OT - What espioange/war novels do you read? [SURVEY]

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 12:53:23 -0400, Eric Pinnell see my web site
wrote:

I am having a dispute with a literary agent and I am conducting
this on-line book survey to add ammunition to my argument. I would
greatly appreciate it if you could answer this survey honestly, but
please dot not send answers via email. Thanks.


1) Who are you favorite espionage/war authors and why?

Assuming you mean fiction, then here is my short list:

John LeCarre
Frederick Forsythe
Nelson Demille
Ian Fleming
Trevanian
Tom Clancy

2) Who are your least enjoyable espionage/war authors and why?

No specifics here. The least enjoyable are also the ones least
published and least known. Typically I don't like pacifists,
apologists and conspiricists.

3) What determines if the book you read is a keeper or a reject?

Plot, believability, character development and use of language that
interests me.

4) Other than 38 North Yankee and Red Phoenix, have you read any books
about a war in Korea? If so, what are the titles?

Strangely enough, I haven't read anything about Korea beyond Boots
Blesse's "No Guts, No Glory" which is more a tactics and attitude
primer for fighter pilots than espionage or war book.

5) Assuming a book was well written about a war in Korea, would you
read it, or do you believe the Korea scenario has been overdone?

Didn't read the book, but Bridges at Toko-Ri, Sabre Jet, The Hunters
were all pretty successful. I don't think the genre has been
overworked. If anything, it has been under-reported.

6) Do you prefer war or espionage stories?

Again, if we are talking fiction, I tend toward espionage since there
are more plot convolutions possible. War stories tend to be blood/gore
or sex and tragedy. Both bore quickly.

7) What story would you like to read?

About Korea? Probably something about the F-84 air-ground forces
rather than the MiG-killers. Or artillery/armor rather than infantry.
Or patrol boat ops rather than carrier air.

8) Do you still buy espionage/war novels, or do you feel that the
genre is overdone?

Still buy them regularly.

9) If you've reduced or stopped purchasing espionage/war novels, what
other genres do you read instead?

In fiction? I read period pieces like Clavell's Shogun, horror/fantasy
such as Steven King, legal novels ala Grisham, grand metropolitan
novels like Tom Wolfe's stuff. I tune out the political expose de
jour, since they are inevitably ghost written and self-serving. It
matters not whether they are from the right or the left--they all seem
to make tons of money, but like the stereotypical Chinese meal, an
hour later you're still hungry.


Eric Pinnell

(Author, "Steel Rain", "Claws of The Dragon", "The Omega File")

For a preview, see: http://www.ericpinnell.com/books/previews.shtml

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

Ed Rasimus wrote:

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 12:53:23 -0400, Eric Pinnell see my web site
wrote:

I am having a dispute with a literary agent and I am conducting
this on-line book survey to add ammunition to my argument. I would
greatly appreciate it if you could answer this survey honestly, but
please dot not send answers via email. Thanks.


1) Who are you favorite espionage/war authors and why?

Assuming you mean fiction, then here is my short list:

John LeCarre
Frederick Forsythe
Nelson Demille
Ian Fleming
Trevanian
Tom Clancy

Ed, if you like DeMille (as do I, and most of the rest of your list),
you'll almost certainly like Brian Haig (Alexander's son, but dont hold
that against him). I'd replace Fleming with Harold Coyle. Unlike Clancy,
he doesn't write techno-porn; **** happens in his books, and the people are
more important than the equipment. Come to think of it, Coyle's first or
second book was set in Korea. And I usually enjoy Stephen Coonts. My
current list would probably go

DeMille (moremystery than espionage or war, but just keeps getting better)
Forsythe (he's had a couple less than terrific ones recently, but like
Arnold Palmer in the Master's, he gets a lifetime pass for "Day of the
Jackal" as well as several lesser but still excellent subsequent works)
Coyle (already described)
Haig (getting better and better, obviously a fan of DeMille. His main
character is an Army JAG type)
Trevanian (haven't read much new by him, but he gets a 10-year pass for the
"Eiger" and "Loo Sanctions" plus "Shibumi")
LeCarre (haven't read his stuff in years, since before "The Little Drummer
Girl". I have a limit on depressing situations, but the man defined the
Cold War spy novel).
Coonts (heading downhill, but still enjoyable trash)
Clancy (he's been coasting downhill, but I still read him).



2) Who are your least enjoyable espionage/war authors and why?

No specifics here. The least enjoyable are also the ones least
published and least known. Typically I don't like pacifists,
apologists and conspiricists.

There are so many bad authors to choose from, but I'll have to give a
special mention to Dale Brown. I avoid his stuff like the plague.


3) What determines if the book you read is a keeper or a reject?

Plot, believability, character development and use of language that
interests me.

We both consider character development important, and yet we both read Tom
Clancy? ;-) Although I've got to say that his last few books have
noticeably dropped off in quality. At least he got through the
toilet-tongue phase he went through a couple of books back.

4) Other than 38 North Yankee and Red Phoenix, have you read any books
about a war in Korea? If so, what are the titles?

A couple by W.E.B. Griffin and James Brady recently, plus Bridges at
Toko-Ri a long time ago. I couldn't tell you the titles of the first two,
they weren't terribly memorable. I tend to read more non-fiction on Korea.

snip

6) Do you prefer war or espionage stories?

Again, if we are talking fiction, I tend toward espionage since there
are more plot convolutions possible. War stories tend to be blood/gore
or sex and tragedy. Both bore quickly.

Generally agreed.


8) Do you still buy espionage/war novels, or do you feel that the
genre is overdone?

Still buy them regularly.

With 8 library cards, who needs to buy? ;-) Seriously, I only buy books Im
going to use as references, or the few books of fiction I'm going to reread
repeatedly.

Guy

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 21:24:35 GMT, Guy Alcala
wrote:

Come to think of it, Coyle's first or
second book was set in Korea.

His first, "Team Yankee", was set in Germany, west of the Fulda Gap.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

Mary Shafer wrote:

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 21:24:35 GMT, Guy Alcala
wrote:

Come to think of it, Coyle's first or
second book was set in Korea.

His first, "Team Yankee", was set in Germany, west of the Fulda Gap.

And the second one, "Sword Point", was set in Iran.

Can't think of any of Coyle's books that take place in Korea.

Eric Barry's "Arc Light", on the other hand, begins with an invasion of
South Korea by North Korea, as does the first of the "WWIII" books by
Ian, um, Smith? (I've tried to block those out of my memory, as they
were utter crap.) Both books quickly expanded beyond a mere Korean
conflict, though.
--
Marc Reeve
actual email address after removal of 4s & spaces is
c4m4r4a4m4a4n a4t c4r4u4z4i4o d4o4t c4o4m

Marc Reeve wrote:

Mary Shafer wrote:

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 21:24:35 GMT, Guy Alcala
wrote:

Come to think of it, Coyle's first or
second book was set in Korea.

His first, "Team Yankee", was set in Germany, west of the Fulda Gap.

And the second one, "Sword Point", was set in Iran.

Can't think of any of Coyle's books that take place in Korea.

Yeah, you're right. I could swear that he wrote one and I know he served
there, but I can't seem to find it. I appear to be confusing it with
Bond's "Red Phoenix" or something else - for some reason I've never gotten
into Bond.

I just prefer Coyle's much more nuanced approach to Clancy's cartoons -
comparing say "Code of Honor" or "God's Children" to "Clear and Present
Danger", the difference between the two authors' approach is stark. I'll
be curious to see if Coyle writes one about Iraq; Clancy's approach would
be to write about the period of "major combat" and end it there when the
good guys 'won', in a victory for truth, justice and the american way.
Coyle would be writing about the whole last year, having to choose from a
bunch of bad options and co-opt people who often aren't very nice and/or
have their own agendas, collateral damage (there isn't any in a Clancy
book, at least none caused by the US -our weapons either score bullseyes or
miss/malfunction in open ground), the war would be fought by hot, dirty,
tired and scared 19 year-old PFCs led by 25 year old Sgts. instead of stock
Hollywood 'characters' led by John Wayne or Harrison Ford, etc.

Guy

On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 18:09:10 GMT, Guy Alcala
wrote:

I just prefer Coyle's much more nuanced approach to Clancy's cartoons -
comparing say "Code of Honor" or "God's Children" to "Clear and Present
Danger", the difference between the two authors' approach is stark. I'll
be curious to see if Coyle writes one about Iraq; Clancy's approach would
be to write about the period of "major combat" and end it there when the
good guys 'won', in a victory for truth, justice and the american way.
Coyle would be writing about the whole last year, having to choose from a
bunch of bad options and co-opt people who often aren't very nice and/or
have their own agendas, collateral damage (there isn't any in a Clancy
book, at least none caused by the US -our weapons either score bullseyes or
miss/malfunction in open ground), the war would be fought by hot, dirty,
tired and scared 19 year-old PFCs led by 25 year old Sgts. instead of stock
Hollywood 'characters' led by John Wayne or Harrison Ford, etc.

I can't sit back and let you pigeon-hole Clancy that way. I'll agree
that the stretch from Jack Ryan naval officer in "Hunt for Red
October" to President Ryan has been a bit cartoonish. But the grunt
level warfare of Dingo Chavez in the Columbian jungle is pretty
compelling. The convoluted turns of Sum of All Fears and other Clancy
works make a great read, even when belief must be suspended.

The point of good fiction is that it suspends disbelief and does so in
a manner which is sufficiently compelling to keep the reader returning
for more. To fault Clancy for look of real-world realism (his
fictional realism, AKA "techno-babble", is sufficiently detailed to be
believable), is to place the novelist in a creative strait-jacket.

Norman Mailer gives you scared 19-year olds, if that's what you must
have.

Is Steven King's stuff compelling? Absolutely! Is it realistic? Of
course not. But, sit in a dimly lit room past mid-night on a stormy
night with Salem's Lot on your lap and I'll guarantee you believe in
vampires.

((All of the above being said, I'll agree that Clancy's sub-contracted
work--what is it? Ops Center?--is crap!))


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

Ed Rasimus wrote:

On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 18:09:10 GMT, Guy Alcala
wrote:

I just prefer Coyle's much more nuanced approach to Clancy's cartoons -
comparing say "Code of Honor" or "God's Children" to "Clear and Present
Danger", the difference between the two authors' approach is stark. I'll
be curious to see if Coyle writes one about Iraq; Clancy's approach would
be to write about the period of "major combat" and end it there when the
good guys 'won', in a victory for truth, justice and the american way.
Coyle would be writing about the whole last year, having to choose from a
bunch of bad options and co-opt people who often aren't very nice and/or
have their own agendas, collateral damage (there isn't any in a Clancy
book, at least none caused by the US -our weapons either score bullseyes or
miss/malfunction in open ground), the war would be fought by hot, dirty,
tired and scared 19 year-old PFCs led by 25 year old Sgts. instead of stock
Hollywood 'characters' led by John Wayne or Harrison Ford, etc.

I can't sit back and let you pigeon-hole Clancy that way. I'll agree
that the stretch from Jack Ryan naval officer in "Hunt for Red
October" to President Ryan has been a bit cartoonish.

Oddly enough, I thought "Executive Orders" was one of his best. Between that
and the tail end of "Debt of Honor"(and "Black Sunday" years ago), that's
undoubtedly why I reacted to 9/11 and the anthrax scare not with "Oh my god!"
but rather "I'm surprised it took so long". Paying attention to what was
happening in the Middle East over the last decade or two helped.

But the grunt
level warfare of Dingo Chavez in the Columbian jungle is pretty
compelling.

Ed, read "Code of Honor" and "Clear and Present Danger" back to back (both are
about Colombia), and then tell me which you think is a more accurate portrayal.
And then read "God's Children" (about trying to be 'peacekeepers' in the
Balkans, when the locals main interest is getting in a little ethnic cleansing
of their own), and tell me that you think that Clancy could even attempt the
subject. I did think the movie version of CaPD was well done, especially the
arrival at the airport in Bogota and the subsequent ambush. Gave you a real
feeling for a state and government under siege, near to anarchy.

The convoluted turns of Sum of All Fears and other Clancy
works make a great read, even when belief must be suspended.

Sure, I usually enjoy them, but I also know how they'll end. More irritating to
me, Clancy's characters are all one-dimensional cliches, and their behavior and
dialog is entirely predictable. And let's face it, much of the time they're
only there to provide a plausible reason to introduce or use some gee-whiz
weaponry, although since the end of the Cold War he's had to move away from that
a bit. But shades of gray are still beyond him.

The point of good fiction is that it suspends disbelief and does so in
a manner which is sufficiently compelling to keep the reader returning
for more. To fault Clancy for look of real-world realism (his
fictional realism, AKA "techno-babble", is sufficiently detailed to be
believable), is to place the novelist in a creative strait-jacket.

Even his techno-babble used to be a lot better. As I said, he's been coasting
recently. I thought "Bear and the Dragon" was just awful, and "Red Rabbit" was
so-so. I couldn't tell you the story line of either now, which shows how
forgettable they were.

Norman Mailer gives you scared 19-year olds, if that's what you must
have.

I never thought "The Naked and the Dead" was all that good. "The Thin Red Line"
was better, but who needs fiction about the ground war in the Pacific when E.B.
Sledge's "With the Old Breed: At Peleliu and Okinawa" is available?

Is Steven King's stuff compelling? Absolutely! Is it realistic? Of
course not. But, sit in a dimly lit room past mid-night on a stormy
night with Salem's Lot on your lap and I'll guarantee you believe in
vampires.

Haven't read King in years. I think I bailed somewhere around "Christine" or
"Cujo". Besides, I did my "terrified to go to sleep" bit around the age of 13,
when I saw the original "Night of the Living Dead" late at night on TV while I
was alone in the house for the weekend. After that experience, vampires are
nothing;-)

((All of the above being said, I'll agree that Clancy's sub-contracted
work--what is it? Ops Center?--is crap!))

Never gone near the stuff. If I want to read total mindless escapist formulaic
trash, there's always Clive Cussler (Jack Higgins has become almost as bad,
which is a shame. Cussler was always trash, but Higgins used to be a lot
better). It's interesting to see how Robert Ludlum has continued to publish new
books, despite the considerable handicap of being dead;-) Just shows that once
you've reduced your output to repeating the same tired formula, almost anyone
can write the stuff. Oddly, this (continuing to write after death, not
repeating the same formula) never happened to Alistair MacLean. Perhaps this is
due to there being more of a reading audience when he died, or maybe publishers
were just more willing to take a chance on new authors, figuring that not every
work had to be an instant blockbuster at Barnes and Noble.

Guy

Ed Rasimus wrote:

Is Steven King's stuff compelling? Absolutely! Is it realistic? Of
course not. But, sit in a dimly lit room past mid-night on a stormy
night with Salem's Lot on your lap and I'll guarantee you believe in
vampires.

****in'-aye BTDT. "Salem's Lot" is the best vampire story I ever
even heard of. I was making sure the doors and windows were locked
halfway through it.


Billy

http://www.two--four.net/weblog.php