Topic: The Bear and The Dragon, Worst Book I've ever read
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Garbage, complete garbage. Not only is their a 1960's viewpoint of mainstream Chinese society in the book its also racist viewpoint. The book was written with 2000 in mind and from what I know having friends who'vegone to China and talked to Chinese citizens over MSN Chinese cities are beautiful places, and the Chinese food is good. A secretary won't suddenly be seduced by a Japanese buisnessman just because she never had Italian food before.
Next, here's some problems I've had with the "technical" issues.
The PLA has had UAV's since at the latest 1994 (http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/uav/asn206.asp) and thus the PLA would've had excellent intellience as well, could've even have been quite forewarned off the US Armies maneuvers in Siberia and known of the concentrated Russian forces near the gold mines.
The Su-27 has been proven to be as good or better then the F-14/16/18's used within the novel, it would've understandable given the AWAAC's and US experiance to say knock out 70-90 PLAAF aircraft, but only with some 40-60 KIA's and quite possibly losing the AWAAC's. The Su-27 is highly maneuverable fighter craft and would've done in reality a better job at dodging the missiles. Losing only 5 USAF airmen is ridiculas.
Also, the PLAAF or the second artilery would've send conventional ICBM's to obliterate any of the majormilitary airfields in Siberia negating the American and possibly the Russian presence for at least a couple of days inwhich air suporiority would've been gained.
Even had the PLAAF taken monstrous casualties, in that last battle the PLAAF wouldn't have been so incompetent as to not supply airsupport for the advancing armoured columns since they did indeed possess UAV's would've known the Russians would make their stand their and thus sent in aircover even if say a third wouldn't make it back.
Also, since this book was written with 2000 in mind, published in 2001 if I'm not mistaken, since afterall the first T-98 wasonly revealed in a Beijing Military Parade in 1998, Tom Clancy should've known that in 1991 with Iraq being smashed in all with only a 120,000 man US army with 500 tanks the PLA High Command seeing what modern warfare can do went under within that decade the most drastic military reorganization in history! the 2.8 Million man PLA has been reduced to 1.8 Million men and reorganized with a Brigade centered rather then division centric force structure to fight the high tech war that America likes to fight, so thus the entire view of the PLA in the Bear and the Dragon is completely inaccurate as anything close as a realistic war simulation between a hypothetical (and unlikely with the signing of the Shanghai Co-Operation) conflict between the Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China.
Also, how the hell did a Carrier Battle group make it to China's shore and wipe out some 30 ships and not a single one left port? C'mon that is unrealistic in the extreme, "use them or lose them" right? The PLAN would've sent them even if they would only sink its better to fight and die trying then to sit at home and die anyways.
Also, an aircraft engineering student has also informed me that it is impossible to knock out those bridges except with long large intercontinental cruise missiles, bombs dropped from a bomber wouldn't be able to do so. And even with AR missiles the US should've taken some horrendous losses taking out those bridges but instead we see not a single casualty!?
Finally while thats all the "technical" details that I can fuss over, there's still the matter of preaching, saying "Communism is Evil!" every 3 pages doesn't automatically make it so, and thus can't differentiate between theotetical Communism and Stalinist Totalitarianism, and can't tell that todays China is a far freer and open society then ever before and is a far cry from Mao's day. This preaching is annoying and for people who agree with it still find it annoying. Then there's the matter of trade negotiations, todays negotiations which are fairly similar to what was talked over in the books couldn't be farther from what was written, the PRC has bent over backwards to be cooperative and compromizing in the trade talks and the talks spoken of in Bear & Dragon are bland and boring with no substance I've never even heard of any real negotiations ever devolving into rhetoric and repetations.
The only plotline I liked was the Russian one, but other then that it was a horribly written book full of rightist Jingoism and racial slurs and badly researched one at that with almost no attempt at realism whatsoever. I'm glad I borrowed it froma friend to read it or else it would've been a horrible waste of money and I shall doubt I'll ever buy a book by Tom Clancy.
IP: Logged |
posted
Heh, why am I not surprised you didn't like a book that sticks it to China?
I'm not going to talk about Tom Clancy's novels since that's only sure to engender an argument, and anyway it's pretty clear which side of the political fence he sits on, but I will say this: the Chinese government monitors the communications its citizens have over the Internet.
You know that, and yet perversely you trust what is favorable.
Your friends who have gone to China are not permitted to go anywhere in China.
I imagine a tourist eats differently than other people eat.
Where, oh where, have Su-27s proven better than other fighter aircraft? Furthermore there is more to a fight between fighters than just which craft can outperform the other. A major, major, major part of it is the sensors and missiles either has.
You're placing faith in the government that is so stupid it thinks making steel in backyards is a good idea not to be incompetent?
What, your aircraft engineering student in his spare time studies how strong reinforced bridges are, too? I trust Tom Clancy's technical research a smidgeon more than your buddy who studies a field unrelated to how strong fictitious bridges are.
The PRC has not bent over backwards to be friendly and conforming in economic discussions.
Just because they're better now does not mean they're good.
But, this is a waste of time. Continue your love affair with the honorable and just government of the People's Republic of China. They're grrrrrrrreat!
posted
I didn't like The Bear and the Dragon either, although I liked all of Clancy's earlier works. I was never all that into the technical stuff, but I remember that his characters weren't as realistic and compelling in this book as in his earlier works.
My impression was that Clancy got rich and lazy and was writing for different reasons... or maybe the wealth and fame has actually changed him and the way he sees the world.
It's been years since I read it, and I'm not anxious to reread it to verify my impression, but I do agree that it was not very good, and if it had been Clancy's first work, he probably wouldn't have had any more published.
Posts: 2069 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It was mildly entertaining, but it didn't rank high on my list of good Tom Clancy novels, even compared to just the other Jack Ryan books.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Where do we get the expression, 'bend over backwards', anyway? Bending over forwards is surely more accommodating for a primate.
I didn't particularly care for TBATD myself, it struck me as rather jingoistically American. Of course good ole' US know-how can solve all the world's problems! Especially problems that those poor backwards Russkies and Chinks create by not having democracy, don'tcherknow.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, fair is fair. After all there was a good long thread on evolution just the other week, and indeed that discussion continues on the other side. So it's BB's turn.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I didn't particularly care for TBATD myself, it struck me as rather jingoistically American. Of course good ole' US know-how can solve all the world's problems! Especially problems that those poor backwards Russkies and Chinks create by not having democracy, don'tcherknow.
While I understand it's in context, I'd appreciate you avoiding the use of the term "chink." Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
KoM, the expression bent over backwards is supposed to imply that the people went to a lot of painful, painful trouble- as bending over backwards is.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm struggling to remember when that term was used in the novel. At worst-and still pretty bad-I think it was used within the book only after the fictitious PRC started screwing with and fighting against the fictitious USA and Russia.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
"Joe Chink", other similar racist slurs were also used in many other of Tom Clancy's books, including in Debt of Honor.
I know someone who went to China travelled just outside Hong Kong and found the slums, there were no MP's telling him wear to go, he was allowed to go where he wished that wasn't a government building OR a military installation.
Its not the matter that it "sticks" it to China its the fact that it is extremely inaccurate in its portrayel, for one thing Tom "Communist Body Bag Count" Clancy wrote for granted that the vast majority of PRC Citizens wear Mao suits in the year 2000. A flat out lie as the only Mao suit is worn my Mao's Corpse in Beijing. Pictures of the current PRC leadership shows them wearing western buisness suits or soemthing similar and civilian like.
quote:I imagine a tourist eats differently than other people eat.
No government beurocracy in the world can control what every single tourist does and I've talked to PRC citizens studying here in Canada as well, and they're favorable of their Motherland.
quote:You're placing faith in the government that is so stupid it thinks making steel in backyards is a good idea not to be incompetent?
I could just as easily say that who would trust a government that commited Genocide against aberiginals, or DOWed the British or Invaded Cuba or ....
Gov'ts change. Even the PRC's Politburo changes, the Chinese gov't in 1958 is radically different then the one in power now.
quote:What, your aircraft engineering student in his spare time studies how strong reinforced bridges are, too? I trust Tom Clancy's technical research a smidgeon more than your buddy who studies a field unrelated to how strong fictitious bridges are.
How can you say for a fact what his level of knowledge could be? You've never met him and for another if Clancy got several facts wrong, such as the PLA's possession of UAV's then I think I'ld be right or at least justified in saying that Clancy may have gotten MORE facts wrong.
If I read is correct the economists are saying its America's own fault for its own Woe's, pegging the Yuan at whatever rate is possible because of its huge FOREX reserve and quite frankly Japan did the same thing. And if I am not mistaken what China is doing is not illegal may be a tiny bit unethical maybe but not illegal or against international regulations, you do what you can to get ahead and according to the new guy incharge of the Federal Resrve China isn't doing anything wrong.
"But, this is a waste of time. Continue your love affair with the honorable and just government of the People's Republic of China. They're grrrrrrrreat!" Has nothing to do with the fictional world and geopolitical enviroment in TBATD and is only designed to irritate me, please take it elsewhere, if you have some good points to counter my points then bring it up and we'll discuss it.
"I'll admit, Blayne, that there are times when I think your planet is nicer than ours."
I'm just saying that the PRC has made repeated promises to consider currency reform, toughening regulations against intellectual theft, etc etc. Whether or not they'll keep the promise is irrelevent, since after all alot of governments dictatorship and democratic have promised with one hand and taken away with the other.
As for bending over backwards while they're may be some good points to revalue their currency the PRC also faces some severe problems if it does revalue their currency as shown, and it would hurt them to do so, thus bending over backwards, even considering it might effect the economy as investors speculate etc etc. Also, making its military spending more transparent would hurt their national security (a Japanese concern) and while we won't know if it'll be ever completely transparent but can you blame a nation for being eerie with telling the world what they have and how they can use it? Esp a Nation that has a history of being trampled on by the same nations who are demanding transparency?
Many of the reviews I've read also attested that they liked his earlier works and even suspected that they were written by a Ghost Writer, Red Storm Rising considered his best was in fact wargamed out.
IP: Logged |
posted
DoH while I've never read at least seems to have a much more interesting plot but suffers a recuring problem in TBATD, nothing happens in 2/3's of the book from what I'm told and according to my friend also goes itno Japan Bashing, appears that Clancy doesn't like Asians in general me thinks.
The Premace while I'm not sure is that They Invade a United Iran/Iraq? How the hell does the US invade BOTH countries and isn't bogged down by the same problems today?
IP: Logged |
quote:I'm just saying that the PRC has made repeated promises to consider currency reform, toughening regulations against intellectual theft, etc etc. Whether or not they'll keep the promise is irrelevent...
posted
Why Umm? C'mon common sense says that most gov'ts will lie and cheat kinda like how Bush and Co lied about WMD's... ooops shouldn't have said that oh well.
The Point is is that they have made quite publicly those promises and if they keep em good for us, if they don't *shrug* what can you do? They're a soverieng nation and the laws of economics apply either it'll effect them long term or it won't. The Point of the matter is TBATD is badly written and inaccurate and I think I did a good job saying why.
IP: Logged |
posted
I suppose the use of slurs by Clancy's characters is intended to make the story seem more gritty or "realistic"; it never really worked for me, and gets pretty jarring after a bit.
Executive Orders spoilers follow.
quote:The Premace while I'm not sure is that They Invade a United Iran/Iraq? How the hell does the US invade BOTH countries and isn't bogged down by the same problems today?
The short answer is that Iran kills off Saddam and annexes Iraq, creating a new nation called the UIR.
It would not have been in any nation's best interest to fight against the US for two reasons: First, the UIR intended to invade several nations on the Arabian peninsula. Secondly, the attacks within US borders were clearly planned and executed by the UIR.
So the conflict itself worked out the same way it did in 1991 (and the way it worked in the early days of this war). In both cases, the US wanted to elimiate the nation's military capability, and suceeded in doing so.
In real life, we are occupying an ally and fighting a proxy war within its borders against several different groups. In the book, we are destroying the military force of a well-defined enemy.
The two situations are fundementally different. The first requires a scalpel; the second requires a sledgehammer. An army like ours tends to be the latter.
--j_k
[ January 31, 2006, 10:44 PM: Message edited by: James Tiberius Kirk ]
Posts: 3617 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I'm saying on the lines that most government don't keep their promises especially the united States, which makes it irrelevent but because China is a face saving society even making such promises is a minor loss of face and thus bending over, however they have many many statements and have more or less kept them, such as their streamlining of their military, the opening up of the economy to market forces, the lifting of social restrictions etc etc.
In fact, to those who say dissenters get imprisoned I know of a case of students who open up a forum on discussion democracy and freedom, they're sight gets hacked and closed down some 38 times in a row but they weren't arrested as far as we know which is a farcry from 50 years ago.
But that is not the point, the point is that the book is indeed an inaccurate slugepile of racial slurs, republican jingoism, and weapons salesmanism.
C'mon can you deny that Clancy was spouting complete BS when he said all Chinese citizens all wear Mao jackets? Then there's the statement that when asked why he thinks China would invade Russia his responce was that the Mongols invaded Russia and made it to the Baltic Sea and acts as a precedent.
That is OBVIOUSLY BS! Just because a Civilization that isn't originally Chinese did it 700 years ago DOESN'T MEAN THAT THEIR DESCENDANTS WILL DO IT ALSO!
Its like saying that Germany will invade Poland again if given the chance... oh wait he believes that the VERY EXISTENCE OF NATO was meant to restrain Germany.
IP: Logged |
posted
He does not say all Chinese citizens wear Mao jackets. He does not say that China would invade Russia because of the freaking Mongols. He does not think the "very existence of NATO was meant to restrain Germany".
Dissenters are jailed in the PRC all the time. That is a fact. It has been posted and posted and documented by groups as widespread as Human Rights Watch and the freaking Christian Coalition, and if two such widespread groups agree on something sure as hell it carries more weight than some freaking friends of yours who weren't jailed "for all we know".
Oh, and as for your nonsense about "even making a promise is a gesture from the Chinese" that's pretty racist. You're basicaly suggesting that because they're Chinese, we should regard them as less honest than other nations.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
He's says so, exactly in those words in an interview. And he very well implied that Mao Jackets were common place yet can you find a Single Chinese citizen wearing on today? EVen the politicians don't wear them anymore.
As for dissenters, so what? I know of cases were dissenters WEREN'T jailed. So what? I could probly 10 cases of the US arresting dissenters of protesters if I looked hard enough, remember the Kent Ohio Shootings?
"Oh, and as for your nonsense about "even making a promise is a gesture from the Chinese" that's pretty racist. You're basicaly suggesting that because they're Chinese, we should regard them as less honest than other nations."
Don't be an idiot, I'm not racist I mean the People's Republic of China, and thats not what i meant, its the automatic assumption that the PRC and other previously Comintern nations lie, but the thing is for a nation whose culture where face saving becomes very important when one makes a concession one is either very reluctant to do so or evades it, to outright say that things must change or we will agree to this or this when such an action could very well hurt China a least in the short term is a certain amount of face is given up, thus why I implied bending over backwards. "Saying Chinamen" would've been racist, refering to them by their correct nationality for the purposes of an intellectual discussion however is not racist.
Trust, hear the interview with Clancy he says that the Mongols did it, and that the existance of NATO is to restrain Germany.
Course' thats not to say that I wouldn't find him a good person to hang around with, he just said one or two things that sounded stupid.
IP: Logged |
posted
You are holding the PRC to a lower standard of honesty by lauding them for making promises regardless of whether or not they intend to keep them. Do you laud the USA when it makes promises you feel it has no intent to keep? Of course you don't.
That is a double-standard based on race, in which one side comes up looking worse. I think that's a pretty decent definition of the word "racism".
When the USA arrests protestors it's for protesting in a restricted area, and they usually get out of jail pretty soon. Are you actually going to compare government response to dissent between the USA and the PRC and expect PRC to come out equivalent? Don't be absurd.
I don't know anything about Mao jackets one way or another. I will say this, though: you haven't sampled even a tiny minority of Chinese citizens.
As for NATO and Germany, I think I'm remembering NATO and Germany in the book now. I seem to recall characters in the novel mentioning that nations bordering Germany would be concerned about Germany given past history, but nothing beyond that, really. I know nothing of this interview you speak of.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
The Garmny NATO reference comes from as I mentioned an Interview with Tom Clancy himself and that is what he said that the purpose of NATO is to restrain Germany. And the reason why he thinks the PRC would invade Russia is because the Mongols did it and reached the Baltic.
Now Rakeesh now I think we're both misunderstanding each other, isn't language nifty?
IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
