Clancy isn’t boring enough to be “literature.” Although “The Bear and the Dragon” came close.
Really. The only good (entertaining) story I recall from lit was “The Most Dangerous Game.” The people writing the Lit books even managed to find a boring and unfunny story by James Thurber - a real achievement.
And I like to read! (I’m the only student in history that used to get notes sent home with him from school: “We caught Ray reading in class. Again.”)
I got caught with the same periodicals in class, although I only looked at the pictures.
Sorry, you have to share that claim to fame. I used to get those kind of notes all the time, and my youngest son has started getting them from his teacher lately. The frustrating thing for my teacher (and my son's) is that the teacher couldn't even complain that I wasn't paying attention in class - even though I would be reading a book about a completely different subject, I always could answer any questions the teacher asked about what he (or she) was teaching that day...
If you, or the author of the post, think Bonfire of the Vanities, written by Tom Wolfe, is some sort of liberal novel, you don’t know what you are talking about. Tom Wolfe is not liberal. He is a writer of novels with a distinctly conservative point of view, though he does not make the politics front and center. Read his more recent book on present day college life, I Am Charlotte Simmons. It will help educate you.
I am a PhD in literature—medieval literature to be precise. Yes, much of what is considered canonical in literature is boring, but the complexity that is lost on so many is what makes literature what it is. Clancy is topical, and a requirement of “true” literature is that it must be universal. Is Clear and Present Danger going to be something everyone can relate to? I think not.
And just to rip off from Samuel Johnson, a work needs to have at least survived for 100 years before it can be considered truly canonical. I’m not saying that I agree, so make of that what you will.