EO and DOH plot -- SPOILER warning
gjef...@mdc.com
Text: This posting discusses the plot and philosophy of Clancy's two most
recent novels--do not read this if you haven't read the books and don't
want to know anything about them in advance.
TC tells tremendously entertaining stories, and EO may be his most entertaining
yet. However, the genesis of his dramatic concept for EO (and the climax of
DOH) is that a terrorist, on the spur of the moment(!) flies a full-fuel 747
into the Capitol during an emergency joint session. This kills the President,
the entire Congress, the entire Senate, the entire Supreme Court, and all the
Joint Chiefs of Staff. And it just happens that the hero was made VP five
minutes before, so now he's the head guy in charge of everything, without that
pesky Congress and Senate to worry about.
Okay. Wildly unlikely, but hey, it sets the stage for a hell of a story, right?
Let's assume that DID happen (and theoretically, it could) along with the
machinations of foreign leaders, and the convenient outbreak of an airborne
Ebola case under the care of just the right doctor. Now TC weaves us one of
his powerfully realistic thrillers, with a sound, moral center, and characters
acting logically in accordance with their own beliefs, right?
Well...one problem.
The message in EO is that as we stand today in America,
1: A large number of elected officials in the federal legislature are corrupt
and/or entrenched in a bad system and are able to perpetuate their own
existence (to the detriment of the country) because of the power they have
achieved and expanded, and they will continue to do this, and
2: The Supreme Court has ignored the Constitution and written its own rules in
defiance of that document, and
3: The Cabinet and Joint Chiefs have their own little fiefdoms, and are just as
bad as the first group, if not worse.
The solution as expressed in DOH and EO is to kill them all with a 747 and
start over! That all we need is one good man who won't be corrupted, without
all those damn bureaucrats in his way. And as proof that this is what we HAVE
to have, in EO the ONE surviving member of the old guard is slimebucket Ed
Kealty (= Ted Kennedy) who lies and cheats to get his job back after due process
was used to throw him out. Maybe he should have killed him, too.
All this makes for a wonderful, fun read ***EXCEPT*** TC wimps out and throws
those two "Mountain Men" into the picture.
Why is this so bad?
The "Mountain Men" represent whatever antigovernment group or smattering of
individuals that the media have targeted on today's 5:00 news for us to hate
and fear. And with brave Jack Ryan trying to save the country all by himself,
what do Gomer and Goober want to do? Kill Ryan and whoever is within a quarter
mile of him with a cement truck full of ANFO and thirty thousand ounce-and-a-half
chunks of lead. And why do they want to do this? Because he's a 'crat, like
all the others that died, and if he gets snuffed too, then the government would
really be wrecked, and there would have to be a Constitutional Convention.
Time for a reality check. A Constitutional Convention IS THE LAST THING THAT
"ANTIGOVERNMENT" PEOPLE WANT. With a Constitutional Convention, the Constitution
can be rewritten. And who would rewrite it?
The remaining 'crats that the Mountain Men hate, that's who.
And HOW would they rewrite it? Well, with the Capitol destroyed, two presidents
dead, Congress and Senate all dead, Supreme Court dead, Joint Chiefs dead, all
killed in terrorist actions one after the other...hmmm...
Maybe rewrite it without all those looney amendments in the Bill of Rights that
let the crazies get away with murder? Yeah, that's the ticket...
My point is, "antigovernment" types want to RETURN to the Constitution.
They DON'T want to rewrite it. Rewriting it by passing laws that ignore its
restrictions is how we got in trouble. The plot basis for EO, where the whole
government gets killed off and one man who DOESN'T LIKE politicians comes in
and starts appointing others of like mind, THIS IS THE WET DREAM of all the
"Mountain Men" types throughout America. If the plot in EO actually came to
pass, "Mountain Men" groups around the country would rejoice, and then
disappear overnight. Want proof? "Survivalists" were big in the news in
'78-'81 or so. Inflation at 15%, prime rate at 20%,precious metals going
through the roof, military being slashed while Soviet troops sat on the Czech
border and also invaded Afghanistan, hostages taken in Iran, and we were
"giving away the Panama Canal to some tin-pot dictator". Remember that?
Then what happened? Reagan built up the military, called the Soviet Union an
"Evil Empire", and instituted policies that reduced the inflation rate and
interest rate. With much of their concerns aleviated, the survivalist groups
began to evaporate like a puddle in 110 degree heat.
In EO, the Real "Mountain Man", who wants to kill the 'crats and "take this
country back" (as you so often hear) is...TOM CLANCY. And that's fine--it's
fiction, and it makes for a hell of a read. No apologies needed.
But the two loners with the cement truck? They're a cop-out, Mr. Clancy. Cut
them out of the story, and your book would be an honorable work.
For those of you in this newsgroup who read technothrillers by other authors as
well, there is one I can recommend which deals with this same out-of-control-
government issue in a frighteningly believeable way.
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES by John Ross is so realistic that there appears to be
a "blackout" on it in the media. (My library refused to buy it!) Despite this,
it's in its second printing already. (Reminds me of the deal with Aldrich's
UNLIMITED ACCESS.)
In UC, four congressmen get killed. What was Stalin's quote Clancy used in EO?
"One death is a tragedy, six million is a statistic." Maybe that fits here.
I understand Arlen Specter read UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES, and he said "Now I get
cold chills whenever I walk out my front door in the morning". The federal
prosecutor who nailed Agnew loved it, and is quoted on the dust jacket.
If you want to get your bookstore to order it for you, the ISBN number
is 1-888118-04-0. I think it's $28-$29 or so.
There are several reviews of this book on the net. One of them is by syndicated
columnist Vin Suprynowicz. Do a search using his name, the author's name, and
the title.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This article was posted to Usenet via the Posting Service at Deja News:
http://www.dejanews.com/ [Search, Post, and Read Usenet News!]
John Ross
In <8406637...@dejanews.com> gjef...@mdc.com writes:
>
>Text: This posting discusses the plot and philosophy of Clancy's most
recent novel--do not read this if you haven't read the book and don't
>want to know anything about it in advance.
and cheats to get his job back after due process was used to throw him
alleviated, the survivalist groups began to evaporate like a puddle in
110 degree heat.
>
>In EO, the Real "Mountain Man", who wants to kill the 'crats and "take
this country back" (as you so often hear) is...TOM CLANCY. And that's
fine--it's fiction, and it makes for a hell of a read. No apologies
needed.
>
>But the two loners with the cement truck? They're a cop-out, Mr.
Clancy. Cut them out of the story, and your book would be an honorable
work.
>
>For those of you in this newsgroup who read technothrillers by other
authors as well, there is one I can recommend which deals with this
same out-of-control-government issue in a frighteningly believeable
way.
>UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES by John Ross is so realistic that there
appears to be a "blackout" on it in the media. (My library refused to
buy it!) Despite this, it's in its second printing already. (Reminds me
of the deal with Aldrich's UNLIMITED ACCESS.)
>
>In UC, four congressmen get killed. What was Stalin's quote Clancy
used in EO? "One death is a tragedy, six million is a statistic."
Maybe that fits here.
>
>I understand Arlen Specter read UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES, and he said
"Now I get cold chills whenever I walk out my front door in the
morning". The federal prosecutor who nailed Agnew loved it, and is
quoted on the dust jacket.
>
>If you want to get your bookstore to order it for you, the ISBN number
is 1-888118-04-0. I think it's $28-$29 or so, and about the same size
as EO.
>
>There are several reviews of this book on the net. One of them is by
syndicated columnist Vin Suprynowicz. Do a search using his name, the
author's name, and the title.
>
John Ross responds:
I am the author of UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES that gjef...@mdc.com
mentioned in the above post. I agree with many of his points, but
thought I'd put in my two cents worth.
On the issue of the "Mountain Men," we need to cut Mr. Clancy some
much-deserved slack. The fact is (and here I speak from substantial
personal experience), if he had NOT put this small section in, the book
may well have never made it to your bookstore. Book publishers which
serve a large mainstream market are like movie studios and television
networks in that they must adhere to an unwritten set of rules about
their product--a code of conduct, if you will. Publishers are less
restricted than studios and TV networks, but they ARE constrained.
The biggest no-no for these people is any story which presents a
reasoned argument that an existing set of long-standing, basic tenets
of law in this country is fundamentally and morally wrong. Breaking
this taboo is ten times worse if, in your story, violence is the only
viable solution.
It is acceptable to show a corrupt senior government official, even the
President, if the system triumphs in the end, as in Clear and Present
Danger. It is acceptable to show a corrupt system IN THE PAST, such as
a story about slavery, for rightness has since prevailed. It is
acceptable to portray a completely corrupt U.S. government if the story
is set in the distant future, for that is fantasy. Film examples are
Escape from New York/L.A., Rollerball, Blade Runner, Robocop, Total
Recall, Judge Dredd, and (best of all) The Running Man. And of course
it is acceptable to show a corrupt foreign system in any era
(Braveheart comes to mind.)
It is NOT acceptable to show that our real-life CURRENT system here in
the U.S. has been morally corrupted, that evil has become
institutionalized, and that the only cure is violence. The above
poster is right--Clancy's message in EO is EXACTLY the same point that
"Mountain Men" types make: Politicians and the Supreme Court have
ignored the Constitution and trampled on our rights. Since they run the
system, only a violent upheaval is likely to change that.
This is where Tom Clancy had to do some very careful footwork. The
Mountain Men's (irrational) actions as currently written in EO are
absolutely necessary. It is the only way the reader can vilify the
Mountain Men while cheering a protagonist who embraces the Mountain
Men's core beliefs. If you doubt this is true, play a little mental
exercise with me here, and let me rewrite this very small but critical
part of the book to illustrate my point.
The two Mountain Men go to Washington, see the devastation, realize
that almost the whole government is gone, and are quietly pleased. (No
change so far.) When Ryan takes the reins of the Presidency, they are
skeptical, and adopt a cautious "wait-and-see" attitude, making it
clear to the reader that they are prepared to enact violence should
they deem it necessary. (Much more consistent with their beliefs than
immediately plotting to kill Ryan.)
Ryan publicly expresses disdain for business-as-usual politics, and
appoints successful people from the private sector to posts formerly
held by career socialists. He gets legal scholars to give him a list
of Supreme Court candidates that will obey the Constitution. The
Mountain Men are in a bar or truck stop, and when Ryan speaks of these
things on television, the patrons (ex-marines and other "real men"
types) cheer, just as in the real version.
The Mountain Men, in my alternate version, cautiously share this
enthusiasm. They are "get-it-done" people, however, and realize that
the country may need a little help getting back on track. As in the
real version, they're not about to shirk from violence, if that's
what's needed. They accurately spot the one thing which could derail
the less-taxes-smaller-government effort that Ryan is leading: career
slimebucket socialist Edward Kealty who is trying to replace Ryan as
President.
The pair see their duty. They head back east, not in a cement truck
carrying ANFO and Minie balls, but in a Buick carrying a rawhide
mallet, a kitchen knife, and some amyl nitrate. They hit Kealty over
the head while he's drunk and staggering out of his mistress'
apartment, and they leave him in an alley in the red light section of
Washington with his pants around his ankles, his wallet missing, the
knife sticking out of his chest, and poppers in his pocket. They drive
back to Montana.
Kealty gets found by the cops, obviously killed for what was in his
wallet by a crackhead whore who was giving him oral sex. Kealty is
thus taken out of the equation and discredited, just as happened with
his silly lawsuit in the existing text.
These changes are completely logical, and would not alter any of the
dynamics of the book. The beliefs, actions, and moral character of
everyone in the story would be unchanged. Ryan's challenges with
Ebola, the UIR, India, Russia, the media, the kidnapping attempt, the
"sleeper" agents, etc. would stay the same.
THESE CHANGES WOULD NOT ALTER THE STORY AT ALL, EXCEPT TO MAKE THE
PUBLISHER TREAT IT LIKE PLUTONIUM.
The above poster needs to realize that the Mountain Men's absurd wish
for a Constitutional Convention and their irrational efforts to cause
it are absolutely necessary. It is the only way the author could show
in a favor
able light the violent removal of our current regime, and still get his
book accepted in the mainstream. If he wrote the version I just
suggested and it did get published, mainstream reviewers would either
institute a blackout, or brand EO a "dangerous right-wing fantasy." It
is a measure of Mr. Clancy's stature as a novelist that writing in the
brief cement truck segment was *all* he had to do.
I know these things to be true, for although independent reviewers have
praised my book, UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES, mainstream reviewers such as
Kirkus Reviews, Booklist, and Library Journal have ALL refused to
review it. This is odd for an 860-page hardcover that sold out its
first printing in 5 months with no advertising. As Mr. Jeffery has
discovered, some libraries will not carry it, yet one library bought 14
copies and there is still an 8-week waiting list for it.
BTW, I understand Tom Clancy himself reads this newsgroup sometimes.
Sir, you and Donald Hamilton are my two favorite authors. I sent both
of you first-print-run copies, but I fear the snail mail address Neal
Knox gave me for you may have been out of date. (DH really liked it,
by the way.) Email me a current shipping address, and I'll get you out
another copy, if you would like.
John Ross
PMccutc103
jfr...@ix.netcom.com(John Ross) wrote:
>
>John Ross responds:
>
>I am the author of UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES that gjef...@mdc.com
>mentioned in the above post. I agree with many of his points, but
>thought I'd put in my two cents worth.
>
>On the issue of the "Mountain Men," we need to cut Mr. Clancy some
>much-deserved slack. The fact is (and here I speak from substantial
>personal experience), if he had NOT put this small section in, the book
>may well have never made it to your bookstore. Book publishers which
I seriously doubt that. Tom Clancy sells so well that he can say what he
wants. Book publishers are proft-making entities, as are bookstores. A
_young_ Tom Clancy might not have been able to paint such a picture, but
an established Tom Clancy is a sure-fire bestseller.
>serve a large mainstream market are like movie studios and television
>networks in that they must adhere to an unwritten set of rules about
They don't have to. They choose to in part because they are themselves a
part of a cultural group that accepts and endorses a large and intrusive
federal government and because they believe that alienating members of
this group would hurt sales.
>their product--a code of conduct, if you will. Publishers are less
>restricted than studios and TV networks, but they ARE constrained.
>
>The biggest no-no for these people is any story which presents a
>reasoned argument that an existing set of long-standing, basic tenets
>of law in this country is fundamentally and morally wrong. Breaking
>this taboo is ten times worse if, in your story, violence is the only
>viable solution.
>
>It is acceptable to show a corrupt senior government official, even the
>President, if the system triumphs in the end, as in Clear and Present
>Danger. It is acceptable to show a corrupt system IN THE PAST, such as
>a story about slavery, for rightness has since prevailed. It is
>acceptable to portray a completely corrupt U.S. government if the story
>is set in the distant future, for that is fantasy. Film examples are
Excuse me, but most stories that take place in the future are
characterized as "science fiction," not "fantasy." Jerry Pournelle, in
particular, shows US institutions as being corrupt.
>Escape from New York/L.A., Rollerball, Blade Runner, Robocop, Total
>Recall, Judge Dredd, and (best of all) The Running Man. And of course
>it is acceptable to show a corrupt foreign system in any era
>(Braveheart comes to mind.)
>
>It is NOT acceptable to show that our real-life CURRENT system here in
>the U.S. has been morally corrupted, that evil has become
>institutionalized, and that the only cure is violence. The above
What about _The Rock_? What about the X-Files? What about umpty-dozen
other movies. The evil government conspiracy is a well-established
hackneyed Hollywood plot.
>poster is right--Clancy's message in EO is EXACTLY the same point that
>"Mountain Men" types make: Politicians and the Supreme Court have
>ignored the Constitution and trampled on our rights. Since they run the
>system, only a violent upheaval is likely to change that.
Well, not quite. There are a number of people (I include myself in this
group) who believe that the federal government is too large and ought to
be signficiantly pruned. In fact, I plan to vote for Harry Browne, the
Libertarian Party candidate this fall, so you can hardly call me a
socialist.
I am sympathetic with many of the claims that some of the "Mountain Man"
types make. However, some -- though not all -- of the members of the
antigovernment groups believe, for example, that the Jews control
everything, or that race mixing is inherently evil, etc. I do not believe
that we could count on these individuals to be consistent libertarians.
That is, the Mountain Men might oppose welfare and HUD -- but might also
love getting underpriced grazing rights from the federal government.
Or what about the "Freeman" -- who believe that paper money is
unconstiutional, and who respond by passing fake money orders. As a
matter of strict originalsim, they are probably right about the paper
money, but that's no excuse to defraud people.
The fact is that a lot of people who sometimes talk like libertarians are,
well, nutty. I think that the Mountain Men subplot was intended to
recognize the existence of and distance himself from nuts and kooks -- not
because doing so was necessary to publish the book, but because Clancy
really does not agree with such people.
Moreover, even if you agree that significantly reducing the size of
government is a good idea, (as you and I both seem to agree) that would
not necessarily mean that you think that revolution is desirable at this
time. While I believe in the right of revolution in the abstract, I don't
think that it's justified at this time. As a historical matter,
revolutions and civil unrest result in more authoritarian governments.
>
>This is where Tom Clancy had to do some very careful footwork. The
>Mountain Men's (irrational) actions as currently written in EO are
>absolutely necessary. It is the only way the reader can vilify the
>Mountain Men while cheering a protagonist who embraces the Mountain
>Men's core beliefs. If you doubt this is true, play a little mental
But it's clear that he disagrees with many of their core beliefs. For
example, they are not fond of black people, while Ryan is.
>exercise with me here, and let me rewrite this very small but critical
>part of the book to illustrate my point.
>
>The two Mountain Men go to Washington, see the devastation, realize
>that almost the whole government is gone, and are quietly pleased. (No
Even if I plan to vote against Clinton, Gore, and the lot of them, I would
not be pleased to see a 747 crash into the capital and kill them.
>change so far.) When Ryan takes the reins of the Presidency, they are
>skeptical, and adopt a cautious "wait-and-see" attitude, making it
>clear to the reader that they are prepared to enact violence should
>they deem it necessary. (Much more consistent with their beliefs than
>immediately plotting to kill Ryan.)
>
>Ryan publicly expresses disdain for business-as-usual politics, and
>appoints successful people from the private sector to posts formerly
>held by career socialists. He gets legal scholars to give him a list
>of Supreme Court candidates that will obey the Constitution. The
Legal sholars might be the last people to ask.
>Mountain Men are in a bar or truck stop, and when Ryan speaks of these
>things on television, the patrons (ex-marines and other "real men"
>types) cheer, just as in the real version.
>
>The Mountain Men, in my alternate version, cautiously share this
>enthusiasm. They are "get-it-done" people, however, and realize that
>the country may need a little help getting back on track. As in the
>real version, they're not about to shirk from violence, if that's
>what's needed. They accurately spot the one thing which could derail
>the less-taxes-smaller-government effort that Ryan is leading: career
>slimebucket socialist Edward Kealty who is trying to replace Ryan as
>President.
<snip>
>
>
>These changes are completely logical, and would not alter any of the
>dynamics of the book. The beliefs, actions, and moral character of
>everyone in the story would be unchanged. Ryan's challenges with
>Ebola, the UIR, India, Russia, the media, the kidnapping attempt, the
>"sleeper" agents, etc. would stay the same.
>
True, much would stay the same. However, I continue to believe that
Clancy believes in change through democracy, not uprising.
>THESE CHANGES WOULD NOT ALTER THE STORY AT ALL, EXCEPT TO >MAKE THE
>PUBLISHER TREAT IT LIKE PLUTONIUM.
Tom Clancy's books sell. That's all a publisher needs to know.
>The above poster needs to realize that the Mountain Men's absurd wish
>for a Constitutional Convention and their irrational efforts to cause
>it are absolutely necessary. It is the only way the author could show
>in a favor
>able light the violent removal of our current regime, and still get his
>book accepted in the mainstream. If he wrote the version I just
>suggested and it did get published, mainstream reviewers would either
>institute a blackout, or brand EO a "dangerous right-wing fantasy." It
>is a measure of Mr. Clancy's stature as a novelist that writing in the
>brief cement truck segment was *all* he had to do.
As I said, I doubt he had to do it. While Clancy believes that much is
screwed up, he is not against government per se.
>I know these things to be true, for although independent reviewers have
>praised my book, UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES, mainstream reviewers >such as
>Kirkus Reviews, Booklist, and Library Journal have ALL refused to
>review it. This is odd for an 860-page hardcover that sold out its
>first printing in 5 months with no advertising. As Mr. Jeffery has
>discovered, some libraries will not carry it, yet one library bought 14
>copies and there is still an 8-week waiting list for it.
Quite the whining. A lot of books don't get reviewed.
(Posted and e-mailed.)
John Ross
________________________
Pete McCutchen
"Be wary of strong drink. It can make you shoot at tax collectors -- and
miss"
-- Rober A. Heinlein --
"I am not interested in the beliefs of primitives -- only in what they
taste like!"
-- Shockeye --
Nick Scholte
jfr...@ix.netcom.com(John Ross) wrote:
>I am the author of UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES that gjef...@mdc.com
>mentioned in the above post. I agree with many of his points, but
>thought I'd put in my two cents worth.
<HUGE snip covering lots of territory>
>John Ross
Very interesting post. Personally I don't know the politics involved
in book publishing, but your post has definitely got me thinking.
However, not ready to endorse this hypothesis without further
reflection, but I'm definitely intrigued by what I see as the first
REAL guess as to why the Mountain Men sub-plot was included.
Nick S.
Chuck Allen
Nick Scholte wrote:
>
> jfr...@ix.netcom.com(John Ross) wrote:
>
> >I am the author of UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES that gjef...@mdc.com
> >mentioned in the above post. I agree with many of his points, but
> >thought I'd put in my two cents worth.
>
>
> >John Ross
>
> Very interesting post. Personally I don't know the politics involved
> in book publishing, but your post has definitely got me thinking.
> However, not ready to endorse this hypothesis without further
> reflection, but I'm definitely intrigued by what I see as the first
> REAL guess as to why the Mountain Men sub-plot was included.
>
> Nick S.
Now you've got me thinking oaout it, I think the Mountain Men AND the
Kealty sub-plots were included for realism. In real life you may have
several probabilities of things happening, which take a certain amount of
your time and energy to deal with. After preparing to deal with them,
they just kind of peter out, without causing any significant amount of
commotion at all. The thing is, you don't know before hand which ones
will die of their own accord and which ones YOU will have to deal with!