perfidy

I just recently finished Tom Clancy's new book, Teeth of the Tiger. I was disappointed on many levels. Over most of the last two decades, I have eagerly awaited the next Clancy book. I got suckered on the Op-Center, thing, but once I ruled those out, it was largely a happy process of buy book, read book, happy thoughts. I have read all of his novels, and all of his non-fiction as well. (The non-fiction books are very well done, and remarkable compendiums of military information that you would otherwise have to glean from hundreds of sources.)

Bear and Dragon was the last Clacy novel that I liked unreservedly. Or nearly - the battle sequence was a little too one sided for dramatic purposes, though in all honesty that's probably how it work*. Red Rabbit was interesting, but almost sterile in its lack of action and intrigue. It read more like a report on a book than the book itself. Teeth plots another point on that downward trend.

Without getting into spoilers, the basic idea of the novel is that there is a completely secret, extra-governmental and extra legal covert operations agency that has the mission of killing those who would plan, fund or execute terrorist operations against Americans.

I have several key ojections to the book:

1) The main characters are Jack Ryan's son and twin nephews. Aside from these three, I was never able to distinguish any of the other characters on the "Good Guy" side. The bad guys were nearly as bland. I actually wrote my own dramatis personae just so I could keep track of these two dimensional characters.

2) There is almost no dramatic tension in this book. There are two story arcs that intersect only in perfect hits on terrorists. The terrorists never know what's happening. Through intelligence siphoned off the NSA and CIA, this agency flawlessly tracks, identifies, and kills terrorists. It's like reading about someone who has mastered a videogame describe how effectively he can clear the first level of the game.

3) There is very little real discussion about the morality of the mission they have undertaken. One of the nephews has doubts, but they are resolved in an improbable coincidence. The characters blithely go about killing whomever they are ordered to kill. Now, for all that I have liked Tom Clancy in the past, I know that moral philosophy is not exactly what you expect in a Clancy novel. Nevertheless, in prior novels good guys are clearly working for good - both ends and means, and have little need for moral justification. And more than many authors, Clancy is at pains to give his bad guys a convincing moral dimension. Your average Clancy villain either sees himself as a good guy (good psych, there) or has compelling history that motivates him to do what he otherwise would not. This book is lacking on both sides of the game.

4) And finally, the book ends about halfway through the story.

Wait for the omnibus paperback edition. I hope that Clany has not just gotten lazy, though this book has all the earmarks of just that.

* America against any other armed force in the world presents major dramatic problems. It is manifest that we can kick anyone's ass. How do you give Superman a convincing opponent? The media suffers through this every time we go up against someone, though they are hard pressed to maintain the tension. There are only two ways to do it, though - one is to come up with a scenario that convincingly limits the amount of force that the Americans will bring to bear, and the other is to vastly inflate the competance of the opposing force.