’t seem to be to cripple the U.S., just to continue the disruption of the country with the goal of keeping terror in our hearts.
Season 2 (eight episodes):  Jack (Greer and November) are in the middle of political warfare in a corrupt Venezuela to determine their Presidential election.  Of course, the CIA is on the side of the noble female and against the reelection of the corrupt current President.  The U.S. interest is in a mineral which Venezuela has recently discovered and a plot by a U.S. Senator to profit off of the discovery.
Season 3 (eight episodes):  Jack stops a plot to re-create the former Soviet Union by detonating an untraceable tactical nuclear bomb in a former Soviet country.
Season 4 (six episodes):  Jack, newly promoted to the CIA’s acting deputy director (for internal affairs), must stop a Mexican drug cartel joining up with an international terrorist organization trying to release biological weapons in Texas.  It is never really explained why either a cartel or a terrorist organization want to do this.  The impression is that it’s only for the money.
Running time is from 40-64 minutes of 30 episodes, so you’re looking at a 25+ hour commitment for viewing all episodes and seasons.
So, is the series any good?  The acting?  The drama?  The action?  And, do I recommend your investing your time watching it?  The short answers are all:  it’s an okay series and, if you like this genre, you’ll like the series.
Background:  I have been a big fan of Tom Clancy (the character’s creator and novels author) for many years.  I’ve read several of his books and seen most of the theatrical adaptations over the decades, so I’m very familiar with the title character.  I own and have seen the other five movies, although I’ve not viewed any of them recently.  I have also read several of Clancy’s other “series” / works.  Generally, his works are very detailed and specific in how military technology is actually used (and intended for use) and therefore his writing style is action / drama oriented and translates well to cinema.  It is rarely ever original, though.  (IMHO)  That is not a criticism of his work, after all, a murder mystery is a murder mystery is a murder mystery…  It’s the fleshing out of the characters and the clues which make the difference for us as readers or viewers.  The bottom line is you know what you’re going to get when you start one (book or movie) and the question is really:  does it deliver.
The series (all four years) is entertaining and does deliver within those limits.  It delivers reasonably good character and story development.  The action(s) is reasonably paced with “something” happening in every other episode and alternates between character development and action.  Note:  the action is “entertaining”;  it is not “realistic”.  As for the show itself, I (personally) felt all / each of the four years were too long (too many episodes) and they could have all been shortened to the 3 to 4 hour length (each) and been just as entertaining.  In fact, the first three seasons (eight episodes each) were mostly sub-hour episodes and the fourth season was six episodes of mostly full-hour episodes.  But, then (I guess), the “series” would have been just LONG movies and not a true episodic TV series.  The running theme in the series is that our enemies are foreign and domestic.  Each of the seasons turns on someone high in the U.S. government betraying us (the country) for profit.
Of all the characters and scenes in the series, I found Michael Peña as Domingo Chavez was my favorite.  The Ryan character is consistently played as a “Boy Scout” / good-guy who does things for the “right” reasons.  (Mostly BORING.)  Chavez is NOT.  He is a stone cold assassin type killer.  Not a murderer (for no reason);  but a weapon, you point at the enemy when you want to get the job done and who defines himself by his relentlessness.  My favorite scene in all four seasons is:  the good guys have broken into the bad guys lair, taken him prisoner and retrieved the triggering device(s).  They are about to leave (leaving the bad guy alive) when the bad guy calls out to them (roughly – not a direct quote):  “You can’t do this!  Not to me!  I will track you down and kill you and your families!”  Chavez turns and shoots him in the head.  Everyone else looks at Chavez, but he doesn’t even shrug.  A completely missed opportunity in the dialogue was Chavez should have quipped:  “YOU won’t,” in a classic 007 / James Bond style response.
Final recommendation:  moderate to strong.  To quote Abraham Lincoln:  “For people who like this sort of thing, this is the sort of thing they like.”  I did – but like I said, a bit too long.  I imagine the series would have been better viewing spaced out instead of binged in three sittings as I did it.  The series has apparently concluded as the lead actor (Krasinski) was only contracted for four years.  The concluding scene leaves a perfect opening for a spin-off “team” series, but I think they will need a new center piece if Krasinski doesn’t return.
.
Click here (17 July) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Refreshing My Look Ahead (Back)

Posted in 2022 Book Review, Book Review, History, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on May 2, 2022| Leave a Comment »

[Another LONG post…  You’ve been warned!  (LoL)    —    kmab]
The Third World War:  August 1985  (1978©)   —   book review
This review is for the fictional portrayal (as a “future history”) of a “realistic” invasion of NATO allied European countries by the Warsaw Pact in August of 1985.  The book was “written” primarily (et al) by (Ret.) British General John W. Hackett in consultation with a number of experts gathered to discuss how such an invasion might occur, what might lead up to it and what might be the end-of-war results.  The “advisors” were listed as:  John Barraclough (Air Chief Marshal), Kenneth Hunt (Brigadier), Ian McGeoch (Vice-Admiral), Norman Macrae (a deputy editor at “The Economist“), John Strawson (Major-General), and, Bernard Burrows (British Diplomatic Service).
The book was a best-seller in England back in 1978.  It was published in the U.S. in early 1979 as a hardback and then released as a paperback in 1980.  I initially read the paperback version.  I believe it was shortly after I was released from the Active Reserves, but my memory isn’t that precise anymore.  In any case, this review is of a re-reading of the book after my reading of “2034: A Novel of the Next World War” earlier this year.  (review here:  A Novel War).  The author of that book, (ret) Admiral James Stavridis, cited this book as a primary inspiration for his work.  This prompted my re-interest in the original…
During my (almost) two years in the Reserves I was assigned to a unit which tested and evaluated the readiness of National Guard units from California, Arizona and New Mexico.  The officers would establish “war-game” scenarios for the Guard officers and I (as an NCO) would embed with the line units to evaluate actual field performance.  We were artillery evaluators, so I watched Guard batteries fire cannons / howitzers, but I gained an understanding of scenario development and large scale tactical war-gaming.  This led to a post-service interest in military style board games which carried on for most of the ’80s.  I lost interest when gaming shifted to computers and became “mostly” shoot-em-up’s instead of (IMHO) about strategy.
Basically, the plot of this book is the leaders of the USSR feel their position as a superpower is being threatened by political and economic factors which are worsening (for them).  They feel there has been a significant / progressive decrease in NATO’s readiness over the last decade and this may be their last / best opportunity to remove a potential military threat (NATO) and further subjugate the buffer countries of Eastern Europe who are members of the Warsaw Pact.  The plan is a crushing invasion of Western Europe (West Germany and the low-lands) which leaves the USSR in command up to the border of France.  The invasion fails because in the years between the book’s publishing (1978) and the date of the “future-history” event (August 1985), Europe (specifically Great Britain) comes to its senses and reverses the general military decline of the late ’60s to ’70s.  The NATO forces are able to slow the advance of invasion (without the use of tactical nuclear weapons) and allows reinforcements to arrive from the U.S. just in the nick of time.
In a striking foreboding of the current (2022) invasion of Ukraine by Russia, the invasion portrayed fails because of (in no particular order of importance):
1)  an inability to dominate the air despite superior numerical assets;
2)  a failure of logistics (fuel and ammunition) by the Warsaw Pact, (it is believed the invasion will take less than two weeks AND there will not be enough time for the U.S. to resupply NATO forces);
3)  resistance by the native forces (in this case, the West German army / reserves) is surprisingly effective;  and,
4)  the centralized command and control characteristic of authoritarian political systems, does not promote the flexibility / initiative of junior officers (and NCOs) to seize military opportunities when they arise, so opportunities for significant breakouts are lost.
When the war quickly (the “war” lasts weeks) devolves into a war of attrition, failure is viewed as inevitable and hard-liners in the Politburo decide to consolidate their gains for future armistice negotiations by the use of a limited (against only one city) nuclear strike.  The result, however, is not fear and negotiation, but instead, fury and retaliation via a similar limited nuclear strike by Great Britain and the U.S. against a Russian city;  (and like falling dominoes) the Warsaw Pact allies turn on the USSR to avoid nuclear annihilation;  the Soviet military / security services stage a coup, over-throw the hardliners, and cease further combat;  the non-Russian border states (the “-stans”) declare independence from the USSR;  and, the rest of the world struggles with the effects of a new world order.  The “war” is barely a month old before it is over.  Because the book is written as a “recent” history of past events, it does not attempt to forecast / describe long term results of the war except to relate the world has to deal with unaccounted for Soviet nuclear weapons / warheads and large stocks of conventional weapons scattered around the global (mainly Africa).
Is this a “good” book?  Is it realistic as a predictor of future conflict (lethality, if not participants)?  Is it entertaining or interesting?  Do I recommend this book?  With the exception of the final question, the answer to all of these is (are):  yes to so-so…
The book is not a “good” novel.  There are no specified individual characters driving the action, so you cannot (as a reader) identify and grow with anyone.  In this sense, although fictional, the book is written with more of an academic or journalistic feel.  It is very much an military style “after-action” report.  If you are comfortable with this writing style, you will enjoy the writing / book.  If you are not, you will not.  I did.  Was the book able to realistically describe combat and the results (devastation) of war?  Yes!  Although, saying this, there was an obvious Western bias of vivid description of the destruction of the British city and virtually nothing about the similar (or much worse) destruction of the Russian city.  (Very much:  “Yeah, we took out one of theirs as payback…”)  Is the book entertaining or interesting?  This is the toughest question because every reader’s tastes varies so much… I was not “entertained”;  but, I did find the book interesting.  I particularly “enjoyed” the parts the authors get terribly wrong, because as a reader I (we) have 40+ years of hind-sight.  There is no China – Japan alliance;  the Shah is no longer in charge of Iran (or, rather, wasn’t in 1985);  South Africa did not fall to external forces;  and, East Germany did not resist consolidation with West Germany after the fall of the USSR.
Final recommendation:  strong recommendation.  I think most veterans (particularly my age group) will find this book relatable.  I think most civilian “military” readers / historians – and quite a few regular historians – will, too.  For political science readers, the “states” interests, goals, and stances will seem Machiavellian / Kissinger-ian (is that a real word?).  Yet, they ring true – even 40 years later.  It is entirely obvious why this book could seem as an inspiration for a future – updated version (a la “2034“), and I believe (I read) this book served as a similar inspiration for several of Tom Clancy’s works which followed.  At any rate, I do remember “enjoying” the initial read from “way-back-when”, and don’t feel the re-read was less so.  My reaction to “2034” was reinforced:  this version is much better than the more recent book.  If you have read “2034“, I recommend you read “WW3:1985” for the comparison value, if nothing else.
Final disclaimer:  I purchased this book at normal / sale price (for an old / used book) and no compensation has been provided to me by anyone for my opinions in this review.
.
Click here (2 May) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

A Novel War

Posted in 2021 Book Review, Book Review, Disclaimer, Reading, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on March 25, 2021| Leave a Comment »

“2034: A Novel of the Next World War”  (2021©)  —  book review
The book subject to today’s review was written by Elliot Ackerman, James Stavridis Admiral USN (ret.).  Ackerman is a former White House Fellow and decorated Marine veteran.  Stavridis is, of course, best known as a four-star Admiral and former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO.  Ackerman is a working journalist / opinion writer and both are authors of multiple books.  That’s pretty much their bonafides for writing a “future – history” about world war / combat.
This novel is set thirteen years in the future.  Putin is still in charge of Russia.  The U.S. has a female President from an Independent party.  And, we don’t really know much about anyone else in charge around the world.  We know China is pushing its claims in the northern Pacific, yet Taiwan remains an independent “nation” state.  India has somehow “resolved” the Pakistan issue in its favor, but we don’t know what that means for either India or Pakistan.  NATO is in disarray without strong U.S. leadership.  And, finally, Iran has had some success against Israel.  What isn’t exactly made clear, except Iran has somehow “freed” the Golan Heights.
Background:  The first third of this book was published as a special “full dedicated issue” recently in Wired magazine, which I subscribe to.  I have read EVERY issue of the magazine since inception back in 1993.  The company I worked for back in 2000 had all of the back issues on a shelf and I would “borrow” them one at a time, read cover to cover and then bring them back.  As far as I know, no one else EVER read any of them, as once I was hired, I kept the current ones on my desk and no one ever asked for them.  Shortly before leaving the company, I got a personal subscription and have continued reading them for the last 20 years.  Anyway, Wired‘s issue left you hanging with the promise of a future novel publication in March 2021.  My review is of the full publication.  This book was one of two I received as a birthday present from my wife.
And,…  This book is about a military conflict between China and the United States.  Supposedly, China is an ascending world power and the U.S. is a descending / failing world power.  China stages a confrontation in order to demonstrate its military superiority – and the world slips into war.
Is the book interesting?  Informative?  Entertaining?  Accurate – technologically, politically or militarily?  Is it worth the time to read it?  To be honest, the magazine promised more than the book delivered.  The answer to all five of those questions is mostly so-so…
It is a fast read at barely over 300 pages.  The problem is there isn’t much there – there.  I don’t know how much (if any) current military capability Ackerman has access to.  It is a given (to me) that Stavridis would have had nearly unlimited access (pre-retirement anyway).  The problem is, of course, the book would have had to be submitted to and cleared through State and DOD before it was published and neither agencies (nor the authors) would have been inclined to offer much useful information in a novel.
With nothing but the most general capabilities described we get a lot of implausible “magic” technology under the guise of “AI” (Artificial Intelligence) which seems to work perfectly and then not at all.  We get very poor strategic decisions / action by the U.S.; we get some oversimplification of other technologies (overseas internet cabling);  side tracks by Russia and Iran, which seem to have been added to make the conflict global rather than China vs. U.S.;  and then we get a couple of miracles at the end by India to conclude the novel / war.  That pretty much covers the “informative and accuracy” portion of this review.
What about interesting and entertaining?  Again, so-so…  There are five main characters: female American Admiral, male American fighter pilot, male American (Indian immigrant) NSC advisor, male Iranian officer (he ends up with various ranks), and the main Chinese (half-American) Admiral.  The story is told from each of their viewpoints.  (Yes, there are also another handful of secondary but important characters, but this is really about the big five.)
The problem I had was the number of characters made for a long, deep story which developed each character to the point where you cared about them without giving away too much plot / ending.  Unfortunately, this book is neither long nor deep, which meant you almost cared, but not quite.  And, again unfortunately, it was almost entirely predictable and therefore, while I finished feeling entertained, I didn’t feel satisfied – emotionally or intellectually.
Then is it worth your time, then?  Yes!  It raises the interesting question if military technology is useful if it is subject to (can be negated by) a less expensive counter-measure.  In this case, the apparent answer is that if the elephant is blinded, it is still an elephant and not easily overwhelmed.
Final recommendation:  moderate to strong.  This is not Tom Clancy or Sir John Hackett level political, military or strategy writing, but I did find it entertaining even if not informative or militarily consistent.  I’m grateful to have received it as a present, because I’d have waited for the paperback or a very reduced price before buying it myself.  So I got to read something almost literally hot off the presses…
Final disclaimer:  I purchased this book at normal / sale price and no compensation has been provided to me by anyone for my opinions in this review.
.
Click here (25 March) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Pretending

Posted in My Journal, Quotes, Work, tagged , , , , , , , on February 26, 2017| Leave a Comment »

In the Soviet Union every worker is a government worker, and they have a saying:  “As long as the bosses pretend to pay us, we will pretend to work.“
    —   Tom Clancy
From his novel:  “The Hunt For Red October“
.
Click here (26 February) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Who You Are

Posted in Other Blogs, Philosophy, Quotes, tagged , , , , , , , , , on December 22, 2013| 2 Comments »

I understand why we do that now.  It’s a help, not a threat.  It’s something to remind you how important words are.  Ideas are important.  Principles are important.  Words are important.  Your word is the most important of all.  Your word is who you are.
     —    Tom Clancy
[Found on a blog I follow:  http://dshenai.wordpress.com/
The specific post is:  http://dshenai.wordpress.com/2013/10/03/tribute-to-tom-clancy-with-his-insightful-quotes/
Thanks Deo!   —   kmab]
.
Click here (22 December) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

The Real Reason

Posted in Other Blogs, Philosophy, Politics, Quotes, tagged , , , , , , on November 30, 2013| 2 Comments »

Remember, for every shot you fire, someone, somewhere, is making money.
     —    Tom Clancy
[Found on a blog I follow:  http://dshenai.wordpress.com/
The specific post is:  http://dshenai.wordpress.com/2013/10/03/tribute-to-tom-clancy-with-his-insightful-quotes/
Thanks Deo!   —    kmab]
.
Click here (30 November) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Filled With Words

Posted in Other Blogs, Philosophy, Quotes, Writing, tagged , , , , , , on November 21, 2013| 6 Comments »

Success is a finished book, a stack of pages each of which is filled with words.  If you reach that point, you have won a victory over yourself no less impressive than sailing single-handed around the world.
     —    Tom Clancy
[Found on a blog I follow:  http://dshenai.wordpress.com/
The specific post is:  http://dshenai.wordpress.com/2013/10/03/tribute-to-tom-clancy-with-his-insightful-quotes/
Thanks Deo!     —    kmab]
.
Click here (21 November) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

I’d Like To

Posted in Other Blogs, Philosophy, Quotes, Reading, tagged , , , , , on October 23, 2013| 4 Comments »

The Only way to do all the things you’d like to do is to read.
     —    Tom Clancy
[Found on a blog I follow:  http://dshenai.wordpress.com/
The specific post is:  http://dshenai.wordpress.com/2013/10/03/tribute-to-tom-clancy-with-his-insightful-quotes/
Thanks Deo!   —    kmab]
.
Click here (23 October) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started