Rating: 
Summary: Unfairly maligned, but certainly sub-par Clancy
Review: As the Amazon review of this book states, we, the readers, know what happens long before the characters. The story: a Russian communications clerk for the KGB learns of a plot to assassinate the Pope. He feels he has a moral obligation to warn the west to prevent the murder of an innocent man, and we follow his attempt to contact the CIA and defect with his information.Anyone old enough to remember 1981 has a vivid memory of the attempt on the Pope's life, and how it turns out. However, most of the reviews of the book given on this website miss the point: this book is not about the assassination attempt, it is about the working of intellegence services (CIA, MI-5, and KGB) and how they try to sort out the wheat from the chaff and get reliable information. The good points:
After the Bear and the Dragon, it's a tremendous relief to be back in "real life". So much baggage has built up in the Jack Ryan series (e.g., a war with Japan, a nuclear terrorist attack, a biological terrorist attack) that it's now a fantasy world with little basis in reality. By going back in time, Clancy has chosen an interesting and true event and seemlessly incorporated his fictional characters into reality. Most importantly: it's a page-turner. I'm sure the average reader will find much of interest to keep them reading until they finish the book. Unfortunately, there are many bad points:
As stated by many others, this book seems to have escaped the attentions of any editors. It is rife with repetitions (I am not exaggerating when I say that Ryan's Marine Corps helicopter accident is mentioned 20 times). It would not surprise me if all of Clancy's books start this way - it seems like he just wrote it, then forgot to read it over to make sure it reads well. Likewise, others have pointed out that the plot is a little thin, which it is, but no thinner than Without Remorse, for example. Basically it comes down to this: there's a good book in here, it just needed some padding out and an encounter with a red pen. Bottom line: I enjoyed it, more so than The Bear and the Dragon, but it's destined to remain a minor episode in the Jack Ryan Story.
Rating: 
Summary: My Last Clancy Book
Review: I bought this book bcs I - like many other readers here - used to be a huge fan of Clancy's. My first book was Executive Orders, and the details in *that* book struck me as interesting, non-repetive, and not overtly wrong. From there I went through all his earlier works, and while The Sum of All Fears likely was foreboding of what came after EO still I can recommend those earlier works wholeheartedly (in particular Without Remorse).In addition to what readers have noted already on RR, what I found most deplorable are the endless, ever-repetetive yet over-simplifying ramblings on what the world was like at the height of the Cold War, accompanied by mostly irrelevant and thus distracting side information, and the fact that the book is replete with blatant displays of ignorance. To name but a few, life behind the Iron Curtain certainly did not start with TV in the morning (it didn't start at all until noon or so) nor with cereal for breakfast (unless you mixed it yourself). Also, Bach did not compose the Brandenb*e*rg but the Brandenb*u*rg concerti, this mistake's being a wide-spread one and probably attributable to the identical pronunciation in English not to the contrary. I have never heard of Hungarian-made VCRs being spread throughout the former USSR and Warsaw Bloc, either; in fact there was no such thing until the late 80's. Also, Hungary was not a destination for buying pantyhose and a certain kind of videotapes but mostly for buying blue-jeans and shoes of western design. Mistakes like these really kill the fun in reading the book. The reason why I finished it nonetheless is, and Clancy does deserve applause for this - probably involuntary - feature, the fact that the structure of most subchapters follows the same scheme: a quarter of relevant information (action, background info that actually is story-related, or dialogue) and thereafter three quarters of non-sense. As a reader, if you make it your habit to skip the latter and only read the former, you may gain a reading experience remotely resembling the Clancy of old, and actually leaving the impression of having read an altogether not-too-bad book (hence the 2 stars). However, reading barely mediocre books like jumping stones to negotiate a brook is not what I have time for, so sadly enough this sorry excuse for a "#1 NYT Bestseller" will be my last Clancy book ever.
Rating: 
Summary: Tom, find an editor, PLEASE!
Review: Apparently many others have noticed that Tom Clancy keeps regressing as a writer/storyteller. His early books were fun to read. Now they are pompous, boring (excruciatingly so), arrogant and waaay too snidely political. This book, in paperback, ran to 636 pages. It would have been a much better book at 275 pages. Any good editor would have taken a red pen to this mess and fixed it; but, I suppose the name Tom Clancy carries too much weight in the publishing world to fool with. This, no doubt is or will change.
What we're witnessing here, I believe, is a self-destruction of mass proportions. Seeing him photographed in military gear on every back cover of every new book is nauseating. He never served, regardless the reason. That active military brass flock to him is only self-serving. It's their commercial for a higher defense budget.
Personally, when I read for entertainment, I don't want someone in my face with their political agendas, especially when they are so condescendingly written.
I believe it's time for Tom to fade into the sunset. The premise of this book is good: a behind the headlines look at how the shooting of the Pope may have been orchestrated; and how other elements tried to prevent it. Unfortunately, the writing swings from pseudo-philosophic to sophomoric. And do Russians really refer to each other by their "first" and "middle" names (Aleksey Nikolay'ch)?
Tom, I'm afraid neither Ronald Reagan nor Dubya can save you now. Go back and re-read your "Red Storm Rising"; see if you can recapture that touch.
NOTE TO EDITORS: Someone please help this guy!
Rating:
Summary: No.
Review: If I recall correctly, I may have read the first few pages of one of Clancy's earlier "novels" until my gag reflex kicked in and I began to go into a massive, boredom-induced seizure. I have not read this "book" (and I use this term loosely, because Clancy's tomes of ennui are more torture devices than anything else) but I think it will suffice to say that it involves one or more of the following: 1. Jack Ryan and his never-ending quest to involve himself in sticky situations with bearded men who wear hammers and sickles prominently on their clothing. 2. Espionage. 3. Russia. So if you're pretty sure that you lack either a soul or a personality, there's a fair chance you might enjoy this "book." P.S. JACK RYAN WINS IN THE END!!!! HAHAHAH SPOILER!!
Rating:
Summary: Off the mark
Review: I don't have a lot to say about this book except that it is boring and confusing. Clancy gets so caught up in his minute details that he forgets to actually write a story. Early Clancy is far superior to this read. The only reason I'm finishing it, is because I started it.
Rating:
Summary: Red Rabbit
Review: I would rather rate it a zero but that choice is not provided. Not much of a story - and what little story there was was spoiled by injection of the neocon/far-right politics. I do not expect to read another Tom Clancy since there are lots of quality books/authors out there that leave the the politics at home.
Rating:
Summary: Boring...
Review: Tom Clancy really missed this one. The story within the 900 pages (Penguin pocket book edition) could be easily told in at least half of that. The large paragraphs with descriptions and characters thought add nothing to the plot and are passed through. Jack Ryan is a merely spectator. The guy in the right place at the right time. Where is the suspense? And all the hard decision making in the intelligence business? Who cares about the differences between american and british ophtamologists? I'll tell a small detail of the story now...the "hard part" of the defection, make the soviets believe that the Rabbits are dead, is easily solved with "convenient" fires in the US and Britain. That's awful writing.
Rating:
Summary: interesting idea, very tedious reading
Review: this book is a clunker. not because we all know the eventual ending but because the story moves along very tediously. there is no suspense. in the past i used to plow through the "jack ryan" novels. not this time.
also, clancy may want to do some research into actual family life. hey, it has some fantastic moments but the interaction between jack and his wife and kids is a bit much. i mean how many times can i read about little sally running into jack's arms and get the warm fuzzies? the dialog between jack and his wife is also a bit affected.
then there's the KGB communications officer. gee, will he try and warn the americans about the plot to kill the pope? it's all but a forgone conclusion.
it's pretty sad when you find yourself asking "do i want to continue reading this?" at the end of each chapter.
i thought non-fiction intelligence/CI books had spoiled me, but after having read the other reviews on this book i realize it's not me. the book is a clunker.
so, this is one book of tom clancy's i'm not going to finish. pity, since i already slogged through about 169 pages....
Rating:
Summary: Tom Clancy is a Hack
Review: Don't buy this book. Don't Read this book. This is a story that clancy stole from a real book that was non-fiction. The Title of the real book is Tower of Secrets, written by Victor Sheymov, the actual KGB defector. It's written in third person and accounts for Sheymov's history with the KGB and eventual questioning and hatred for the communist system. Buy Tower of Secrets. There is nothing more disgraceful for a writer to do than to steal ideas from other writers. I met the man from the CIA that initially met with Victor Sheymov, or "the Rabbit" as he is referred to in this book. The agent James Olson, now retired from service and teaching in Texas, told us the entire story, and how Clancy gets information from informants and reveals secrets of national security in his books. Buy Tower of Secrets.
Rating:
Summary: The last Clancy?
Review: I have been a fan of Mr Clancy's work for about a dozen or so years. However I have now reached the point where I doubt that I'll ever buy another of his books. In short the reason is "Red Rabbit", one of the worst books I have ever read. In "Red Rabbit" Clancy has taken a moderately interesting storyline and has destroyed any readability with his increasingly ponderous and turgid prose, irritating style and dreadful characterisations. He has even managed to turn Jack Ryan into a barely likeable character. In fact, all of the good guys can easily be identified by their white hats, their stellar relationships and their highly moral and justified behaviours. Clancy's style revolves around using a range of monikers for his characters (e.g. DCI for the head of the CIA, C for Sir Basil Charleston, and even at one point referring to Charleston as the Knight Commander of the Bath, DDO for Ritter and DDI for Greer etc) and unnecessarily interjecting them into dialogue paragraphs, often at the expense of the flow of the writing. He is also guilty of building unnecessary background and back stories for characters who only make a passing appearance and who don't even really even require names. Mr Clancy appears to want to show off the many different ways there are to identify his characters but does not seem to realise that it makes for very uninspiring and even poor quality writing. A high school student would do better. Jack Ryan has the closest thing to a perfect marriage and we hear, ad nauseum, how much he loves his wife - even to the point of the reader learning that he hates not sleeping with his wife and how much she hates not sleeping with him. Clancy also continuously swaps between calling him "Jack" and "Ryan", often several times in one paragraph or section. It is as if Clancy is unsure about how familiar he should be with his own character. Clancy does not seem to be able to be clear about his own relationship to his protagonist - is he a good mate or is he a character to be kept somewhat at arm's length? Ryan's history is repeated time and again and his Americanisms are largely just plain dumb. The regular references to him as "Sir John" by the British characters is highly unlikely in real life and very tiresome in the book. Although obviously a very proud (and right-wing) American, it is increasingly obvious that Clancy is an Anglophile and he continues to make much of the small differences between the English and Americans but surreptitiously seems to be stating the American way (pronunciation, style, side of the road to drive on, etc) is the better. He often explains the English pronunciation and uses italics to emphasise the difference on a regular basis. For example he often writes "leftenant" when discussing a rank in the British military. OK, Mr Clancy, we get it. But do you not think that once, up front, you could mention that "he pronounced it in the British style - as leftenant" and for the rest of the book write it as lieutenant, which after all is the way that the British spell it. They (and we Australians) just pronounce it differently. The continual references to "Brits" is also irritating. Has Mr Clancy never heard of the words "Britons" or "British"? All of his British characters speak in a very clear, grammatically correct, upper class manner. Mr Clancy's exposure to the British people and their behaviours and dialects appears to be very limited. The characters are stereotypes and are shallowly drawn. Mr Clancy has the right to thread his own politics and religious beliefs into his work (it is his book after all) but he makes no allowances for differing beliefs within Western and other societies. We are repeatedly informed that Ryan attended Catholic and Jesuit schools and that Catholicism dominates his belief system. All of the American and British characters are fairly religious and uphold mainly Catholic beliefs. The problem I have with this is that someone who is not religious would be lumped in with the "bad guys" (the Soviets) and it does not take into account that many citizens of the Soviet Union were religious, even if not on the scale of many other countries and cultures. The treatise towards the end of the book about someone who doesn't do right by god and is therefore one of the bad guys is frankly offensive. How would Clancy cope with describing a CIA agent or patriotic American military officer who is an atheist (and yes, they do exist)? A final gripe is that the Rabbit in question varies from being a Captain to a Major from chapter to chapter. It is also the first book that I have read that I have regularly thought throughout that the Reader's Digest Condensed edition would be a much superior book. This is one book that is in desperate need of an editor, one who wouldn't be doing his or her job if he or she failed to remove at least 300 pages.
| 
