View Full Version : Reading Stirling's _A Meeting at Corvallis_ in real time


John Schilling
12-19-2007, 09:33 PM
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 06:40:19 -0800 (PST), "Richard R. Hershberger"
<rrhersh@acme.com> wrote:

>On Dec 17, 1:06 am, "Jason Maxwell" <jasonr...@cox.net> wrote:
>> "William December Starr" <wdst...@panix.com> wrote in messagenews:fk50vn$2hs$1@panix1.panix.com...

>> > > "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote in message
>> > >news:fk1de3$cr2$1@panix2.panix.com...

>> > >> Each of [Tom Clancy's] books is a great improvement over the ones
>> > >> that followed it.

>> > > Yep, which is why I realized midway through Executive Orders that
>> > > I had wasted my time with the last couple of books, except for the
>> > > final scene of Debt of Honor. Now if I reread I might read Sum of
>> > > All Fears, but that's as far as I'll go.

>> > I'd say that enough aspects of the fighting of the (admittedly, more
>> > absurd than something very absurd indeed) U.S./Japan war make for
>> > fun enough reading to make all of DEBT as much worth reading as SUM.

>> Yeah I can see that, but I'm not sure I could read both of them in a short
>> timeframe. I'd have to take a good break between the two. The manipulation
>> of the stock market meltdown in DEBT sets my teeth on edge.

>> > But yes, [If I, Tom Clancy, Was The] EXECUTIVE [Giving All The] ORDERS
>> > [Then Everything Would Be Perfect!] is effectively unreadable.

>> No kidding. I haven't read any books beyond that one. It had the two-fold
>> problem of Mary Sue and taking the primary character and locking him in an
>> office for the whole of a book in what is supposed to be an "action" series.

>There was a certain fascination with seeing Clancy try to construct a
>military scenario that is close enough to an even fight to be
>interesting.

But he's pretty much always done that. In "Red Storm Rising", he matched
NATO against the two-sigma high-end estimate of Soviet military capability
as of the mid-1980s, which legitimately made for an interesting, close to
even fight. And in works like "Hunt for Red October" and "Patriot Games",
he limited himself to small-unit engagements where the scenario plausibly
limited both sides to roughly equivalent forces with the Bad Guys bringing
their A Team.

[...]

>In later books he pretty much gives up the attempt, and instead reveals that
>anyone who has ever thought >kindly about the Sierra Club is a mass murderer,
>and he has the Chinese (who are particularly evil, and sexual deviants to boot)
>attack the noble-but-hapless Russians.

In later books he is so far brain-eaten that the "by Famous Author (and
unknown author) = really written by unknown author" makes for a positive
recommendation, but I don't think it's because of his attempts to set up
a Fair Fight.

And I do stand with those who think that "Debt of Honor" was the last of
his solo works to be worth reading. I don't even begrudge him pulling the
strings to set up President John Patrick Mary Sue Ryan, as a fitting way
to close out the series.

The End. Oh, God, were it The End.


--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*John.Schilling@alumni.usc.edu * for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *

William December Starr
12-20-2007, 02:52 AM
In article <9dskm35sq6c9v7oe4nglrfjevlbr5d1a0l@4ax.com>,
John Schilling <schillin@spock.usc.edu> said:

> And I do stand with those who think that "Debt of Honor" was the
> last of his solo works to be worth reading. I don't even begrudge
> him pulling the strings to set up President John Patrick Mary Sue
> Ryan, as a fitting way to close out the series.
>
> The End. Oh, God, were it The End.

I should add one caveat to my earlier comment (in which I pretty
much said what you just said): I thought that in the very, very
beginning of EXECUTIVE ORDERS, when he depicted the first hour or so
after the end of DEBT OF HONOR, Clancy did a good job of making me
_feel_ the weight of the office descending on the newly sworn-in
President like the biggest metaphorical lead blanket in the world.

And then the book died.

--
William December Starr <wdstarr@panix.com>

Monte Davis
12-20-2007, 05:04 AM
wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:

>in the very, very
>beginning of EXECUTIVE ORDERS, when he depicted the first hour or so
>after the end of DEBT OF HONOR, Clancy did a good job of making me
>_feel_ the weight of the office descending on the newly sworn-in
>President like the biggest metaphorical lead blanket in the world.

Other things being equal, I'd rather re-read the last few pages of
_Double Star_.

Gene Ward Smith
12-20-2007, 01:42 PM
On Dec 19, 11:52 pm, wdst...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:

> I should add one caveat to my earlier comment (in which I pretty
> much said what you just said): I thought that in the very, very
> beginning of EXECUTIVE ORDERS, when he depicted the first hour or so
> after the end of DEBT OF HONOR, Clancy did a good job of making me
> _feel_ the weight of the office descending on the newly sworn-in
> President like the biggest metaphorical lead blanket in the world.
>
> And then the book died.

I thought it was going well up until he gave his speech, but I didn't
hold out much hope, in a Clancy novel, of getting anything good out of
the idea of killing off the entire government. Already the politics
made little sense (there are a lot of uses for members of the opposing
party for a president, but making them vice president isn't one of
them.)

David DeLaney
12-20-2007, 06:01 PM
Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@gmail.com> wrote:
>Already the politics
>made little sense (there are a lot of uses for members of the opposing
>party for a president, but making them vice president isn't one of them.)

Maybe not now, but didn't things start off that way in the US part of the time?

Dave "but yeah, definitely falls under 'politics that would make little sense
in present conditions'" DeLaney
--
\/David DeLaney posting from dbd@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

Jasper Janssen
12-22-2007, 04:53 PM
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 18:01:09 -0500, dbd@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney)
wrote:
>Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@gmail.com> wrote:

[Tom Clancy]

>>Already the politics
>>made little sense (there are a lot of uses for members of the opposing
>>party for a president, but making them vice president isn't one of them.)
>
>Maybe not now, but didn't things start off that way in the US part of the time?
>
>Dave "but yeah, definitely falls under 'politics that would make little sense
> in present conditions'" DeLaney

Of course, if a terr'ris' attack kills off the entire congress + executive
in one go (in essence, at least), and the new maybe-President is on
slightly shaky legal ground, that might not quite constitute 'present
conditions'. The whole "we stand as one man behind the President in this
time of war" thing is a lot more effective when both parties are in on it
instead of just an effective half of the population. And I suspect that
having a vice from the other party might just help make said other party
not issue constitutional challenges etc.

Jasper

Richard R. Hershberger
12-22-2007, 10:06 PM
On Dec 20, 6:01 pm, d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote:
> Gene Ward Smith <genewardsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Already the politics
> >made little sense (there are a lot of uses for members of the opposing
> >party for a president, but making them vice president isn't one of them.)
>
> Maybe not now, but didn't things start off that way in the US part of the time?
>
> Dave "but yeah, definitely falls under 'politics that would make little sense
>  in present conditions'" DeLaney

It didn't make sense back then, either. That is why they changed it.
The schoolbook version is that the founding fathers envisioned there
being no parties. The citizens would gather and elect some local
worthy to the electoral college, which would then meet and chew over
who should be president. The person with the most votes would be
president, and the person with the second most votes the vice-
president.

I don't know enough constitutional history to say how accurate this
version is. I am skeptical of schoolbook versions of history under
the best of circumstances, and it seems a remarkable lapse that they
thought human nature would change in a republic and there would be no
parties. In any case, the result was that the president and vice-
president would be of opposing parties. This was pretty clearly
stupid, and was change fairly soon.

Richard R. Hershberger

Aaron Denney
12-23-2007, 02:57 AM
On 2007-12-23, Richard R. Hershberger <rrhersh@acme.com> wrote:
> In any case, the result was that the president and vice-
> president would be of opposing parties. This was pretty clearly
> stupid, and was change fairly soon.

Why is this a bug, rather than a feature?

--
Aaron Denney
-><-