[Rembrandt_fan]

You wrote, "Tom Clancy writes great fiction..."

No, he doesn't. Tom Clancy writes commercially successful fiction using formulaic, action-adventure plots, lots of techno-babble, wooden dialog, and cardboard-cutout heroes and villains. To give credit where it's due, his research is immaculate and his plotting and pacing are cohesive and page-turning.

And I'm not playing the part of literary snob, here. I like (and write) genre fiction, too, but the appellation 'great' is thrown around too freely. I would guess that Clancy, if asked, would balk at being called an unqualified 'great' writer. Hemingway was a great writer. Fitzgerald was a great writer. Heck, Raymond Chandler was a great writer. At his best, Graham Greene, known for his thrillers, was a great writer. That's exalted company. Clancy doesn't belong there.

[TaxRelief]

No. Clancy writes great fiction. His dialog is realtime; His plots are each unique and unpredictable; His technical jargon is stimulating and accurate; And his villains are excellent archetypes of realistic moles and enemies of the state. Furthermore, he has an uncanny abilty to predict the outcome of certain events and the future course of American history.

[babble-on]

You are correct.

[Vicomte13]

The Hunt for Red October, Clancy's first novel, actually actually great fiction, for the genre anyway. In his next book, he basically blew up the world (Red Storm Rising). I read a couple of snatches of later works.

In the later stuff, he sort of repeats the formula that made Hunt for Red October such a great read. I guess it works. But he lost me when he blew up the world...or rather...didn't. The USSR and USA go to war, exchange a couple of nuclear weapons, but the whole thing falls apart because a major gets hit by a car? WTF?

Anyway, Red October was a different beast than what came later.