YANQUI REALISM by Yves Barbero Over the past couple of months, I finished Tom Clancy's "The Hunt for Red October," "Red Storm Rising" and "The Patriot Game." They were exciting, fast paced, technological (which I appreciate) and filled with villains, whom I identify with. Even the English wasn't bad as far as popular novels go. But something about all three troubled me and it took me a bit of time to pin it down. At first I thought it was the general conservative message in the novels. I veer toward the left and Clancy pulls right. But it wasn't that. I've read plenty of right wing literature without having these feelings. I enjoy good writing and can be very forgiving about the politics of an author. It was the characters that bugged me but it did take a while to dawn on me as to why. The model, whether the author is conscious of it or not, is almost Calvinistic. It seems as if the Universe bent over backwards to accommodate them. Here are a bunch of guys working on their '76 Chevies on weekends, protecting the motherland unselfishly and without guile. As a group, they were bound to succeed, even given the individual tragedy or two. There seems to be not a trace of cynicism among them. They accept the military-industrial complex as their play ground, handed to them by God to enforce His will. Clancy makes sure that the reader clearly identifies all minorities and women in unorthodox positions (from the point of view of public stereotypes). He has them talk well with an occasional sub-culture idiom so you know they haven't lost touch with their roots. They are infinitely likeable and well motivated. A woman pilot (Red Dawn) complains that she isn't allowed in combat but manages to beat the odds anyway. Not by defying the unfair rules (and I agree they're unfair) but by Clancy throwing a circumstance her way. That's one of the problems. The heroes are not really allowed to make tough decisions. Ryan, the chief protagonist (Hunt, Patriot), is so incredibly decent that he fails to kill an especially nasty Nasty in "The Patriot Game." He only wounds him even though he could have killed him. Naturally, the Nasty comes back to haunt him and threaten his family. That's the point of the novel, by the way. Ryan's alleged humanism verses the realities of the Nasty. That, by the way, is a classic plot device and there's nothing, on the surface, wrong with it. But we are led to believe that Ryan is a history professor of some reputation at Annapolis and a former Marine. Both backgrounds argue against such behavior. In (Army) basic, the sergeants went out of their way to make sure we understood that bullets had no regard for decency of disposition. If you were in the way, saint or not, you die. Fortunately for the reader, the first two novels (Hunt, Red Dawn) had enough action to disguise the faults in characterization and general attitude of the author. A few comments on them should be sufficient. In "Hunt...," the noble Russian submarine commander, fed up with the corruption of his homeland (general) and the death of his wife at the hands of an incompetent and drunk surgeon, who is protected from accountability by the system (specific), decides to defect with a nuclear submarine. He manages to talk his officers into going along with this plan and with the help of the 'good guys,' who have to let their Chevies go for a weekend because their country calls. The description of the chase is excellent and a lot can be forgiven as a result. My first doubts occurred early in this novel, however. Even allowing for the absurd notion that any country (even our own) would allow a submarine commander to choose his own officers (all bachelors, by the way), it is hard to believe that all patriotic Russians are as fanatical as portrayed in the novel. The one sailor (a KGB plant), who does his job, is a hollow character, not even developed (a problem with the villains in all his novels). According to Isaac Asimov, each novel is allowed one absurdity so I can accept the absurdity of the situation in "Hunt..." but I can't accept the stereotyping of the Russians as either fanatically patriotic or cynically manipulative (the leadership). Just as U.S. leaders vary (and we have plenty of cynics locking horns with good civil servants up there), so do Russian leaders vary. It does seem in that in all three novels, Americans can't lose if they go with the programs. The cliches that occur are only in the details and the clever kid who can fiddle with that tricky carburetor on Saturday, can certainly handle the threat of a Russian sub. "Red Dawn Rising" is the most satisfying of the three novels in that the Russians are at least portrayed as loyal soldiers. It has more than one absurdity (which is not allowed by Asmovian rules) but which can be forgiven by me. By far, the characters are better built (and Ryan is missing to the great benefit of the novel). I will list the absurdities and advise the reader that it is an excellent shoot-um-up despite them. 1. The reason the war was started. 2. That it didn't go nuclear right away. A word of explanation: although the Russians didn't intend it as a nuclear war at the beginning, the Americans would have started using tactical nuclear weapons immediately. 3. The weapons systems (American) worked as designed. Even in eras when defense contractors are by and large honest (WWII), there are always serious deficiencies at the start of a conflict. After all, most weapon systems are designed for the previous war. In fairness, it must be pointed out that Clancy reportedly discounted the claims of the weapon systems by some fifty percent and he has no way to predict the likely tactics of a new war. But I think he was still over-optimistic. 4. That the allies (us, the good guys) worked together so well. 5. That the Russians were so inept in intelligence evaluation and the consequences of such a war for such a trite issue (control of oil production in the Middle East). That recycles it to Point No. 1. The one thing which is most interesting about the novel is the Icelandic sequences. And aside from the classic depiction of the nerd turned hero (the Air Force meteorologist), it works well. The third novel, "The Patriot Game" exposes the weaknesses of the Calvinistic characterization most. Again, we have Ryan, history professor, ex-marine, ex-successful stockbroker (who doesn't care much for making money as a way of life but who lives in a half- million dollar house anyway) and general decent all-around guy. He is married to a doctor and they have this lovely daughter, an upwardly mobile toddler (and a victim to show how really nasty, the nasties can get). While in England, he saves the life of the Prince of Wales and his family from abduction at great risk to his life. Allowing for the Asmovian absurdity that he would deliberately not kill a potential enemy at his back, he then proceeds to show the chaps in England that an ordinary American's humility (despite his PhD and obvious connection to the CIA) can conquer the meanest of badies. But he's crossed swords with an especially nasty off-shoot of the IRA, a Maoist, Marxist, international group with connections to Arab terrorists and underground Black Power groups in this country. And he left an enemy alive, who later escapes with the help of a few friends, and revenge can be gotten while accomplishing a greater purpose, a second attempt at the abduction of the Prince of Wales and his pregnant wife. The problem, of course, is that nothing of the villains' motivation is really explained except that the Maoist Irish terrorists want to take over the Provisional IRA for some nefarious international scheme. Clancy seems to have forgotten one of the cardinal rules of novel writing. You give the best possible arguments to the side the writer disagrees with to compensate for the likability of the characters with whom you agree. And they are very likable. But to deal with the Nasties first. The intelligence gathering on the part of the Nasties is greatly enhanced by the fact that they have a pipeline into the security apparatus of Britain. It is never explained why the security man in question was pissed enough at Britain to betray members of the royal family. All the Nasty leaders are shown to have betrayed their class. All are well- educated, cultured and privileged. The troops are all zealots ready to die at a moment's notice or cowards lurking in the background and unable to be brave if put in the forefront. One particular nasty is an American Black, given the best in education and privilege as an engineer (a specie Clancy admires) and yet, he's going to hold on to a vague ideology ("Power to the People") which is more a slogan than a program for some unstated gripe. The bad guys are clever, even patient and methodical to a fault. Ryan decides to become full-time at the CIA because of the perceived threat to his family (reasonable enough) and enlists the assistance of all the good guys there, who calmly put their Central American deals aside, to help him. After all, the top priority at the CIA is the destruction of international terrorism. In Clancy's cosmology, the CIA would never dream of helping right-wing terrorists. Acting as Ryan's Tonto is a Navy pilot, Black, it is carefully pointed out, apparently to counterbalance the Black Power Heavy. He's physical, speaks excellent English with a few ghetto terms so the reader knows he hasn't forgotten his roots. On the top of that, he's an engineer and has a lovely wife who plays a mean piano and can't have children (for a touch of pathos). All the heroes are brave and all the villains are fanatical. The relationship between the characters are interesting. Wives are loving. Husbands are caring. As a sop to feminism, Ryan actually cooks. Clancy seems to have trouble when writing about the royal family. On the one hand, he seems to want to show a respectful distance. On the other hand, he wants to show what regular people they are. But Clancy has no real experience (I'd suggest watch some PBS potboilers on the subject) and in his effort not to really offend, they come out pretty wooden. He even misses a opportunity when the Black Navy pilot and Prince of Wales are at the same table. They compare notes on about flying rather than engage in a substantive exchange of views. Doesn't Tonto have a curiosity about what a completely different class of people are like. Would the Prince of Wales not be interested in how the son of share-cropper (or whatever his old man did) got to be in a high-profile profession. Instead, the Prince of Wales deliberately puts on a pilot-persona to be "social." The prince (the real one, that is) has a reputation as a critic of architecture and certain Thacherite excesses. No matter what I did for a living, I'd be interested in his views on those matters and his views on the British government and/or international events. At best, a mutual interest in flying would serve as an introduction. Nor do I think the Prince of Wales, regular guy or not, would talk about something he knows when an uncommon opportunity to discover something he doesn't know pops up. But this is a book of stereotypes. It pushes the idea that the technological middle-class has a mandate from the stars to lead the world (in the best Calvinist tradition which said merchants had a calling instead of merely a job and riches were a divine manifestation of heavenly support). Much to his credit, Clancy rejects the notion that money is the bottom line. He sees achievement (particularly technological achievement) as the bottom line and would support any government which gave a free hand to this class of people. He recognizes that the Soviet system hampers technological achievement. But he incorrectly assumes that the U.S. is the best way to promote technological innovation. His body of works glorifies organized technology and not the individual genius. The U.S. system rarely supports the individual innovator. As in Russia and everywhere else, powerful groups dominate. I suppose I resent his works because they could be so much better if he got away from the two-dimensional crap and concentrated on fixing up his characters. (If he doesn't, he'll go out of fashion as fast as he came into fashion.) To give them more depth does not mean they have to have the Russian depression of the turn of the century. But their rationale should be a mix of motives, not just ideology and hatred. And Clancy would do well not to play too much on our emotions and switch to appeal to our intelligence. I do get the impression that he writes down...not across. I would dearly love to know why the traitor in the British secret service did it. Maybe I've been spoiled by John LeCarre but it does seem that he set a standard about such things. Even James Bond, which is almost a manual on how not to be a spy always makes ideology secondary to individuals. Clancy's characters are pop-off microphones for the most idiotic of ideological sentimentality. But there's no reason not to read Clancy. I advise, however, that you buy him at a used paperback store when everyone else is through with him. (c) 1988 Yves Barbero 1073 Dolores Street San Francisco, CA 94110